Bill C-12

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures

Part 1 amends the Customs Act to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with facilities free of charge for carrying out any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of that Act and other Acts of Parliament and to provide officers of that Agency with access at certain locations to goods destined for export. It also includes transitional provisions.
Part 2 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create a new temporary accelerated scheduling pathway that allows the Minister of Health to add precursor chemicals to Schedule V to that Act. It also makes related amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Police Enforcement) Regulations and the Precursor Control Regulations .
Part 3 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act to confirm that the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, make regulations exempting members of law enforcement from the application of any provision of the Criminal Code that creates drug-related inchoate offences when they are undertaking lawful investigations.
Part 4 amends the Oceans Act to transfer the responsibility for the coast guard services from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to the Minister of National Defence, to provide that coast guard services include activities related to security and to authorize the responsible minister to collect, analyze and disclose information and intelligence.
Part 5 amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to disclose, for certain purposes and subject to any regulations, personal information under the control of the Department within the Department and to certain other federal and provincial government entities.
It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the making of regulations relating to the disclosure of information collected for the purposes of that Act to federal departments and agencies.
Part 6 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) eliminate the designated countries of origin regime;
(b) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to specify the information and documents that are required in support of a claim for refugee protection;
(c) authorize the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been abandoned in certain circumstances;
(d) provide the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with the power to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been withdrawn in certain circumstances;
(e) prevent, if the claimant is not present in Canada, the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division from commencing consideration of the claim or the appeal or to require them to deem the claim to have been abandoned in certain circumstances;
(f) clarify that decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board must be rendered, and reasons for those decisions must be given, in the manner specified by its Chairperson; and
(g) authorize regulations to be made setting out the circumstances in which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must designate, in relation to certain proceedings or applications, a representative for persons who are under 18 years of age or who are unable to appreciate the nature of the proceeding or application.
It also includes transitional provisions.
Part 7 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order specifying that certain applications made under that Act are not to be accepted for processing, or that the processing of those applications is to be suspended or terminated, when the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order to cancel, suspend or vary certain documents issued under that Act, or to impose or vary conditions, when the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
(c) for the application of an order referred to in paragraph (b), require a person to appear for an examination, answer questions truthfully and produce all relevant documents or evidence that an officer requires; and
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing circumstances in which a document issued under that Act can be cancelled, suspended or varied, and in which officers may terminate the processing of certain applications made under that Act.
Part 8 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to add two new grounds of ineligibility for claims for refugee protection as well as powers to make regulations respecting exceptions to those new grounds. It also requires the officer to terminate the processing of the claim if the claim is determined to be ineligible. It also includes a transitional provision respecting the retroactive application of those new grounds.
Part 9 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) increase the maximum administrative monetary penalties that may be imposed for certain violations and the maximum punishments that may be imposed for certain criminal offences under that Act;
(b) replace the existing optional compliance agreement regime with a new mandatory compliance agreement regime that, among other things,
(i) requires every person or entity that receives an administrative monetary penalty for a prescribed violation to enter into a compliance agreement with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (the Centre),
(ii) requires the Director of the Centre to make a compliance order if the person or entity refuses to enter into a compliance agreement or fails to comply with such an agreement, and
(iii) designates the contravention of a compliance order as a new violation under that Act;
(c) require persons or entities referred to in section 5 of that Act, other than those already required to register, to enroll with the Centre; and
(d) authorize the Centre to disclose certain information to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, subject to certain conditions.
It also makes consequential and related amendments to the Retail Payment Activities Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations and includes transitional provisions.
Part 10 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to make the Director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada a member of the committee established under subsection 18(1) of that Act. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to enable the Director to exchange information with the other members of that committee.
Part 11 amends the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to, among other things,
(a) make certain changes to a sex offender’s reporting obligations, including the circumstances in which they are required to report, the information that must be provided and the time within which it is to be provided;
(b) provide that any of a sex offender’s physical characteristics that may assist in their identification may be recorded when they report to a registration centre;
(c) clarify what may constitute a reasonable excuse for a sex offender’s non-compliance with the requirement to give at least 14 days’ notice prior to a departure from their residence for seven or more consecutive days;
(d) authorize the Canada Border Services Agency to disclose certain information relating to a sex offender’s arrival in and departure from Canada to law enforcement agencies for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of that Act;
(e) authorize, in certain circumstances, the disclosure of information collected under that Act if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will assist in the prevention or investigation of a crime of a sexual nature; and
(f) clarify that a person who discloses information under section 16 of that Act with the belief that they are acting in accordance with that section is not guilty of an offence under section 17 of that Act.
It also makes a related amendment to the Customs Act .
Part 12 provides for a parliamentary review, after five years, of the operation and effect of the amendments made by this enactment.

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising at this hour to speak to the programming motion on Bill C‑22.

I have heard the speeches of a number of colleagues in this place with whom I agree, particularly my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party.

As I explained earlier, in an answer to an earlier discussion with the hon. member for Vancouver East, the position we were in was not as members of the committee but as members of Parliament with the right to participate in the development of amendments. As we were not full members of the committee, our participation in the public safety committee, and when I speak of “we”, I mean the member for Vancouver East and me, was more limited than that of members who are full members of the committee.

I have been very concerned, from the very beginning, which was June 2025's tabling of Bill C‑2, the so-called strong borders act, there was an astonishing, broad, deep coalition of groups, over 300, that came together to oppose the bill on many grounds relating to human rights, as well as to privacy and overreach. Again, I just want to preface my discussion of Bill C‑22 by placing it, for citizens watching this, in the context of how we moved away from Bill C‑2, the strong borders act, which was strongly opposed, in June 2025. I do not think I have ever seen quite a diverse coalition. Certainly there are some bills that invite a lot of organizations to get involved and individual citizens to get involved. There was a breadth and a depth here that was certainly unusual.

The government realized it was in trouble. There was so much opposition to Bill C‑2. When we came back in the fall, I thought to myself that the bill, over the course of the summer, had been dumped and replaced as we now had Bill C‑12. It is not a completely different bill. It is largely the same chunks of language that were in the strong borders act, Bill C‑2, taking out the parts that were an overreach into privacy, for instance, the sections originally in Bill C‑2 that said that postal workers could open the mail and such things. There were a number of examples that got dropped.

The thing that is unusual about this, and I know it is complicated and I know the hour is late, but why would a government introduce a bill, which is widely panned, and then bring in a different bill, as opposed to amending the bill it already had on the Order Paper? I have not seen this before. It then brought in Bill C-12, which had most of what was in the strong borders act, and left Bill C-2 on the Order Paper while continuing to force through Bill C-12.

Time will tell when Bill C-12 will be challenged in the courts globally because it violates our charter commitments to the protection of refugee rights. I speak of that in terms of the global convention on refugees. It may also offend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I am speaking globally. It pulled that protection out from under people who had expectations. They had expectations of being in Canada but did not know their access to claiming refugee rights would be taken away so abruptly.

In any case, this has been bizarre. We had Bill C-2 staying on the Order Paper, and we had Bill C-12, which was largely language from Bill C-2, being pushed through.

The whole time we were thinking that at least we had avoided the surveillance concerns, the privacy concerns and the overreach concerns that were evident in the original Bill C‑2, the strong borders act, but come March 12, 2026, we had the bill that is before us tonight, Bill C‑22. Again, it is the government's, at this point, third run at crafting a bill that deals with lawful access.

I will give them this: Bill C‑12 actually avoided the lawful access sections and just focused on the portions that affected refugee rights. That one still grieves me, the fact that we had Bill C‑12 pushed through to final stages on a unanimous consent motion in this place last June. I really still regret it very much that it was pushed through. This is a phrase we will hear from the opposition members tonight, and we have it heard it often: pushed through, rushed through.

This is not hyperbole from opposition members. I am an experienced member of Parliament. I have been here 15 years, and I am honoured to have been so, but to my hon. colleagues in the government party on the other benches, it has been a shock to see how often we see these things. When mistakes are identified, previous governments have been more willing to say, “Ah, we have a mistake and we are going to have to rethink this. This is a mistake, and we are going to amend the bill. We are going to say where we made the mistake and how we are going to change it.” The government is quite unusual in not admitting mistakes, but it will bring in a different bill that does some of the same things. In this case, it is taking its third run at it.

This lawful access regime has many improvements over the lawful access regime of Bill C-2. There is no question and no doubt. There have been significant changes, and I think every group that was in the original coalition opposing Bill C-2 has said that Bill C-22 is much better. We have fewer problems with it, but there are still very serious problems, which is why it is lamentable that we were not able to have the kind of conversation one would have with a government that was more comfortable in its skin to say that it made a mistake with Bill C-2. Such a government would say, “We pushed too hard, too far, too fast. Now we are going to listen to people. As we craft a lawful access regime, we are going to really listen and we are not going to assume we have it right because we are right, or because we have the majority, so we are right.” This has been very difficult to observe.

Certainly, in committee, I have to say that I was surprised. I was taken aback when a reasonable request to have before the public safety committee the Privacy Commissioner, who had raised concerns, was rejected. We had a lot of witnesses there who represented government agencies and law enforcement to provide technical background. I try to be as non-partisan as possible, but I could not see any problem with getting the expertise of the Privacy Commissioner in the room as members were discussing and debating the impact of Bill C-22 and whether some amendments should work and how they should work, but the idea that the Privacy Commissioner should be in the room was rejected. I could not see, in any world, where that would not have been seen as helpful, but it was rejected.

I had some amendments before the committee. We will get to them later this evening. I do not think it is anything but a foregone conclusion that the motion before us is going to pass, but I lament that we have seen the government, and it is a pattern, moving very fast and passing legislation despite significant concerns from significant quarters.

A significant number of respected law professors and experts in privacy law and constitutional law wrote, as recently as last month, to most of the cabinet to express their deep concerns about Bill C-22. I think it is important to say that people are not just partisan here. Certainly law professors are not, and they acknowledge that they see the improvement over Bill C-2 in a number of areas. I will read from the letter, which was signed by 20 or 30 law professors from across Canada, and it is dated May 4, so anyone who is looking for it can find it. It reads:

We write as lawyers and law professors who teach and practice in the areas of privacy law and constitutional rights....

I will skip ahead to their conclusion, which reads:

...provisions of the bill as currently drafted raise serious constitutional concerns and fail to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate needs of law enforcement and the privacy rights of Canadians.

Again, these are not the voices of people who have been misinformed through social media. These are people of depth, knowledge and experience, and they are very concerned.

One of Canada's premier policy wonk magazines is Policy Options, and I do not speak of it pejoratively here. Policy Options is not something one would pick up in the supermarket, such as “inquiring minds want to know”. Policy Options is serious.

There was an article just yesterday by Professor Cynthia Khoo, who is a professor at University of Toronto and a senior fellow at The Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. She is an expert in both technology and privacy areas. Her conclusion was that “Ottawa should reject any data-sharing arrangement that allows U.S. law enforcement to access Canadians' personal information”. This is based on recent research within The Citizen Lab that the regime for surveillance being established by Bill C-22 could provide easy access for, for instance, U.S. homeland security to the private information of Canadians.

I know the government benches have heard, and do not want to hear anything more, from Professor Michael Geist, who is, again, a prominent critic of Bill C-22, starting with his opposition to Bill C-2. He pointed out that what he sees being spread by the government benches could be described as misinformation, mischaracterization, overly broad definitions and a failure to be precise in areas where one really has to be precise.

I am just going to quote from a blog he posted recently: “The political pressure against Bill C-22 has been steadily mounting, with the opposition parties,” as we can see, all the opposition parties in this place, “tech companies, and privacy experts, all increasingly” concerned about the need to amend this bill, increasingly concerned that all the government seems to have in response to the criticisms are, in his words, “misleading or inaccurate claims with little in the way of an actual defence” based on the facts. His conclusion is that “the government’s disregard for facts and privacy is fast becoming Bill C-22's legacy.”

Now, the criticisms come, again, from a broad sweep of legal, privacy and tech experts. They are not all the same. I practised law, and technology is not my area. I would not put myself out there as an expert in technology, though I read deeply. I am concerned about constitutional rights and privacy as a former practising lawyer, but it would seem to me that anyone with a background in the various areas that are touched by Bill C-22 would want to take the time to get it right.

There have been things claimed, like that all our Five Eyes partners have legislation just like Bill C-22. That has been debunked by numerous experts. We have been told that it was wrong to take a long time in committee. Obviously, as my hon. colleague on the other side the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance knows well, we had a very lengthy filibuster on Bill C-30 in the finance committee. I sat through those evenings waiting for the chance to speak to my amendments.

As I mentioned earlier, motions are passed by committees as if they are normal, and they are not normal at all, but the longer they are used, I guess, the more that future committees will just assume, as every committee did after this last election, that it is just normal to take away the rights of the smaller parties so that the larger parties do not have to fuss with them at report stage. That is the case. If it were not for the motions that were passed by committees, without thinking about them, taking away the rights of smaller parties, I would have the right to put forward amendments at report stage. I do not have that right at report stage only because I have been given this so-called opportunity to work really, really hard to bring forward amendments that give me the ability to sit in a room and not speak for days at a time, hoping for the chance to speak to the one or two amendments that I had brought forward.

I want to thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver East, from the New Democratic Party, because she is in the same boat and she brought forward many more amendments to Bill C-22 than I brought forward on Bill C-22. I think I was too busy trying to write amendments on Bill C-30.

In any case, what we have here is not just an imperfect bill but a potentially dangerous bill. We are now down to the final moments. The clock is ticking, and the words of experts from across Canada are being shut out because the government has determined it will move forward with Bill C-22. That is why we have a programming motion, to make sure that we do not have any further debate on the amendments that have been put forward by members of the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the Greens and the New Democrats. We are in a hurry.

Again, I have to push back and ask why. What is the hurry? What is the rush? As a reminder, the first attempt the government made to bring forward lawful access was in the very outrageously overreaching Bill C‑2 a year ago. A year has passed. One would have hoped that year would have been used well by allowing a real discussion and continually striving to have the best possible surveillance architecture to protect privacy, to give law enforcement what it needs, without tests of access that are so low, the reasonable grounds to suspect, which we do not think the courts will find to have been an adequate ground to seize personal information.

We are hearing concerns, again, from tech companies, constitutional and privacy law experts, those who work in the field and others, like OpenMedia. I am honoured to claim that the executive director of OpenMedia happens to be one of my constituents, so I also speak on behalf of my constituents when I stand here at this hour. We are hearing concerns, yet those voices seem to have just gotten annoying to the members of the government. They do not seem to be concerned, despite all the work and the full year that has gone by, that we could get this right.

Again, we hear that we have run out of time. Well, we have not. I do not think any of us are going to expire in any particular moment. We could meet next week. We could get together again and have more time for witnesses to actually discuss without a clock ticking, for witnesses and experts to share with the members of the committee in a respectful way how we can improve this.

I saw that the hon. member for Barrie South—Innisfil mentioned it earlier, but we are seeing news across the news wires that the Minister of Public Safety is about to make a step. Who knows, but certainly it was not the National Enquirer saying this. It was at least the CBC, saying that the Government of Canada is prepared to fundamentally change one aspect of this, which is not having to hold Canadians' private data for a year but maybe bringing that down to six months. Is that going to be presented? I do not know.

We will be going into committee after the programming motion is passed. There will be an opportunity for new amendments to be tabled, but not, of course, from me or the member for Vancouver East, because we had a deadline some time ago, and we either had to bring it in by that deadline or could not bring in something new.

There may still be that opportunity to improve the bill. I certainly hope so, because what we have in front of us may violate our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, open up personal data, surveillance data, and do serious damage. If, good heavens, the Citizen Lab research is right and Canadians' private data would be available to the U.S. homeland security folks in large tranches, none of us are going to feel particularly happy about that.

Our government should be making sure that our privacy is protected. It is an inherent right that we have. I would like to say it is a right in the same way first nations have the right to clean drinking water, although we have now been informed that they do not have the right to that but only the hope of a gradual or eventual “realization” of a right. That term is just so extraordinary. Well, we have a right to privacy, and I do not want to hear that it is dialed back to a gradual realization of a right. We have a right to privacy. We can reasonably expect it of our government to ensure that our private data is not left in an architecture of surveillance that allows it to be accessed by foreign governments, any foreign government.

The Citizen Lab research that was just published in Policy Options yesterday talks about U.S. homeland security as an example, but I do not want my government asking tech companies to save, store and access private data about Canadians that is then available to foreign governments. We have certainly learned a lot about foreign interference, and we are waiting for the foreign interference registry to actually be established since we passed that law some time ago.

At this late hour, and I know I'm out of time—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am in the same position as the member for Vancouver East in having a deep concern about this bill. This has not come up in the debate, but just to clarify, even though we have the fiction that committees are the masters of their own process, every PMO since Stephen Harper's has insisted that members of Parliament from parties that do not have 12 members are given 24 hours' notice to come up with amendments and then their amendments are deemed to have been moved, but we are not allowed to speak to the bill much, question witnesses ever or even vote on our own amendments. We are in the same boat, but we have both observed what has been going on at the public safety committee. Rather than repeat everything the member just said, I will say that I observed the same things.

As a member who has been here for the last 10 years, has she ever seen anything like starting with Bill C‑2, going to Bill C‑12 and then going to Bill C‑22 and, at every stage, ignoring the concerns about the overreach?

Combatting Hate Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am honest. I am actually quoting Conservative emails, and I can say that there are a lot more emails with regard to Bill C-9.

With respect to what Bill C-9 actually would do, I provided a quote providing those assurances. It would deal with hatred in Canada in different ways. It would protect our institutions, whether they are community centres, Christian churches, Sikh gurdwaras, temples, mosques and synagogues, from protests that are intimidating to people who want to be able to attend. It would protect us from hatred-driven or hatred-motivated offences, whether they are assaults or mentally related issues, if I can put it that way. Those are the types of things that are tangible and that the legislation would actually deal with.

The Prime Minister has said that we want to include Bill C-9 in a series of bills dealing with crime. We made a commitment in the last federal election to deal with hatred, and that is what this legislation would do. It would be a fulfillment of an election platform that we made just last year when Canadians chose a new Prime Minister and a new government. In fact, today, among the Liberal benches, there are 70-plus new Liberal members of Parliament, not to mention a new Prime Minister.

A series of actions has been taken to deal with crime. I will make quick reference to some of them, and I want to provide some additional thoughts on the hate file. I can say that every Liberal caucus member recognizes that, as a government, we want to do something to deal with hate, something of substance and a reflection of what members have been hearing from the constituents they represent. That is what is reflected in this bill. We also believe that it would meet any constitutional challenge and that it complements the Charter of Rights. These are the changes that we believe are in the best interests of the public.

If we contrast that to those in opposition to the bill, I would suggest we need to look at the motivation behind it, as I have already articulated, issues such as data mining, fundraising and catering to a far-right element of society. That seems to be their motivation, not what is in the public good or the best interests of Canadians. There is a responsibility of all members to be straightforward on some of the things being said in this House because of the anxiety and concerns being raised in our faith communities. Whether they are leaders in faith facilities or members of a congregation, there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent the types of things we are hearing talked about and preached about in synagogues, PAOC churches or other faith facilities.

There is very little tolerance in Canada for hatred and terrorism by the constituents we represent. I would ask members to reflect on that and for the Conservatives to reconsider their positioning. They do not have to vote against this legislation. I have heard a lot of arguments from the Conservatives, many hours of argument, and I have done a lot of reading. Not one argument that has been presented, I believe, has any legitimacy or justification for voting against this legislation. It seems to be more of a self-serving argument as opposed to what is in the public best interest.

I referred to a series of legislation and I want to highlight them. We have Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, that we are debating today, Bill C-12, the new borders act and asylum issue, Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform legislation, Bill C-16, which would reinstate mandatory minimums and highlights new legislation dealing with feminism and coercive action, and Bill C-22, which deals with lawful access. There is a suite of crime and hate legislation that is real, tangible and would make our communities safer. That is what our constituents want.

My last appeal would be for members to look at those bills as a holistic package and get behind what the Government of Canada is doing to make our communities safer.

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no. We do not have to agree to it. The opposition parties are guaranteed those 26 days, which do not include the many days when the Conservatives brought in concurrence motions.

Here is why it is important. If the Conservatives follow along, they will better understand why there is time allocation. Let us look at the legislative agenda. There is Bill C-3, the Citizenship Act; Bill C-4, the carbon tax cut; Bill C-8 respecting cybersecurity; Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act; and Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, a piece of legislation I know the minister responsible for crime is very keen on.

We have Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act; Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act; Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-13, respecting trade in Great Britain. We also had Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and Bill C-20. Bill C-14 is the bail and sentencing reform legislation. I was just speaking about Bill C-16. There was filibustering even on that legislation.

There is Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, which the Conservatives were criticizing in the speech before mine. There is Bill C-21, the Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty act, and Bill C-22, the lawful access act. When we brought in Bill C-2 regarding lawful access, the Conservatives said, “absolutely not”. They were going to oppose it, and there was no way they were going to let it pass. We had to bring in Bill C-22, and they are still opposing it.

There is Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. Do members remember that one? I just made reference to it. Everyone agreed to it, yet the Conservatives still made the bells ring because they really did not want to debate, apparently.

Bill C-26 would authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. Conservatives talk a lot about housing and affordability, even though the average cost of a house has gone down since the new Prime Minister was elected. The average cost of rent has gone down since the Prime Minister was elected. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives.

The list goes on. Bill C-28, one I really like, is the Canadian space launch act. There is a whole industry, and there is industry potential. Thousands of jobs could be created. However, all the Conservatives say is that they do not like it and do not want it. We have to force legislation through.

That is not to mention the Senate bills. I can say that the Government of Canada, headed by our newly elected Prime Minister, has a very aggressive legislative agenda because we want to and will, despite what the Conservatives continue to put in our way, continue to fight and bring in legislation that is going to make our communities safer and stronger. As the Prime Minister says, we want a strong Canada for all Canadians. That is what we are striving for. We are saying we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7.

All one needs to do is look at the actions that the government and the Prime Minister have taken since the last election. All I made reference to was the legislation. In that legislation, there are a number of initiatives that complement the legislation. That is all part of the budget process and what the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act, is all about. It is the next step in supporting Canadians and building a stronger Canada, but the Conservatives still want to filibuster.

Let us look at what took place at the standing committee. On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more time. They had 30 hours. From what I have been told by many of my colleagues and have heard from across the way, it was a filibuster show, with no discussions back and forth that could have taken place. That is a decision made depending on the motions that are brought forward. I know how standing committees work. When there is collaboration, good ideas and a willingness to work together, a standing committee can be very productive. I know that because there was a day I participated in standing committees. There is so much potential for all of us to work more collaboratively together on a wide spectrum of budgetary issues and legislative issues.

In fact, with respect to legislative issues, the first thing we did when we formed a majority government, contrary to what the Conservatives will say, is that we actually passed Conservative opposition private members' bills through to different stages. I suspect there is a real chance that under the Prime Minister since we have been a majority, in eight, nine or 12 weeks, whatever period of time it is, we have probably passed more opposition initiatives than Stephen Harper did in his four-year mandate. It would not surprise me if this is in fact the case.

I challenge members opposite to show me what private members' initiatives from the floor of the House of Commons actually passed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the table, and contrast that to what we have done in eight weeks. There is no surprise there, because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to collaboration. Where there is a willingness to collaborate, we collaborate.

Let us take a look in terms of all the provinces. Let us talk about the major projects. Let us talk about Bill C-5, which I made reference to. That was possible only because of the collaboration between provinces and Ottawa under the Prime Minister. There is a reason we had the King of Canada make the throne speech. The King of Canada came in a historic moment and delivered the throne speech here. It was a significant time in Canada's history.

I think that, coming out of the election, we all need to recognize what was taking place prior to the last federal election. Canadians were concerned about our economy. They were concerned about what I classify as the three Ts: President Trump, the issue of tariffs and the issue of trade. We have consistently taken actions to address the issues Canadians have faced and will face yesterday, today and, obviously, looking forward into tomorrow.

All one needs to do is take a look at the actions we have actually taken. Shortly after the last federal election, numerous meetings took place between the Prime Minister and premiers, with the idea, as we said to Canadians in the last election, of building one Canadian economy. Based on what was taking place with President Trump in the United States, and to address the anxiety and the concerns Canadians had, the Prime Minister was working hand in hand with provinces.

By doing that, we were able to build a consensus. We were able to bring in the legislation. We were able to take down the federal barriers, interprovincial barriers that the federal government is responsible for, which enabled us to be able to talk and continue the dialogue with provinces to take down those provincial barriers that prevent the trade between provinces. We have had some success in doing even that. We continue to have dialogue with provinces.

All one needs to do is take a look at a province such as Alberta. In the province of Alberta, we are now implementing an MOU that was signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta. The Conservatives can criticize that, but I believe that the Premier of Alberta is right in her assessment, as is the federal government, of the way in which we can in fact build Canada and make Canada a superpower when it comes to energy.

All one needs to do is to look at the consensus building that we have been able to bring together by working collaboratively through major projects from coast to coast to coast. There have been serious investments in things such as wind power and the expansion of energy opportunities on the east coast, as well as something I often talk about, which is the expansion of the Montreal port. We can take a look at Ontario and how we are enhancing the nuclear industry in Ontario through major projects.

In my home province of Manitoba, the Premier of Manitoba is NDP, but we work with all political entities. The people of Manitoba have realized that, for the first time in generations, there is now opportunity to have hope in regard to the port of Churchill and the potential of its becoming a port where things such as, potentially, LNG and certain minerals could go through, let alone other opportunities through agriculture. These are very tangible and real in my home province.

In Saskatchewan, we could talk about copper investments through the major projects. On the canola front, the Prime Minister was able to deal with it, at least in part and far more than what we saw when the leader of the Conservative Party was seated around the caucus table. We could talk about Alberta and B.C., the two of them together, whether it is on the issue of coming up with agreements on pipelines, LNG and other fossil fuels, or mining.

We could talk about northern Canada. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister, was in, I believe, Yellowknife in northern Canada. I am not 100% sure it was Yellowknife, but he made the announcement about how we are going to protect Canadian sovereignty by investing literally billions of dollars. We have great potential, major investments, coast to coast to coast.

The government recognizes that building a stronger infrastructure, improving our economic corridors, if I can put it that way, through trade, means a great deal to our nation. It is where our future is in terms of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. We have a Prime Minister who goes out and looks for investment. We have commitments for billions of dollars of foreign investment to come to Canada. In fact, foreign direct investment coming to Canada in the last 12 months, if it is not number one in the G7, which I believe it is, it could be as high as number one in the G20 countries. That factors out some of the commitments that were also made.

There is reason for us to be optimistic, because we have a government that understands the importance of investment, of bringing and building our infrastructure. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to enhancing where we can and being patient with the United States in regard to the trade file. We are not going to capitulate. We will continue to advocate for the very best deal for Canadians, and where we need to, we are assisting industries that are being hurt by the negotiations and what is taking place in the United States.

Let us recognize this: We have had 20 trade and defence agreements, and we have agreements in the making. I often talk about how important the United States is, and everyone should recognize that. I recognize that, but let there be no doubt that we have a government and a Prime Minister committed to expanding our trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. That is where we got the 20 defence and trade agreements, and we also have had formal trade agreements not only signed off but brought into the House and passed as trade legislation.

I could also talk about the trade potential between Canada and India, two great nations. I would welcome and love to see a formal agreement signed off this year. The Prime Minister has met with the prime minister and the president of two great nations.

The opportunities are real and tangible, which is why there have been 17%, I believe, export increases to non-U.S.A. locations. Our government continues to work, day in and day out, at expanding opportunities for businesses, small, medium and large alike, because we realize the real beneficiaries from those are the citizens of Canada, and they are who we will continue to work for every day.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong.

I want to take this opportunity to share a few very important observations. I have always felt very passionately in terms of the residents of Winnipeg North advocating and sharing with me about the issue of crime. This is something I feel very strongly about. In the last federal election, people at the doors were genuinely concerned about crime. I am very proud of the fact that, during the election, Canada's newly elected Prime Minister made a commitment to deal with the issue of crime in a very proactive way.

He committed to bringing forward bail reform legislation, and that is exactly what we have before us today. Going even further than that, the Prime Minister and this government made a commitment to strengthen our criminal laws and take action where we can to make our communities safer and healthier. The Prime Minister often talks about building a strong and healthy Canada that is going to be there to serve all Canadians and that all Canadians are able to access. A part of that means feeling that sense of security in the communities we represent.

We have brought forward a series of pieces of legislation. Members will recall that, back in November or December, I stood in my place, literally begging and pleading with the Conservatives to allow Bill C‑14, which we are debating today, to pass. Bill C‑14 is all about bail reform legislation. This is something that has been supported by municipalities and law enforcement agencies. Most importantly from my perspective, this is something the constituents in Winnipeg North want to see.

I believe that every member of the Liberal caucus will advocate for the need for bail reform and, like me, feel frustrated, to a certain degree, with the amount of opposition and filibustering that we have seen. Back in November, as I indicated, I was virtually begging the Conservatives to allow the legislation to pass. Six months later, once again, we have the legislation before us. This is something that has to pass before the summer. Members can talk to municipalities, law enforcement, Crowns, provinces and, most importantly, the people of Canada, who all want it. We should deliver. This House has the ability to do that today.

It is not only about Bill C‑14 for me. As I indicated, the government has put forward a series of legislative initiatives to build safer communities. I could talk about Bill C‑9, which deals with hate propaganda and protecting us in different ways, in particular our churches, mosques, temples, synagogues and gurdwaras, and making sure people have access to those facilities.

I could talk about Bill C‑16, which the Conservatives have come out in opposition to. Let us take a look at what Bill C‑16 does: recognizing the issue of femicide in a very strong and powerful way, raising it to a first-degree murder in certain situations virtually automatically. We can talk about coercive behaviour, again, with one spouse using coercive behaviour that leads to certain situations.

For my constituents, it is all about reinstating a number of mandatory minimums. Recognizing that this is something our constituents want to see, I am disappointed because I would have thought there would be unanimous consent in the House, but the Conservatives have made the decision to vote against that legislation.

I can talk about Bill C-22, which stems from Bill C-2. We could not get Bill C-2 passed back in September. We tried all last fall. Ultimately, we had to break it up. Bill C-22 incorporates a part of Bill C-2 that we continue to push, yet we get resistance from the Conservative Party. It is all about lawful access. It deals with things such as the exploitation of children and extortion. We hear a great deal about those issues. Law enforcement, in particular, want to see lawful access. Canada is the only country of the Five Eyes nations that does not have lawful access. The reason we do not have it today is that the members across the way in the Conservative Party refuse to allow that legislation to pass.

We had Bill C-12, legislation that I am grateful we were able to pass, which enhances our border control and helps deal with asylum. Again, it was legislation that had to be reintroduced because Bill C-2 was legislation the Conservatives just would not consider passing.

If we go back to Bill C-2, we see aspects of it that we have not been able to secure passage of. I am thinking of the issue of individuals putting fentanyl into envelopes and mailing them anywhere in Canada. We do not have the authority to search those envelopes. I articulated extensively on why this is important. If Conservatives believe there are issues around drug abuse, particularly in dealing with things like fentanyl, I would think they would recognize the value of this legislation and, at the very least, allow it to pass. It is one of the ways we can deal with fentanyl. I am disappointed that the Conservative Party still has not changed its position on it. In fact, many members of the Conservative Party have stood in their place and mocked me personally on the issue, not fully understanding its significance and its importance.

The bail reform legislation deals with things such as protecting first responders if there is an aggravated situation. These are the people on our front lines, whether police, paramedics or firefighters. This is something we know Conservatives tell first responders they support. We could have passed it last fall because it is incorporated in the legislation.

What is interesting is that some speakers today talked about how the government is not passing their private members' bills. This Prime Minister has likely seen and supported more opposition private members' bills than in the entire four years of Stephen Harper. The current leader of the Conservative Party did not pass anything back then unless it was a Conservative measure. Bailey's law is a Conservative measure. We looked at it, saw the benefits and saw it go through, even when we had the majority and could have prevented it. I can assure the members opposite that is what Stephen Harper would have done.

I can tell the House something about the Prime Minister. Under his leadership, we have seen laws related to the crime file. Members cannot identify a prime minister in generations who has done more to fight crime and work collaboratively with provinces and law enforcement than this Prime Minister. Members cannot name another prime minister who has brought forward so much in the legislative agenda. We have even taken into consideration certain aspects of Private Members' Business.

At the end of the day, I would ask my Conservative friends to stop filibustering, to stop looking at their own politically vested interests of raising money and so forth and to get behind and support good legislation.

Protecting Victims Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few examples, so the member should calm down and listen to them. The member will learn something here and hopefully change his attitude and vote in favour of the legislation.

Second, the bill would reinstate mandatory jail time for sexual exploitation of a child, including abuse by people in a position of trust. This is the type of legislation that I would expect the Conservative Party would be excited to get behind and support.

Let us take a look at another restoration. The bill would restore mandatory minimums for making, possessing, accessing or distributing child sexual abuse material. The bill goes on. There is a lot more within the legislation, but day after day, we see Conservative member after Conservative member looking at the holistic approach of the suite of crime legislation that we have brought forward, and this is not the first time that I have had to try to shame the Conservatives into doing the right thing and delivering for their constituents.

Let me give another example. The legislation brings back mandatory minimum jail time for online child luring and child sextortion, crimes that devastate children and families. These are the types of mandatory minimums that would actually be reinstated so that we could have safer communities. If the Conservatives want to talk about having safer communities, it is about time they put action to their words and got behind what the Prime Minister and the government are putting on the floor of the House of Commons. It is time for them to stop playing games and vote in favour of the legislation.

Whether it is here on the floor of the House of Commons or in our standing committees, the Conservatives need to recognize that at the end of the day, as the Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus has indicated very clearly, we want to build a stronger, healthier Canada, a Canada that is there for all Canadians. When we talk about building a healthier and stronger Canada, that includes the issue of community safety. That is the reason we have a suite of legislative actions.

Let us remember Bill C‑2, the first action we took. We had a minority situation, and we could not get co-operation from any political entity in the House. They did not want that legislation to pass. I had the opportunity to talk about that legislation. I was discouraged. The legislation talked about issues like fentanyl, lawful access, protecting our borders, asylum seekers and stabilizing the issue of immigration. There was a great deal of substance within that legislation. However, the combined unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives made the decision that they would not allow Bill C‑2 to move forward.

As a government in a minority situation, we had to break up the bill. We brought in Bill C‑12, where we could at least build somewhat of a consensus that would enable us to pass the legislation. However, it meant we had to leave a lot out. We made a commitment back then to attempt to bring it back at some point. On the asylum issue and the issue of safer borders, we brought that back in the form of Bill C‑12. We were able to get that passed, but it was not easy, much like Bill C-14.

When we talk about Conservative delays on Bill C‑16, let us look at what took place on Bill C‑14. Bill C‑14 was all about bail reform legislation. We had law enforcement officers, the citizens we represent, provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and many other stakeholders all onside saying they wanted Bill C‑14 on bail reform.

I remember standing in this very spot last year, back in November, making a very clear statement: Would it not be nice if we could actually pass this legislation and deliver it out of the House of Commons before Christmas? That was a very real opportunity. We could have done it. The only thing that prevented us from doing it was the Conservative Party of Canada. That is what prevented us from being able to pass through bail reform legislation. It was very unfortunate.

If members consulted and listened to what law enforcement, other jurisdictions and stakeholders were saying, I think it would be virtually unanimous in terms of the poor performance of the Conservative Party of Canada in denying Canadians the opportunity to have legislation that would make our communities safer. They had the opportunity.

Then we go to Bill C‑22, which, again, comes out of Bill C‑2. It deals with issues like extortion and, again, child-related criminal activities. Now we have the Conservative Party saying, “Absolutely, no way. We do not want it.” They want nothing to do with it. Even though, in talking to the law enforcement agencies, there is phenomenal support for Bill C‑22 out there in our communities, the Conservative Party will not, in any fashion, lend support for lawful access legislation.

On the one hand, they jump up like jumping beans at times, talking about the issue of extortion. They like to talk about it, but when we bring forward legislation to deal with it, what they do is filibuster again. That is fine. They want to focus on character assassination. That is their primary focus. The government and the Prime Minister are going to be focused on delivering sound public policy through legislation and budgetary measures. We will find, whether it is legislation or the budget, it is nothing but a reflection of what came out of the last election and what Canadians are telling Liberal members they want.

Public Safety

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the hon. member raised that subject, since the government, within one year, has done more than any government before it: Bill C-8 on cyberthreat, Bill C-9 on heinous crimes, Bill C-12 on border security, Bill C-14 on bail reform and more severe sentences, Bill C-16 on protecting victims and accelerating justice, and now Bill C-22 on legal access.

I hope that this time the Conservatives will vote with us.

Department of Citizenship and Immigration—Main Estimates, 2026-27

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

I want to say that moments of tonight's discussions have been encouraging. After the horrors of the passage of Bill C-12 and international condemnation that it attacks refugee rights, it was so refreshing that some of the points I was going to make were made by the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard on the long delays in getting people out of Gaza and out of the horrible situations found in Sudan. Also, it was wonderful to hear the words one wants to hear of compassion from a Canadian from the hon. member for Spadina—Harbourfront.

My question to the minister is the following. Is the department considering that it is long since time to recognize that the United States is no longer a safe third country after ICE has arrested over 900 children who have been held for more than 20 days?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, the good news is that we are saving money because the asylum claim numbers are down. We will continue to bring them down with Bill C-12 to curb those numbers.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, I do not know what the issue is with the member, except to say that these funding decisions are based on need, on expected results and on value for money. Would he like the municipalities to entertain people on the streets? The federal government is helping municipalities with the asylum claimants. The number of asylum claimants is reduced. We brought in Bill C-12. There are lots of measures that—

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, as I said, we have passed Bill C-12 to ensure that we protect our borders, that we have integrity in our system and that we reinforce our values. The plan that we have set is working. The numbers of asylum claimants, student visas and temporary workers are down considerably.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, what Canadians need to know is what we have done over the last 12 months. Asylum claims are down, new student visas are down, and temporary foreign worker permits are down. In addition, we passed Bill C-12 to proactively manage the departure of migrants.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, there are two things. The first is that the department has investigated each and every case flagged. The second is that we brought in Bill C-12, which would eliminate all the irregularities of those who filed but should not have filed.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to speak today about the main estimates 2026-27 for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. I would also like to take a moment to thank my friend and colleague, the minister of this department, who works tirelessly, puts in a tremendous amount of effort and manages a very complex portfolio.

I was very pleased to welcome her to Moncton in January when it was announced that we had surpassed our francophone immigration targets. We can talk more about that later, during questions and answers.

Immigration affects every region of the country. It bolsters our economy, supports community growth, reunites families and helps Canada attract the people and skills we need. It also reflects Canada's values, including our commitment to protecting people fleeing persecution, violence and serious harm. As global conflicts, climate pressures and changing migration patterns continue to displace people around the world, Canada must respond with compassion and through an orderly, fair and sustainable system.

These main estimates support that balance by helping to maintain the services, safeguards and partnerships needed to respond to humanitarian and asylum pressures in a very responsible way. Over the past few years, the increasing number of asylum claims has really strained the system. The number of claims exceeded processing capacity. Delays got longer and costs went up.

The delays are significant. They can make the process unfair for people who need protection and certainty about the future. They also put pressure on housing, health care and legal and community supports, and they can make a system more vulnerable and prone to abuse.

That is why our government is working hard to ease that pressure, strengthen integrity and make our asylum system more sustainable. We introduced measures to strengthen the integrity of migration and we modernized the asylum system. Measures to better manage the number of temporary resident applications and improve the integrity of temporary programs also contributed to reducing the number of asylum claims entering the system. I have to say that these measures are working. From January to March 2026, the number of asylum claims was about one-third lower than in the same period in 2025 and almost two-thirds lower than in the first quarter of 2024. Here again, things have clearly improved.

Bill C‑12 created new eligibility rules to protect the system from a sudden influx of applications, to discourage abuse and to support timely decisions. These rules apply when an application is submitted more than one year after a person first arrived in Canada or after an irregular crossing of the U.S. border. At the same time, safeguards are in place. If an application is inadmissible, the applicants can still go through a pre-removal risk assessment to determine whether they would face risk if they were sent back to their country of origin.

Over the coming months, the government will continue to improve the way asylum claims are received, handled and decided. With the new inadmissibility rules, these reforms will help make the system more efficient, more sustainable and better managed. The main estimates support this work. They provide the resources to support better processing, faster decisions, and essential services while applications are being considered. Timely decisions offer certainty to applicants who need and deserve Canada's protection. They also help resolve cases where individuals are not eligible to remain, so the system can continue to focus on the people who are most in need.

The main estimates also support essential services for eligible asylum seekers and other vulnerable groups while their status is being determined. People fleeing persecution, violence or serious harm may arrive with urgent needs. Canada has a responsibility to respond with dignity and care, while ensuring that these services remain reasonable, temporary and well managed in the long term.

This balance is important, especially at a time when health care, housing and social services are under strain across the country. By providing a clearer plan and a more sustainable path forward, we can maintain the public trust needed for the system to function more effectively.

Once again, as I clearly mentioned at the beginning, in Canada, when we talk about immigration and the French-speaking community, we want to ensure that we maintain a level of French-speaking population that will at least offset the loss, if you will.

I was wondering if the Minister of Immigration could discuss the immigration targets that have been set, tell us whether we have met those targets, and explain what measures and objectives we have put in place to ensure that we can still achieve those goals.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, we have seen successes. I have already said that there has been a 71% decrease in asylum claims in Quebec. With the passage of Bill C‑12, we are also going to see more—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a number of things that I would like to say, leaving maybe 15 seconds for the minister to respond. I will try to get everything in in the next four minutes.

We need to put things into the proper perspective. First of all, I would recognize that we had an election just over a year ago, when the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians that we were going to stabilize immigration here in Canada. That was then followed with the appointment of the minister we have today. I believe, as I know my colleagues believe, she has done an outstanding job at stabilizing our immigration system here in Canada. I do not say that lightly.

Let me give a bit of history as to what led to the issues that we had to face. In 2014, I happened to be the immigration critic for the Liberal Party of Canada. I was sitting in the opposition benches when Stephen Harper made the commitment to increase the number of temporary students. He wanted to increase it to numbers in excess of 400,000. There was a time when the Conservative Party recognized the value of immigration. That is long past, I must say, but there was a time when Conservatives did believe in it, and that was when Stephen Harper recognized the value of that contribution by increasing the numbers to over 400,000.

Let us go back to the pandemic. We were able to achieve the goal, and go a little further than that by a few thousand, going into the pandemic. The pandemic is not something that was unique to Canada. It happened around the world. There were concerns regarding people not being able to work in certain sectors. There were concerns around people leaving the country. Back then, even the Conservatives recognized that that was an issue. I do not recall any Conservatives standing up during the pandemic to say we should get rid of temporary workers. I do not remember that at all. Shortly after the pandemic, there was still a high demand, and those temporary workers were given extensions.

Now, a number of factors occurred, which led us to the last federal election. There was a serious issue that was caused by things such as policy announcements back in the previous administration regarding the pandemic and the consequences of the pandemic, including having to address the workforce.

Fortunately for Canada, we elected the right Prime Minister at the right time, and he recognized that we had to stabilize the immigration file. That is exactly what we have done. There have been some issues. We have seen many of the people here on a temporary basis apply for asylum. That is the reason why, prior to the summer, we introduced Bill C-2, which would have helped deal with issues like immigration. The Conservatives, at the time, chose to filibuster that legislation to prevent us from being able to stabilize immigration even earlier.

We had to bring in Bill C-12, which we were finally able to get passed towards the end of the year. We recognized the importance of dealing with the asylum issue, and Bill C-12 did that. After a lot of nudging, we finally got the Conservatives to agree to pass it. Do not get me wrong, I am grateful that they saw a sense of urgency on this issue.

Throughout this period of time, the current minister, a few weeks or maybe a month afterward, came to my home province of Manitoba and met with the minister responsible for immigration. Meeting with the minister of immigration demonstrated that the federal government has a role in working collaboratively with provinces and territories in good faith. I sat at the table with both ministers and listened to the dialogue that was exchanged.

A month or two afterwards, the minister came back to meet with some of the individuals who were being impacted by the immigration policy. What I saw—

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to be here this evening. I welcome the opportunity to highlight how the government is investing, through the main estimates, to support a strong and sustainable immigration system.

Canadian communities benefit from immigration, and Canada also benefits from the talent that our system attracts from around the world.

Immigration supports our economy. It helps our communities grow, reunites families, addresses labour needs in key sectors and reflects our long-standing commitment to protecting people fleeing violence, persecution and forced displacement.

To achieve this, for immigration to continue to work for Canada, it must be well managed, which means a system Canadians can trust that is controlled, sustainable, fair and secure. That is the work that we have been doing, and the results are clear.

Permanent resident admissions are stabilized at less than 1% of Canada's population beyond 2027. The temporary resident population is on track to fall below 5% of Canada's population by the end of 2027, a target that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has independently projected Canada is on track to meet. Temporary resident arrivals are already down significantly. They are down 75% between January and March of this year compared to the same period in 2024, which includes international students. New arrivals were down 79% over the same period following measures such as the annual cap, stronger verification of letters of acceptance, higher financial requirements and the end of the student direct stream.

We are making more deliberate choices on temporary workers, with new worker arrivals down 74% over the same period and pathways better targeted to high-skill and high-demand jobs, including through limits on low-wage hiring, reforms to the post-graduation work permit program and pathways for select skilled workers already contributing in Canada.

Asylum claims have also dropped. Between January and March of this year, 59% fewer people submitted a claim compared to the same period in 2024. This reflects stronger front-end screening, enhanced tools to detect fraud, reforms to the international student and temporary worker programs and the passing of Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act.

These are not isolated measures; they are part of a clear plan to bring immigration back to a sustainable path, lessen pressures on our communities and keep the system focused on Canada's needs. Canadians can trust that the plan is working.

This work continues under the 2026‑2028 immigration levels plan and our main estimates. Together, they demonstrate that the government's immigration plan and its fiscal plan are aligned, with lower levels, strengthened integrity and funding allocated to where it will have the greatest impact.

For fiscal year 2026‑27, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's main estimates total $4.42 billion, a decrease of 15% from the previous year.

These main estimates reflect a disciplined approach to immigration spending. They align resources with lower immigration levels, the phasing out of temporary measures and the government's broader commitment to reduce spending, improve productivity, and focus on core priorities.

Fiscal discipline does not mean stepping away from the department's core responsibilities. These estimates continue to fund the essential work of managing migration, supporting newcomers, strengthening system integrity and improving service. They also support the planning and partnership that keep immigration organized and sustainable, including the implementation of Canada's multi-year immigration level plan and the Canada–Québec Accord. They include limited temporary health care coverage to eligible people and help for provinces and municipalities responding to temporary housing pressures linked to asylum claims.

These supports help Canada meet its humanitarian obligations, support partners on the ground and help newcomers settle, contribute and reach their full potential in Canada. They help maintain the asylum system in Canada, including work to strengthen system integrity and maintain processing capacity. They improve service through modernized digital tools. The lower funding profile reflects our responsible approach, reducing where volumes are lower, where temporary measures are ending and where programs can be delivered more efficiently.

At the same time, this budget maintains targeted support where the system needs capacity, stability and integrity. That includes support for the asylum system, for protected persons who are already in Canada and are in the process of acquiring permanent residency and for workers who are already here and already contributing, who can help meet labour market needs in communities across the country.

Integrity is crucial to fairness. A fair system protects genuine applicants, prevents fraud and misrepresentation and includes rigorous screening, identity verification and secure processing. That is why my department is strengthening the integrity of the asylum system, improving compliance, using biometrics and modernizing the tools officers need. A secure, sustainable system also needs modern services.

Let me turn to Canada's leadership in a changing world. Migration has always been part of the human story. People move to build safer lives, to find opportunity, to reunite with family and to contribute to something larger than themselves. Around the world, migration systems are under pressure. Countries are facing the same challenge of how to respond to movement that is more complex while keeping confidence in the systems that manage it.

When I was at the United Nations earlier this month, it was clear that partners are looking to Canada because we are choosing a responsible path. We are protecting the value of immigration by making the system more controlled, more sustainable and more focused on the people and skills that Canada needs. That is how we keep immigration as a strength.

That is the system we are building: lower volume, higher integrity, more targeted choices and a clear focus on Canada's capacity and economic needs. That does not mean we are straying from our priorities and values. It means we are focusing immigration where it can have the greatest impact. Canada will continue to attract qualified workers and top talent in sectors that matter to our economy, such as health care, construction and emerging industries.

That includes physicians already here and contributing to our health care system. Through the measure I announced in December, 391 physicians have already been invited to apply for permanent residency. These are people in Canada already.

We will continue working with provinces, territories and partners to respond to labour market needs, and we will continue to uphold Canada's humanitarian tradition while building a system that can endure. These are main estimates that work. We need a system that is controlled, sustainable, fair, secure, fiscally responsible and focused on keeping immigration working for Canada. That is the system Canadians expect. That is the system we are delivering.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, we worked very hard. There was Bill C-12, and we also made changes with things—

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians need to know is that, because of a Liberal budget and because of a Liberal bill, Bill C-12, and as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, there will be $400 million in savings, $200 million plus another $200 million, in the interim health care coverage, because asylum numbers have gone down and because we brought forth Bill C-12 to curb exactly those situations.

Canada Labour Code

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved that Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing on behalf of the NDP our deepest gratitude to all the workers, unions and labour leaders who have voiced their support for this bill to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and uphold the right to strike.

In just two years, the Liberals have used section 107 eight times, each time violating the Constitution and disrespecting the rights of millions of workers on whose backs our country runs. Members do not need to take it from me. We can ask the representatives of workers themselves.

Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, leads over three million workers across the country. Speaking on repealing section 107, she said, “No government should ever be able to strip workers of their right to free and fair collective bargaining. Canada’s unions will fight alongside the NDP to get this bill passed...and ensure that Canada’s labour laws protect workers, not undermine them”.

Mark Hancock, national president of CUPE, said, “It's hard to calculate the damage that's already been done by this Liberal government repeatedly stepping in to take away the only leverage workers have at the bargaining table. It's bad for workers' livelihoods, and it's bad for the constitutional rights of all Canadians. Section 107 has got to go”.

The CLC, CUPE, CUPW, the United Steelworkers, Teamsters, PSAC, the ILWU and more are all standing in solidarity behind this bill to uphold the right to strike. This is the rule of law. One of the biggest outcomes of solidarity is that workers understand their rights.

Let us talk about workers' rights. In 2015, in its decision on the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan hearing, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the right to strike is protected by the Constitution as an “indispensable” part of collective bargaining rights. It is no wonder the Liberals have continued issuing their back-to-work orders in backrooms with CEOs rather than out in the open and on record. They are afraid to leave evidence of their unconstitutional behaviour.

Even Stephen Harper's anti-worker Conservative labour minister said, regarding the use of section 107 to end strikes, “If you find a lawyer who can tell you that it's possible...then I wish I had their advice 15 years ago. But as far as I'm concerned, you aren't able to do that.”

The issue goes beyond Canadian law. Just last week, the International Court of Justice issued a landmark ruling that “the right to strike of workers and their organizations is protected” under international law. Workers fighting section 107 in Canada are on the front lines of a global workers' movement. I commend them and say, “Good on you.”

I wonder whether the Liberals care, since they are so routinely turning their backs on international law, whether it is a violation of indigenous rights through Bill C-5, migrants' rights in Bill C-12 or the right to peaceful assembly in Bill C-9.

New Democrats know where we stand. It is with international law and with workers. We know that throughout Canadian history, and throughout the world's history, workers exercising their right to strike have been absolutely critical for advancing human rights and economic empowerment.

In fact, in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, we had the Winnipeg General Strike, which was a legendary moment in our local history. Over 30,000 workers walked off their jobs in protest of exploitation and unfair wages, forcing governments to recognize their rights and helping unite workers' struggles across Canada. This legacy has lived on through the far-reaching social progress achieved by the labour movement.

Maternity leave was ensured in no small part by the 42-day strike in 1981 by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, helping set the standard for maternity leave across Canada. That was the same Canadian Union of Postal Workers whose right to strike the Liberal government violated using section 107 in 2024.

It is not surprising that the Liberals forget such important lessons when they have so routinely neglected the rights of women workers. We know that their failure to invest in a workforce strategy for child care workers, for example, is threatening women's participation in the workforce. It is also plain that their application of section 107 has had deeply disturbing gendered impacts.

Let us remember the most recent example, when CUPE flight attendants at Air Canada went on strike against unpaid labour. In a sector made up of mostly women and gender-diverse folks, it is simply sexist for Air Canada to assume unpaid work could continue to fly. However, when flight attendants exercised their legal right to strike, what did the Liberal Minister of Jobs and Families do? The minister shut them down using section 107 in less than 12 hours.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I would ask the Liberal minister this: Was 12 hours enough time to consider the devastating consequences of forcing unpaid work onto so many workers, mostly women and gender-diverse folks, just to please the Air Canada CEO, the former one who had to resign? Was 12 hours enough time to decide in favour of threatening draconian fines on all those who dared to insist that they be paid for their work?

It is proof of the senselessness of section 107 that flight attendants bravely refused the Liberal minister's ridiculous back-to-work order and continued to fight for a fair deal, receiving a groundswell of support from over 80% of people across Canada.

Section 107, we know, hurts workers everywhere. We know this from the example that breaking strikes hurts workers everywhere. Each time the Liberals invoke section 107, it tells CEOs across Canada that they can disrespect their workers' rights because the government will come to rescue them when their bad-faith bargaining results in a strike. When former Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau was asked why he had no plan in place for customers in the event of a strike, he told the whole world he did not prepare because he did not have to. He knew the government would use section 107.

That assumption, based on the Liberals' poor record, was just as real as those of the anti-worker Conservative premiers whom the Liberal Prime Minister has grown so close to. When Danielle Smith violated the charter and shut down the legal strike of Alberta teachers, and when Doug Ford violated the charter and tried to shut down the legal strike of Ontario education staff, what did the Liberal government say? There were crickets. That is because it is on the same page as these right-wing Conservatives when it comes to walking over the rights of workers.

At a time of rising inequality, inequity and economic vulnerability, we should be encouraging the extension and empowerment of unions and workers' institutions across Canada, not cutting them down. We should be supporting union drives among service workers, gig workers and unpaid care workers, affirming their right to strike should they be offered an unfair deal.

It was so inspiring to the NDP to see the beginnings of this movement as Uber drivers in Victoria won a historic victory last month by ratifying a union contract with improved pay, health and safety measures. Given its track record, I ask myself whether the Liberal government sees this victory as just another problem to be solved by draconian back-to-work legislation. For our part, the New Democrats are clear. We offer our warmest congratulations to these drivers and support the struggles for unionization among all similarly exploited, unrepresented workers. As was recently put so well by our dynamic New Democratic Party leader, Avi Lewis, “The greatest gift we can pass on from one generation to the next is a union card”.

We are giving the Liberals a chance to do what is right, to respect the charter and stop attacks on workers. However, if they refuse, we know workers will not back down against the attacks on their rights. We can just ask the Air Canada flight attendants.

During the Winnipeg strike of 1919, nobody waited around for friends of big business in the government to give workers permission to walk off the job. If the Liberal government decides to stand by its friends, the billionaire class and big multinational corporations, and vote down this bill, New Democrats are ready to stand by working communities, union leaders and human rights advocates to remind the government that it can never take away workers' power to strike.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I know that member and I respect him, and I know he knows that I am here to manage immigration and migration responsibly to strengthen our rural communities. That is exactly what we are doing. Our asylum claims are down 59%. The PBO confirmed with us that because of the measures we have taken with co-pays and with Bill C-12, we will be reducing those costs by $400 million annually. We will continue to protect those who are in need of protection.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, this is what the PBO actually said today. The PBO said that within three years we will see substantial savings from changes to the supplemental coverage of $200‑plus million. We will also see another $200‑plus million in annual savings from the asylum reform measures that we took in Bill C-12. I thank the member for finally agreeing to put that law into action.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of Canadians is our top priority. Canadian law enforcement works closely with airport authorities, airlines, border agencies and international counterparts to detect criminal activity, protect travellers and disrupt organized crime networks involved in drug trafficking.

At least six arrests related to luggage tag swapping have been made by the RCMP. We continue to invest in law enforcement, with $1.3 billion for the border, 1,000 new CBSA officers and 1,000 new RCMP personnel. Through Bill C-12 and Bill C-22, we are—

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, let me continue with my list because I need a couple of hours for that.

We are bringing our numbers down. We are strengthening oversight. We have an action plan that would restore integrity to our immigration system. CBSA removed 22,000 people from the country last year. We brought in Bill C-12, which the Conservatives opposed in the beginning, but they saw the light at the end. That bill will put additional security in place. I have also put in place the foundation of an exit tracking system, which Canada needs in this country.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the interim federal health program provides temporary limited coverage until beneficiaries are eligible for a comparable provincial or territorial health insurance. It is a bridge, not a substitute, and it does not determine placement on health care wait-lists, which are managed from provinces and territories based on medical needs. Without that bridge, vulnerable individuals may delay seeking care, which can increase the risk to public health and wait times in hospitals and emergency rooms. In this way, the IFHP actually helps reduce pressure on our health system. The program is tightly managed and only available to those who qualify.

Comparing January and February 2024 to the same period this year, we also see that asylum claims are down by almost two-thirds. Recent measures and legislation such as Bill C-12 ensure the IFHP remains fair, targeted and sustainable.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians rightly expect public programs to be fair, responsible and sustainable. They expect that when people are seeking protection in Canada but are not eligible for provincial or territorial health insurance, the government manages that transition in a way that protects public health while maintaining the integrity of our health care system. That is the role of the interim federal health program, a program that has existed in some form since the 1940s.

The IFHP provides temporary limited health coverage to certain migrants in Canada who are not eligible for provincial or territorial health insurance, including those who are waiting for a final decision on their asylum claims or for their removal to be safely carried out. The program exists to ensure access to urgent and essential services. Without it, vulnerable people may delay seeking care, which can lead to more serious health issues, higher costs later on and added pressure on emergency rooms and public health. That is why the program must be understood as both a public health measure and a system management tool.

Let me be clear. The IFHP does not determine who is ahead or behind on health care wait-lists. Those decisions are made by provinces and territories based on medical needs. IFHP beneficiaries face the same wait times as all other residents. The IFHP provides health coverage, not faster or better access to health care. Moreover, the health needs of those seeking protection in Canada are important principles behind the program, and those who have filed asylum claims have the right to due process, which includes the right to appeal.

The IFHP is tightly managed. All claims are monitored, audited and subject to integrity controls so that the program remains available only to those who qualify. Pressures on the IFHP are largely driven by higher asylum claim volumes and the length of time people remain in the system while awaiting a decision or removal. That is why our government has also taken action to reduce pressures on the asylum system. These actions are working.

Comparing January and February 2024 to the same period this year, asylum claims are down by almost two-thirds, and with Bill C-12, we introduced new eligibility and efficiency improvements, which will reduce the time individuals rely on temporary federal support. We also announced co-payments in budget 2025 to help keep supplemental health care accessible for eligible beneficiaries while responsibly managing growing demand. This will support the long-term sustainability of the program as it continues providing essential support to current and future beneficiaries. The co-pays, set to come into effect on May 1, could result in approximately $126.8 million in savings in 2026-27 and $231.9 million onwards.

In short, the responsible way forward is not to create confusion about who is ahead in line. Instead, we need to keep the IFHP targeted and well managed to avoid increasing the burden on our publicly funded health system while reducing pressures through stronger system integrity and faster processing. That is exactly what our government is doing.

Consideration of Government Business No.9

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned. The NDP has a strict rule. We actually tried to pass a bill to not allow floor crossings but to leave that up to the electorate. The current Liberal government has passed several bills that are in violation of our Constitution and charter rights: Bill C-9, Bill C-5 and Bill C-12. Now, we are going to have a situation where the majority Liberals pass bills that are completely unconstitutional. I am wondering how the hon. member feels about that.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the cost of health care for an asylum claimant is tied to volumes.

The good news is that the asylum claims have gone down. If we compare the first two months of this year to 2024, it has gone down by two-thirds. That is good news for Canada, and with Bill C-12, we will continue to reduce those claims.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to give that example. Hopefully, there will not be another point of order to prevent it.

There is a suite of legislative initiatives to deal with an important issue in the member opposite's riding, my riding and ridings across the country. The Government of Canada has been pushing hard for this since day one following the election, and that was to deal with the issue of crime. We brought forward Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14, Bill C-16 and Bill C-22. This is all legislation to make our communities safer, and the Conservatives, through their filibustering tactics, have denied important reforms such as bail reform, which has been supported across the country by stakeholders, law enforcement, mayors, premiers and others.

They have also prevented lawful access from being put into place, with Canada being the one and only Five Eyes nation that does not have it. That, I suggest, would deal with issues such as child sexual exploitation, extortion and repeat violent offenders. These are the types of actions that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have been pushing for since the last federal election, and the Conservatives have played political games, putting the Conservative Party's interests ahead of Canadians' best interests. As a direct result, we have lost out greatly.

Talking strictly about funds to help young people acquire skill sets, $594.7 million over two years went to Employment and Social Development Canada for the Canada summer jobs program to support 100,000 summer jobs in 2026. Members can think about that. I referred to it earlier in my comments. It is for youth to acquire skill sets. Members opposite might want to minimize that program, but there is not a Liberal member of Parliament who does not recognize the true value of what that program is. It is such a valuable asset to not only the communities we serve but also the communities that Conservatives serve. Every region of the nation benefits from that program, and the Conservatives mock it today, which does not surprise me because it was Stephen Harper who cut a lot of the funding to the program. He did not cut the program, but he did cut the funding.

It has taken the Prime Minister and the government to recognize the value, understand the need for it and support it. That is why we will have close to 100,000 young people, and the types of jobs they will get will allow them to enhance their skill sets in many different ways, possibly opening doors to them for future jobs.

I think of the types of jobs that come to Winnipeg North, such as child care. I amplify the importance of child care. Many summer students who have gone through this program are working in child care today. I think of places such as Stanley Knowles School using the lunch program. There is another $307 million over two years for the horizontal evaluation of the youth employment and skills strategy to provide employment, training and wraparound supports. There is mentorship, transportation and mental health counselling. It is estimated that there are literally thousands of youth who will benefit from it, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000.

There is $40 million over two years going to Employment and Social Development Canada to create the youth climate corps and to provide paid skills training for young Canadians. They will be trained to quickly respond to climate emergencies, support recovery and strengthen resilience in communities across the nation. We are thinking of training the next generation of Canadian builders by providing $75 million over three years, starting in 2026-27, to Employment and Social Development Canada to expand the union training and innovation program, which supports union-based apprenticeship training in the Red Seal trades.

That gives us a sense of what it is and how the government is dealing with young people today. We recognize the importance of the issue, but the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that we recognize it year-round. We are focused on building a strong economy that works for all Canadians. That is our goal, and we will achieve that. We will get the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7. I believe that is an admirable goal.

The Conservative Party continues to want to play games on the floor of the House of Commons, not deal with the issues that are a priority for Canadians. They only want to deal with what is a priority for the Conservatives. That is fine. We will be focused on delivering tangible results for Canadians because that is the right thing to do. A part of that means encouraging my opposition friends to stop playing games and be more creative. They can be a critic of the government and be more cooperative. That is what Canadians want—

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-11

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised on Friday afternoon by the deputy government House leader concerning certain amendments made by the Standing Committee on National Defence to Bill C-11.

The six amendments contested by the honourable member for London West, almost 10 weeks after they were reported by the committee, have one thing in common: They were originally ruled out of order by the committee's chair. Let me remind the House that a committee chair's ruling on the admissibility of an amendment is not infallible.

Mr. Speaker, in a ruling on November 3, 2025, at page 3327 of the Debates, on an amendment that the committee had made to Bill C-4, you reached a different conclusion from that that the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance had reached concerning the need for a royal recommendation. Similarly, on December 2, 2025, you reached a different conclusion from that of the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning the application of the so-called parent act rule to an amendment to Bill C-12 in a ruling found on page 4435 of the Debates.

The test for the Speaker's intervention in committee reports concerning bills does not rest simply on whether a committee chair's ruling was overturned, but rather on whether the committee, in adopting the impugned amendment, exceeded its authority.

Bill C-11, as introduced, makes provision for the appointment, when necessary, of an acting provost marshal general, an acting director of military prosecutions and an acting director of defence counsel services. Moreover, Bill C-11 makes provision related to the responsibility of the judge advocate general and the chief military judge.

Amendment CPC-1 would make provision of a similar effect concerning vacancies in the office of the judge advocate general. In these respects, I would argue that the amendment is consistent with the scope and principle of Bill C-11, as the role of the judge advocate general is integral to the scope of the bill. To illustrate the importance, it was included in the summary of the legislation. Additionally, the importance of legislation allowing for acting roles in the Canadian Armed Forces' chains of command were addressed with the provision for an acting provost marshal general, an acting director of military prosecutions and an acting director of defence counsel services. Not only is this within the scope of the study, it fixes an unintended omission of the Liberals in the drafting phase and would ensure accountability for a role that has been vacant for extended periods of time in the past. This amendment would ensure consistency across all leaders within the military justice system.

As the deputy government House leader observed, this would require the amendment of a provision of the National Defence Act, which was not subject to other amendments in Bill C-11. While she argued that that would breach the parent act rule, I would disagree with her on this point and refer the Chair to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Regan, delivered October 24, 2018, where he explained, starting on page 22797 of the Debates:

The Parent Act rule, the idea that an amendment should not amend an act or a section not already amended by a bill, rests on a presumption that such an amendment would not be relevant to the bill. This can be true. Often, such amendments attempt to deal with matters not referenced in the bill, and this is improper.

However, there are also occasions when an amendment is relevant to the subject matter of a bill and in keeping with its scope but can only be accomplished by modifying a section of the parent act not originally touched by the bill or even an entirely different act not originally touched by the bill....

The parent act rule was never intended to be applied blindly as a substitute for proper judgment as to the relevance of an amendment.

Along similar lines, amendment CPC-16 would add a timeline for the designation of a chief military judge when the office becomes vacant. What is interesting here is that the 120-day time frame in amendment CPC-16 is a product of a Liberal subamendment, and that amendment, as amended, was unanimously adopted, including by the Liberal members present voting for it that day.

Elsewhere, Bill C-11 makes provision for the appointment of a victim's liaison officer, who would have the responsibility of, in the words of the chief of the defence staff at committee, “ensuring they have the appropriate support to navigate the justice system”.

Amendment CPC-10 would make similar provision for the appointment of a liaison officer for the accused. This would be consistent with Bill C-11's proposal to ensure that individuals from outside the justice system who find themselves interacting with that system have the appropriate support to navigate it, which the chief of the defence staff testified about herself. As such, I would submit that this amendment is within the scope and principle of Bill C-11.

Next, there is amendment BQ-2, concerning an inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Bill C-11 is largely about addressing sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Measures such as an inspector general for military sexual misconduct would, I respectfully submit, fall within the scope and principle of a bill that addresses military sexual misconduct. It too was unanimously supported by committee.

With respect to the deputy government House leader's concern that amendment BQ-2 would require a royal recommendation, I would argue that the amendment was carefully drawn up to impose an obligation on the Minister of National Defence to prepare and table a report concerning a plan to establish such an office. To be clear, while this amendment would get the wheels turning in this direction, it would not directly cause the appointment of, or the expenditure involved with, an inspector general. This approach is consistent with any number of private member's bills in recent years concerning frameworks, strategies and plans that have not offended the financial prerogative of the Crown.

Amendment BQ-3, meanwhile, would amend clause 18 with a view to increasing the pool of potential military judges, something that clause 18 of the bill was drafted to do in the first place. Furthermore, the amendment would see a serving officer or non-commissioned member appointed as a military judge released from the forces to enhance their independence. Bill C-11 contains other measures to enhance the independence of military justice system actors and to vouchsafe this independence relative to the judge advocate general. In my view, this amendment is entirely consistent with the spirit, scope and principle of Bill C-11.

Turning to amendment NDP-4, sponsored by someone who now sits in the Liberal caucus, this amendment would ensure that everyone involved in the investigation or prosecution of the offences spelled out in subclause 70(2) of Bill C-11 has training or experience in trauma-informed approaches. I would point the Chair to the committee testimony of the Attorney General of Canada in an answer to a Liberal colleague's question. He stated the following:

We need to make sure that there are systems that are ready with people who are trauma-informed, with people who have appropriate training and with people who have safeguards in place to ensure that people can share their stories, know that they're going to be taken seriously and know that they'll be given whatever testimonial aids may be necessary for them to fully share their perspective.

A now Liberal MP brought forward an amendment voted for by Liberal MPs to give effect to the Liberal minister's views, which were offered in response to a Liberal caucus colleague's concerns, and now we have the deputy House leader of the Liberals trying to throw the whole thing in the recycling bin.

What is actually going on over there? Is the Prime Minister trying to use a stolen majority to force Liberals to swallow whole the very ideas they backed mere months ago? Is this a sign of what Canadians should expect from the Prime Minister, who has shown little regard for Parliament now that he is flexing power? However, I digress.

In summary, the Liberal deputy House leader is seeking your intervention to undo key portions of the national defence committee's good work on Bill C‑11, much of which her own Liberal colleagues have supported, on the premise that the committee chair's ruling has been overturned. However, as I have laid out, a committee chair's rulings are not infallible, and in the present circumstances, the amendments concerned satisfy the necessary procedural requirements.

I would ask you to find the defence committee's third report to be entirely in order and to reject the Liberal government's challenge to usurp the work that was done by committee members in good faith for all survivors of military sexual assault and misconduct.

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access act, is being presented as a necessary modernization of investigative powers in the digital age. To be clear, there is some truth in that framing. We do need to modernize.

Law enforcement and national security agencies are operating in a rapidly evolving technology-driven environment. Serious crimes, from human trafficking to foreign interference, are increasingly digitally distributed and difficult to detect. Human trafficking networks now rely on encrypted messaging, anonymous accounts and constantly shifting online identities. Foreign interference operations depend on coordinated digital campaigns, pseudonymous actors and infrastructure that crosses borders in seconds. In both cases, the central challenge is attribution, identifying who is behind an account or activity, quickly enough to act.

Parliamentary findings have confirmed that agencies like the RCMP and CSIS face real difficulties accessing communications data and that, without some form of data retention, information sought under warrant may no longer exist, so the problem is real and the need for tools is real. New Democrats recognize that law enforcement officers must have the ability to investigate serious crimes and protect public safety, whether that is child exploitation, human trafficking, terrorist threats or foreign interference. However, those powers must always be balanced with strong protections for privacy, civil liberties, cybersecurity and meaningful consultation. That is the test before us. We have seen what happens when the balance is lost.

The government's previous attempt under Bill C-2, the so-called safe borders act, an omnibus bill, was widely rejected by over 300 organizations and tens of thousands of Canadians because it would have been an attack on civil liberties, on privacy rights, on due process and on the rights of asylum seekers.

Bill C-2 has now come back in different parts. The attack for asylum seekers lives on under Bill C-12, which the NDP vehemently opposed. The part about lawful access continues in Bill C-22, and I would say it does include some improvements. The removal of blanket warrantless “information demand” powers matters. Replacing that with a more limited “confirmation of service” tool based on reasonable grounds and restricted to a yes or no response would be a step in the right direction. The requirement of judicial authorization for further access would remain, which is essential. Therefore, yes, there has been some movement.

However, we should also be clear about what this legislation would do. This is not simply a modest update. It is a significant restructuring of how the state, private companies and individuals would interact in the digital space. There are serious concerns, particularly in part 2 of this bill. Part 2 would require electronic service providers to build and maintain interception capacities within their systems, and would introduce the possibility of mandatory metadata retention, potentially requiring the storage of location data, device identifiers and communication metadata on all users for extended periods. It would allow the government to require companies to retain metadata for up to one year.

Metadata may not include the content of communications, but it reveals patterns of behaviour, who we talk to, when we talk to them, where we are and how often we interact and for how long. In the digital era, metadata is often more revealing than content. It is the skeleton of a person's private life. Under this bill, that data could be retained, not because it is needed for a specific investigation but because it might become useful in the future. This would be a profound invasion of privacy law. It would replace targeted suspicion with generalized collection.

In addition, the Minister of Public Safety would be granted authority to issue secret orders requiring providers to modify their systems to facilitate access to user information. These orders would not require judicial authorization. They would not be subject to public scrutiny and in, many cases, they may never be disclosed. Instead, they would be approved through an administrative process involving the intelligence commissioner. Now, while that office plays an important role in oversight, it is not equivalent to independent judicial authorization in open court.

We are told this is necessary to ensure that data exists when investigators need it to reconstruct networks, identify victims or attribute foreign interference. Those are legitimate objectives. The question is not whether those objectives matter, but whether the approach is proportionate. Bulk indiscriminate data retention risks treating every Canadian as a potential suspect rather than focusing on targeted investigations. Metadata is not benign. It can review deeply personal information, patterns of movement, associations and behaviours.

Mandating its large-scale retention also creates cybersecurity risks. Concentrating secret, sensitive data makes systems more vulnerable to breaches, misuse and exploitation by malicious actors. We should be cautious about requiring companies to build surveillance capabilities into their systems. Even where the intention is lawful access, these kinds of systemic access points can introduce vulnerabilities. Experts have repeatedly warned that there is no such thing as a perfectly secure back door that only works for one purpose. It exists for everyone.

The committee report on lawful access is instructive here. It acknowledges the operational challenges, gaps in data availability, coordination issues and the need for lawful intercept capability. It also makes clear that any framework must be grounded in necessity, proportionality and legitimacy. It found no support for requiring back doors to encryption. It highlighted a lack of clarity in the government's overall approach. It raised concerns about the absence of a coherent, transparent strategy. That raises another important question. Why was there no more meaningful consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and the independent officer tasked with safeguarding the rights of Canadians? At a time when trust in digital governance is already fragile, that omission matters.

We should also look internationally. Broad data retention regimes have faced legal challenges in other jurisdictions. More targeted alternatives, such as quick-freeze models, have been explored, preserving data tied to specific investigations rather than requiring ongoing generalized collection. Again, the issue is not whether tools are needed. In fast-moving cases, whether it is locating a trafficking victim or identifying a coordinated foreign interference network, timely access to data can make a real difference. The issue is whether this bill strikes the right balance between effectiveness and rights. Does it provide law enforcement with the tools it needs without overreaching? Does it maintain robust judicial oversight? Does it avoid creating systemic cybersecurity risks? Does it respect the charter principles of necessity and proportionality? More importantly, will it withstand constitutional scrutiny? If that balance is not right, the consequences are not just legal, but democratic.

Privacy is not an abstract concept. It is what allows people to speak freely, organize and participate in public life without fear of constant monitoring. When surveillance becomes more expansive and less constrained, it has a chilling effect. That is well documented. Therefore, the question before us is not whether we act, but how we act.

Bill C-22 reflects an attempt to respond to real and evolving threats. It includes improvements over what came before, but it also raises serious, unresolved questions, particularly around the scope of data retention, the role of executive authority, the risks of cybersecurity and the adequacy of oversight. Those are questions this House must examine carefully because effective policing intelligence work can and should operate within robust legal frameworks that preserve judicial oversight and limit data collection to what is strictly necessary. Getting this wrong would not just impact investigations, but it would reshape the relationship between Canadians and the state in the digital age.

Advocates for civil liberties and privacy have very real civil liberties concerns that the bill represents one of the most serious proposed threats to privacy rights in Canada in the past two decades. That is not something we should take lightly because our civil liberties are the cornerstone of our democracy.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the chamber's indulgence, before I get into the crux of my speech, to just acknowledge the passing of a long-time family friend back in my riding, Marie Christie, who passed away on the 13th of this month in her 97th year.

Her family settled in my neck of the woods, just a few kilometres from my home farm, back in 1856. She was part of the Arran Tara Fall Fair board as a director for over 55 years. She was a 40-plus-year member of the Royal Canadian Legion Ladies Auxiliary and a life member of the Legion Branch 144 (Chesley). Marie's legacy of kindness, love and spark will live on in our memories for generations. A celebration of life is ongoing this afternoon, and I want to pass on my deepest condolences to the whole extended Christie family. Marie made a difference and she will be missed by each and every person that ever had the privilege to meet her.

We are here today to talk about Bill C-22. I am going to primarily focus my speech on why this piece of legislation around lawful access is so important. I am going to then spend a lot of time talking about key concerns around the terminology, especially around the concept of back doors. I am going to do this primarily by leveraging the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians' report on lawful access that was submitted to the Prime Minister back on March 4 last year. Unfortunately, it was not tabled in Parliament until September 15.

Finally, I am going to talk about why I believe the Liberal government is failing on communicating on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-22 has three parts: Part 1 provides new tools for law enforcement to access digital information; part 2 provides a framework that ensures electronic service providers establish and maintain a system capable of providing the information that law enforcement is authorized to access; and part 3 mandates a review of the act three years after the provisions come into force.

For those wanting a good explanation of the breakdown of all three parts, I encourage everyone to review the speeches by my Conservative colleagues for Parkland, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, and even the Minister of Justice's intervention on Bill C-22.

Why do we need lawful access in Canada? The NSICOP report, paragraph 198, states:

Lawful access represents one of the most intrusive powers of the state in the protection of national security. Accordingly, Canadians expect strong safeguards for its use, including that it be prescribed by law, serve a legitimate purpose, and be necessary and proportionate. Canadians rightfully want to understand any proposals for new tools and authorities to security and intelligence organizations that have implications for their privacy. However, Canadians also expect security and intelligence organizations to have the tools, policies, and lawful authorities in place to conduct lawful access techniques. The Committee thinks Canadians would be surprised to learn how difficult it actually is for security and intelligence agencies to do so.

Paragraph 200 states:

The Committee is equally concerned that, if left unaddressed, these challenges will undermine Canada’s national security in the long term by increasingly hampering the ability of CSIS and the RCMP to fulfil their respective mandates. The failure to respond to these challenges may also impede Canada’s continued ability to benefit from Five Eyes efforts to detect and respond to security threats if it cannot meaningfully contribute to this partnership.

Paragraph 202 of the report states:

It is critical, however, that the government approach these issues proactively. There are examples internationally of like minded democracies having hurriedly passed controversial lawful access legislation in response to serious national security events. Parliamentarians should have the opportunity to debate new legislation about lawful access with clear eyes and careful consideration, not in a rushed, emotional debate in reaction to a national tragedy. The longer these issues are kept on the backburner, the more the government opens itself up to the risk of following a similar path.

Now I want to get to the idea of intercept capability and the issue of back doors.

Paragraph 104 states:

Policy debates about how to respond to the challenge of encryption have included proposals that the government could require companies to create exceptional access to encryption programs, or backdoors, for security and intelligence organizations. CCCS defines a backdoor as an “undocumented, private, or less detectable-way of gaining remote access to a computer, bypassing authentication measures, and obtaining access to plaintext.” The Citizen Lab states, “[o]nce a backdoor is created, there is no practical guarantee that only state agencies will walk through it. This fundamental flaw makes exceptional access systems an inherent threat to persons who rely on encrypted communications products.” This view is echoed by many cybersecurity experts.

Continuing on in the report:

CSE told the Committee that it also has a concern with backdoors. While it noted that “there are means of creating technical solutions which are currently considered secure,” it stated that it would have a concern with legislation compelling CSPs or software providers to implement backdoors, which could compromise the cybersecurity more generally.

According to the RCMP, backdoors “create vulnerabilities and can weaken the overall security of a network; they create valid security concerns given the potential for these vulnerabilities to be exploited by criminals or other hostile actors. Recognizing the need to protect sensitive information and maintain individuals’ right to privacy, the RCMP does not advocate for the creation of ‘backdoors’ into CSPs’ networks. Instead, it would be safer and more beneficial for law enforcement and national security agencies to be able to leverage the information already accessible by CSPs.”

Some cybersecurity experts and privacy advocates, however, consider lawful intercept capability a backdoor, citing that there is “no such thing as a security backdoor that is only for the ‘good guys.’” Others similarly contend that while it might be argued that “surveillance technology can be built securely and without risk of penetration by hostile forces,” the “track record is not encouraging.”

Neither CSIS or RCMP view intercept capability as a backdoor, because it does not compromise encryption platforms or software. They instead regard the judicially authorized practice of using tools built into a CSP’s system, which are encryption neutral, as using the “front door.”

From paragraph 172, “Importantly, the committee did not hear any government official call for legislation to compel the creation of exceptional access or 'backdoors' to get around encryption.”

Long-winded, but that is all from the report.

This is where I want to get to the issues that I am hearing from constituents and even during debate here in the House, and where the Liberal government is failing.

First off, I talked about this a bit earlier, the Liberals tabled omnibus Bill C-2, which included a few clauses on lawful access. However, the bill was focused on everything from border security and immigration to banning cash transactions, and was doomed to fail from the start. Both Bill C-12 and Bill C-22 are the appropriate compromises as a result. Again, I mentioned this earlier.

Unfortunately, the government's delay of the NSICOP report on lawful access hindered the ability to fully leverage the extensive work done by this bicameral, all-recognized-party committee that only includes findings and recommendations that have unanimous support of all its members. Again, I mentioned this was given to the Prime Minister on March 4, but not tabled here in Parliament until September 15, despite my encouraging a number of the Liberal government ministers to table it back in June.

Here is a key paragraph from the report that will highlight the ongoing challenges around debate. Paragraph 175:

The Committee also observed that privacy and cybersecurity advocates and national security practitioners appear to be talking past one another in debates about encryption and exceptional access for law enforcement and intelligence organizations. As stakeholders debate policy initiatives or legislation, it will be critical for both sides to ensure a common understanding of key concepts. For the government, the Committee suggests that a robust, transparent communication strategy, which explains technical concepts in detail, is fundamental.

Unfortunately, this is where the Liberals' current communications strategy is failing to address this need and needs to be rectified.

In conclusion, Canada absolutely needs updated legislation around lawful access. There have been been calls for this for decades and former governments have tried to, unfortunately, no success.

In my opinion, Bill C-22 is the initial step to get us there. However, I fully believe that Bill C-22 needs full scrutiny at committee and that we, parliamentarians, need to be sure we are talking the same language and addressing the same concerns. In my opinion, the Liberal government is absolutely failing at addressing “a common understanding of key concepts” with respect to Bill C-22. It still has time to fix this.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we have the opportunity to discuss, debate and advance legislation that is going to address the real challenges facing Canadians, it is important that we do so in a fulsome way. This system that we have, our Westminster parliamentary democracy, gives us all specific roles to play. The government advances government legislation and the official opposition has a duty to test what the government puts before the House before it comes into force. This bill is an example of why it is so important that we have an official opposition in our system. It demonstrates the effectiveness of Canada's Conservatives in holding the Liberal government to account for over 11 years.

We have seen a history that has not changed since the last election, or with the selection and then election of a new Liberal Prime Minister. When Liberals are given the opportunity, they will try to grab as much power as they can with both hands, and they usually do it in times when Canadians need help the most and we are looking, as parliamentarians, to try and find ways to help them, to help Parliament work and to help Canadians.

What we saw with the evolution of the legislative process that led us to Bill C-22 is only the most recent example of that, but it will not be the last. There have been some signals about what is to come.

If we look back, even at the COVID pandemic, we saw in the House so much uncertainty and so much anxiety about what was going to happen and what the government would need to do. Perhaps there would be runs on banks. The government sought the approval of the House to have the ability to spend without any accountability from this place for a period of time that was without precedence and without limit on the types of things they would spend hundreds of billions of dollars on.

It was a late hour when it was proposed and there was minimal manning in the chamber. There was only a small cadre of government and opposition members from all parties present, and we had to make decisions quickly. The government had the benefit of the full apparatus, including hundreds of thousands of public servants, but the official opposition, without that advantage to give fulsome review to the proposal by the government, pushed back and was able to place limits on the power that the government was looking to grab, which it did not need.

This is an example similar to that. In Bill C-2, we saw, in response to what has been a growing crime problem in our country over the last decade, a solution to problems that we did not have and an effort to suspend the legal rights of Canadians for convenience, I suppose. It would be for the government to justify why it would have needed some of those powers, and it was not able to make the case publicly or in this place, so Bill C-2 did not proceed.

Bill C-12, also known as the Bill C-2 redo, made it through the House and now we have Bill C-22. These are bills born out of that one piece of legislation.

Why did we oppose it? There were provisions on things that the government, as I said, failed to make its case on. Limiting Canadians' ability to use cash in transactions was one of them.

Allowing individuals other than peace officers, without a warrant, to open Canadians' mail was another, as well as having warrantless access to medical records and private electronic communication.

Again, the government did not demonstrate necessity. It did not say that it was born out of a national security imperative or say that the tools we had did not sufficiently solve the problem for which they prescribed this solution. We are looking to get the result that, of course, is going to help with the scourge of crime in our streets. I know that speakers before me have gone through the truly alarming crime statistics. I know that some have offered anecdotes and that some have offered testimony of very real and painful situations for victims of crime.

We could have addressed this many months ago in the way that we are addressing it now, with the bill brought before the House, made better by the opposition who look to, with all parliamentarians, discuss, review, hear from experts, stakeholders and Canadians, and make further improvements and amendments to the bill when it is at committee

What will the scope of those amendments be? I do not sit on the committee where it will be reviewed. If I have the opportunity to take part in those hearings, I do have some areas that I would look to examine, including questions that are not answered in the legislative text but would be resolved by regulation. We need to get certainty around what that would look like because that is outside the purview of Parliament. We want to have certainty on a number of things. Protecting Canadians also means protecting their rights. We also need to be protected from government overreach. We all have a duty to do that. I am pleased that we are examining the bill in its latest form. It sounds like it will have support to advance to committee, including from the opposition who helped to sharpen the iron.

What we want to see, at all times here, is that Canadians have in Parliament a mechanism to make things better, where there is a check against it. The balance in the chamber has changed in the last week, with a majority of members now on the government side. If we had been in that situation many months ago, the bill would have passed unchanged. The government clearly believes this to be an improvement.

I started by talking about how government looks to grab power with both hands. We are going to see, over the next couple of weeks, the government looking to undo what it agreed to for the duration of Parliament, and that is the composition of our committees. I want to take my last minute to implore all members, members in the governing party especially, to consider that we are better collectively when we are able to improve on that legislation through a truly collaborative process, and not just simply by majority rule or by diminishing or eliminating the rights of the minority. We need to protect the rights of Canadians.

I look forward to the study of the bill at committee, so that we can do that, especially at this time, as we have seen, over the last 11 years, the scourge of crime in our streets.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a good record. In 15 years, I have never heckled in this place, but I had a very strong temptation to respond and to encourage the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, to inject levity, and say, “Hello, hello, hello” back to him when he made the Grand Canyon comment, which may go down in the annals of parliamentary history as a good way of not breaking our rule of not pointing out who may or may not be present in the Chamber.

The member asked what kind of failure I thought Bill C-2 was. It was a catastrophic failure. It was a bill I never saw over the course of the summer. It was tabled in June. Over the course of last summer, I think 400 different organizations from various points of view, from refugee rights and civil liberties to how to control the Internet and rights to privacy, had a breadth of pulling together a massive coalition to oppose the bill.

On that ground alone, perhaps the Liberal government should be congratulated for never before having launched a bill so bad that 400 civil society groups banded together to stop it. The government, while stopping Bill C-2, never admitted it had made a mistake, again, by using a novel method of ignoring the opposition, except to table in September 2025 Bill C-12 and then to table Bill C-22. They all dealt with largely the same subject matter.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak virtually, since a situation came up that prevented me from participating in person. Those are the rules of the House.

I am grateful for the chance to speak to Bill C-22. I do not have lengthy parliamentarian experience compared to other members, but I have been a member of Parliament for nearly 15 years, and I have never seen anything like what the government has done in the area of the legislation that we now have before us. It initially came to us in June as Bill C-2, and in that bill there were provisions for access and warrantless access that were combined with “strong borders” provisions, as they were then called.

I just want to draw attention to the process of the legislation, because it is highly unusual. Again, obviously there are people who have more experience. The member for Vancouver Centre, for example, has served far longer than I have, but I have never seen anything like this, for what it is worth. We started with Bill C-2, which was not withdrawn. It remained there, and then it was largely replaced, although it was not withdrawn, by Bill C-12. Now we have Bill C-22, picking up on elements of what was unacceptable in Bill C-2.

I have heard the Prime Minister in press comments talk about the ways the new Liberal majority plans to change our committee composition. Somehow there is a lot of showboating going on, the Prime Minister said, a lot of grandstanding, but honestly, the process of studying legislation has some precedents and parliamentary tradition that really do matter. One is to give a bill proper study. This is interrupted by the innovation of the government in never admitting it has made a mistake or in not amending a bill that is on the Order Paper but rather replacing it with a series of repeated starts and stops.

I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, whose humour I enjoyed earlier, might make a comment on this. It is bizarre and certainly unusual. We started with Bill C-2, and then we had Bill C-12, which continued the anti-refugee rights provisions that were in Bill C-2. Now we have moved to Bill C-22, on access, and the bill of course is dealing with access to information that is important for law enforcement.

This is an unusual process, to put it mildly. Today I want to focus on what is in Bill C-22 and on the reasons that I certainly hope the government will go to a more normal parliamentary procedure, which would be to amend Bill C-22 to achieve the kind of consensus that would allow me, as a Green Party member of Parliament, to vote for it. I cannot vote for it as it is now on the Order Paper.

Again, let me step back and say, as I have said in the House before, on the record, that Bill C-22 represents improvements over the portions that were originally put forward in Bill C-2. The original access legislation would have allowed, for instance, postal workers to open our mail, and it would have allowed access to subscriber information from telecommunications companies without notice to the user.

However, while there has been much improvement in requiring warrants, the warrants would still be required to meet a threshold that the hon member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith referred to earlier in debate today. It is a completely unprecedented threshold for a warrant to obtain information and access to information: “reasonable grounds to suspect”. We find that language in proposed subsection 487.0142(2).

“Reasonable grounds to believe” is a well-understood concept. There is much jurisprudence on what is required to have reasonable grounds to believe. There is zero jurisprudence on what it means to have reasonable grounds to suspect. It is a lower threshold. It does not make sense to put legal terms in that have no foundation in law. It would undoubtedly create confusion in how the legislation would be used by law enforcement.

I note that the Liberals have changed the definition of who would be able to access, from police officer to public officer, which would mean that the same terminology could apply to a CSIS agent or a police officer. The judge issuing a warrant, under many of these sections, would merely have to determine if there are reasonable grounds to suspect. Again, there is no background in law for this.

When I say “jurisprudence”, to break that down to common sense, that just means we can go back and look up legal decisions where courts have struggled with what a word means, so the court dealing with the matter before it has somewhere to go to see what the previous judges said. The court can see the record of court cases on this matter so it knows what it is looking for. In this case, with the use of novel terminology, “reasonable grounds to suspect”, people do not know what they are looking for. A judge would have to deal with the issue for the first time, and I think we could say, at a minimum, that this is unwise in drafting.

Where does this leave us now with Bill C-22? There are many improvements, particularly in part one, but there are some concerns with part two, as has been noted by numerous commentators, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to a group called OpenMedia. By the way, I pay a lot of attention to OpenMedia, because it is a very impressive organization as a small non-government organization that worries about Internet access and public policy. It also happens to be headed by an executive director who is one of my constituents. I thank Matt Hatfield from Salt Spring Island for his diligence in working with an organization that represents the concerns of thousands of Canadians.

However, the concerns we have with Bill C-22 continue. The concerns are largely in the one area, and I asked the hon. Minister for Public Safety to entertain amendments on this matter, amendments to understand that if what the bill would require is surveillance capacity from Internet providers, it would mean they would have to permanently insert spyware into the platforms that Canadians use.

This would create access to information about Canadians that would be accessible not only by Canadian public officers and by Canadian intelligence officers, such as from CSIS, but could also potentially be open to surveillance, and that data could be accessed, by foreign governments, including the United States government. A number of Canadians would have concerns about having their personal Internet information accessed by foreign governments. I think that is an unintentional consequence of the way the bill is drafted that needs to be repaired. We do not want surveillance built into the permanent collection of data, which would be required under the terms of the act as it is currently drafted.

I want to make it clear that I would be very pleased to vote for the legislation. I will be preparing amendments and taking them before committee. Although, under the bizarre terms in which I operate on committees, I am not allowed to vote on my own amendments, I hope that other members of the House and members of the committee will show support, and I hope the Minister for Public Safety will improve the bill to bring it to a state where people can vote for it and get it over the finish line.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Indeed, it is a pleasure to rise both in my capacity as a parliamentarian for that area and as the shadow minister, or critic, for public safety.

My colleague hit on a number of issues that are confronting Parliament in the form of Bill C-22. We have seen a number of pieces of legislation come through that are related to Bill C-22. Bill C-2 came, then we had Bill C-12, and now there is Bill C-22.

Does my colleague agree that the fact that the government has put forward Bill C-22 is a tacit acknowledgement of the failure of Bill C-2, which we were told would be a cure-all for all things ailing Canadian law?

Criminal Code

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise today and speak about Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Code, restitution orders.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for bringing forward this bill and for drawing attention to the important work that community organizations, emergency services and victim support services provide to communities across Canada every single day. Often, these organizations provide vital services to victims of crime at moments when help is critically important.

We speak frequently in this place about how the criminal justice system is a shared responsibility in Canada and all levels of government have an important role to play in addressing the needs of victims and survivors of crime. As the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights noted during the last Parliament in its report on improving support for victims of crime, “collaboration between governments and community organizations is key to providing holistic, effective services to victims”.

I know I speak for many Canadians when I express my sincere gratitude for the constant efforts of the people who work in these organizations and their dedication to assist members of their communities when they need it the most.

I also share my colleague's concern about the catastrophic impact of illicit drugs on Canadian communities. I have no doubt that every one of my colleagues here has personally witnessed the consequences of this crisis in their communities across the country. We must all work together to fix this.

While there remains much work to be done, I do wish to highlight that the Government of Canada is taking action. As one example, the government has already introduced legislation, through Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. This bill proposes measures to ensure that law enforcement has the tools to keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crack down on money laundering. While this is not an easy fight, it is one that I am proud the Government of Canada is committed to.

My hope today is to assist our debate by discussing the way the current restitution framework in the Criminal Code operates and by raising some considerations that may be helpful for members to consider as this bill moves into study in committee.

To begin, restitution is a part of the criminal sentencing process. It is one of the tools a judge has in their tool box when sentencing or discharging an offender, and it is something that a judge can use in the important task of imposing a fit sentence on an offender that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and their degree of responsibility. When it is ordered by a judge, a restitution order requires an offender to pay for specific expenses that are linked to the offence they committed. Restitution can be a component of a probation order or a conditional sentence, or it can be included as a stand-alone order.

Bill C-238 would amend the stand-alone restitution order provision found in section 738 of the Criminal Code. As it currently reads, section 738 outlines several different types of expenses that an order under that section can apply to. Some of the expenses listed in this section are more general and apply to a number of different offences in the Criminal Code, while others are drafted to respond to specific offences. As examples of the more general types of expenses in the section, a restitution order under section 738 can address property damage resulting from the commission of an offence or the arrest of an offender, or it can address bodily injury or psychological harm due to the crime, including loss of income or support.

Section 738 also covers costs related to specific crimes. It allows for the payment of reasonable expenses incurred for housing, moving, food, child care and transportation if the spouse, common-law partner, child or any other person must move out of the offender's household because of bodily harm or threat of bodily harm. It allows for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by a victim to re-establish their identity or correct their credit rating following identity theft or identity fraud. Lastly, section 738 applies to expenses incurred by victims to remove intimate images published without their consent from the Internet or other digital network.

While I have spoken to what restitution orders under section 738 can do, it is important to note that there are also things they cannot do. I mentioned earlier in my remarks that restitution orders are a part of the criminal sentencing process. In all of the examples I have described, the amount set out in a restitution order must result from the offence the offender committed, or their arrest or attempted arrest. Restitution amounts must be easy to calculate and not seriously contested.

Restitution under the Criminal Code is not intended to replace the system of civil courts in Canada, and criminal courts are not the right place to settle complex questions about the amount of money that should be paid in the order. There are types of impacts on a victim of a criminal offence that can be significant, but which restitution orders cannot address: for example, pain and suffering or emotional distress.

With this in mind, we should consider, as we study this bill, which kinds of expenses restitution is designed to capture. Many of the expenses that community organizations must pay in order to provide the important services they do may be impossible to link to specific offenders and offences. It will be important to ensure that any action in this area provides a clear direction to sentencing courts about what kinds of expenses can be sought in a restitution order: that those expenses are appropriate subjects of restitution and that they result from the offence an offender is being sentenced for.

While the subject of this bill is restitution orders, given our discussion about the important work of community organizations, I would also like to take a brief moment before my time is up to note some of the ways in which the Government of Canada supports community organizations, including community-based victim services.

One example of how this support is provided is Justice Canada's victims fund. The victims fund provides grants and contributions to support projects and activities that encourage the development of new approaches, promote access to justice, improve the capacity of service providers, foster the establishment of referral networks and increase awareness of services available to victims of crime and their families. In 2025-26, over $24 million was provided through the victims fund to assist or support non-governmental organizations. This money supported important projects and services throughout Canada that made a real difference for victims.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this bill, and I look forward to the committee's consideration of it.

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every time I rise to speak when you are in the chair, I know you have some fun pronouncing the name of my riding, as it is quite a mouthful for any chair occupant. You did a great job of pronouncing it.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for public safety and emergency preparedness, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-22. It is important to note that the government already tried once to introduce a bill on lawful access. That was Bill C-2, which was introduced last June, nearly a year ago. Bill C-2 was severely criticized, not only by civil society, but also by major organizations, which argued that the bill made no sense.

I understand that the government worked very quickly, although perhaps not responsibly enough, because it also wanted to please the American government, especially President Trump, who was threatening Canada at the time. To respond quickly, the government drafted a bill hastily without conducting all of the consultations necessary to produce a high-quality piece of legislation.

Today we are debating Bill C-22, which builds on the principles of Bill C-2 but is much more comprehensive and much better crafted, because the government sat down at the table with various groups and consulted with them. There are some groups that say they were not consulted and would have liked to be, but it does seem like the work got done. However, there is still more to do.

We cannot necessarily oppose Bill C-22, because we know that as soon as it gets its majority, the government will take steps to have Bill C-22 studied in committee and passed. I am well aware of that. However, I was truly delighted with the minister's response today. I was satisfied. He told me that he was still open to amendments. We have ideas stemming from our own consultations, and it is still possible to improve Bill C-22. I was really pleased to hear the Minister of Public Safety answer yes to my question about whether he was open to amendments. That is to his credit, because I believe he really wants the best possible bill to achieve his objectives, namely public safety and privacy protection.

I could not help but say “mon Dieu”. I was tempted to say “my God” but I will not say that. It occurs to me that, if the government had been in a majority position last June, Bill C‑2 would have passed, which would have been very bad. That brings me to what the opposition can offer whether the government has a minority or a majority. When the work is taken seriously and is carried out professionally and diligently, our role is to help improve a bill by listening to experts and asking questions.

Bill C‑22 does have some privacy safeguards that were missing from Bill C‑2. However, are they enough? We are going to be asking questions about that. We still have a lot of questions on this matter.

As a reminder, “Part 1 amends various Acts to modernize certain provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation.” It amends the Criminal Code and the Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act. It amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to allow the Minister of Justice to authorize the enforcement in Canada of foreign orders requiring the disclosure of transmission data or information. It amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act.

In other words, this bill amends quite a few existing statutes, so an in-depth study is needed. I have no doubt the bill will go to committee, and I am eager to see how it will be handled now that the government has a majority. I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons call for collaboration and openness. I heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety talk about how open they are. I look forward to witnessing that if the bill gets the support it needs to go to committee.

Part 2 of the bill provides further details on how access to information will be granted and regulated, and so it creates a new law. Naturally, Part 3, as is almost always the case in bills from this Parliament, indicates that Parliament must review the legislation three years after the law comes into force. It is true: Parliament will need to take the time, take this seriously and review this legislation three years after it receives royal assent. In fact, the Bloc Québécois proposed such a review for Bill C-8 on cybersecurity. We made that proposal because cybersecurity, cyber-attacks and basically the entire digital landscape are evolving so rapidly that bills can quickly become outdated given the circumstances, the technologies involved and the ingenuity of unscrupulous individuals seeking to attack our critical systems. This is therefore a task that will require collaboration, and I look forward to our work in committee.

I can assure you that, if the bill makes it to committee, we in the Bloc Québécois will work on it with the utmost seriousness and rigour. That is why I was a little offended when the Prime Minister said that now that the Liberals have a majority, it is time to get serious. I have always taken my role as an opposition member seriously and have always taken a constructive approach. Quite frankly, I do not really fit the mould of someone who obstructs or refuses to co-operate, and I have plenty of examples to prove it.

I think the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security are exemplary. We studied Bill C-12 and Bill C-8, important government bills that required significant and professional contributions from the opposition parties. I will say it again: It bothered me when the Prime Minister said that now that the Liberals have a majority, the serious work can begin. It is a nice sound bite, but it could be offensive to certain members who take their work very seriously.

We do have some minor concerns about Bill C‑22. Some concerns are more significant than others. In particular, there is the whole issue of the definition of essential services. I think that needs to be clarified. We also have a problem with everything that can be changed by way of regulation. We look forward to hearing from experts, if the bill is ever sent to committee, to see how we can limit those elements that will be set through regulation and establish them in the legislation instead. I look forward to hearing the arguments.

I want to raise another point. When we compare ourselves to the Five Eyes, people always say that Canada lags behind. There was plenty of testimony at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to this effect, and I believe it too. However, some aspects of Bill C‑22 are more invasive than they are in the other Five Eyes countries. For example, Australia has an organization similar to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or the NSIRA. However, the Australian organization has a more important role than the role given to the NSIRA in the context of Bill C‑22.

I hope my colleagues understand that it is with a constructive approach that we will continue to debate Bill C‑22 and try to understand how we can improve it. Accordingly, I think the minister and his team can count on the usual co-operation from the Bloc Québécois.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that this is just not true. We have a suite of legislation dealing with the issue of crime. I make reference to lawful access, number one, in Bill C-2, which dealt with border security. Also, there is Bill C-9, on hate propaganda; Bill C-14, which is bail reform legislation; and Bill C-16, which would restore things like mandatory minimum sentences. Bill C-12 is another important aspect in the stabilization of immigration and securing Canada's borders.

There is a substantial amount of legislation. All one needs to do is read some of the debate that was taking place at the end of 2025. They will find that the Conservative Party members then, the far-right Conservative Party members I must add, were in opposition and preventing legislation from passing. The only reason we do not have lawful access today in Canada is the Conservative Party of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by commenting on a question I posed to the minister who introduced the legislation. In my question, I talked about how the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to Winnipeg, and we met with some interested citizens with regard to lawful access and dealing with the issue of extortion. We then met with the Winnipeg police chief and the Winnipeg Police Association, all of whom were exceptionally encouraging and very supportive of the principle of lawful access. That is what this entire piece of legislation is about, in essence. That is why I believe it is so very important that we take the opportunity to recognize the legislation for what it is, an effective tool that can be used in the tool belt for law enforcement officers and CSIS, and I am concerned with some of the responses that I received.

When I posed the question to the minister, he commented that it is not just the Winnipeg police department or the chief of police, both of whom I met with, but it is throughout Canada. Law enforcement agencies in every region of the country have seen the benefits of lawful access. If we were to canvass every member of the Liberal caucus today, we would find that there is a desire to see Bill C-22 pass.

It has been less than a year since Canadians elected a new Prime Minister, and he made it very clear that he wanted to establish a suite of legislative initiatives that would deal with the issue of crime. It is interesting that we now have Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-14, Bill C-16 and today Bill C-22, and I will provide a brief comment on each of those. It demonstrates the degree to which we want substantive changes to our Criminal Code and other legislation so we can provide safer homes, communities and nation.

That is what Bill C-2 set out to do right from the get-go. Let us remember that Bill C-2 was introduced last June, within a couple of months after the election. The election was at the end of April, and the legislation was introduced in June. Bill C-2 incorporated lawful access. It incorporated things such as stabilizing immigration and strengthening Canada's borders. Unfortunately, the opposition made the decision to go all out in opposing Bill C-2. As a direct result, a lot of the initiatives that Bill C-2 would have supported were obstructed by the Conservative Party of Canada, and it is unfortunate. It is not the only piece of legislation that the Conservatives obstructed.

When we think of lawful access, I would encourage members opposite to talk to their local law enforcement agencies and the constituents they represent who feel concerned about the issue of extortion. When the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime was in Winnipeg, that was the issue that the group we met with wanted to talk about, the issue of extortion. Whether they had already gotten a phone call or they realized that a phone call could be made, there was a genuine concern. We talked about that for a good 45 minutes to an hour.

That was followed by a meeting with the law enforcement agency. The chief of police and the Winnipeg Police Association both talked about the need for Bill C-22, which was actually incorporated in Bill C-2, which could have been passed long ago, and how it would in fact have an impact on issues like extortion. Flash back to four, five, six months ago, when we had Conservatives standing up and talking about the issue of extortion. They were criticizing the government for not doing enough, when we had legislation before the House and the Conservatives were obstructing it from being able to pass. We witnessed that all of last year.

I make reference to Bill C-2 because that is where Bill C-22 comes out of. We also had Bill C-9, the hate legislation, and Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation. Let us remember the bail reform legislation and how long we had to wait for that. I was standing in this very spot back in November, saying to the opposition, “Let us pass bail reform legislation. We could actually pass it before the end of the year.” That was at the end of 2025. However, the Conservatives were obstructing the passage of that legislation.

We also have Bill C-16 before the House today. We have no sense of where the official opposition is going to land on that legislation. Is it going to be their intent to oppose and prevent its passage? It is a legitimate question. That is the question I asked the Conservative critic today when he made his presentation on Bill C-22. Not once but twice I asked him that question. At the end of the day, Bill C-22 has been out there for the last couple of weeks in terms of the actual legislation, but the issue itself has been debated for months, and not necessarily just inside the House. It has been talked about inside and outside Ottawa, and in our communities. I think it was fair for me to ask the Conservative shadow minister if the Conservatives would be supporting the legislation. When I asked the question, not once but twice, there was no indication whatsoever that we could anticipate support from the Conservative Party of Canada. That is concerning. It should be concerning to all of us.

The Prime Minister has made it very clear that at times there is a need for us to work collectively and to put some of the partisan politics to the side to see if we can actually pass legislation.

All we need to do is take a look at what happened this morning. Bailey's law actually passed through the concurrence stage and is now in third reading. It has one more hour of debate, and then I expect it will pass. At the committee stage, the government moved a number of amendments, and fortunately the opposition was in agreement with those amendments. We were actually able to pass a substantive piece of legislation that I anticipate all members are now going to support.

I wish the same attitude and sense of co-operation that have been shown by the government on a Conservative private member's piece of legislation would also apply to government legislation.

That is why I would suggest to us that it is discouraging, in the sense that Bill C-2 was actually very clear. The Conservatives were not going to support it in any fashion whatsoever. It ultimately led to two other pieces of legislation having to come out as a direct result, Bill C-12 and now Bill C-22.

If we look at it, Bill C-12 has actually now passed through. That was to do with what the Prime Minister and this government committed to Canadians, which was to look at stabilizing the immigration file. It is going to go a long way in being able to assist with that. It also dealt with some border security issues that came out of Bill C-2.

We now go to Bill C-22, lawful access. We have law enforcement agencies from across our nation supporting the legislation and lawful access. Did members know that Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access? In fact, we are the only country in the G7 that does not have lawful access. Already today, in listening to the debate, I am concerned.

When, for example, the member from the Bloc spoke about it, he said that he does not know if it is overreach. This is what the Bloc is saying, that it could be overreach, where the government is going to be able to look into a person's bank account or read emails.

I raised the issue with the member opposite when it came time for a question. My concern is that we are going to see, with Bill C-22, the same thing we witnessed on Bill C-9.

Bill C-9 dealt with hate crimes. It actually put in protections for churches, mosques, gurdwaras and temples. Misinformation that flowed out about that legislation created a fear that many of my constituents and Canadians had, not based on fact but based on misinformation. We have to counter that.

I would hope that Bill C-22 would not be one of those pieces of legislation, once again, where we will see the Conservative Party putting its own interests ahead of good, sound public policy that is in the best interest of Canadians. For anyone to even imply, in any fashion whatsoever, that the government wants to read one's emails or know how much one has in one's bank account, I think, does a great disservice to the chamber.

I believe that the decision should be based on facts. There is absolutely no merit whatsoever to that argument. Remember, what we are talking about is a confirmation of service, finding out whether a particular individual or home has an IP service location. If the answer to that is yes, there is then a process to go through that incorporates our courts. There is no information provided other than a yes on an IP address.

I think that is an essential aspect to policing today. If members do not believe me, they should ask law enforcement agencies and many of the different stakeholders out there.

This is something that I believe is absolutely necessary. Those who would ask, “Is it really?” should ask themselves why it is that every other G7 country has lawful access, but not Canada. That has been a part of the frustration of minority governments over the last number of years.

Here we have good public policy to help equip law enforcement officers to do the types of things that they need to do in order to protect the public, but we have opposition members who will oppose in many ways for the sake of opposing.

I want to highlight that when we talk about enabling law enforcement, we are talking about Canadian Security Intelligence Service, RCMP and local law enforcement officers who will often take a look and have investigations that are ongoing. It would enable those to enforce legally obtaining certain information, such as data and communications, from an electronic service provider. That is what the bill is proposing to do. It would update critical investigation tools.

Earlier, there was reference to phone books, and I provided a comment on that. Things change over time. When I first was elected, it was pretty easy to identify who was in a house. People have made reference to phone books. There was also a thing called the “who called me” book. I loved it because it was just like a voters list and anyone could access it. One could take a street and it would have the phone number and the name of individual living there. One could probably identify up to 90% of a population, where they were living, their phone number and name. People had to specifically ask to have their number taken out of a phone book or the “who called me” book, and they had to pay for that service.

Things have changed a great deal. There is a default position that we have to protect the privacy of Canadians. This is a government that very much understands that and is focused on the protection of those rights.

It was the Liberal Party back in the 1980s that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The privacy of individuals is protected under this legislation.

The shadow minister, in criticizing the legislation, knows full well that if we allow the legislation to go to committee, the Conservatives will be afforded the opportunity to ask all forms of questions. The issues they have can be addressed in great detail.

Second reading is a debate on the substance and the principle of the legislation; it is not necessarily designed to go into the great details. Nothing prevents us from being able to allow legislation to get to committee stage, much like how we had two hours of debate on the private member's bill, it went to committee, amendments were made and then it came here.

We are going to have a lot more than two hours of debate on this legislation. It will go to committee, and people will be afforded the opportunity to have that dialogue. We are open to improving the legislation if the need is there.

I would encourage members of the Conservative Party to support Bill C-22. It is good, it is sound and it is in the public's interest.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands referenced my colleague from Winnipeg North and how much we have debated whether Canada Post can open people's mail, so I am not going to get into that for what would probably be the 32nd time or so.

I do agree with my colleague on the point of Bill C-2 morphing into Bill C-12 and now morphing into Bill C-22, and this tacit acknowledgement of, “Wow, we really got it wrong. Not only did we get it wrong on one thing, but we got it wrong on multiple things because we are not even pursuing Bill C-2 as a government.” This is the Liberals' point of view. “We got Bill C-12 right enough for it to pass and now we are trying to get Bill C-22 right enough for it to pass.”

When it comes to part 1 of this bill, what I do notice is that, for instance, the police or a state actor cannot go and get information from just anybody, a general practitioner, Facebook or groups like that. It is strictly restricted to telecoms, so we can see the government really pulling back on what it was seeking from this. I think that is an acknowledgement that Bill C-2 really did miss the mark.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues on which the member and I do not agree, but I think we do agree that there has never been anything like this not only in this Parliament but in any Parliament of Canada. A single bill, originally Bill C-2, the strong borders act, was so universally panned and attacked by so many civil society groups, a coalition of more than 300, that the bill then had to morph from Bill C-2 to Bill C-12 and now, to try to get to warrantless access, to Bill C-22. There has never been a course of legislation like this.

I would ask my hon. colleague, with whom I agreed on many of his attempts to improve the bill in committee, does he think we are getting closer? We have at least gotten rid of the original provisions that post office employees could open the mail without a warrant. The member for Winnipeg North may be the only member in this place who laments Bill C-2—

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

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

We are only about an hour and a half into today, and this is my third time rising. What an honour it is to speak in the House of Commons, not only so frequently but also on matters of such import. We are dealing with really important issues today. Sometimes we deal with things that are quite performative in the House, but I can candidly say that, today, this is an issue of fairly significant importance.

Before I start, I want to recognize one of my very good friends, who is celebrating a birthday. Philip Lee is 48 years old. He is somebody I went to high school with and have known for the past 36 years now. We have had the opportunity to travel together, and he has been a wonderful friend. I would like to wish Phil all the best in the upcoming year.

I also want to recognize two people from Kamloops who accomplished something really significant. Johnny Hicks and Brady Milburn are part of the Denver Pioneers hockey club. That club is part of the NCAA. This weekend, the team was crowned the men's NCAA champion. I congratulate Johnny and Brady, who are both Kamloops products, and the whole Denver Pioneers team. Winning the NCAA championship is a tremendous accomplishment.

What brings us here today is Bill C-22, but we have to look at the past to inform how we got here. Bill C-2 was heralded as a cure-all, a panacea, if we will, to all the things that ailed the justice system. If only we could pass Bill C-2, everything would be fine.

Unfortunately, we have heard that before in the House. For years, we were told there were no issues with bail and sentencing, yet here we are now with a so-called new government, with many of the same cabinet ministers as the old government, and we are still dealing with the same issues.

I believe the minister referenced Commissioner Carrique talking about this type of legislation going way back to 1997. In fact, Conservatives put forward legislation on lawful access and were roundly mocked by Liberals. There is a famous quote, which I will not repeat here today, that stemmed from that very debate, and now we hear there is a rush to pass this legislation. I understand why lawful access is so important, but if there was a rush, then why were the Liberals opposed to it in the last decade? If there was a rush, then why has it taken the Liberal government 11 years to bring this bill forward? If there was a rush, then why was Bill C-2 so clumsily drafted?

We are here because of Bill C-2. In fact, if we look at portions of Bill C-2, we can see that we now have two bills that stem from it: Bill C-12 and Bill C-22. Both of those bills have dramatically remodelled what was contained in Bill C-2. In fact, Bill C-12 renovated so much of the text of Bill C-2 that it underwent further amendments at committee. I believe that my colleague, the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, did a great deal of work and produced a number of amendments at committee that were supported by the government or the Bloc and ultimately made it into the bill. That bill was a substantially better version of portions of Bill C-2. What do we have in Bill C-22? We have parts 14 and 15 of Bill C-2.

One of the things that always strikes me is how, in the past, Conservatives heard criticisms of omnibus bills. Bill C-2 is about as omnibus as it gets. I think it would have impacted something like 11 pieces of legislation. I do not want to be quoted on that because I cannot remember, but it would have impacted so many pieces of legislation and created pieces of legislation. It is well over 100 pages. It is an omnibus bill to the point where we now have two bills that have stemmed from it, and I think we probably have three or four distinct subject matters that are contained within Bill C-2 that still have not been addressed. The part of Bill C-2 we have before us now is the notion of lawful access.

I am going to focus on what is in Bill C-2, but I will also focus on some of the concerns I have. My hope is that the government will take these concerns legitimately and that we can proceed in the spirit of open and constructive dialogue.

My colleague for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound asked a question. He sits on the national security committee, commonly known as NSICOP, which provides secret and confidential advice to the Prime Minister. Those who are on the committee are not permitted to speak about anything that is discussed in committee, and would be subject to very significant penalties under criminal law if they did, but one thing my colleague and friend for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound spoke about was not only the necessity, from NSICOP's point of view, of lawful access, but also what should be in that legislation.

As Conservatives, we will always take the position that initiatives to help law enforcement, initiatives that allow those in law enforcement to do their jobs more easily, is something we will always be open to, but we have to make sure that those revisions to the law are both charter-compliant and consistent with the rights of privacy that we believe all Canadians should enjoy.

In my view, the government has, in the past, tried to overstep its boundaries at times. Bill C-2, in parts 14 and 15, is an example, as it goes so far as to use language like any threat or “any action”. We saw that in Bill C-8 as well. Bill C-2 essentially wants the government to have access to “any information”. Well, that goes quite too far. I was happy to see that the government, at the very least, went back to the drawing board.

Previously, a question from the government was about how the Conservatives could have just passed this in Bill C-2. Well, no, Conservatives would not have passed this in Bill C-2 because Bill C-2 is a poorly written piece of legislation. If Conservatives should have passed it in Bill C-2, then the government should have put forward a better piece of legislation, and I would go so far as to say that the government is admitting such because it has put forward Bill C-22. If Bill C-2 had no issues, if it did not, in the eyes of experts throughout the country, take significant liberties with privacy rights and things like that, then we would not be here today. The fact that the government has put forward Bill C-22 is itself an admission that Bill C-2, in its omnibus form, is, unfortunately, poorly drafted. That is what brings us here today.

What are some of the things in Bill C-2? There are three parts. The first part we are looking at is on tools for law enforcement to access digital information. I do not believe this is going to be a controversial part of the bill. Right now, based on decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada over roughly the last 12 years, law enforcement has to write a great number of court orders, which is how I would put it. Another way to put it is “judicial authorizations”, and some people call them “warrants”. They often take the form of a warrant or a production order, such as an order to a business saying, “Is Frank Caputo your subscriber, yes or no?” Then it would say, “Please produce all the Frank Caputo subscriber information.” Those might be two distinct questions. The problem is that this takes time.

Every time somebody has to go and get a court order, somebody has to write up that court order. They have to swear an affidavit in support of that court order. That takes time. As Conservatives, we recognize that when there are inefficiencies in the law, we need to address them. That is something that I do not think people take a great deal of issue with, but sometimes the devil is in the details and we need to ask further questions about those things.

The current process in regard to subscriber information is informed by the decision of Regina v. Spencer. Now, that decision came out in 2014. Spencer impacted the obtaining of production orders, just to put it colloquially. I am sure somebody is going to be looking at the headnote of Spencer and will compare my words. I am just talking generally here, not with the legal precision that I would in court. We are looking at getting production orders for just about everything for which a subscriber may have an expectation of privacy. That would change with Bill C-22.

Bykovets was another really key decision of the court, 10 years after Spencer. I believe Bykovets was about the expectation of privacy in a person's IP address. This was significant because most people do not know their IP address. A lot of people do not even know that they have an IP address. If they do know they have an IP address, they might not even know how they get it. When Bykovets said there is an expectation of privacy in that, I believe some legal scholars said, “Okay, that's interesting.”

I am not here to take potshots at decisions. I am here to recognize what the issue is. Whenever there is an expectation of privacy, then we need a search that is authorized by law through a court order. That meant a court order was required to get an IP address, even though finding an IP address was essentially akin to finding a phone number in the phone book. That was the analogy, as I recall. Most of us in the House will remember phone books. The member for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong probably does not, but he is probably the only one. The rest of us remember what it was like to get phone books. Let us face it, phone books were everywhere. Anybody could find anything. Anybody, as I understand it, with some semblance of digital acumen would be able to get an IP address, but nonetheless, the courts said there is an expectation of privacy.

These are all issues we are dealing with right now, within the current framework, that part 1 would address. As well, let us not forget that these are often offences against children and terrorist offences. Those are the two offences that are probably of the most interest to the legislators in the House, as in how we address those things.

Let us get into part 2 a little bit. I have skipped over some of part 1 because I want to give part 2 what it requires in terms of debate. Part 2 talks about ministerial orders. I am mindful of the fact that the Intelligence Commissioner now has a role to play within these ministerial orders.

The thing that I think we need to look at or that I would want more information on, as I craft my position and Conservatives craft our position on this, is that when there is a ministerial order that is secret, the government should be prepared to substantiate why it is secret and if it should be secret in every single instance. For instance, we spoke about NSICOP recently and how everything that is about national security will be top secret. There may be a place to say yes, if it is going to impact national security, but does that mean that every single ministerial order is going to be secret or should be secret?

Furthermore, when it comes to the Intelligence Commissioner, precisely what role would that person play, and how would their independent oversight impact a number of the concerns? One of the key areas that part 2 of Bill C-22 impacts is that it compels third parties to keep information. I want to be very clear here that the information, in my reading of the bill, would still require a warrant. I believe the way the minister explained it was that the information would be kept and then could be accessed. That is, the government does not simply receive the information, but it is present in order to be accessed.

It is my view that whenever the government tells anybody, including electronic service providers, that they must keep something, including metadata, it is something we need to ask questions about. This is probably one of the biggest issues. As I understand it, the bill's intent is to require that metadata be kept. That can include location services, but it is not meant to include the content. That is my reading of the bill. I think this needs to be closely scrutinized, and I look forward to asking more questions in the next two days of debate here on that very issue.

First, I would love to hear about the constitutionality of the requirement to have a third party keep something so the government can access it. I am not going to stand here and say whether that is or is not constitutional as it is not something I have studied thus far, but I think it is a question Canadians may have.

Second, on the idea of the requirement that a person's location be kept, who is going to keep that? Where is the data going to be stored? In my riding, we have a huge data storage facility. Are there going to be requirements as to how and where that data is stored and things like that?

This is a very complicated piece of legislation. I think somebody could read Bill C-22 three times and think they are starting to get a sense of what it actually says. When we deal with pieces of legislation that are quite intricate, obviously we need to develop our positions not only in a careful way but in a way that is sound. That is what I hope to do and what we as Conservatives hope to do.

Is there a mechanism by which web browsing history can be captured under Bill C-22? I think a lot of people would be alarmed if that were the case, from a privacy point of view. The issue of data retention is not a new one. One of the principal issues that I went up against, as somebody who prosecuted Internet offences against kids, was data retention. I was speaking with police officers today, and ISP addresses, in some cases, can actually disappear within as little as 30 days. I am not saying we should not be looking at that. We should absolutely be looking at that, but perhaps there should be limits.

If we are going to impact privacy rights, maybe that should be based on the offence. If we are looking at a sexual offence, perhaps the terminology we could look at is “an offence against the person”. All sexual offences are, by their very nature, violent, and I do not mean to dichotomize there. However, with respect to sexual offences, sexual offences against children or investigations into violence against the person, if there are concerns, perhaps there could be a narrowing so there would not be simply a fishing expedition to try to find an offence. Rather, we would be looking at all offences.

I see my time is coming to a close. Before I end, I want to acknowledge three people: Kelly Hunter, a baseball and softball umpire who was inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame this weekend; Jessica Hewitt, a speed skater who was inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame this weekend; and Glenn Armstrong, a football coach who was also inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame. These three individuals have made dynamic contributions to the Kamloops area in sport, and I congratulate them.

With that, I will enjoy any questions.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the new government is ensuring that we have control over the immigration system.

Today we passed Bill C-12, which gives greater law enforcement powers to both the CBSA and the IRCC. For example, when people are using the asylum system to game the system, it will enable officials to disallow their claims.

We are taking control of the immigration system, and Bill C-12 is a perfect example of how we are moving forward.

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that Bill C-12 will provide some tools, and that is great. Now all we need is some leadership.

On Monday, the minister came to talk to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We pointed out to her that there were serious problems with the integrity of the process regarding international students. I did not get the sense that we were talking to someone who is determined to fix the problem. It took me six minutes to get her to admit that she was somewhat concerned about the situation.

I hope that Bill C-12 will be passed, that it will provide the necessary tools, but also that immigration officers will send a clear message that when they encounter potentially fraudulent cases, they do not just sweep them under the rug. They process them, they resolve them, and in doing so, they strengthen the integrity of our immigration process.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the critic for public safety and emergency preparedness, I debated Bill C‑12 in committee, and I can say that we put in a lot of hours. We worked until midnight to get through the clause-by-clause consideration of this important bill, which makes rather significant amendments in the realm of refugees and immigration.

Even after such an eloquent speech, does my colleague have anything to add or to ask the government about Bill C‑12?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, that is what was discussed in committee, and it was determined that Bill C‑12 includes a deadline of one year, after which asylum claims cannot be made. It stands to reason that someone who fears persecution if they return to their country would be capable of submitting a claim within a year of arriving here.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine—Listuguj for his open-mindedness.

He mentioned at the outset that there are currently 300,000 asylum claims. In light of that, it is easy to see why Bill C‑12 is so important. He rightly observed that he thought Bill C‑12 might help clear up this huge backlog.

As for the integrity of the process, I agree with his comments. However, I want to remind him that the government has earmarked $1 billion to develop the CBSA. We are now increasing the number of officers responsible for deporting people without a valid reason to be in Canada to 500. In 2025, we increased the number of deportations to 22,000. That has been steadily increasing for the past four years.

As for the distribution of asylum seekers, there are some things the government can do, but at a certain point, it becomes artificial. At a certain point, employment becomes the main motivator. I would like my colleague to talk about that issue. What can we do to encourage asylum seekers to settle outside the cities—

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, Bill C-12 came out of Bill C-2. There are aspects of Bill C-2 that were not incorporated into Bill C-12.

We have had a lot of debate on Bill C-12. I am interested in the Bloc's position, particularly on the issue of lawful access, which is not included in Bill C-12 but was in Bill C-2. Does the member feel comfortable enough to provide his thoughts on whether or not he would have supported Bill C-2 with lawful access?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, at third reading. As the critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship, I will explain why we support this legislation, particularly in terms of what it does for our immigration system.

First, let us review the situation. The number of temporary residents has increased significantly in recent years under this Liberal government. In 2018, temporary residents accounted for 3.3% of the Canadian population. By 2024, that figure had risen to 7.5%, which is more than double. Since Bill C-12 focuses primarily on asylum seekers, let us look at the situation from that perspective. In 2015, Quebec received 3,000 asylum claims. In 2020, that number had tripled to nearly 10,000. In 2024, it was 10 times higher than in 2015, at 35,000. That means that, in 10 years, the number of asylum claims jumped from 3,000 to 30,000.

Asylum claims have dropped somewhat since 2025, but 190,000 asylum seekers in Quebec are still waiting for a final decision. The backlog across Canada is close to 300,000. The increase in asylum claimants has created enormous challenges for the integrity of the process. What is the best way to ensure that only refugees within the meaning of the Geneva Convention are accepted and that claims are processed at a reasonable pace? Is there a way to detect fraudulent claims?

Recently, we learned that the Immigration and Refugee Board, or IRB, was skipping in-person hearings to speed up processing. There had been a significant increase in application volumes, and the IRB was under pressure to move faster. It therefore decided to just skip the hearings and approve the asylum claims.

Some 35,000 asylum seekers have had their claims accepted in that manner since 2019. In 2025, 15% of all claims were accepted without a hearing to test credibility. When the IRB chairperson appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, she acknowledged that holding hearings enhances the integrity of the process because hearings allow the IRB member to verify the evidence submitted as part of the claim.

The mechanism put in place by the IRB raises concerns about the integrity of the process. A list was drawn up of countries from which claims are often accepted because there are legitimate fears of persecution, and the decision was made to fast-track them on paper. Here is the issue. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, the information has spread and criminal groups in these countries may have been able to use it as a fast track to obtaining refugee status in order to be able to enter Canada. That is one recent issue.

Here is a second recent issue. On Monday, the Auditor General of Canada tabled a report on international students. Once again, we see that there are concerns about the integrity of the process. The Auditor General said that 153,000 reports relating to study permits had been sent to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada by Canadian educational institutions. The reports indicated that the students who held those study permits might have failed to comply with the conditions.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada flagged 153,000 cases in 2023 and 2024, but only 4,000 of them were investigated. This shows just how fragile our immigration system really is. Investigations were launched for each of these 4,000 cases, but 40% of them were dropped because the applicant or person with the study permit failed to respond. These investigators were not exactly over-zealous. All the person had to do was not respond and the investigators left them alone. That is no way to protect the integrity of the process or the public's trust in it.

The Auditor General also told us that there are 800 cases. This is noteworthy because even though the Auditor General used random sampling, she was able to identify 800 cases that were reported to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada not as potentially problematic, but as problematic. Some 800 study permits were shown to have been issued based on fraudulent documents or inaccurate information. There are cases where people obtained study permits by claiming that they wanted to enrol in a Canadian university with a diploma that they had earned from a college that does not exist or from a college known to be a diploma mill. How did IRCC respond to these 800 fraudulent cases? It did nothing, even though it had the discretion to take action to ensure the integrity of the process. Public confidence in our immigration system is eroding, and the IRCC still made the decision to do nothing. It decided to do nothing about those 800 cases.

Our immigration system is having difficulty adapting. That is what is going on. The government failed to adapt the system to a reality that has changed dramatically over the past 10 years. There has been a sharp increase in applications, so the process needed to be improved, especially in terms of processing times but also in terms of integrity. I gave two examples earlier that demonstrate the system's inability to adapt, namely, claimants who were accepted without a hearing and international students who obtained their permits fraudulently and who have not been dealt with. This undermines the integrity of our immigration system, and that is why we support Bill C‑12. We think that this bill provides some useful ways to strengthen our immigration system, particularly when it comes to asylum seekers.

What does Bill C-12 do in terms of immigration? First, there is part 5, which facilitates information sharing. That should enable various bodies to exchange information when fraudulent schemes are uncovered so that action can be taken.

Part 6 gives the minister more control over asylum seekers. That is not without risk, but the government thinks it has to be done. For one thing, the minister will be authorized to “specify the information and documents that are required in support of a claim for refugee protection”. The government will “authorize the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine that claims for refugee protection...have been abandoned in certain circumstances”. The minister will be provided with “the power to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred...have been withdrawn in certain circumstances”. That is important. In other words, the Minister of Immigration will have the power to consider all claims for asylum made in Canada even if they have been received by officers. This is an extraordinary measure that raises legitimate concerns because the board can make mistakes, but so can ministers.

However, under the amendments to Bill C-12, when a minister exercises this power, they must report it to the House, and use of that power must still remain exceptional. Where this power will prove useful is when Immigration Canada conducts investigations and uncovers fraud, by finding flaws or identifying large numbers of applications. Political action can then be taken to immediately withdraw certain asylum claims. If used properly, this exceptional power could clear up the system's backlog and dispose of fraudulent claims. Furthermore, Parliament would have oversight because, every time this power is used, a report must be sent to Parliament, where it can be debated. We can thus ensure that this power is being exercised properly. I still have some concerns in that regard, but I think it is the best solution to enable us to take action, given everything that is happening in relation to immigration.

In addition, if the asylum seeker is not present in Canada, then their claim will not be considered. That seems obvious to me. A refugee claimant who fears persecution cannot be anywhere other than in Canada when their claim is received. Furthermore, the whole section related to the 14-day period has changed. Under the safe third country agreement, if someone enters Canada illegally and is intercepted within 14 days, then they will be returned to the United States. If they are intercepted after 14 days, then that is where things get interesting. In that case, they will be sent back to their country of origin. We see this as a step forward.

There is one thing that the bill does not address, though, which is the distribution of asylum seekers. That is another matter, but it is important to us. Earlier, I was talking about securing public trust in and support for our immigration system. For that to happen, the public needs to feel that there is equity, the process needs to be fair, and Quebeckers also need to get their fair share. However, as Quebeckers in Canada, we often feel that we are not getting our fair share, including our share of investments. As for our share of asylum seekers, thanks to certain geographic realities, Quebec took in 37% of asylum seekers from across the country in 2025, even though we represent 22% of the population. That creates pressure. At the same time, we have international obligations, and Quebeckers are a caring and welcoming people who have had wonderful experiences with refugees.

Still, the distribution of asylum seekers is relevant to the topic of this discussion, namely public confidence in the integrity of the process. I think the public understands the importance of immigration and the importance of welcoming refugees, as long as the government does its job properly and people feel the provinces are being treated fairly. There is no fairness now. Quebec accounts for 22% of Canada's population, but it is taking in 37% of all asylum seekers. Obviously, this is putting enormous pressure on Quebec's public services. I do want to be very careful when I say that, because 127,000 of the 190,000 asylum seekers in Quebec have work permits. These are people who want to get involved. However, there are a number of concerns that come with that. Quebec is incurring additional costs. The province wants $700 million from the Government of Canada, but the federal government is refusing to give Quebec the money. It is also refusing to distribute asylum seekers fairly. This issue is still ongoing, and we will continue to press the government to address it.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, control in our immigration system is very important. I agree with that. This is why the government has been taking several different measures. The Auditor General's report just came out recently. It recognizes gaps in the system. However, those are gaps that were recognized by our government, hence the introduction of Bill C-12, which was originally in Bill C-2 and tabled back in June 2025. However, the Conservatives cause a lot of delay on the bills that we have been putting forward to crack down on crime and to bring control back into our immigration system.

We are standing here months and months later, in agreement with a lot of parts, but what we have done is delay the implementation. What the bill does is with regard to information sharing. As for some of what the member has brought up, in terms of people putting fake documentation into applications and then not being caught in other streams, this would fix that problem. The bill would allow different streams to—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating amendments that the other place has proposed to Bill C-12, as well as the government's response to those amendments. I would like to use this opportunity to offer a word of caution to the government regarding developments that have occurred since the immigration measures in Bill C-12 were last debated here, as well as to suggest constructive remedies to restore parliamentary supremacy and repair the significant damage to Canada's immigration system that has been levelled by the Liberal government and, indeed, under the tenure of the Liberal Prime Minister.

Since Bill C-12 was last debated in this place, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that unapproved asylum claimants in Quebec have a constitutional right to provincially funded, low-cost day care spaces. The broader potential impacts of this ruling should set off alarm bells in every province, across the federal government and to every member of the House. They certainly did for His Majesty's loyal opposition.

Therefore, Conservatives affirm Quebec's right to pursue the use of section 33 of the charter in relation to Quebec v. Kanyinda in that ruling, should its government choose to do so. We also call upon the Prime Minister to direct his government to immediately review what impact the Kanyinda ruling may have on Canada's federal immigration and social welfare programs and to outline what actions may have to be taken in order to wrest power over immigration back from the big immigration lobby, as well as from overzealous judiciaries, and put it back into the hands of the Canadian people.

Liberals must also commit to vigorously challenging any Kanyinda-related litigation that may impact federal jurisdiction in the meantime, including what is included in the immigration provisions of Bill C-12. Here is why. Canada's asylum system should offer compassionate refuge to truly vulnerable persons in numbers that we can sustainably support, but Canadians believe that the asylum system should not be used as a back door by which migrants can quickly and easily end-run normal immigration selection processes. Today, data overwhelmingly shows that the asylum system skews heavily toward the latter, while the prioritization of benefits to those who most urgently need them falls under the former.

It is the provinces that have largely been left to cover the costs of this failure of the federal Liberal government. Since the years-long Roxham Road illegal border crossing debacle began, Quebec has experienced a massive spike in asylum seekers in recent years, many with unverified claims, and now hosts somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200,000. This influx, combined with the Liberals' years-long delays in processing asylum claims, which still exist under the Liberal Prime Minister, have strained Quebec's social services, including subsidized day cares.

With many Quebec families already facing years-long waits for day care spots, and with an unplanned increase in demand enabled by a dysfunctional federal asylum processing system, it is reasonable and, frankly, should be expected that Quebec would enact changes to its welfare system to ensure sustainability. Therefore, in this specific instance, Quebec should not be met with the typical reactionary pearl clutching should it follow through with suggestions among its political parties that it may invoke the notwithstanding clause in the case of Kanyinda.

However, the impact of the Kanyinda ruling has the potential to extend far beyond Quebec. Justice Suzanne Côté dissented from the majority opinion, saying that some of its findings had the potential to “unduly impede the state’s ability to act” in the public interest by limiting the range of policy choices available to governments in designing and administering social benefits programs. She concluded that refugee claimant status should not be recognized as what are called “analogous grounds” under section 15 of the charter to guarantee charter rights. In this she is right, but in the ruling, Chief Justice Wagner took the opposite position, suggesting that the charter should include asylum claimants as a protected identity group.

Given the breadth of the ruling and what amounts to Wagner's issuing an open invitation to the activist legal community to test the waters further, it is not hard to imagine many well-paid anti-reform lawyers salivating at the prospect of doing just that, nor is it a stretch that the justice's arguments for intersectionality that the judges made in the Kanyinda case could be used as a test on whether unvetted and unapproved asylum claimants, particularly those without work permits, should be entitled to other taxpayer-funded benefits.

These tests could include the legality of proposed copays that the government has put forward on the interim federal health benefit program, which of course is a program that has risen in cost by over 1,200% since 2015 and includes luxury health care benefits that many Canadians do not receive. The case and the ruling could also be used to test unfettered access to the Canada child benefit as well as old age security.

Chief Justice Wagner's concurrence regarding recognizing refugee claimant status as an analogous ground under section 15 of the charter could also provide a hook for broader arguments against aspects of the criteria-based immigration streams. That is a huge problem, so clarity is also needed about the extent to which the Kanyinda framework could be used to legally undermine specific rules within immigration processing streams that use neutral selection criteria such as age caps, language thresholds and education points.

Under Kanyinda, any of these criteria, the cornerstones of Canada's immigration selection process, could potentially be argued to have discriminatory impacts on protected or analogous grounds and, if subsequently overturned, further undermine Parliament and the government's ability to set and enforce immigration rules. That is crazy.

While some may argue that these scenarios are unlikely, history suggests the anti-immigration reform lobby, a.k.a. big immigration, will ensure otherwise. Canada's immigration lobby is arguably one of its most powerful. While there is undoubtedly a need for vulnerable non-citizens to have their rights advocated for, a major obstacle to enacting reasonable reforms to Canada's immigration and asylum systems has always been fierce resistance from a network of well-funded anti-reform lawyers, immigration consultants, lobbyists and non-governmental organizations profiting from Canada's overly permissive and enforcement-deficient immigration system.

Big immigration rarely if ever acknowledges that in order to achieve social consensus for immigration, the system cannot be left in its current state of abject dysfunction. Big immigration's voices dominate immigration-related news stories and submissions to parliamentary committees. A simple check of the lobbying registry proves that big immigration has disproportionate levels of access to senior immigration policy-makers, and many individuals from this clique have gone on to occupy influential roles on the Immigration and Refugee Board or in the courts, which further dooms reform efforts.

On that note, a former Liberal immigration minister, who bent to the will of big immigration to such an extent that he allowed nearly a million foreign students on work permits into the country in a two-year period, is now Canada's justice minister. The sheer volume of big immigration intervenors allowed in the Kanyinda case also illustrates this profound imbalance.

However, given the hull-buckling groans emanating from most Canadian social welfare programs, the deep deficits most Canadian governments are running and the disarray that Canada's immigration system is already in, the Prime Minister has a duty to prevent ideologically homogenous activists from using the Kanyinda framework to block reasonable reforms or to make the system even more dysfunctional than it already is.

There are many other reasons to prevent further blurring of the distinction between citizen and non-citizen using the Kanyinda framework. It will be virtually impossible for any level of government to disincentivize the abuse of the asylum system if there are endless legal options for unverified claimants or outright fraudsters to access social services they were never intended to receive.

Blurred boundaries on who is eligible to receive benefits will, beyond the obvious sustainability problems, make it even harder to prioritize those truly vulnerable groups and, frankly, also to maintain consensus for immigration, which is already rightly in the toilet in the country because of the lack of trust in the government's ability to manage the immigration system in a fair and orderly manner.

For many members of the public, this lack of distinction will be perceived as a lack of fairness. In return, there will be even less public appetite to extend benefits or welcome to truly vulnerable refugees, or for immigration writ large. Further legal erosion of the difference between citizen and non-citizen will only serve to continue to diminish the value of Canadian citizenship, which has been incredibly diminished under the Liberal government, and to accelerate the fragmentation of our already diffuse national identity.

Perhaps most importantly, the Kanyinda ruling adds a thick layer of judicial overreach to an existing spread of rulings that have already seriously eroded both parliamentary supremacy in setting immigration law and the federal government's ability to enforce it. Changes in 2012, which prevented non-citizens who made fraudulent asylum claims from receiving taxpayer-funded supplemental health benefits like vision care while awaiting removal from the country, were almost immediately struck down by the federal court. This led to the now frequent practice of judges' giving more lenient sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in order to avoid consequences for their immigration status.

Parliamentary committee testimony during the review of the immigration provisions of the current Bill C-12 suggests that its reforms would immediately be challenged in court, including the ones that we are debating today, by the big immigration lobby. They said this to us in our committees. Justice Wagner's tone, in his opinion in Kanyinda, suggests that this lobby will be successful should they choose to challenge the immigration provisions outlined in Bill C-12, so the government's talking points that this bill is going to remedy any problems are likely false.

Allowing this trend to go unchecked by the federal government will only further ingrain the Canadian public's sense that there is an overall loss of control in the immigration system and, in turn, further erode the consensus for Canada's immigration system, which we know is already in the abject depths of despair. It will also suggest that the federal Liberals' willingness to prevent asylum system abuse only goes as far as the court's willingness to accept the reforms.

However, at present, Canadian immigration law and public support for immigration is predicated on the principle that it must be fair, legal and necessary to treat non-citizens differently from citizens for the purpose of immigration selection and entry into the country. That is a no-brainer. It is the fundamental principle of our immigration system. In fact, colleagues, this concept is reinforced by Subsection 91(25) of the Constitution Act of 1867, which gives Canada's Parliament the main power to set immigration laws. We are supreme, and it should be our will in this place, not that of the courts, to set the processes by which non-citizens enter and stay in the country. The public expects that they can turn to and rely on the federal government and Parliament to both support a strong Canadian national identity and maintain a fair and orderly immigration system while securing our nation's borders.

However, the Kanyinda framework shows that Canada's Supreme Court is willing to fixate on the increasingly tone-deaf voices of the big immigration lobby and directly challenge these foundational principles, which were the only thing that through the decades allowed the consensus for immigration to exist in our country. Those foundational principles are being actively eroded. The charter has a built-in fail-safe for extreme potential situations such as these, and the government and Parliament have other tools at their disposal to rein in an overzealous judiciary. It is now up to the Prime Minister to provide clarity on how much more judicially inspired immigration dysfunction his government will tolerate before he directs it to act. Let us pray that his patience has boundaries and that the judiciary and big immigration do not further test the limits. While hope springs eternal on this front, data proves otherwise.

Under the Liberal Prime Minister, over the last year, the asylum claim backlog has grown to nearly over 300,000 people. That backlog in 2015 was 10,000 people. Colleagues should think about that and think about the size of the backlog. These are just people currently in the queue, not people who have been processed. This is a years-long backlog, with a similar size to a sizable city. Three hundred thousand people is a lot. Eighty per cent of the refugee claims since 2019 have been approved with zero screenings. To this day, we have been trying to get the government to change course. For countries like Iran, there is a system called the file system in which the government virtually has no oversight. It is basically a rubber stamp for asylum claims.

There are some other things too. The Liberals, in the last few days, have come under extreme fire. Again, colleagues do not have to take my word for it. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation said that this was the most scathing report that has been issued by the Auditor General in recent memory.

The Auditor General issued a report that showed over 150,000 cases of student permit fraud; the government had only followed up on a minuscule fraction of those cases. Then, of that tiny fraction, many of those cases, which were obviously fraudulent, went on to get permit extensions; worse, to get permanent residency; or, as we are talking about today, to make asylum claims. This is not a system that is in control. This is a system that is wildly, dumpster fire, out of control. Now we have a situation in which the Supreme Court has invited the big immigration lobby to invite further dysfunction into the system.

To colleagues across party lines, I say that this is not fair to anybody. It is not fair to non-citizens who are making applications to enter the country through normal immigration processing streams and who are basically being put into “no-hope” queues of ever coming into this country, because the wait times are so long. Why? The Liberals have allowed many backdoor immigration streams to happen, whether in the illegal border crossings at Roxham Road that led to a massive spike of crossings in Quebec or in the fact that we now have a multitude of student permits that were issued under the justice minister. This was a very bad period of Canadian history. Now that those permits are expiring, people either are not leaving or they are making fraudulent asylum claims.

I would like to know from the government what happens now. I guarantee this was asked in committee. When the big immigration lobby challenges the provisions that are in this bill, what happens? I can tell the House what is going to happen: Nothing is going to change, and the system is going to get worse.

It is incumbent upon the Liberal Prime Minister to tell Parliament how he intends to deal with the Kanyinda framework. The government needs to undertake a review of all of Canada's immigration laws to see what could be legitimately challenged and then tell Parliament what it intends to do to prevent that from happening.

Essentially what we have here, with what we have seen between the Auditor General report, the Kanyinda ruling and the out-of-control asylum claim crisis, is an open border system in Canada. There really is no functional immigration system, between the lack of ability to screen people coming in and make determinations on who can come in under what processes and then to remove people who do not have a legal right to be here, including those who have undertaken serious criminal activities like sexual assault. The Liberal government has basically erased Canadian borders. Not only is the immigration system not functioning right now; for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.

With that, what happens? We have a housing crisis. We have a 14% youth unemployment rate. We have a massive strain on Canada's health care systems and other social welfare payments. Also, as for the thing that everybody here has talked about for decades, the fact that Canada is an open and welcoming country, it is borne out in polling that many Canadians do not feel that way anymore. It is not me saying this. This is the fault of a lack of ability to manage a fair and orderly process. It is a lack of ability for the government to say to the activist judiciary that Parliament is supreme and we have the right to set immigration processes.

Day after day, we just hear false numbers from the Liberal government, more platitudes, failed immigration. I think the Liberals have gone through eight immigration ministers in 10 years. The Liberals treat the immigration ministry like the armpit of cabinet, when in fact it is a set of policies foundational to the functioning of both our economic and social fabric, as well as to our national identity.

In closing, I just want to speak to Canadian youth, many of whom cannot find a job right now. I will refer to a memo that one of the government departments had. It said that these out-of-control immigration levels, and the lack of process and fairness, led to a huge increase in the youth jobs crisis. This needs to be fixed.

Conservatives have proposed dozens of concrete policies to fix this. Unfortunately, the Liberals have voted against them. However, I am encouraged because other political parties have supported Conservatives across party lines to restore order and fairness.

With that, I would urge the government to seriously look at the Kanyinda ruling and how it is going to affect the provisions in Bill C-12 and other potential immigration streams and come back to Parliament with a plan so that we can tell Canadians with some measure of confidence that fairness and order may be restored.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's opposition to Bill C‑12. However, we think it is a balanced approach that is not without risks, but that addresses our legitimate concerns about the integrity of the process. In particular, the government wants to add a rule that would require asylum seekers to be on Canadian soil to have their case heard.

What does my colleague have against that specific provision?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank members of the House for their grace in allowing me to speak to this important bill today.

I rise today with ongoing and deep concerns about Bill C-12. Behind the language of “efficiency”, “integrity” and “streamlining”, the bill would do something very real and very harmful. It would take rights away from people who are seeking protection, handing more unchecked power to the government and scapegoating newcomers. The intention in the logic behind this legislation is not just flawed, it is dangerous. That is why New Democrats cannot support Bill C-12.

Let us begin with the refugee system. Canada has long prided itself on offering people a fair hearing and an opportunity to present their case before an independent decision-maker. However, Bill C-12 would weaken that foundation. Under this legislation, people would be found ineligible for a full hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board, not because their case lacked merit but because of some arbitrary timeline. Instead, they would be pushed into a pre-removal risk assessment process. The government says that it is fine, but the process would deprive individuals of the opportunity for their case to be heard by an independent tribunal. Under the pre-removal risk assessment process, decisions are made by an immigration officer. There is no meaningful right to appeal.

Due process is not a luxury. It is a fundamental principle of justice, and the bill would erode that. This is not a concern just raised by me in the House. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has already sounded the alarm bell. It has warned that Bill C-12's new ineligibility provisions would deny refugee claimants adequate procedural safeguards, and it has called on Canada to ensure access to fair and efficient procedures in line with our international obligations, including the principle of non-refoulement. Civil society organizations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, have said the same.

There is no evidence that the legitimacy of a refugee claim is linked to how quickly someone files it. The introduction of a one-year bar is particularly troubling. Refugee claimants are expected to navigate a complex legal system, often without legal advice, often in situations of trauma. Under this legislation, they would be told that if they do not act within an arbitrary timeline, they will lose access to a full hearing. This is not fairness. This is exclusion, and this is procedural duress. Frankly, this is a system stacked against the claimant.

Who would this actually affect? It could affect a child who once visited Canada with their family, a human rights advocate who came to Canada to speak about conditions in their home country or a survivor of gender-based violence who needed time to process trauma before coming forward. All could be captured by these sweeping exclusions, and it gets worse. These provisions are retroactive. They would apply to people who entered Canada years ago, going back to 2020, who had no way of knowing these rules would one day be used against them. It undermines the very principle of legal certainty.

However, that is not all. Bill C-12 would also grant sweeping powers to the government to cancel immigration documents, potentially affecting an entire group of people. Under the broad and undefined concept of public interest, legislation needs to be precise. It must include clear limits and safeguards, but the bill does not do so. Instead, it would open the door to decisions being made without transparency, without independent oversight and without adequate recourse. This should concern all of us, because when power is concentrated without accountability, mistakes are not just possible, they are inevitable.

We do not have to look far to understand the risks. Canada has a history, one we must acknowledge, of making decisions in moments of fear that disproportionately harm marginalized communities. We have seen exclusion justified; we have seen rights denied, and in hindsight, we have recognized those decisions as wrong. The question before us is simple: Have we learned from that history or are we just repeating it, but this time under different language?

Another serious concern is the expansion of information sharing. The government argues that this is to improve coordination, but coordination must not come at the expense of rights. Under this framework, personal information, status, identity and immigration history can be shared more broadly across government systems. While the government says that safeguards will exist, many of these arrangements would depend on agreements that are not transparent.

This creates real risks, because migrants rely on public services, health care, housing and legal supports. If there is even the perception that accessing these services could expose their immigration status, people will hesitate. They will delay seeking care. They will avoid reporting exploitation. They will withdraw. That has consequences, not just for those individuals but for our communities. Public systems work best when people can access them safely and without fear. This bill risks undermining that.

The Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, after studying the bill, called for the draconian measures in part 5 to part 8 of the bill to be deleted. The Senate wanted amendments to restore some balance so that measures to block refugee hearings; the arbitrary, retroactive one-year bar; the breach of privacy to share information about applicants; and cabinet's ability to cancel or suspend documents en masse under vaguely defined public interest terms are done away with.

Unfortunately, these amendments were voted down by the Senate committee on public safety. In the end, the Senate passed amendments to limit the sharing of personal information from citizens and permanent residents and to make mandatory annual reports on asylum claim processing times, ineligibility data and statistics on post-one-year asylum claims. Even though the amendments from the Senate are significantly pared down from their original form, the Liberals want to reject the Senate amendments to respect the privacy rights of citizens and permanent residents.

The Liberals have introduced this at a time when migrants are increasingly being blamed for broader social challenges. We hear claims that migrants are responsible for housing shortages, for pressures on health care and for affordability challenges. I will be very clear: Migrants do not create these crises. These are the result of policy decisions about housing supply, public investment and economic priorities. Blaming migrants does not solve these problems. It distracts from them, and legislation like Bill C-12 risks reinforcing that narrative.

The bill is an attack on people who are already vulnerable, such as refugees fleeing violence, migrant workers facing exploitation and families trying to build a life in Canada. These individuals are not statistics. They are members of our communities; they contribute, they work, and they care for others. They deserve a system that treats them with dignity and fairness.

The consequences extend beyond individuals. Denying refugee claimants due process puts people at risk of persecution, torture or worse. It also damages Canada's credibility on the world stage. The same UN Human Rights Committee has raised broader concerns about the state of civil liberties in this country, from surveillance to systemic discrimination and barriers faced by marginalized communities.

New Democrats believe there is a better way. We can build an immigration and refugee system that is both fair and efficient, that processes claims in a timely manner, that ensures access to legal supports, that upholds due process and that recognizes the humanity of those seeking protection. These are not competing goals. They are complementary.

We must uphold the principles of fairness, accountability, human rights and due process. The legislation does not meet this standard. For those reasons, my colleagues in the NDP and I will oppose the Liberal motion and will also be opposing Bill C-12.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Immigration and the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime have both played a very important role in the creation of the legislation and they have contributed immensely, whether in caucus, on the floor of the House or in communities by meeting and working with the different stakeholders out there.

This is good, sound legislation. It could have been better if it had been incorporated into Bill C-2, but the Conservatives refused to pass Bill C-2 because it had lawful access and they do not support lawful access. As a result, we now have Bill C-12.

I am here, not only providing my personal—

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to have Bill C-12 back before us. It is an important piece of legislation.

Maybe the best way to start off is to talk about how, just under a year ago, we had an election. Canadians elected a new prime minister and a new government. Over 60, maybe even 70, new Liberal MPs were elected for the very first time. Through the election, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party made a commitment to Canadians in different ways, on different platforms and issues. Two of those were to look at ways we could make our communities safer, and another was to be able to stabilize our immigration.

This is in essence what Bill C-12 does, but I would like to focus and split it into those two sections, if I may, in terms of what it is that I am going to say today. When I think of the Prime Minister's commitment to Canadians and what I campaigned on, which is making our communities safer, I can tell the House that every Liberal member of caucus understands the importance of making our communities safer. This is what we have seen here on the floor of the House is a suite of legislative initiatives that have been presented in order to support that election platform issue that the Prime Minister made to Canadians.

The Prime Minister also, for the very first time, appointed a Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, recognizing again just how important the issue of combatting crime is and having a minister ultimately responsible for facilitating legislation in its creation, doing a great deal of consulting with different stakeholders and ultimately supporting its passage through the House of Commons. I know this first-hand because I have watched her ask many questions here in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill. I have also had the opportunity to witness first-hand the consultation.

Some of that consultation was taking place when the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to visit the city of Winnipeg. We met at a local restaurant, where we talked about issues such as extortion and petty theft. We met with the police association, along with the chief of police of Winnipeg and some of his administrators, where they talked about the importance of some of the legislation that is being debated here in Ottawa. It was a very productive discussion that we had with the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime dealing with legislation.

The reason I say that is that I am sure there is a sense of disappointment with the minister. I know there is with me in regard to Bill C-2. We had to bring in Bill C-12 because the opposition party, the Conservative Party, stood in opposition to Bill C-2. The Conservatives made it very clear that they were not in any way going to be able to support the passage of Bill C-2, so Bill C-2 had to be broken up, and that is why we have Bill C-12 today.

Bill C-12 does not take into consideration everything that was in Bill C-2, but I want to emphasize the issue of lawful access, and I can tell the House that, within the Liberal caucus and the reflections of what the government members have been talking about, lawful access is absolutely essential, and law enforcement officers across the country are talking about the importance of lawful access. Even though it is not in Bill C-12, we had to carry it into another piece of legislation in an attempt to once again get that legislation passed.

I have seen members stand up and talk about the issue of extortion, for example. If they are genuinely concerned about extortion, how can they possibly not want to see lawful access pass the House? They will get another chance to do so.

I would put what Bill C-12 does in two different tiers. The first tier deals with the issue of strengthening Canada's borders, which is absolutely critical. The second tier deals with an immigration perspective that I would like to be able to share with the House in great detail.

Before I do that, I want to highlight a couple of the things in Bill C-12 with regard to securing Canada's borders that are really important for those who have followed the debate, whether it is here in the House or in the Senate chamber, to recognize. It would strengthen border security in a very real and tangible way. The bill would have an impact on things such as drug trafficking and the smuggling of weapons. Think about stolen vehicles that are exported out of Canada and the impact that has on our communities, particularly in the province of Ontario more recently.

Think about what the government has done in relation to border security, whether it is about those drugs, vehicles or other issues dealing with smuggling and weapons, in particular. It is one thing to pass legislation. It is another to provide the supports. We have a Prime Minister, a Minister of Finance and, in fact, a government that has recognized the importance of providing the supports that are necessary, such as investments of well over $1 billion to secure the Canada-U.S. borders and our coasts. There is a commitment from the Prime Minister for 1,000 new border control agents in one form or another.

Look back to the days when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government. The Conservatives talked about the importance of the border but they cut border control agents. They cut the budget going to the CBSA. That is one of the reasons why, with our new Prime Minister, we have invested not only in legislation to provide additional support, but also in budget dollars.

The legislation would enable a larger role for and enhance the role of our Canadian Coast Guard so that it could conduct security patrols, for example. When we talk about our Coast Guard services, what is really encouraging is how we are taking a more holistic approach. That is why we would see the Coast Guard now playing a larger role within DND.

The bill would enhance the RCMP's ability to share information. We often talk about registered sex offenders. The RCMP having the ability to access and share that sort of information in a limited way would be a very positive thing.

I want to get to one part of the legislation to provide a bit of history. This is the immigration portion. I understand that I have about four or five minutes to go, even though the temptation might be there to go longer, because I love talking about the issue of immigration. Immigration is an issue on which all of us should be working together to try to improve the situation.

The Prime Minister says we want to stabilize immigration. It is easy to be critical, but we have a Prime Minister and a government actually working to stabilize immigration. When the immigration critic was in government, the Conservative government back then made a commitment in 2014 to increase the number of international students and researchers to over 400,000. She might not recall that, but I do.

Looking at the situation we have today, we have to factor in what led us here. Whether it was the leader of the Conservative Party and the critic for immigration sitting around the cabinet table, saying, “Let us increase the numbers,” or the pandemic, which caused all sorts of issues with visas actually being extended, there is a reason why we are in the situation we are in today. Now we have a Prime Minister and a Minister of Immigration who have made a commitment to stabilize it so that we can once again reinforce confidence in the system. This legislation is a part of that.

If a person has been living in Canada for a year, whether it is for study or a visit, is there a need to allow someone of that nature to be able to claim refugee status, which could bottleneck the system? I believe the short answer to that is no. The legislation addresses that issue. Why does it do that? It is very important that when we talk about the commitments that came out of the last election, we look at ways to do that.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver East.

I ask members opposite to recognize that Bill C-12 is good legislation. I am glad to see that it will likely be passing. I also want to encourage members opposite to take a look at Bill C-22, which is the lawful access bill. It is part of the suite of crime legislation the government has brought forward in order to make our communities safer. Lawful access is important.

I will leave my comments at that. I look forward to any questions.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the facts. There are 1,000 new CBSA officers, 1,000 new RCMP personnel, $1.3 billion for border security and Bill C-12, the strong borders act. We have Bill C-14, which would strengthen bail as well as sentencing. We have Bill C-16, which would strengthen victims' rights.

That is the record of this government. We are going to be making sure that every Canadian feels safe in their community. That is the work that this government has been doing since April 28 of last year.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-217, an act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax).

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, with amendments to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures. Copies of the amendments are available at the table.

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed that the government is not willing to consider sober second thought, having put forward such a scandalous abuse of omnibus budget bills as is found in Bill C-4.

What we have in Bill C-4, which is titled the affordability act, are many measures that are mostly about affordability, but magically, there is this bizarre inclusion of amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

Part 4 of this bill contains amendments to the Canada Elections Act. What does the Canada Elections Act have to do with the cost of living?

It is not just bizarre that we find in part 4 of Bill C-4, which is the affordability act, unaccountably, changes to the Canada Elections Act. The content of those changes is, and I will use the word again, scandalous. Canadians will be scandalized, and it is unfortunate that the way of going in this Parliament has been for things to be passed so quickly that people do not even know what they have passed.

Part 4 of Bill C-4 is all about one thing: removing any thought that there is any requirement on the part of any federal political party in this country to protect the personal private information of Canadians. The bill is a bit of overkill, one might say. At one point in part 4 of Bill C-4, it says that any of the provisions for protection of privacy are “deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.”

If they were deemed never to have come into force, I suppose it is a bit of overkill to also make sure they are repealed, but it gets worse. The bill then says that part 4 of Bill C-4 will come into force in the year 2000.

I remember the day this bill was tabled in June. I took around the hard copy of Bill C-4 to various friends on the side of the House of the Liberal Party and said, “Look at this. Why does this bill have to come into force in the year 2000?” People would say that it must be a typo, and I would say, “No, that is not a typo, my friend. That is a time machine.”

I have never seen before in this place that a bill in the future tense would come into force 26 years ago.

There is nothing extraordinary about the fact that there are things I have never seen before.

I am not the only one who has never seen this.

However, for the moment, this is a part of the bill that strikes me as odd.

The Senate looked at it and asked why, buried in the affordability act, there were amendments to the Elections Act. It is all well and good that, in the preamble the Speaker just read, the government says it is sending this back to the Senate and that they have no business in this, letting them slap them on the wrist for thinking they can presume to tell anybody in this place about the Elections Act, but the government had this coming and was well overdue to start looking at sections of omnibus bills. I think it is scandalous that we did not.

I know a lot of senators were disturbed by Bill C-12. They looked at Bill C-12 in committee, and they said that it had not been properly studied and that it would abuse the rights of refugees, but they held back. They thought that the government would not want to accept their amendments, so they did not make amendments, but they did put on the record that a subcommittee was concerned.

It would have been tough for the Senate to make amendments because the pressure was on them to not make amendments. In fact, the leader of the government in the Senate went so far as to misstate to other senators that Bill C-4 had been carried unanimously in this place.

I noticed they were careful in the preamble we just heard to refer to unanimous support from recognized parties. The Liberals, the Conservatives and the Bloc were happy to carry this unanimously, but my objections were recorded on the record, even in the so-called unanimous consent motion. It says, “that the opposition of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands be noted”.

Why do I dig in my heels? Why do I say hurrah for the senators who put forward some common-sense amendments? What is wrong with the government that it will not accept the Senate amendments?

If one has not looked at the Senate amendments, standing by what I have said, it is extraordinary that the Government of Canada would say it is bringing into effect a bill that would take effect 26 years ago. What kind of offence has the Liberal Party committed in the last 26 years that would require a time machine to say that laws that we might have had to protect the personal information of Canadians did not ever exist, were never carried and, on top of that, took effect in the year 2000?

The Senate amendment just says that three years from when Bill C-4 takes effect, three years from now, the government must come up with a way of protecting the personal and private information of Canadians held by federal political parties.

This was not that long ago, so I will cite the source, but there was an iPolitics news story from March 3 of this year where the leader of the government in the House, and of course I will not say his name but we know it, said, after citing that he was the former national director of the Liberal Party, “I can assure you that, for our part, and I assume all parties follow the same basic standard, we essentially comply with PIPEDA”, referring to the acronym for the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

There is currently a court case in British Columbia because the privacy commissioner for British Columbia has said that this is a matter of law. Provincial political parties in British Columbia have to abide by the protection of privacy information for Canadians.

We know that there was a study before the ethics committee back in 2018. The study was entitled “Breach of Personal Information Involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook”.

That particular case study should make us, as parliamentarians, and as people who believe in democracy, deeply concerned that the personal and private information of Canadians can be misused in the hands of those who develop systems, such as Cambridge Analytica did, to target, use algorithms, distort and deliver information that is misinformation directed to particular people who are likely to believe, as they are pre-inclined and predisposed to believe, that misinformation. In that case, in that study, the committee pointed to the need of protecting the personal information of Canadians held by federal political parties.

I will not disagree with the government for one minute, but it would be far better to not bury in an omnibus bill on affordability the taking away of rights regarding the personal and private information of Canadians held by federal political parties. It would be far better to be open about it and say that they are going to amend the Canada Elections Act and talk about the personal and private information of Canadians.

I think the government should be ashamed. Every Liberal, and every floor crosser who has joined this gang, should be ashamed of being associated with a piece of subterfuge as vile as saying that this is an act on affordability, to not look over there at part 4, that it has nothing to do with us, that it is something they are doing about privacy information and they are making sure that it took effect 26 years ago.

If they had nothing to be ashamed of, why would they not bring forward a bill that, on its own, is about updating the Canada Elections Act and that clearly asks Canadians what they want us to do with their personal and private information, those of us who are federal political parties? Certainly, the Green Party tries very hard to abide by all the personal and private information protections, as though the law already applied to us clearly, and we will continue to do so.

This is an abomination. This is a very reasonable amendment from the Senate that, three years from now, once the bill is passed, we would have a better plan of action. The government's motion today said it is planning to bring forward something soon. Will that be sooner than three years from now?

How can the government possibly object to an amendment from the Senate that says to get its act in order within the next three years? We should, in this place, absolutely refuse to accept the government's advice to reject Senate amendments. If there ever was a time for sober second thought, it is now. This is embarrassing. Are all recognized parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc, okay with passing a law that turns the clock back 26 years? Come on. This is embarrassing. I ask members to please accept the Senate amendments.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-12, the government is always interested in ensuring that legislation passed in the House moves quickly through here and the other place. I am going to take a moment to address the question that I think prompted this evening's late show.

I want to take a moment to address Canada's actions with respect to the officials of the Iranian regime and the integrity of our immigration system. The government is unwavering in its commitment to hold this regime to account while protecting the safety and security of Canadians. Canada has taken some of the strongest measures in the world against the regime. On November 14, 2022, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Canada designated the Islamic Republic of Iran as a regime that has engaged in terrorism and systemic breaches of human rights.

Canada has also listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity. This designation rendered tens of thousands of senior Iranian officials permanently inadmissible to Canada, including heads of state, intelligence operatives, diplomats, judges and senior members of the guard. In September 2024, Canada strengthened this measure by extending the start date of the designation back to June 23, 2003. That is the date Iranian Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi was arbitrarily detained, tortured and died in custody. Her case shocked Canadians and highlighted the regime's systemic human rights abuses. As a result, anyone who has served as a senior official of the Iranian regime since that date is inadmissible to Canada.

Canada's immigration system includes rigorous screening both before and after arrival. Everyone who needs a visa to travel to Canada must apply in advance. Applicants provide personal information and biometrics, including fingerprints, which are checked against Canadian and international databases to verify identity and assess potential security risks. Immigration screening is a joint effort involving Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the CBSA and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Cases that raise concerns may be referred for in-depth security screening before a visa is ever issued.

Individuals determined to be inadmissible may have their visa refused, lose their temporary or permanent resident status in Canada, and be subject to enforcement action, including removal. These cases can be complex and must be handled in accordance with Canadian law and due process. Since November 2022, IRCC has cancelled 234 visas for individuals who are inadmissible because of the Iranian regime designation. This number does not include applicants whose visa applications were refused from the outset on the same grounds. Removals by CBSA officers have increased over the last two years, and similar results are expected in 2026. The government has also committed to hiring 1,000 additional CBSA officers to strengthen the agency's capacity and help protect the safety of Canadians.

I also want to address the question raised about the Immigration and Refugee Board. The IRB is an independent tribunal. It adjudicates admissibility allegations brought forward by the CBSA, which has the burden of demonstrating the individual is inadmissible on security or other grounds. Removal hearings are generally public. However, by operation of law, certain proceedings before the immigration division must be held in private. This includes hearings where the person concerned has made a refugee claim.

In order to protect the safety and security of individuals in all other matters, the hearings are held in public. Even in private matters, it is always open to the media to make a request that the hearing be public. These requests are decided on a case-by-case basis, balancing the public interest in openness against other important considerations, such as the safety and security—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that some agreement can break out in this place tonight. I would just like to note that colleagues in the House of all political stripes spent a lot of time debating Bill C-12, which includes some measures that I think need to pass quickly in order to begin to restore some order to the immigration system.

However, I have been closely following some of the proceedings in the other place, and I am becoming concerned that colleagues in the other place may be unduly holding up proceedings on the bill, which has been substantively amended by the House. We came to agreement. We sent it over there in December, I believe. It has been several months at this point.

I would like to see some movement from colleagues in the other place. I am just wondering if my colleague on the other side would agree and perhaps would also offer some encouragement to colleagues in the other place to respect the will of the House and to get on with it.

Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. The matter before us today, what we are debating, is not necessarily the substance of Bill C‑9, but the process for getting it passed.

I know that my colleague is newly elected, and I was able to admire his skill as a speaker in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where he was able to fill a lot of time by filibustering the consideration of Bill C‑12.

After 50 hours of debate, does he not think it is normal for us to be able to stop and agree to move forward and pass Bill C‑9?

I know that my colleague is not happy with the amendment on the religious exemption, but democracy has to take its course at a certain point. Today, we are talking about speeding up the work because of excessive filibustering by the Conservatives.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C‑221. This bill would ensure that victims of crime are informed about the offender's parole eligibility dates, including an explanation of how those dates were determined. The bill would require the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada to explain to victims how parole eligibility, review and release dates are determined.

This bill is consistent with our government's commitment to supporting victims of crime and their families. We believe that disclosing information to victims shows transparency and that their right to information about the people who harmed them must be respected at all stages of the correctional and parole process. More broadly, the proposed amendments are in keeping with our government's overall approach of putting victims' best interests at the heart of our justice system.

Moreover, our government's Bill C-16 has the same objectives as the private member's bill we are considering today, namely to broaden the scope of the information available to victims, strengthen their right to receive clear explanations, and ensure their impact statements are taken into account not only at sentencing, but also when decisions regarding parole or corrections are made.

However, the methodologies are different. Rather than repeating the same explanation requirement in several separate disclosure provisions, our Bill C-16 establishes a single, clear rule. This rule states that any disclosure to victims regarding release or eligibility for parole must include an explanation of how the applicable dates were determined. This approach applies consistently to all disclosures, reduces repetition in the law and limits the risk of inconsistencies.

The amendment broadening the scope of the information available to victims is part of one of the most significant updates to the Criminal Code in generations, which the government has undertaken with Bill C-16. This reform aims to respond to modern threats, protect victims of domestic violence, defend our children and strengthen victims' rights.

To strengthen our response to intimate partner violence, we have proposed several legislative amendments in Bill C-16. We will create a new offence to prohibit coercive or controlling behaviour toward an intimate partner. The goal is to give the justice system the tools it needs to intervene before violence escalates. We know that abuse often stems from controlling behaviours long before physical violence occurs. We must therefore criminalize coercive control in order to facilitate early intervention before intimate partner violence escalates or, in some cases, becomes fatal.

“Coercive behaviour” refers to a combination or repetition of three types of behaviour: violent behaviour, coercive sexual behaviour, or behaviour that could reasonably lead a victim to believe that their physical or psychological safety is threatened. For this last category, a non-exhaustive list of problematic behaviours will be developed based on the experiences of survivors. Their testimonies will help us better understand the subtle means used by abusers to exert control over their intimate partners.

Bill C‑16 also seeks to make it easier to prove criminal harassment. Currently, this offence requires the prosecution to prove that the victim feared for their safety, which often involves the victim having to testify. This puts victims in a situation where they are forced to relive traumatic events. We therefore propose replacing the requirement that the victim fear for their safety with an objective requirement, namely, whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have had such fears. That is an important distinction. It allows the prosecution to establish that criminal harassment has occurred without requiring the victim to testify.

We will also ensure that criminal harassment offences expressly include harassing behaviour committed using modern technologies. With the technological advances made in recent years, a growing number of troubling situations have come to light, specifically with respect to electronic surveillance. Victims must be fully protected from harassment committed by these means. Bill C‑16 also allows us to take action in this area.

Another major improvement is that murders committed in situations of control, hate, violence or sexual exploitation will be processed as first-degree murders, even in the absence of premeditation or deliberation. This is important because first-degree murder is the most serious type of homicide under the Criminal Code.

With these changes, femicide committed in the context of domestic violence will be treated as first-degree murder. This is a major step forward. This is important because it addresses a problem we are facing in Canada. According to Statistics Canada, women continue to account for a disproportionate number of homicide victims at the hands of an intimate partner. In 2024, according to Statistics Canada figures, nearly one in six homicide victims in Canada was killed by a spouse or intimate partner. We cannot tolerate this type of crime in our country, and we need to crack down on those who perpetrate it.

We will also tackle deepfakes. The Criminal Code already prohibits the distribution of intimate images without the individual's consent. However, this offence does not apply to sexually explicit deepfakes. As we know, with the rise of artificial intelligence, it is becoming increasingly easy to create fake images that look like real images. When these are shared, it can have devastating consequences for the people involved. As a government, we need to better protect victims against these new threats, which are based on recently developed technologies.

Another issue is that the Criminal Code currently does not have provisions against making threats to share intimate images. As I mentioned, it is a crime to share an intimate image without the consent of the person depicted, but there is no section in the Criminal Code on threatening to do so. This means that victims are less protected, especially those who are being blackmailed under the threat that intimate images or sexually explicit images will be released if the victim does not comply with the requirements of the person making the threat. We need to protect victims from this type of threat, and we will do so because it is unacceptable. This will apply to the threat of sharing real images as well as sharing deepfakes created using artificial intelligence.

Together, these reforms will help create a justice system that is quicker and earlier to act and offers stronger protection to those facing domestic violence and sexual violence, all while keeping our children safe. As legislators, we must ensure that the best interests of victims are at the heart of our justice system, and that is what we are doing through this ambitious Criminal Code reform, as set out in Bill C‑16.

I would like to mention that this reform is part of a series of bold and decisive public safety measures that our new government has put in place since taking office. With Bill C-14, we will make our bail laws stricter and impose tougher sentences for repeat and violent offenders. This bill proposes over 80 targeted amendments to the Criminal Code. These changes make it more difficult to get bail, particularly for repeat and violent offences, and ensure that those who commit serious crimes face real consequences. That is what Canadians expect of us. We have listened and we are acting on what we have heard.

What is more, Bill C-12 seeks to strengthen security at our borders. We are making crucial changes to give law enforcement and border security the tools and resources they need to disrupt the activities of increasingly sophisticated criminal groups, including those involved in fentanyl and weapons trafficking.

We also made investments in public safety in budget 2025, specifically to hire more RCMP and border services officers. We also invested in prevention and mental health services in order to be proactive about preventing crime before it is committed. The safety of our communities is an issue that we, on this side of the House, take very seriously.

I hope we can count on the co-operation of our opposition colleagues to support us in passing our various bills on fighting crime and protecting victims, namely Bills C-16, C-14 and C-12, as well as all of the measures we are proposing in the House to make our communities safer. It is in that same spirit of co-operation that we will be supporting the private member's bill before us today.

We understand that keeping Canadians safe and protecting victims of crime must transcend party lines and should be a concern for all of us. On our side of the House, we understand that safe and resilient communities are the backbone of a strong Canada. They attract people, families, businesses and investment, and promote security and prosperity. We must take action to keep our communities safe and help protect victims of crime.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear about the facts. Officers rigorously review each and every claim before it reaches the IRB, and nobody can claim asylum in Canada without questioning.

To keep Canadians safe, CBSA does the front-end security screening on all adult refugee claimants. There is no rubber-stamping of any files or any claims. Each one is assessed individually on the merits by highly trained decision-makers.

The government worked hard to bring asylum claims down by more than a third last year. We will keep working hard to do that. We have Bill C-12 in front of us.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, we have been getting the immigration system under control. Bill C-12 is about to pass through the Senate. This will not allow people to abuse our asylum system.

If they cared so much about crime, they would have passed Bill C-14 a long time ago. We could have passed that bill back at Christmastime. There are 80 different changes to the Criminal Code of Canada. We are strengthening our Criminal Code more than we have seen in generations.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we are building an immigration system that keeps Canada strong. That is our mission. That is our mandate. That is what Canadians elected us to do. That is what we will continue to do.

In June, we introduced legislation, Bill C-2, to protect the asylum system against sudden increases in claims. The Conservatives opposed it. In October, we brought forward new legislation, Bill C-12, that would protect our borders and strengthen the immigration system. The Conservatives have delayed it at every stage.

We are building an immigration system that is sustainable and that will keep Canada strong.

Similarities Between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on February 10, 2026, by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding the similarities between Bill C-2, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, and Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures. Bill C-2 is currently at second reading in the House, while Bill C-12 is currently under consideration by the Senate.

In raising the point of order, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands argued that Bill C-2 should not be debated, voted on or even remain on the Order Paper because it is in violation of the same question rule, which prevents the House from considering legislation that is substantially the same. In her intervention, the member contended that parts 1 to 3 and 5 to 12 of Bill C-2 are identical to those already adopted by the House in Bill C-12, and she requested that the Speaker direct the government to remove Bill C-2 from the Order Paper.

The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes also intervened on the matter. He argued that Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 are very similar in substance and that Bill C-2 should not proceed in its current form. The member further argued that Bill C-2 must be placed in abeyance while Bill C-12 continues its progress through the other place. If Bill C-12 receives royal assent, the member suggested, the order for consideration at second reading for Bill C-2 should then be discharged and the bill dropped from the Order Paper.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons also offered remarks on the matter. He stated that parts 4, 11 and 14 to 16 of Bill C-2 do not appear in Bill C-12 and that therefore the bills do not seek to accomplish the same objectives by the same means. Based on his interpretation of a ruling made by Speaker Rota on February 18, 2021, the parliamentary secretary argued that a high degree of similarity must exist between two bills for them to be treated as substantially similar questions, a threshold not reached by the two bills in question, given the broader scope and additional measures contained in Bill C-2.

Precedents set out key considerations for the House and the Chair to assess similarity, including the following: first, the Chair looks at whether the principles and scopes of the two bills are substantially identical. The Chair does not base its judgment solely on overlapping clauses or numerical comparison. Second, a broader bill may render a narrower bill problematic if the broader bill were adopted first, particularly where the narrower bill is duplicative or substantially identical in purpose to a part of the first bill. Third, the Chair considers whether duplication or incoherence in decisions could result by the House occupying itself with a similar question.

In a ruling regarding similar bills, one of which had a broader scope than the other, my predecessor concluded, on December 12, 2023, at page 19979 of the Debates, that:

To be clear, when a government bill and a private member's bill or when two private members' bills are substantially similar, only one of them may proceed and be voted on. Once one of the two has passed second reading, a decision cannot be taken on the other within the same session. Where bills are only similar in part, the effect of adopting one might have a different impact on the other depending on their principle, scope and, of course, which bill is adopted first.

A comprehensive review of Bill C-2 confirms that it does contain many provisions also found in Bill C-12 as adopted by the House. Parts 1 to 3, 5 to 10, and 12 and 13 of Bill C-2 are, indeed, substantially the same as what the House has adopted in Bill C-12.

However, Bill C-2 is broader in scope and also contains a variety of measures not included in Bill C-12, namely parts 4, 11, 14, 15 and 16. From this, the Chair can conclude that the two bills, though overlapping, are not substantively identical.

Further, given that the narrower Bill C-12 was adopted first and that there are substantial provisions in Bill C-2 that the House has not yet debated and considered, it is difficult to argue that the House is being asked to pronounce itself again on identical provisions.

That said, the Chair is admittedly concerned about the extensive similarities between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12, which could potentially create duplication or incoherence in the House's decisions as both bills continue to move through the legislative process. Moreover, the situation currently before the House is somewhat different than the precedents reviewed by the Chair, both in the extent of the overlap and in that Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 are government bills.

The government's prerogative to introduce legislation and to determine when it is called for debate means that there are different mechanisms available to it than are available for the consideration of two private members' bills, or a private member's bill and a government bill. For example, the government could choose to introduce a new bill without the overlapping provisions, or Bill C‑2 could be amended in committee during clause-by-clause consideration to achieve the same end, thereby avoiding the concerns raised.

Nevertheless, given the principles outlined previously, the Chair's close review of both bills leads the Chair to conclude that Bill C‑2 is broader in principle and scope than Bill C‑12 and that, as a result, the question the House would be asked to decide at second reading for Bill C‑2 is substantially different than its decisions on Bill C‑12.

I thank members for their attention.

Opposition Motion—Interim Federal Health Program

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Over the past few years, we have all seen the importance of good public governance. Canadians expect their government to manage public funds responsibly, but never at the expense of our values. Canadians' values are reflected in the values of our government. These are our core values, our humanity and our sense of justice. This is precisely the balance we seek to maintain in managing the interim federal health program.

Generally speaking, finding balance is the most difficult aspect of governing. Governments must avoid going to one extreme or the other. Sometimes, finding a balance is extremely complex and difficult. Despite this, our government is ready to take on this challenge and is ready to seek this balance and implement it.

This program exists for one very simple reason: to ensure that those who are most vulnerable, including asylum seekers, have access to basic health care during a transitional period, and I emphasize the word “transitional”, until they become eligible for provincial and territorial health insurance. Let us also be clear: This program must be managed rigorously. It must be managed transparently and, most of all, sustainably.

Certain figures are being used today to stoke fear and concern, particularly with regard to the increase in the program costs. This makes it important to go over the facts once again.

The increase in costs is not due to an expansion of benefits. This really needs to be stated so that Canadians listening today clearly understand the cause and do not draw simplistic correlations such as the one that was just heard. The increase is not the result of a change in the program's purpose, either. That is not the reason.

This increase in costs is due mainly to a significant increase in the number of refugee claims in recent years and to longer processing times for these claims. In practical terms, this means that some people stay in the system longer and therefore continue to be covered temporarily by the federal program before being transferred to provincial and territorial plans.

In response to these pressures, our government has not stood idly by. As I said earlier, our government has worked very hard to maintain equilibrium within this program. We have taken targeted measures, responsible measures and, above all, concrete measures.

First, we introduced a copayment model for certain supplemental benefits as of 2025. Recipients now contribute a portion of the cost of drugs, the cost of dental care, the cost of vision care and especially the cost of counselling services and assistive devices. Basic care such as medical consultations, hospitalization and tests remain fully covered. This change makes the IFHP more consistent with the experience of many Canadians who also have to contribute to their supplemental plan.

Second, we suspended certain updates to the IFHP that would have resulted in an automatic spending increase, while maintaining coverage comparable to that offered by the provinces and territories to people on welfare.

Third, we introduced and advanced legislative reforms, including Bill C‑12, to reduce abuse, improve processing times and reduce the length of time people rely on temporary federal support.

I would like to digress for a moment. When we speak of temporary situations, we are not talking about people who take advantage of the system, on the contrary. No one on the path to immigration wants to remain in a temporary situation, to remain in uncertainty or to abuse our program. On the contrary, these people want a reply so that they can become part of society, enter the workforce, and integrate into Canadian society with their family. This is very important, because sometimes in our speeches we draw parallels that can create false perceptions or misunderstandings.

Fewer delays mean lower costs. Fewer delays mean a much fairer system for everyone.

Fourth, we ended the use of federally funded hotel accommodations for asylum seekers, and we refocused our efforts on more permanent, sustainable and community-based solutions. These decisions lower costs and promote more stable integration pathways, as I said earlier.

It is also important to remember a fundamental principle: Cutting health care does not make health care needs disappear. On the contrary, delaying essential care until entering into a provincial plan would only shift costs to the provinces and territories and would often only increase them, since health problems do not improve. Instead, they become worse and more expensive to treat. Our government's approach aims to prevent these situations, protect public health and ensure an orderly transition to the provincial and territorial systems.

Furthermore, the program is rigorously monitored. Claims are analyzed, audited and administered through a structured network of health care providers, with clear mechanisms to ensure the integrity of expenditures and the proper use of public funds. We also continue to assess benefits to avoid duplication and maintain fairness across governments.

It should also be said that some financial projections have not yet included the savings generated by the new quotas or the impact of the ongoing legislative reforms. These measures will have a direct impact on how long the program is used and on overall costs. In fact, we can already see some results: In 2025, the number of asylum claims dropped by about one-third from the previous year. This shows that the government's measures are working and are helping to reduce pressure on the system.

Canadians want a well-managed, compassionate and credible immigration system. They want us to protect the vulnerable, address abuse and ensure that every taxpayer dollar is used wisely. That is exactly what our government is doing. We are aligning benefits with provincial plans, introducing cost-sharing mechanisms, strengthening oversight and transparency, reforming the system to improve efficiency, and continuously monitoring, assessing and adjusting the program to ensure its long-term viability.

The interim federal health program is not a privilege. It is a temporary safety net, a public health tool and a transition mechanism. It is a reflection of our values. As we proceed with the reforms, including those in Bill C‑12, we will continue to reduce financial pressures, improve efficiency and ensure that this program remains responsible, fair and sustainable. That is why I encourage the House to support these reforms and continue building a system that is rigorous, compassionate and true to Canadian values.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Conservatives continue to use the $1.5-billion figure. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a good job of presenting a package for parliamentarians. What the member does not highlight is the fact that it does not take into consideration Bill C-12. The Conservatives know that. The leader of the Conservative Party is very much aware of that, and this means that the $1.5-billion figure is just not true.

However, the Conservatives have done two things: They have taken the health care issue, and they have taken this issue to try to pump out a message that is very anti-immigrant, I would suggest.

I am wondering if the member would not agree that it was in poor taste for the Conservative Party of Canada to be sending out information that it knows is not true.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just like my hon. colleague across the way, I am appalled at the Conservative motion today, but I think the Liberals need to look at their own backyard.

Bill C-12 conflicts with the 1951 refugee convention, because the convention does not allow imposed timelines. It violates the right to due process and fair hearings, because it denies the right of asylum seekers to full oral hearings before the Immigration and Refugee Board. It is also arbitrary, because it provides wide discretionary powers to cabinet to cancel visas or suspend applications in the so-called public interest. One only has to look to Trump to know how dangerous it is to make immigration cases partisan.

Finally, the Canadian Bar Association has highlighted that removing judicial oversight in favour of ministerial discretion weakens the true rule of law. My hon. colleague spoke about the rule of law. I am wondering why his government is choosing to violate it.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why the government introduced changes to the general process for asylum seekers in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12. We have a system in place to ensure that, in general, the process takes less than 40 months.

Most asylum seekers, 80%, are accepted at the end of the process. We have a process. We want to create a faster process for determining status. That is precisely the reason for Bills C-2 and C-12.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague on the other side. I am going to tackle “interim”. Interim is the interim process while someone is going through the asylum process. Once a person registers and seeks an asylum claim, they are entitled to the benefit. The moment they have exhausted any of the administrative processes they are entitled to, the benefit goes away. It is that interim period until there is a determination by the authorities in this country. That is what we are referencing. It has gone from $211 million to $896 million. We take issue with the way in which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has framed up the forward-looking numbers, because of the provisions in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12. We are making adjustments.

When the hon. member talks about copay, we have introduced the requirement for individuals to contribute toward supplementary benefits under this program.

The last thing that I am going to say is important. We have 10 minutes. We are talking about $800 million out of $486 billion, and we are talking about legitimate—

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to be here today to discuss and debate a Conservative opposition day motion.

I would like to point out that today is the fourth anniversary of Russia's unjustified and illegal invasion of Ukraine. I would like to add my voice and that of my constituents in Kings—Hants, Nova Scotia, and my colleagues on this subject. Obviously, we are extremely proud of all the people of Ukraine for their efforts to defend their territory, sovereignty and freedom from Russian forces.

I believe this is important for Canadians. I believe that while most Canadians understand the situation, it is not only a matter of Russia and Ukraine. The people of Ukraine are fighting for their sovereignty and their freedom, but also for us, for international rules, for NATO, and for power in an extremely uncertain world. We are fully behind Ukraine. I am proud of all my colleagues who have spoken to this issue today.

With that in mind, I find the motion introduced by the Conservatives today very strange. It is not crazy, but it is strange, in my view. It is unbelievable, given the numerous challenges around the world. Examples include the situation in the Middle East, the situation in Ukraine, and the talks between Canada and the U.S. For example, they could have raised the issue of our Olympic athletes or made statements about them.

Today, although Ukraine is a very important topic, none of the questions raised by Conservative members during oral question period touched on that country. The Conservatives have not brought a motion on how important it is for the Government of Canada to continue supporting our allies at this time.

Today is about the desire of the Conservatives to eliminate the interim federal health program for vulnerable asylum claimants in the country. I was trying to express in French that there is a lot going on in the world. We did not hear questions today from the Conservatives, in question period, on Ukraine.

There is important context to what is going on. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot once called Ukraine a faraway land, and I think all of this bleeds into the question about the seriousness of the types of questions that the Conservative Party puts before the House, in terms of what we are looking at. Again, when we think about the economy, foreign affairs, Canada-U.S. relations, the Olympics, our athletes, food security and affordability, there are a lot of places where we could be spending our time in Parliament, and this is what we have today.

It is important for Canadians to understand what exactly individuals are entitled to. We have heard a lot of debate today in the House. I want to zero in on facts. Of course, Canada has a long history of being a country that is welcoming and compassionate but at the same time principled about how support is given to individuals who may find their way to our shores and how we assess their claims.

Individuals who arrive in Canada are entitled to a process to claim asylum based on the concept that their return and that of their family back to their country of origin could create a situation that could put their lives or their health in jeopardy, or they could be politically prosecuted. There is an entire process that Canada has established. It is something Canadians should be proud of.

We are a country that has welcomed individuals from all around the world. It is part of the cultural mosaic and the fabric of this country. We have a process for it. There is a process independent of the government that assesses the claims, their quality and whether there is enough rigour. Someone simply does not get the benefit of staying in this country if their claim for asylum is not ultimately accepted. Still, the principle we have is that individuals are entitled to a process. I think that is really important when we talk about how the Conservatives have framed this opposition day motion.

The last colleague who spoke in this House talked about individuals who are criminals. I have heard the word “terrorist” brought around in the House. There is not a single member of Parliament in this House who would support the proposition that individuals who have a criminal record ought to be able to stay in the country, and that is not, in fact, what happens. However, the Conservatives have tried to narrow in on an issue that we will see a whole bunch about on social media, with no context, to, frankly, gaslight Canadians and try to create these types of issues. I do not think this is the most important thing happening in the country, but we will get into that.

What are individuals entitled to? Let us say that a member has a constituent in their riding, someone who has arrived in Canada from a country and decided to claim asylum. There is an entitled process where they have an ability to have their case heard. Individuals who register for asylum are, in many cases, vulnerable individuals. I will get to the point that the Conservatives are trying to raise, which is about the idea of illegitimate claims. However, we have to, and ought to, as Canadians, think about individuals who are vulnerable, and we should have a system that allows them due process.

Once an individual registers for asylum, what happens in this country is that they are entitled to have a work permit and basic medical benefits. There are what are called supplementary benefits, and the government has actually moved to introduce copay contributions. Individuals going through this process have basic medical care. I have heard the idea that they are somehow jumping the line. They are not jumping the line. They have an ability to go, like any one of us as Canadians, to see family physicians. When they see a doctor for whatever ailment they may have while they are going through that process, the cost is recovered by the Government of Canada. That is something the Government of Canada pays to the medical physician in question. That is what individuals are entitled to.

The Conservatives are making big hay around rejected applicants. There is an ability for someone, once they have their initial hearing before the Immigration Review Board, the IRB, if they are ultimately not successful, to have one more recourse, which is to apply for an additional process to argue, basically, an appeal to the initial ruling. The government's policy for quite a long-standing period of time has been that those benefits would continue to flow for individuals, so long as they are still within their entitlement of that process. Now, people could reasonably make different assertions. We have heard a lot from the opposition benches that that is unjust, that the cost overall should not be necessarily borne by the system, but we have not heard a whole lot of statistics backing up what actual percentage of the program is tied to individuals who may be asserting one final ability within their entitlement, their due process, and having access to those benefits.

We have put before the floor of the House of Commons changes to this program. We certainly would concur that if there is any concern around abuse of programs, we want to make sure there is no abuse. Of course, people are entitled to a process. I would point my colleagues on the Conservative benches to provisions in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12, where the government is already taking action on this front to ensure that if there is any undue influence, or this idea that individuals are trying to use the asylum system improperly, we have the safeguards to be able to deal with that situation.

The Prime Minister today in question period was very clear that if we look at the number of asylum claims in this country, the amount of temporary foreign workers and the amount of international students, all of those numbers have gone down. Any suggestion that the immigration system in this country is “out of control” or that there is not due process, I think, again, is trying to create a narrative that is not helpful. It is trying to gin people up at home, and I do not think there is validity to what has been said here today in the House of Commons. I think that is important.

Let us think about the entire augment of every vulnerable individual who arrives on Canadian shores, where we have a process. By the way, if, when they go through that process, they are determined to have not met the threshold, both in the IRB and then afterward in the appeal, they are not entitled. When an individual is truly rejected, i.e., they have no ability for any additional recourse from an administrative process, they are not entitled to additional benefits. The Conservatives need to come clean with that message, because they are talking about rejection halfway through the administrative process. If they want to suggest there should not be an administrative process where one can appeal one additional time from the initial ruling, then they should just come out and say that.

Already, in Canada, any individual who is rejected on their asylum claim is not entitled to this benefit, but we do not hear that from the opposition. We are not going to see that on the 45-second clip that is going to be put out there to say how terrible this is and that the government is trying to deceive people. This is the kind of stuff that is corrosive in our society.

The government has already taken measures to introduce copay. That is important. It is not a problem for the Conservatives to raise this in Parliament, but I think it is outrageous that they are using an opposition day motion to do so. This work can be done at committees. At the end of the day, we are talking about 0.0004% of the entire expenditure of the Government of Canada.

Part of the opposition day motion reads, “Canadians that have paid into the healthcare system their whole lives are unable to get the healthcare they deserve in part because resources are going to false asylum claimants”. The Conservatives have not made out that we are talking about $211 million four years ago; that number has gone up. The government has taken adjustment measures within its legislative authorities. We are talking about 0.004%.

If the Conservatives have a problem with access to health care in this country, why did they not support the government when it put 40 billion dollars' worth of new health care spending over a 10-year period? They voted against it. That is a bit more damning for Canadians getting health care than 0.004%, which includes legitimate asylum claimants. The Conservatives suggest to us that they do have a compassionate heart for these vulnerable Canadians and that we should continue to support these individuals.

We are talking about an even more minute number, and this is what the Conservatives choose to bring before the House of Commons. How about dental care? There are almost 9,000 constituents in Kings—Hants who received the federal dental care program. Conservatives voted against it. I find the premise a bit rich that, as we try to work through the challenges of health care and a larger baby boomer demographic and as provinces are making choices on how they are going to allocate, this is the type of policy being brought forward.

We heard some responses from the ministers in question period about the idea of gaslighting and the dog whistle stuff. I have belief in my hon. colleagues that there are good members across the way, but this is playing with fire a little. The facetious part is when I hear reference to “rejected asylum claimants”. They should say that “asylum claimants who have appealed within their internal process” should not be entitled. They should just come out and say that, because these individuals are not yet fully rejected. There are not terrorists getting asylum benefits in this country. There are not criminals going through this process who are getting these benefits.

Those are the monikers and the names that are used to gin people up at home, because any rightful Canadian would say of course that is BS, but that is not what is happening. This is the kind of stuff that frustrates Canadians, and rightfully so. By the way, I stand here as a parliamentarian of six-plus years. There is plenty to criticize of any government that sits on this side in a Westminster system. This government is not perfect. I am proud of the work of our Prime Minister and our government, but I am sure there are ample areas where the Conservatives could stand up and talk about issues that perhaps deserve attention. This is not about valid public policy. This is about trying to gin people up at home in a political context, with zero context about what is and what is not true. That is where I see it.

I am just going to take a quick tangent that is connected to this. There was a group of farmers in my office today, and we were talking about food security and support for farmers. I asked about things such as the clean fuel standard. I said that instead of real, substantive policy, what we get from the Conservative Party is the idea of getting rid of the clean fuel standard, which is driving biofuel policy, which is benefiting rural western Canadian farmers, particularly in the canola sector. They are talking about eliminating Canada's most effective greenhouse gas emissions reduction program to get a negligible benefit on the farm.

That is the quality, or lack thereof in my personal view, of the policy direction we are getting from the Conservative Party of Canada. I want to see better. I will take it, because it is going to continue to provide the Liberal Party and the government an ability to show a real contrast in terms of our differences. This is not thoughtful public policy, in my respectful view.

The government is already taking measures to address any of the concerns, as I have mentioned, in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12. We are not going to stand idly by if there are individuals arriving in Canada who are trying to use the asylum system, which has been compassionate in Canadian history, and if these are not legitimate claims. We have a way to deal with that. We have a way to try to expedite the work around asylum claims. There has been the hiring of individuals at the IRB to try to speed up these processes and ensure that we are legitimizing the vulnerable individuals who are arriving and seeking refuge in Canada to be able to contribute to our communities as part of our social fabric. At the same time, we are making sure that we have a pathway for individuals to leave the country if their claim is not met.

Conservatives stand up and speak about rejected asylum claimants, but that already happens. Once they go through the process and they have no other recourse, they do not get the benefit. How many more times do we have to say it? Why do the Conservatives not just say, “We do not want individuals to have the benefit when they are halfway through the process”?

They might as well just say they do not want an appeal court for individuals who might be convicted. This is the same thing. We have a process in this country through our institutions. It is fair game if they would like to suggest that individuals have only one shot at IRB; that is fine, but let us actually deal with that. They should just say it. Those are important points. That is what I find deeply frustrating about this.

Why has the budget overall gone from about $200 million to $800 million in the last four years? I will go back to where I started this speech. Look at what is going on in the world. We have a war in eastern Europe. Individuals have fled Ukraine and have sought refuge here. We have war in Sudan. We certainly have war in the Middle East. We have geopolitical conflicts all over the world, so I wonder if we could ask ourselves why there might be a rise in asylum claims when we look at Canada, a country of stability, a country of rule of law, and a country of institutions where people say, “That is a place where I would like to take my family.”

Now, people are not entitled to that process illegitimately. Individuals are not just allowed to come to Canada and stay. We have rules, order and process. If the Conservatives would like to suggest that the process is, in their mind, too fair or too long, then they should just come out and say it, but when they come out and say that rejected asylum claimants should not get the benefit, at the end of the day that is not actually the case. Once an individual, a vulnerable individual who arrives, is fully rejected through the process by which they are entitled to seek and to make their claim, any cases regarding individuals who do not have validity are being challenged.

These are the things on which we just have to have better debate on the floor of the House of Commons. I know it is easy for me to say that, but I would invite all members to see that we have to be more thoughtful than this.

Again, we are choosing to spend an entire day on the floor House of Commons to gin people up about individuals who come to Canada on the premise that they are vulnerable individuals coming from war-torn countries and challenging political situations where they cannot go home. We have a program of services that Canadians would be proud of. Individuals are not jumping the line. They do not get access to medical services above and beyond a Canadian. If and when they are able to access the medical services in question, the Government of Canada helps contribute to the cost as part of our international obligations and as part of our humanitarian programs.

We have taken measures in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 to make sure that any abuse of that program is reined in. We have introduced copays. As far as this goes, the government is already taking any actions that reasonably could have been seen from the opposition benches. I just wish we could have a little more serious debate. There is plenty of room for questions, so I look forward to the conversation from my colleagues.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in my role, I have the privilege of speaking with leaders and citizens around the world, and I repeatedly hear that countries respect and want to emulate the immigration system in this country.

In addition, I would ask the opposition to vote with us on Bill C-12. This would be a reform to strengthen our asylum system.

We have also recently announced changes to the interim health care program by introducing certain services relating to copayment. These are responsible, fiscally important moves—

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage, in the spirit of the member opposite's question, support for Bill C-2 and Bill C-12, which would help to address some of these issues. That is the first point.

The second point is that, when someone commits a crime in this country, they should serve the time in this country.

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just got here. The Leader of the Opposition has been here his entire career, with one exception.

During the time that Canada's new government has been here, we have reduced asylum seekers by one-third. We have reduced temporary foreign workers by 50%. We have reduced new students by 60%. We are putting in place, and this is in front of the House in Bill C-12 and Bill C-2, an ability to end the abuse of the asylum system. We look for their support.

Opposition Motion—Interim Federal Health Program

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's point, but I think it is important to say this in English.

However, that cannot be accomplished at the expense of our values.

We have already taken steps to ensure the sustainability of the interim federal health program and make sure that vulnerable people have access to care. We are maintaining necessary health care coverage while taking important steps to manage public funds. Recognizing these pressures, the government has taken a number of targeted and concrete steps to control costs and strengthen sustainability.

What did we do?

First, to control costs and strengthen sustainability, we implemented a copayment model for certain products and services. In budget 2025, the government introduced copayments to cover the supplemental benefits offered under the program. As of May 1 of this year, beneficiaries will cover part of the cost of their products and services. Basic medical services, such as doctor's visits and hospital care, will remain fully covered. However, beneficiaries must now cover part of the cost of supplemental benefits to ensure a certain balance with provincial public programs.

Let us be clear. Eliminating health care does not eliminate health care needs. Postponing essential care until provincial insurance can cover it, as the Conservatives are proposing, would be counterproductive for provincial finances. We would simply be shifting these expenses to the provinces.

Second, we suspended some updates to the interim federal health program benefit grids to make the program more rigorous. These benefits are continually adjusted to match the provincial and territorial benefits available to Canadians. I want to emphasize here that the federal assistance program for asylum seekers is not a deluxe program. The beneficiaries of this program do not receive benefits that go well beyond what the average Canadian receives.

Finally, and this does not pertain exclusively to the program, we have also put an end to hotel accommodations to make the program more affordable.

One of the most significant changes we are making stems from Bill C‑12, which was passed by the House and is now before the Senate. Bill C‑12, passed by the House, is part of the ongoing efforts to reduce the number of refugee claims. The bill will establish new grounds of ineligibility, strengthen system integrity and support the implementation of more efficient decision-making timelines for refugee claims. By cutting down abuse, improving efficiency and optimizing claims processing, these reforms will shorten the period during which people rely on temporary federal supports.

By putting measures in place that support the long-term sustainability of the interim federal health program, we are ensuring that people continue to have access to essential services until they become eligible for provincial health insurance. It is important to note that this set of measures demonstrates that our government is actively monitoring the real financial pressures associated with the federal refugee assistance program and managing them responsibly. We will ensure that this program remains fair and sustainable through structural changes, cost sharing, strengthened oversight and audit mechanisms, and the alignment of benefits with provincial systems.

It is also important to note that in 2025, the number of asylum claims dropped by roughly one third compared to the previous year. This decrease shows that the measures already in place are helping to ease the pressure on the system. We are already taking action. Our Conservative colleagues mention in their motion that the cost of the system has skyrocketed, from $211 million to almost $900 million.

What they did not mention was the reason for such an increase. Essentially, it related to an increase in the number of people using the program. What caused this increase in the number of people using the program and claiming asylum in Canada? We do not live on an island, cut off from everything going on around us.

I clearly remember the Roxham Road situation in 2018, because I was working for a different government at the time. Thousands of people arrived in Canada. Why did these thousands of people come to Canada? I am sure that the Conservatives would have set up a barrier or built a wall and told all these people to go away. Back in 2018 and 2019, they came hoping that Canada would help them following the election of a U.S. president who is still around today and who sparked a mass movement of people who wanted to leave the United States for a more welcoming country like ours. Naturally, this caused a lot of disruption, and we had a hard time adjusting our programs to cope with it. However, we could not look the other way either. Barricading the border or telling people to leave because we could care less about their problems was out of the question. That is not the Canadian way. Canada has never been like that.

It has cost us a lot and it is still costing us a lot, but we will be able to normalize this situation. Again, we do not live on an island that is completely isolated from what is happening on the rest of the planet. That is why our government has taken steps to deal with the situation and normalize things by ensuring that benefits are harmonized with provincial programs. It is not true that asylum seekers have a deluxe health care system. Frankly, people need to get out there and see what is actually happening.

We have also introduced copayment mechanisms to improve the system's viability. We have passed legislation to ease the pressure.

What I find least acceptable about our opposition colleagues' motion is point (iv), which suggests that Canadians do not have access to health care services because people from elsewhere are monopolizing the system. Frankly, that is an unacceptable correlation. By that logic, it is the fault of foreigners, of asylum seekers, that poor old Canadians do not have access to health services. That is what we call rabble-rousing.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government hides its xenophobia in omnibus bills such as Bill C-12, and the Conservatives have just laid it all out in front of us with today's motion.

I am just fact-checking: How does the Conservative disinformation campaign with today's motion harm migrant, refugee and immigrant communities?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask my colleague opposite not to shout. I do not think that sort of aggression is warranted here.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer made his report. He said this is the projection. It could change if Bill C-12 does not see court challenges. It likely is going to receive court challenges. Many groups have already said they are going to challenge Bill C-12 in court. The PBO said his office has the resources to redo the analysis with this question of Bill C-12 taken into account. We asked him to do that at committee in a motion that the Liberals are currently obstructing. Rather than getting to the bottom of it, in good faith, as we will look into this with the PBO, who wants to, the Liberals are obstructing their own agenda. It is bizarre.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable how the Conservatives continue to want to spread misinformation. They say, “2030” and “$1.5 billion”. Even the leader of the Conservative Party says that. They are basing it on the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who did not take into consideration Bill C-12. I understand what Bill C-12 would do, and if the Conservative Party was honest with Canadians, they would give up and concede that it is misinformation to say $1.5 billion because it is just not true.

Why does the Conservative Party continue to spread misinformation?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization defines xenophobia as “the irrational fear or dislike of people from different countries or cultures, often resulting in discrimination and social exclusion.”

Is the hon. member trying to fuel the same sort of fascist rhetoric we are seeing in the south? I know the Liberals are trying to do that through Bill C-12, kicking out migrants and violating international law.

Does my colleague agree with me that what he is doing is irresponsible and places—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no, it is not factual.

They are saying that the cost is going to continue to grow to $1.5 billion by the year 2030. The purpose of this email is to generate their data bank of rage and more money for the coffers of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the purpose of this debate, and of the email that they circulated to thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is what we see today with the far right Conservative Party. This is not the same party of the Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell or Joe Clark eras. It is far from that.

I have posed this question to members opposite: What is the purpose of saying $1.5 billion by 2030, when they know full well that it is just not true? Canada voted for a new government back in April of last year, and the Prime Minister brought forward Bill C-2, which would dramatically reduce the number of asylum seekers. The Conservatives know that. That was back in June of last year, shortly after the federal election. The Conservative Party filibustered the legislation, and we had to come up with a compromise, which led to Bill C-12. That is still in the Senate, as opposed to being passed. It deals, in good part, with the concerns that Canadians have with asylum seekers. That is one action the Prime Minister and the government have taken.

Let us look at the 2025 budget. In that budget, we put in a copay system, and refugees have to pay a portion. This is something that will save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. We have been able to work that through. There are two major initiatives that have been taken by the government, by the new Prime Minister.

On the one hand, the Conservatives filibuster. On the other hand, they ignore, and then they pump out material to try to give a false impression, telling Canadians something that is just not true.

When the Parliamentary Budget Officer says $1.5 billion, that is not taking Bill C-12 or the copay system into consideration. The Conservative members who stand up, and they have been standing up, know full well that is the case, but that has not prevented them from talking about it, even though they know it is not true.

Why do the Conservatives do that? They do that for the same reason they like to use messages like “fake”, “bogus” and “rejected”. These are all terms they like to use.

If we take a look at the social media they post, we will see that its primary purpose is to cater to a very small group of individuals who are supporting the Conservative right so they can keep that group happy and, at the same time, generate money for their coffers. It is at a great expense, because there are many red Tories, progressive Tories and Liberals, Canadians who are living in Conservative ridings, who will see through the misinformation that is constantly being put out by the Conservative Party. These Canadians will realize that our Prime Minister and the government have taken several actions to address the issue while demonstrating at the same time, as other countries around the world have, that there is a need for governments to be able to support refugees.

Genuine, bona fide refugees come to Canada every year, as they do to other nations around the world. The Conservatives talk about health care as if the health care system is threatened because the government, today and in the past, has supported refugees. I used to be a health care critic in the province of Manitoba many years ago. One of the greatest threats to health care is not just money; it is how to manage the changes necessary to provide quality health care into the future, particularly for Manitobans.

Ottawa provides a great deal of tax dollars to provinces as health transfers. We also give equalization payments. We have also looked at ways in which we can expand all forms of health care, whether it is for personal care or mental health issues. Never before has a government invested more in health care than we have with this government.

Yes, people are concerned about health care. As a national government, we will continue to work with our stakeholders in provinces and territories to support where we can, but the Conservatives do a disservice to the whole immigration, citizenship and refugee file when they start to pick and choose and to distort reality to generate money for their political party. It feeds into the fact that the Conservative Party of today is more interested in its own political party than it is in the interests of Canadians.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with not only a good friend of mine, but in fact a great friend of the Sikh community, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

The interim federal health program, or IFHP, is a temporary program. It supports people who do not yet have provincial or territorial health coverage. It is also an important tool to protect the health and safety of Canadians while supporting vulnerable people who are seeking Canada's protection.

Let me address the claims behind the motion before us.

The first is on the growth in costs. Yes, costs under the IFHP have increased, but we must be honest about why. The cost of this program depends mainly on two things: how many asylum claims are made, and how long it takes to make final decisions.

When claim volumes are high and processing times are long, costs rise. The good news is that under our government, asylum claims were down by about one-third last year. This will reduce pressure on the IFHP. Through Bill C-12 and other measures, we are closing loopholes at the border, tightening visa rules and discouraging misuse of the asylum system. These actions reduce future surges and shorten delays. That is how we control costs responsibly.

Second, the opposition relies heavily on the projections from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We respect the work of the PBO, but this report presents an incomplete picture. It does not account for the recent changes to the IFHP announced in budget 2025, the expected impact of Bill C-12 on claim volumes and processing time, and the possibility of further future adjustments. It also assumes that the government will do nothing more, which is simply not true. When opposition members claim that the program will cost far more in the future, they are relying on projections that ignore reforms already under way.

Third is the claim that asylum claimants receive better care than Canadians. The IFHP provides basic and temporary coverage while claims are processed by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Essential care, such as visits to a doctor or a hospital, will continue to be fully covered. This protects public health and avoids higher costs later. For supplementary benefits, such as some vision care and medications, we are making measured changes. Starting in May, there will be a $4 copayment for filling or refilling a prescription and a 30% copayment for other supplementary services. These changes were announced in budget 2025. They are expected to save hundreds of millions of dollars each year. They also align the IFHP with other publicly funded programs, including those for people on social assistance. At this time, essential care remains fully covered. We will monitor the impact closely to protect public health and meet our legal and humanitarian obligations.

Fourth, the motion claims that asylum claims are preventing Canadians from getting health care. There is no evidence for this. It is difficult to measure exactly how much pressure asylum claimants place on the health care system, and rejected claimants are only one portion of the IFHP users.

My two daughters are physicians who are proudly serving Canadians, and I can say that Canada's health care challenges mainly come from a shortage of doctors and nurses, an aging population and long-standing system pressures. Blaming asylum seekers will not fix wait times. It will not train nurses, and it will not build hospitals. That is why our government is investing in health care for Canadians.

More than six million Canadians are now eligible for the Canadian dental care plan, which is saving families hundreds of dollars a year. With budget 2025, we are investing $5 billion in health care infrastructure. We are all well aware that this is the first time leadership has been shown by a federal government to intervene in this particular program. Through pharmacare, mental health investments and co-operation with provinces and territories, we are strengthening health care based on medical need, not the ability to pay.

Let me turn to the proposals in the motion. Part A calls for reviewing benefits to find savings. We already agree with this principle. That is why we introduced copayments for supplementary benefits. These changes will save hundreds of millions of dollars each year. We can remain open to further examination, but the motion ignores what has already been done.

Part B calls for limiting rejected claimants to emergency life-saving care only. This sounds simple, but it is not. Some people cannot be removed for humanitarian reasons. Limiting them to emergency-only care would create a contradiction. We would be saying we cannot send them back but also denying them basic primary care. This also risks pushing people into hospital emergency rooms instead of to family doctors. That increases costs and pressure on the health care system. We can show limited openness to reviewing how long coverage lasts, but the Conservative proposal would likely create higher costs and worse outcomes.

Part C calls for more transparency. Our government is already transparent. We have provided information to Parliament. We asked the PBO to examine the program. We answered Order Paper questions. The number of people covered and cost are already public. A new formal reporting law is therefore unnecessary.

Part D calls for immediate removal of non-citizens convicted of serious crimes. In Canada, criminal law comes first. People must face justice and serve their sentences before removal. If we change this rule, we would remove a real punishment for serious crime. People could commit crimes and simply be sent home.

Recently I had a discussion with one of the top young criminal defence lawyers, Gagan Nahal, who is also running for a city council position. I wish him the best. In fact, he agreed with me that they should be punished and serve sentences before they are sent back to their home country. The motion would weaken deterrence and threaten public safety as well.

I also want to speak about politics and accountability. The Conservatives say this motion is about accountability in health care spending, but if they truly care about accountability in the health care system, they would support my private member's bill, Bill C-239, which proposes to strengthen accountability under the Canada Health Act. The Conservatives cannot say they want accountability on one hand and then block an accountability bill on the other.

This shows the motion is not really about fixing health care; it is about playing politics with vulnerable people. The IFHP is not only about compassion. It is about public health and smart spending. Many asylum claimants will eventually become protected persons, permanent residents and possibly citizens. If we deny basic health care now, we will likely pay much higher costs later through the emergency care system. The government is acting responsibly by reducing asylum claim volumes, speeding up decisions, introducing copayments and investing in health care for Canadians. While the Conservatives debate what services to cut, we are focused on health care based on medical needs and fairness.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is important to understand that Bill C‑12 was introduced because objections were raised with regard to the problems with Bill C‑2. A solution was found with Bill C‑12.

Now, is discrediting the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who conducts assessments, a normal way of doing things for the Liberals? The Liberals have disagreed with the Parliamentary Budget Officer's numbers on several occasions. He is an independent official who provides information. No one on that side of the House will ever tell the truth. At least someone has access to the figures and can give us forecasts. If the forecast changes and things cost less, then so much the better for everyone. However, this is the data currently available, and I trust the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up on the idea of misinformation. There are some members who know full well that, when they talk about the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the $1.5 billion, it does not take into consideration Bill C-2, which the Prime Minister and the government brought in last June and that ultimately led to Bill C-12, which is now before the Senate. That will have a profound impact on what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has to say.

Would the member not concede that Bill C-12 addresses a major concern from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and that the Conservatives are saying $1.5 billion knowing full well that this is not the case?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a coincidence that the member mentions that the PBO report does not include provisions in Bill C-12. That is why the Conservatives moved a motion at committee calling for an updated PBO report that would include the provisions of Bill C-12, as well as further important details that the Government of Canada seems to have no clue about, including the number of fraudulent asylum claims, the number of claims that have been denied where people are still receiving health care, and the number of people who should have been deported but are still in Canada.

Liberal members at the health committee were delaying and filibustering the motion even though they were also calling for an updated report. The member should encourage his Liberal colleagues to stop obstructing Parliament, work with us and get this project done.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is really important that we recognize that there are many who intentionally spread misinformation. Let us think of it in this sense: The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the projections that were being made were based on something that did not incorporate Bill C-12.

Bill C-12 comes out of Bill C-2. Our Prime Minister and the government brought in Bill C-2 to deal with asylum seekers, and the Conservatives know that. When they talk about the $1.5 billion, they know it is wrong, because Bill C-12 is now in the Senate, and it comes from Bill C-2. That is the only thing we can get out of Bill C-2 from the Conservatives.

Would the member not acknowledge that the Parliamentary Budget Officer does not take into consideration Bill C-12?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-12 was the subject of vigorous debate at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We proposed amendments and improved the bill. However, a bill does not solve all of the problems.

There is often a tendency to forget about and abandon the people who have to deal with things like organized crime and organized smuggling groups in their small communities. These people live in small villages and they worry about finding migrants who have crossed the U.S. border illegally in their fields or forests. These migrants may sometimes be freezing cold, injured or suffering from hypothermia. I do not often hear about solutions to help these people. We need to talk about that. Immigration is a complex phenomenon, and I think that we need to look at several aspects of it. I would encourage the Liberals to listen to today's discussions.

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

Madam Speaker, less than a year ago, Canada elected a new Prime Minister, who talked about stabilizing immigration. If we look at the actions he has taken since then, the copayment was brought back in the 2025 budget and Bill C-12 was introduced, which would deal significantly with asylum seekers. Where I agree with the member is that there needs to be a respectful level of debate as opposed to promoting anger and racial attitudes on such an important issue.

We recognize that we need to make some changes. I do not recall how the Bloc voted on Bill C-12, but I would ask the member to provide her thoughts on that particular issue.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary say he will stand up and call out whenever refugees are made scapegoats.

Why did he not stand up and call out Bill C-12? Right now, the senators are trying, with sober second thought, to take out the anti-refugee components of that bill.

Similarities Between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to two points of order raised in the previous sitting week by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes with respect to the consideration of Bill C-2, the strong borders act, in the context of Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act.

Both members allege that Bill C-2 cannot proceed, on the basis that Bill C-12, which has been passed by the House, represents a similar question.

As the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes stated in his intervention, with respect to the rule governing a similar question:

This rule is dependent upon the principle which forbids the same question from being decided in the House twice within the same session. Although two similar or identical motions or bills may appear in the Notice Paper, only one motion or one bill may be proceeded with. Thus, if a decision is taken by the House on the first bill [or motion]...then the other similar or identical...[motion] may not be proceeded with.

However, this does not address what constitutes a substantially similar question.

On February 18, 2021, the Speaker ruled on this matter in the case of Bill C-13 and Bill C-218. He stated:

This makes clear that if...[both] bills are similar, without being substantially...[similar], both may be placed on notice, introduced and given first reading, and both could even be debated at second reading, provided that the House has not taken a decision with respect to either of them.

He went on to state:

In adopting Bill C-218 at second reading, the House has agreed to the principle of the bill and consequently has agreed to repealing the portion of the Criminal Code that deals with sports betting.... In fact, the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study. As a consequence, the Chair has difficulty seeing how the House could now move forward with Bill C-13 after it has adopted the larger principle of repealing the very portion of the Criminal Code that Bill C-13 seeks to amend.

This is the clearest ruling that identifies what constitutes a substantially similar question. The precedent just mentioned, however, is not in any way analogous to the situation with Bill C-12 and Bill C-2. Bill C-12 has a much narrower scope than Bill C-2.

In fact, of the parts contained in Bill C-2, the following parts were not included in Bill C-12.

Part 4 amends the Canada Post Corporation Act to permit the demand, seizure, detention or retention of anything in the course of post only in accordance with an act of Parliament. It also amends the act to expand the Canada Post Corporation’s authority to open mail in certain circumstances to include the authority to open letters.

Part 11 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to prohibit certain entities from accepting cash deposits from third parties and certain persons or entities from accepting cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more.

Part 14 modernizes certain provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation. It amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, facilitate access to basic information that will assist in the investigation of federal offences through an information demand or a judicial production order to persons who provide services to the public. It also amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to facilitate access to basic information that will assist the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the performance of its duties and functions under section 12 or 16 of that act through information demands given to persons or entities that provide services to the public.

Part 15 of Bill C-2 enacts the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act, which establishes a framework for ensuring that electronic service providers can facilitate the exercise, by authorized persons, of authorities to access information conferred under the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

Part 16 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to permit a person or entity referred to in section 5 of that act to collect and use an individual's personal information where the information is disclosed to the person or entity by a government department, institution or agency or law enforcement agency, and the collection and use are for the purpose of detecting or deterring money laundering, terrorist activity financing or sanctions evasion or for a consistent purpose.

Members, and the Speaker, will note that there are many more elements and, by virtue of these additional measures, a much broader scope in Bill C-2. Since Bill C-2 has not come to a vote at second reading, there is no procedural obstacle to the progression of Bill C-12 in the House. I will return to this issue in a few moments.

Moreover, the rule that governs what constitutes a substantially similar bill or motion is that the motion or bill must seek to accomplish the same objective by the same means. This is the basis of the Speaker's ruling on February 18, 2021, on sports betting.

Since Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 do not seek to accomplish the same objectives by the same means, the rule governing substantially similar bills does not apply. If this rule was as strict as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes allege, then it would have been impossible for the House to consider 15 opposition day motions from the Conservative Party on the carbon tax in the previous Parliament. Alas, the rule is not interpreted in the manner they suggest.

Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 do contain some similar elements, but there is a great deal of difference in their composition. Therefore, the question on either of these two bills would be a substantially different question upon which the House would make decisions.

There have been points of order in the past that the same question rule applied where it clearly did not. For example, some budget implementation bills contained items of Private Members' Business that had been voted on at second reading. This did not prevent the budget bills from advancing.

In conclusion, the substantially similar question rule has been applied by Speakers with restraint and has only been invoked in specific situations where the two items were substantially similar in the objectives they sought to achieve in a very similar, if not identical, manner.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the safety of Canadians and Quebeckers is our priority. Officers carefully review each refugee claim before referring it to the Immigration and Refugee Board. Ineligible claims are not referred.

Under our government, the number of refugee claims has dropped by a third. With Bill C-12, we will be able to do even more to prevent sudden surges.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, do we know what happens to failed asylum seekers? They are removed.

Last year, we removed over 22,000 inadmissible individuals from Canada. This year, through the strengthening Canada's immigration system act, Bill C-12, which is now going through the Senate, we will be removing more individuals. More will be ineligible to seek asylum. We are hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers, the first cohort of which is graduating this Friday. We are strengthening our border and ensuring that those who are inadmissible do not remain here.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure all Canadians that asylum seekers who come to this country are judged for their legitimacy. If they are found to be legitimate refugees and asylum seekers, as in all compassionate countries and all signatories to international agreements, they are permitted to stay. Those who are not found to have respected those criteria are asked to leave.

The government has made very tough measures in Bill C-12, currently before the Senate, to make sure that we can continue to get that number down.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the figures cited by the member are projections. They are not actual figures. They are projections that do not take into account the changes made to the program or the significant improvements we are making to the asylum system in Bill C‑12. This work is already well under way. We are reducing costs and we will protect vulnerable people.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are working hard to ensure that our system integrates asylum seekers. We have reduced asylum claims by a third. We also introduced Bill C‑12. I want to thank my colleagues for helping us with this bill.

The good news is that asylum claims are down by a third and we are making adjustments to our program to keep it sustainable. We will continue to work hard.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, to speak to the PBO report, those are projections in that report. They do not take into account the changes that would come in Bill C-12, nor do they take into account the interim health measures that we have introduced, including copay and other provisions, so I look forward to that.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, to keep our program sustainable, we have made and are making measured changes to the health coverage. We have already introduced copay to the system. We are already curbing the misuse. We have introduced a lot of integrity measures. Bill C-12 is currently in front of us, and I thank the Conservatives for supporting that. That would also reduce misuse of the system. We also have international obligations that Canada will continue to honour, particularly for those who are in need, and most of them are children.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member to this important discussion. We have already introduced and made changes to the interim federal health program that will considerably reduce the costs. We are also making significant changes and have introduced Bill C-12, which would curb the misuse of asylum. We will control costs and we will truly protect those who are vulnerable, in line with our international and humanitarian obligations.

Similarities Between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although the business of the House will continue in a mere moment's time, the whole House knows that Bill C-2 was a significant overreach. If passed in its current form, Bill C-2 would require law-abiding Canadians to lose important liberties to pay for the Liberals' failures on borders and immigration.

The government, realizing the passage of Bill C-2 would be neither swift nor assured, went back to the drawing board and repackaged the less contentious aspects into new legislation, Bill C-12, the Bill C-2 redo. However, the government has since publicly indicated that the orphaned portions of Bill C-2 not only remain Liberal policy but also continue to be part of its parliamentary agenda, as is.

I share the member's view that Bill C-2, in its current form, cannot proceed further in the House by virtue of the same question rule. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, explains this practice at paragraphs 12.89 and 12.90:

A decision once made cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House. Thus, if a bill or motion is rejected or adopted, it cannot be revived in the same session.... This is to prevent the time of the House being used in the discussion of motions of the same nature, with the possibility of contradictory decisions being arrived at in the course of the same session.

This rule is dependent upon the principle which forbids the same question from being decided in the House twice within the same session. Although two similar or identical motions or bills may appear in the Notice Paper, only one motion or one bill may be proceeded with. Thus, if a decision is taken by the House on the first bill, for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process, then the other similar or identical bill may not be proceeded with.

In the present case, Bill C-12 would be what is described as the “first bill” in Janse and LeBlanc's explanation, because it had been adopted at second reading back on October 23, 2025, while Bill C-2 would be the “other bill” described in that passage and therefore cannot now proceed.

Bill C-12 and Bill C-2 are, in my view, very similar in substance. Indeed, Bill C-12 is effectively a copy and paste of 11 of the 16 parts of Bill C-2, plus one of its two schedules, as the member enumerated in her argument.

Setting aside the marketing-oriented short titles of the two bills, Bill C-12 is composed of 136 of the 197 clauses found in Bill C-2, or 69% of its clauses, adjusted only insofar as necessary to reflect the passage of time between the introduction of the two bills. As such, if the House is called upon to vote on Bill C-2, it would be called upon to vote again for second reading of many legislative measures it has already approved, but it might yield a different result.

The Chair has had multiple opportunities during the previous two Parliaments to rule on these issues, after many Conservative private members' bills have been poached by the government as its own legislation. While we are happy to see a good idea get adopted, often it gets thrown into an omnibus budget implementation bill, or buried, some might say.

I would refer the House, for example, to the following rulings: Mr. Speaker Rota, on February 18, 2021, at page 4256 of the Debates; the Deputy Speaker on May 11, 2022, at page 5123 of the Debates; Mr. Speaker Rota on June 6, 2022, at page 6140 of the Debates; Mr. Speaker Rota on September 20, 2022, at page 7341 of the Debates; the Speaker's immediate predecessor on November 29, 2023, at page 19211 of the Debates, and again on December 12, 2023, at page 19978; and finally, the then Deputy Speaker on June 7, 2024, at page 24627 of the Debates.

In the May 2022 ruling, the Chair held that Bill C-250, the private member's bill proposed by our colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon South, could not be debated and would be rendered “pending” following the second reading of Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill that contained clauses similar to my friend's bill because:

The House should not face a situation where the same question can be decided twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

In June 2024, the Chair again fashioned a similar procedure, which would have seen the vote at third reading of another private member's bill, Bill C-323, held in abeyance, if necessary, until the budget implementation bill, Bill C-59, had completed its course through Parliament.

This approach to placing pieces of legislation on hold after a similar bill has made progress is not a brand new practice. I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener, who said on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, in another situation concerning nearly identical pieces of legislation:

...the House is not going to occupy itself on two separate occasions under two separate headings with exactly the same business. That would not be reasonable, and I can find no support or authority for following such a course. Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.

To sum up one of my most brief points of order ever, 69% of the content of Bill C-2 is replicated in Bill C-12, making the two bills substantively similar. The House has since passed Bill C-12 at third reading, in another example of the wonderful collaboration that is found in this place, and it is working its way through the procedures of the other place.

Because the two bills are substantively similar, the same question rule precludes the House from voting on the same matter twice, and therefore, Bill C-2 must be placed in abeyance while Bill C-12 remains before Parliament. If Bill C-12 receives royal assent, Bill C-2 then must be discharged and dropped from the Order Paper.

I note that all of the records were from nearly the last 100 years, again a departure from my usual practice in raising the precedents that guide the decisions of the Chair.

Public Safety

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, the same measures that I refer to on asylum in Bill C-12, which is currently in the Senate, were originally presented in the House in Bill C-2 back in June. Had the Conservatives not obstructed at that time and co-operated with us, those asylum cases that the member is referring to would not be allowed.

However, there is good news. Once Bill C-12 passes in the Senate, the claims that have been made will be cancelled.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, extortion is real and we are taking it very seriously. That is why, back in June, we tabled lawful access measures in Bill C-2. Those measures would make it possible for police to quickly investigate these types of crimes, as well as child predator crimes. It is important for us to give law enforcement the tools it needs to keep up with criminals.

The motion that has been brought forward by the Conservatives is basically moot. With Bill C-12, all of the asylum cases they are referring to would not be allowed.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, the premier of the province, the mayor of Abbotsford and the police chief of Abbotsford have all said to please go across party lines to get Bill C-2, Bill C-12 and Bill C-14 passed.

I used to think that maybe it is obstruction that Conservatives are doing, but I really think they do not even read the bills. If they read the bills, they would know that it would be very impactful to pass them, legislate them and get the tools to the police, who need them right away.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claims

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on a motion addressing an issue that is deeply affecting communities across the country, which is extortion.

We are debating extortion today in the House for one simple reason: It is a crisis. In just a decade, extortion has increased by 330% nationwide, and in British Columbia alone, it is up more than 500%. These are not abstract statistics; they represent families, small businesses and entire communities living under the threat of a system that has failed to protect them.

Let me set the scene for one second. Surrey, B.C., is the eleventh-largest city in Canada. Let us call it a mid-sized city. In January alone, 31 days, there were 36 reported cases of extortion. That is more than one act of criminal extortion every single day in a mid-sized Canadian city. This is why it is a crisis.

Let us be clear about what extortion looks like. It is bullets through windows of small businesses, gunfire outside family homes in the middle of the night, bystanders caught in the crosshairs and families living in fear, wondering if they are next.

In Brampton, gunshots were fired outside a family's home while they slept. A video was sent to them along with the act, demanding $500,000. This is not petty crime, and it is not first-time offenders; it is organized crime, transnational gangs and hardened repeat violent offenders turning quiet neighbourhoods, cul-de-sacs and suburbs into what feels like a war zone for the families that live there. The Mayor of Surrey has called it a national emergency. The Premier of British Columbia, who I will remind members is not a Conservative, has called it ludicrous. It is hard to disagree, because our laws no longer protect the people they are supposed to protect.

Where is the federal government? The answer is nowhere. The Liberals have watched this unfold and pretended the crisis did not exist until they blamed everyone else for the chaos that they themselves created. They oversaw the chaos, responded with slow, cosmetic half measures, and in their own words, obstructed their own legislation in this place, not just in this session of Parliament but for the 10 years leading up to it.

For nearly 10 years, the Liberals have weakened our justice system with bills such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. I just heard my hon. colleague before this mislead the House on what is in Bill C-5. In it are laws that let repeat violent offenders walk free on bail and terrorize communities. However, from the other side of the aisle, all we hear is laughing, flailing arms and trying to defend what is indefensible. They know that when they go back to the communities, they hear about this first-hand. In fact, it is the reason so many of their colleagues from the York region did not return to the House. At almost every door one goes to there, as they can ask their former colleagues, crime is brought up as the number one issue, and it is not just extortion. It is violent home invasion and gun crime in suburbs where gun crime did not exist before.

Still, from the other side, all day long we have heard mistruths, misinformation, flailing arms and claims of obstruction when they are in the way of their own legislation. They have also broken an immigration system that used to be the very envy of the world with weak screening on the way in and no accountability once the system is abused. What is worse, they have actively blocked reforms that Canadians are demanding.

We brought forward motions for catch-and-release on Liberal bail, and the Liberals voted them down. My colleague from Edmonton Gateway, the co-deputy leader of this party, introduced legislation that would introduce mandatory sentences for extortion, and the Liberals killed it. My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill proposed amendments to Bill C-12 to close extortion loopholes, and they rejected that too.

No matter how many times the Liberals stand up in the House and say that those things are not true, the record is clear: They are true. If anybody were to look back on it, they would know that the reason we have had a rise in crime in this country is the Liberals' weak-on-justice crime policy.

All of that comes after years of pleas from victims, from grieving families, from frontline police officers and from Canadians begging for real criminal justice reform. The question is unavoidable: Is this government on the side of law-abiding Canadians, or is it on the side of extortionists? I ask because nobody can explain why the Liberals keep defending a system that protects criminals and continually fails the public.

In a crisis like this, there are two responsibilities, and the government knows this well. One is to sound the alarm bells, and the second is to act decisively. We have been sounding those alarm bells for years in the House, on doorsteps and in packed rooms at stop-the-crime town halls that have been happening right across the country. Ordinary Canadians come to those crime town halls demanding change that they just have not gotten from the Liberals.

What has been missing is action, and while the Liberals delay and deflect, Conservatives are not going to do that. That is why we are going to use our opposition day motion to raise the alarm bells and to finally put forward reforms that need to be placed on the floor of the House of Commons in this motion and in the lives of everyday Canadians.

This motion today would first repeal the catch-and-release laws, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, so repeat offenders would stay in jail and transnational gangs would stop before they even get started here. Second, the motion would end the abuse of the refugee and immigration systems, whereby criminal gangs file for bogus refugee claims to stay in Canada longer and keep committing crimes. A veteran frontline police officer put it very plainly, saying that criminals know that they can come to Canada, commit crimes, get bail and claim refugee status. It is not even up for contention, he says. Conservatives believe that the refugee system should protect people fleeing violence, but it should not import it.

Finally, the motion would confront one of the most corrosive failures of all: a two-tier justice system. Today, two people can commit the same crime and receive different sentences, simply because one is a citizen and one is not. In one real case, a 30-year-old groomed a 15-year-old online and intended to sexually exploit her. He received no jail time and no permanent criminal record, because the real sentence might interfere with his path to citizenship. In another case, a man on a visitor's permit sexually assaulted an 18-year-old in Calgary. He received a discharge because the conviction would have “devastating immigration consequences”.

Let us be clear that one does not earn the right to be in Canada by breaking the law. Being here as a visitor, as a permanent resident or as a citizen is a privilege, and everybody in this place knows that. If someone commits a serious crime, they forfeit that privilege, period. There is nobody out there who is going to contend with that, and we are not going to take lessons from the Liberals on fearmongering on immigration, when it is about criminals committing crimes in this country they are visiting. There would be no refugee status, no extension and no special treatment; this motion would end deliberate leniency.

At its core, this debate is about fairness for law-abiding Canadians, who deserve to feel safe; fairness for real refugees, who follow the rules; fairness for immigrants, who work hard and respect the law; and most of all, fairness, for once, for the victims of these crimes. Nobody ever talks about that in this place. It is time to end the extortion crisis. It is time to end this mess that the government has created. We have had the same ministers in the same chairs voting for the same policies over the last 10 years, and the end starts right here, right now, by supporting this motion.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact and in reality, the government has been very ambitious in bringing forward a crime package to ensure the security of Canadians. We have heard time and time again of what is happening on the streets, and so we have been very bold in our approach, bringing forward Bill C-5, Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and soon Bill C-16.

We are very much looking forward to the Conservatives' co-operation.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Conservative motion presented today on public safety, extortion and our immigration system. While this is an important conversation, I have been following the language used by the Conservative members very closely. Unfortunately, it is based on flawed assumptions, misinformation and political posturing, rather than a thoughtful, evidence-based approach to justice in Canada.

Let me be clear: Our government is committed to a justice system that protects victims, punishes repeat violent offenders and is rooted in evidence, not political ideology or fearmongering. In the face of partisan attacks, we are going to set the record straight.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I will specifically focus on parts (c) and (d) of this motion. First, let us talk about part (c) of the motion, which seeks to bar judges from considering some collateral consequences at the sentencing stage. For those unfamiliar with our sentencing framework, judges can consider a wide range of collateral consequences when imposing a sentence. These include impacts on employment; travel restrictions; loss of professional licences; mental health; housing; firearm rights; inclusion in the sex offender registry; family responsibilities, such as care for sick relatives; and immigration status.

Here is the question: Why are the Conservatives complaining only about judges' considering immigration status when deciding a sentence? Why are they not raising the same concern when judges consider the loss of a firearm licence, even in cases involving firearm-related offences? If their goal is truly to remove one type of collateral consequence from judicial consideration, then logically they should be advocating to remove all of them. This includes the very ones, like the loss of a firearm licence, that directly affect public safety. However, the Conservatives focus solely on immigration status. This tells Canadians everything they need to know. Rather than addressing collateral consequences that impact public safety directly, the Conservatives are choosing to stigmatize immigrants.

The reality is clear: Judicial discretion considers all relative factors, and selectively targeting immigration status is both misleading and dangerous. This is not the Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney, who worked to ensure that we did not stigmatize immigrants or portray them as criminals. This is not even the Conservative Party of former prime minister Harper. In fact, the practice of judges considering immigration status as collateral damage and consequence actually started under former prime minister Harper's government.

In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Pham ruled that judges could consider immigration status only if so doing ensures that the sentence remains proportionate to the crime committed. Former prime minister Harper was fine with that, because it allowed judges the necessary discretion to evaluate all relevant factors. Even the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who were in cabinet at the time, said nothing. I suspect they knew it was not a problem then and know it is still not a problem today. However, they are now exploiting the issue to scare Canadians, score political points, cater to the far right base and portray all immigrants as criminals.

This is shameful, and anyone who supports the motion should be equally ashamed. The Conservatives are once again pushing for a failed approach that undermines judicial independence and ignores binding Supreme Court precedent. Rather than interfering with judicial discretion, let us focus on the facts. The courts are not misapplying sentencing guidelines or reducing sentences inappropriately. If the Crown believes a sentence is too lenient, it has the right to appeal. It is just that simple. I dare the members opposite to point to a single case in which the Crown has appealed a sentence for a non-citizen based on immigration status. They will not find one.

Now let us turn our attention to part (d) of the motion, which calls for the repeal of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. These bills were critical reforms designed to modernize the criminal justice system, protect victims and address the realities of today's world.

Let us take Bill C-75. This bill strengthened protection for victims of intimate partner violence, which is something every member of the chamber should be concerned with. Under Bill C-75, we defined “intimate partner” in the Criminal Code to include ex-partners for all Criminal Code-related purposes, and we created a reverse onus for repeat offenders of violence between intimate partners, making it harder for them to get bail. Repeat offenders, the ones who are the most likely to reoffend, are being targeted.

However, the Conservatives are so blinded by their obsession with headlines that they refuse to see the facts. They claim that Bill C-75 weakened public safety, but the president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association has made it quite clear that this claim is a false narrative.

Let us talk about Bill C-5. The Conservatives have tried to make it sound like we were somehow soft on crime, but that could not be farther from the truth. They have raised concerns about house arrest for extortionists, but what they fail to say is that conditional sentences are not available for serious crimes like extortion when the sentence is two years or more, or when the offender poses a threat to public safety. Therefore, Bill C-5 did not give criminals a free pass. We actually maintained mandatory jail time for extortion involving illegal firearms or criminal organizations, the kinds of crimes that concern Canadians most.

While the Conservatives play politics, our government has a comprehensive agenda to combat organized crime. Bill C-14, for example, would introduce over 80 targeted Criminal Code reforms aimed at tackling violent offenders and organized crime, including extortion, yet what did the Conservatives do? They blocked the bill at committee. Their members wasted valuable time at the committee. They are on record talking about their love of cats and puppies, instead of focusing on bail reform, sentencing reform, gender-based violence and extortion.

Let us not forget Bill C-16, which tackles the growing menace of sextortion, a horrific form of online exploitation. The Conservatives have done nothing but block it. They are even asking the government to split the bill.

While the Conservatives stand in the way of very important public safety reforms, we are pushing forward with real solutions. We have introduced targeted reforms, including lawful access, which would, with Bill C-2, give law enforcement the tools it needs to catch the extortionists before they even commit the crime.

With Bill C-14, we would create new reverse onus provisions for people accused of extortion involving violence, making it harder for them to get bail. We would require that a sentence for extortion be served consecutively to a sentence imposed for arson, not concurrently. We would prohibit weapons at the bail stage for people accused of extortion and organized crime. We would even strengthen bail conditions for extortionists in organized crime, such as geographic limitations. What are the Conservatives doing? They are obstructing.

Let us be clear: Our new Liberal government is committed to protecting victims. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have chosen to play politics with the safety of Canadians. They have obstructed every meaningful reform we have tried to pass, and now they are using partisan rhetoric to undermine our justice system. Canadians deserve better; they deserve a justice system that works for everyone, not just for the politicians who want to score political points.

Let us pass Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16. Law enforcement and Canadians are waiting for this critical legislation to secure our borders, our streets and our communities.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I assume the member is talking about the opposition motion because what we are debating here is a motion, not a bill. Since he was careful to correct people on their use of language, I thought I would return the favour.

I have expressed my views very clearly. I think the motion before the House is a form of obstruction in itself, because if we go through all of these pieces of legislation, Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16, they are addressing the very issues that Canadians are clamouring for and that the member and his colleagues are clamouring for.

I will repeat: Please help us get the legislation passed like we did with Bill C-14.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have already had the debate in this chamber between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 in good faith. The Liberals' attempt to bring up another issue that was not related to their election platform in the amendments they made in Bill C-9 disrupted a lot of good work that we could have done collaboratively on behalf of Canadians. Instead, when it was right before Christmas, in December, the Liberals chose not to work with us and to put a wrench in the notion of what freedom of religion means in Canada, when we could have been debating these issues in more detail.

What police also need and what they have been calling for are additional resources and for the Liberals to make sure there are no judicial vacancies.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for Richmond East—Steveston, who spoke earlier, I would just like to clarify some comments on Bill C-16 that I heard in the House. Bill C-16 would not change the offence of extortion itself and would not create any new mandatory minimum sentences for extortion. It would add extortion as an explicit aggravating factor. It would not redefine extortion. It would not increase the maximum penalty for extortion. It would not add a new mandatory minimum for extortion, and it would not create any new stand-alone offences for extortion either. I just wanted to clarify those points for the House of Commons before I began.

The reason we are here today with another opposition day motion is that the Liberals told us we needed to have one today. They allotted one of our supply days early on because they would rather push forward their new agenda, to say we are delaying things in the House of Commons, before the Prime Minister likely calls a spring election. That is what is taking place today. The government controls the House calendar. We heard the rhetoric from the member for St. Catharines, with his anger and confusion, but we are only here today because the Liberals did not want to talk about their own bills, full stop.

I rise in support of what we are talking about today. The safety of our communities is the first duty of a free and just society. Unfortunately, the Liberals forgot that for 10 years. The foremost responsibility of any government is to protect law-abiding citizens. Across British Columbia, and across Canada, that responsibility is being tested with increasing urgency. Recent data and public warnings point to a troubling rise in organized extortion and related criminal activity, while the response required to confront this threat has too often been delayed. For too long, policies that weaken consequences for serious crime and blur the integrity of our immigration system have eroded public confidence in safety and justice.

After nearly a decade, Canadians are asking a fundamental question: Why do criminals feel more confident, while communities feel more vulnerable? From small business owners and construction workers to truck drivers and young families, ordinary Canadians are facing intimidation that disrupts their livelihoods and undermines stability. In places like Abbotsford, threatening extortion letters have unsettled entire neighbourhoods and placed growing strain on local police. These are the lived realities of Canadians who seek nothing more than to work, raise their families and live in peace.

Since the Liberals took office nearly 10 years ago, violent crime has increased by 54% and extortion is up 330%. This is not a marginal increase. This is a systemic failure. Again, the member for St. Catharines talked about decreasing crime. Well, guess what. The cities of Surrey and Abbotsford in British Columbia, just in the last year, have had to create many special task forces to deal with the problem at hand here today. The reason is that the Liberal government failed to act, full stop.

Less than a month ago, police investigated an extortion-related shooting that damaged a local business and nearby vehicles. This was part of a series that included 34 reported threats, 21 victims and seven shots-fired calls in just 19 days. Law-abiding Canadians must be able to trust that crime will be met with firm and proportionate consequences. Instead, serious crime is too often met with delay, leniency and the absence of real consequences.

More than a year ago, I sponsored legislation in the House through Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act. This legislation would have delivered real jail time for serious offences, stronger penalties for organized crime involvement and a clear denunciation of extortion as a violent and coercive crime. The government, the Liberals, voted against it.

Today, police in British Columbia report that they are overwhelmed, arresting the same offenders again and again. Communities are left to deal with the fallout. Business owners are left to fend for themselves. Victims are left asking whether the justice system in fact works for them. This is the direct result of Liberal catch-and-release laws, weak sentencing and revolving-door bail policies that are enabling repeat offenders to return to the streets, placing families, workers and businesses at risk.

Our motion today also addresses the government's refusal to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, laws that have weakened consequences for serious and repeat offenders. We mention those laws again because their consequences will even touch on the legislation in this chamber and the impact of what the Liberals say it is going to do.

Bill C-5 removed mandatory prison sentences for serious firearm-related crimes, including extortion involving a weapon. Bill C-75 entrenched a principle of restraint in bail decisions that too often results in repeat violent offenders being released back into the community while awaiting trial. It is not every day that every single premier in the country stands against an action by a standing government. They did on that law. They did it because what the government did was so egregious that every premier, New Democrat, Liberal and Conservative, agreed that the government had failed badly and eroded any sense of justice in this nation.

In British Columbia, police have raised new concerns about transnational crime networks, some involving individuals with no legal right to remain in Canada. Allowing extortionists to hide behind asylum claims undermines public confidence and endangers communities, including immigrant communities, who are often targeted first.

Conservatives believe deeply in protecting genuine refugees, those fleeing persecution and violence, but when violent criminals can claim refugee status to delay deportation, something has to change. That is why last November, Conservatives proposed an amendment to Bill C-12 that would have updated the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to bar asylum claims from being made by those who had been convicted of serious crimes in Canada. The Liberals rejected it, and nothing has changed.

This motion reflects exactly what Conservatives have promised Canadians: to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims, bar non-citizens facing serious criminal proceedings from making refugee claims, end leniency that allows criminals to avoid deportation, and repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 so repeat extortionists stay in jail. These measures are fair, lawful and absolutely necessary. They would protect victims, newcomers and communities alike, and they would restore a sense of justice in our country.

The issue before us is not complicated. It comes down to a simple question: Will Parliament stand with victims or with the loopholes that protect criminals? The choice before the House is clear.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, what the Conservatives are banking on with the opposition day motion is that Canadians will not understand the mere filing of an asylum claim and an approval of an asylum claim. Even today, if one files an asylum claim and has criminality, they would not be approved. Bill C-12 is a bill currently in the Senate that would substantially make this motion moot.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member asks where, but he will not ensure that the budget gets passed. It is a neat trick so the Conservatives can again show their non-binding motion but then hold up all legislation to make it happen. The member has been here since before I was here. What is shocking through his heckles is that I do not know that he knows how this place works. We need to pass the budget. It is genuinely shocking how there is a lack of understanding of how this place actually works. The only gear the Conservatives have is heckling, shouting and obstruction. Again, a non-binding motion is not going to get this done.

This is about immigration. Premier Eby of British Columbia said there was a wave of extortion in this country. He called it “a terror attack in slow motion”. He wants loopholes closed in Bill C-12. He wants the passage of Bill C-12, but again we have obstruction. We do not see action. Can the member go back to the premiers and say the Conservatives tried to put forward a non-binding motion? That is all they have.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Manitoba is going to sit there and heckle, and the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is just going to heckle. He has nothing to add. He has been part of this obstruction from the start. He has been here for 10 years, but he has brought nothing to the table in terms of this problem, except yelling, screaming and pounding his desk on a non-binding motion. He has an opportunity. He is still yelling.

He has an opportunity to go to his leader's office. His leader sent a letter to the Prime Minister saying he's ready to co-operate. These are words on paper. Yes, on one of the pieces of legislation, the Conservatives have moved forward. On Bill C-14, we have seen some movement. After months of holding it back, after months of filibuster, we have finally seen some movement on that. My understanding is it finally passed committee after, again, mayors and chiefs of police begged the Conservatives to let these pieces of legislation through.

We still see a lot of work ahead of us. We can look at Bill C-2. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police stated that Bill C-2 is “a timely and necessary step as part of a sustained commitment to modern laws, modern tools, and modern collaboration.” This will give law enforcement the tools they need to dismantle and prosecute increasingly sophisticated organized crime networks threatening our communities.

Again, the chiefs of police are calling for action, and what do the members have on the other side? They have a non-binding motion, a non-binding resolution. Where are they in their committees? When are they saying to their leaders, “We need action on this. Our chiefs of police, our police associations are demanding action on this. They are demanding action on lawful access.” They will get up and say that terrorism and child exploitation are problems, but they have concerns with the bill. They will not examine it in committee. They will fight it here. They will go back to their constituents and say they supported a non-binding motion. Where are they? They say this is their issue. They talk about it time after time.

I would like to believe the Conservatives have some legitimacy in this space, but where are they? If these bills are so terrible, why are they not getting them to the committee to amend them and make them better in their minds? They are just leaving them here on the floor of the House of Commons. They are not speaking to the Conservative members of their caucus in the Senate to make sure the bills are expedited.

Premier after premier is screaming to get these pieces of legislation passed, whether it is Bill C-2, Bill C-8 or Bill C-9 on combatting hate. The Conservatives are just fundraising off their obstruction of Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16. We even heard the member wanting more mandatory minimums. At the same time, he is obstructing Bill C-16. It is unbelievable, but again, they have a non-binding motion. That is their solution. I am sure that when they meet with chiefs of police and with mayors, they are going to say, “Well, we have this piece of paper.” When they are asked why they would not support other legislation that we have been calling for, they will have no answer. They have had no answer here.

The only thing the Conservatives do have, which I am sure they have not mentioned, is that crime is actually down, but who are they going to blame? They have a non-binding motion to blame immigrants and refugees for the problem. At the same time, they are clutching at their pearls.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about how we talk tough, but we are doing more than just talking tough. What we are seeing here is a war of words.

Quite frankly, we have made major additions, not only with bringing back mandatory minimum sentences but also with everything from Bill C-12 to Bill C-2, the borders act. We can talk about strengthening something, but we need the Conservatives to stop blocking what we are doing here in this House and come along to make these changes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines.

Today, I will focus on how our immigration system responds to concerns about non-citizens who are accused or convicted of serious criminal offences, as well as the decision-making process of admitting, investigating and removing a non-citizen.

I want to emphasize how upholding these rules, and the independence of these processes, is critical to our country. Canadians rightly expect that our immigration system will protect everyone in this country and that our laws are applied consistently and respond to their concerns, especially concerns about serious criminal acts. We want the decisions of our justice and immigration systems to be fair, efficient and final, and we expect that these decisions are made thoughtfully, lawfully and in alignment with our democratic values.

Serious criminality has serious consequences in this country. These cases are deeply troubling, and our hearts go out to victims and their families. Our laws are already clear: Individuals who commit serious crimes face consequences. Immigration law is clear that serious criminality has serious implications for admissibility and continued presence in Canada.

Before going further, it is important to clarify roles. Criminal investigations, prosecutions, sentencing and court procedures fall within the authority of police services, prosecutors and the courts. Those matters are addressed by other departments. My remarks today will focus on immigration consequences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Security and public safety measures begin before arrival. Canada's immigration screening process is intentionally multi-layered. It involves Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; the Canada Border Services Agency; and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Every applicant is assessed for criminality, terrorism, human rights violations, organized crime, espionage and public health risks, despite a lot of the misinformation we hear coming from the other side. Screening occurs before travel, at the border, and where necessary, after entry into Canada. This layered approach ensures that the system is responsive, adaptable and capable of addressing evolving threats.

To enhance our control over the system, our government has prioritized strengthening document control in recent years. Since January 2025, explicit authorities came into force for our immigration and border officers to cancel temporary resident documents, such as visas and electronic travel authorizations, on a case-by-case basis, when new information comes to light that someone is inadmissible or is no longer eligible to hold their document. They also have the authority in more limited circumstances to cancel study and work permits. This helps Canadians keep Canadians safe and migration orderly.

Additionally, we are seeking new authorities under Bill C-12 that would further strengthen the government's ability to manage immigration documents and applications. Included within these authorities are measures that would authorize the Governor in Council to make an order, when it is in the public interest, to cancel, suspend or change groups of immigration documents, to pause or suspend application processing or to stop the intake of new applications on a large scale. These authorities would ensure that the government is better able to manage immigration documents and applications when required to protect the public interest.

This is just one example of how IRCC is continually strengthening control over our immigration and asylum systems to the benefit of Canadians and communities. Additionally, we work closely with domestic and international partners to identify risks, share information and respond to concerns as they are identified.

The system is proactive as well as reactive. When misrepresentation or criminal history is discovered, individuals may be found inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality and misrepresentation. Officials can move immediately under the law to issue a removal order.

Under the Refugee and Immigration Protection Act, Parliament has carefully balanced thresholds for inadmissibility and removal based on Canadian law and international obligations, including our obligations not to create stateless people and not to return people to danger.

The act already contains some of the strictest provisions among like-minded and democratic countries. Non-citizens convicted of serious criminality are inadmissible to Canada. Those sentenced to six months or more of imprisonment have no right of appeal to the immigration appeal division.

There is no special treatment for criminals, including violent offenders, under Canada's immigration law. Criminal proceedings take precedence over immigration proceedings. When a non-citizen is convicted of a serious crime, they must serve their sentence, and immigration consequences follow. These consequences are set out in legislation and applied through established legal processes. These serious criminal convictions mean people are subject to a removal order.

The Canada Border Services Agency is empowered to investigate, issue removal orders and carry out deportations. Its work is governed by the laws set by Parliament, following due process. Decisions are subject to review by the courts to place a check against potential errors.

Effective immigration enforcement is not measured by rhetoric but by results, and the results demonstrate that Canada's enforcement system is active and effective. In 2023-24, the Canada Border Services Agency prevented more than 9,000 individuals from boarding flights to Canada and denied entry to 34,000 people at ports of entry. Within Canada, the CBSA removed well over 700 individuals found inadmissible for serious criminality. The results for the first 10 months of 2025 surpassed the results for 12 months in 2024, showing sustained progress.

Canadians want an immigration system that is fast and efficient and that upholds the independence of our judicial and law enforcement systems. That is why our focus has been on a system that carefully screens applicants, responds to new information and applies the laws consistently.

We have introduced measures to make the system stronger and more efficient. For example, Bill C-12 introduces strong information sharing and coordination across departments, things that are essential to public safety. This measure could reduce the amount of time it takes to detect a problematic security issue and take action.

When programs operate in silos, discrepancies and risks can be missed. Bill C-12 would modernize information-sharing authorities within IRCC and with authorized domestic partners to strengthen integrity and improve decision-making. These authorities would allow the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to share identity, status and document information with domestic partners when there is a lawful purpose for doing so, and that includes with our law enforcement.

The new information-sharing authorities would reduce duplication, improve efficiency and enhance program integrity. They would do this while protecting privacy. Any new use or disclosure of personal information from these new authorities would remain subject to existing privacy legislation, policies, guidelines and best practices, including privacy impact assessments. These safeguards would ensure that integrity measures are balanced with a strong protection of personal information.

It is important to be clear about what Bill C-12 would and would not change in relation to criminality and removals. Bill C-12 would not alter existing thresholds for inadmissibility or removal. Canadian law already establishes a threshold for serious criminality for the purpose of inadmissibility, one that, unlike the Conservatives' failed proposals, would not risk targeting the wrong people or providing relative leniency to temporary residents compared to permanent residents.

We will uphold tough measures to address criminals, as well as the due process that demonstrates to us, to all residents of Canada, that we respect democracy and the rule of law.

Criminals adapt fast, and government must do more than keep up. It must get ahead of them. In that spirit, we will continue to improve the sophistication of Canada's criminal response tools to keep Canadians safe.

Similarities Between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

During the course of debate today, numerous times, numerous Liberal members made reference to Bill C-2, which was named the strong borders act when it was introduced in June. The trouble, and I will try to be succinct, is that Bill C-2 cannot be put forward for a vote. It is in violation at this moment. It would only be acceptable for it to sit on a shelf covered in dust until the government removes all the sections that have already been carried in C-12 and are identical to those still in Bill C-2. This would encompass, in Bill C-2, parts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. This is because the rule in this place, known traditionally as the same question rule, prohibits any government or any member from bringing forward legislation that is substantially the same.

In this case, we know Bill C-2 came forward in June. I thought, when I saw Bill C-12, that the government would remove Bill C-2 from the Order Paper. I was informed later by the minister responsible that the intention was to reintroduce Bill C-2 with only those sections that related to warrantless access, as the rest of Bill C-2 had been put into Bill C-12.

As such, I would like to direct the Speaker to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, 2025, in which he will find on this particular issue of concern, the same question, that a bill adopted “cannot be revived in the same session.”

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to please consider the matter and direct the government to immediately remove Bill C-2 from the Order Paper until such time as it can reintroduce it with only those sections that have not yet been adopted, the warrantless access sections.

I also draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime called for Bill C-2 to be passed. That violates the same question rule.

Even worse is the part the Speaker will find in Hansard. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons asked for unanimous consent to pass Bill C-2 immediately. Fortunately, I said no. Otherwise, the government would have found itself in error and contravening all our rules. Should the member have happened to achieve unanimous consent, the government would have violated the same question rule.

Public Safety

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, here we have yet another Conservative who probably needs to remove his fingers from his ears, because we have already solved this problem. Under Bill C-12, essentially all of these criminals would not be allowed to apply for asylum. Even in the cases we heard in B.C., where they have applied for asylum, they would not have been able to had the Conservatives not obstructed and had they passed C-2 when we tabled it. Because they obstructed it, they have been able to make those claims. However, there is good news, because it is in the Senate, and once it is passed, those claims and those cases will be cancelled.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about this issue and therefore doing everything possible by bringing legislation that will tighten bail and impose stricter sentences. The one bill that is missing is Bill C-2, which we tabled in the House back in June. If the Conservatives were serious about solving the problem, rather than doing this window covering they have brought with this motion, which essentially is moot because Bill C-12 already does everything they are asking for, they would approve lawful access and consent today to moving that bill forward. Will they allow the vote, pass the bill and catch the criminals?

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claims

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we asked Canadians today, the vast majority of them would say they are concerned about public safety.

I am very proud of our government. In a very short period of time, we have introduced a whole series of measures and legislation taken directly from key stakeholders, victims groups, police associations, municipalities and provincial leaders to address the major safety issues that concern Canadians today. We have Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-16 and Bill C-14. All of this legislation collectively needs to pass through the House of Commons and be made into law so that it can protect Canadians.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be as passionate an intervenor as my dear colleague from Winnipeg North, but nonetheless I have a few very important things to say about the opposition day motion today.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate today. As the chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and as someone who has heard testimony from legal experts, law enforcement and settlement organizations over recent months, I rise to speak to the motion with a perspective grounded in both evidence and our government's principled approach to public safety.

As members may know, I am the daughter of immigrant parents who fled their respective countries due to poverty, war and discrimination. They came to Canada to find a safe place to raise their children, so I very much understand on a personal level what our immigration system means to families, but I also understand that public safety must always be paramount.

Let me be absolutely clear from the outset: Claiming asylum cannot and will not prevent criminals from being punished to the fullest extent of the law. The Conservatives would have Canadians believe that our asylum system provides a safe haven for criminals. This is simply not true. Our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already establishes that a claim is ineligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board if the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality or by reason of a conviction in Canada for an offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.

When CBSA believes a claimant is inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality, their claim is put on hold while their case goes through the criminal justice system. If they are found guilty, their asylum claim is terminated. Their authorized period of stay in Canada ends, and they will face removal. In cases of serious inadmissibility, removed foreign nationals are permanently barred from re-entering Canada. Criminal matters take precedence over immigration matters. Making a refugee claim does not exempt lawbreakers from the consequences of their actions.

I want to address the calls in the motion to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. The Conservatives claim Bill C-5 allowed house arrest for serious crimes like extortion. This is simply incorrect. Conditional sentence orders are never available where the sentence is two years or more, which is typically the case in serious extortion offences. They are also unavailable where an offender poses a threat to public safety. Furthermore, we maintained mandatory jail time for extortion involving restricted or illegal firearms or extortion connected to criminal organizations, precisely the types of extortion cases Canadians are most concerned about today. The Conservatives should do their homework before repeating slogans.

On Bill C-75, the Conservatives' central criticism is that it codified the principle of restraint and bail, but what they refuse to acknowledge is that Bill C-75 actually strengthened protections for victims of intimate partner violence. It formally defined “intimate partner” in the Criminal Code to include ex-partners. It created a reverse onus for repeat intimate partner violence offenders, making it harder for them to obtain bail, and it now requires judges to consider prior intimate partner violence convictions and imposes stronger penalties for repeat offenders.

The president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Canada has stated clearly that the claim that Bill C-75 weakened public safety is a false narrative. Canadians deserve a debate grounded in facts. If the Conservatives want to repeal a law that made it harder for repeat intimate partner violence offenders to get bail, then they should say so directly.

Just last week at the immigration committee I chair, we heard from Professor Audrey Macklin, chair of human rights law at the University of Toronto. She confirmed that under Canadian law as it currently exists, individuals convicted of serious crimes are ineligible to seek refugee protection. When asked about individuals who claim asylum after being charged with crimes, she was clear that if they are convicted of that offence, they will be ineligible because the eligibility requirements make them ineligible.

She also noted that those who receive custodial sentences tend to be removed, because they are in custody. Also, CBSA has historically prioritized people serving criminal sentences because they are, frankly, easy to find.

We further heard from representatives of the Refugee Centre, who told us that, in the first nine months of 2025, the acceptance rates for refugee claims reached 78%, of which less than 1% were fraudulent claims. This tells us that the initial decision-making is generally sound and that our system is working. Yes, it is overloaded, but it is working.

Everyone deserves to be and feel safe in their communities, and that is why Canada's government is taking real action to keep Canadians safe, not through slogans and divisive rhetoric but through comprehensive, evidence-based reforms. We have introduced several major bills: Bill C-2, the strong borders act; Bill C-12, the immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which has introduced over 80 targeted criminal code reforms, many directly addressing extortion.

Bill C-14 would create a new reverse onus for individuals charged with violent extortion, making bail significantly harder to obtain. It would require sentences for extortion to be served consecutively to sentences for related offences like arson. It would prohibit weapons at bail for those accused of extortion and organized crime offences. It would strengthen bail conditions for organized crime-related extortion, including geographic restrictions.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has endorsed Bill C-14, stating that it reflects their own recommendations. Police leaders called for broader reverse onus provisions and tougher penalties for organized crime, and Bill C-14 answers all of those calls. We have also made the largest single investment in Canadian border security, $1.3 billion. We are hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers and 1,000 new RCMP personnel. On top of all that, we have created a financial crimes agency to combat money laundering and organized crime.

What deeply concerns me about the motion before us is its intent. The Conservatives are not genuinely seeking to strengthen public safety; they are seeking to create division within Canadian society by suggesting that the federal Liberal government is making it easy for criminals to stay in Canada. This is absolutely false.

The member for Calgary Nose Hill proposed an amendment to Bill C-12 that she claims would have prevented non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making asylum claims. However, in reality, our law already does this. Her amendment would have created more operational and administrative procedures and likely resulted in significant litigation, not greater safety.

While Conservatives rely on slogans and ideological proposals, many of which are imported from outside of Canada, our government is delivering thoughtful, targeted reforms that strengthen public safety, protect victims and ensure that our justice system responds to the realities Canadians face today. While Conservatives are holding important public safety bills hostage in committee, we are working across party lines to ensure that we are delivering for Canadians.

Instead of looking backwards with motions designed to divide Canadians, our government is looking ahead. The criminal justice reform agenda being implemented by the government is principled, responsible and will meaningfully address the public safety challenges that communities across Canada are facing today. The reforms contained in Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16 have been informed by significant engagement with stakeholders right across this country. The federal government is doing its part. We need the provinces to do their part and the cities to do their part.

In conclusion, I encourage all members to work collaboratively to improve our criminal justice system. Canadians expect no less. They expect us to be serious about public safety, not to play political games with their security.

The government opposes the motion before us because it is based on misinformation, would undermine Canada's sentencing principles, remove long-standing judicial discretion and offer no real solutions to the challenges we face. Instead, I urge all parties to support the passage of Bill C-12 and Bill C-14, legislation that is right before us. In doing so, we will make all Canadians safer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely could, and if the member wants to sit down with me, I will go into great detail with her on it.

Remember that the reason we stopped calling Bill C-2 was that the Conservative Party refused to pass it. That was why we had to come up with Bill C-12; it was a compromise. It was the only thing the Conservatives would pass that was from Bill C-2, which denied Canadians' having a law that had lawful access, which deals with extortion, and—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Winnipeg North will know that I am pretty fair-minded. If the Conservatives are filibustering, I would love to join him in denouncing that, but I do not see any sign of the Conservatives' filibustering, particularly on Bill C-2, which came forward for first reading on June 5. The Liberals then put it up for debate on June 18, September 16 and September 17, and we have not seen it since, largely because huge portions of it were put into Bill C-12. I do not see any signs of the Conservatives' stopping Bill C-12, since it went through on December 11 by unanimous consent. I asked to be registered as in opposition.

In fairness, could my hon. colleague point out any episode that I could not find online, in the committee hearings or in the House of filibustering by the Conservatives on Bill C-2?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise. I found it a bit much when I heard the Leader of the Opposition saying “blocking and obstructing” and attributing those two words to the government. Talk about hypocrisy.

At the end of the day, we need to reflect on why we are where we are today. The new Prime Minister was elected less than a year ago. Going through the last campaign, it was well defined that we needed and wanted to do something in regard to crime. It is an election platform issue. The Prime Minister and the government, meaning every Liberal member of Parliament, made a commitment to deal with the issue of crime. As a holistic approach, we have a serious package of legislation before us today.

When the leader of the Conservative Party tries to give false information and mislead Canadians, whether it is inside or outside this chamber, he does a disservice to all Canadians. It might be good for the Conservative Party of Canada, but it is not good for Canadians. Canadians, even Conservative-minded Canadians living in Conservative MPs' ridings, know that what the Conservatives are saying is wrong and want to see the crime package of bills passed here in the House of Commons.

It is absolutely ridiculous to try to imply that the Conservative Party is not filibustering our legislation, because that is the reality. They talk about it. They complain about it. They spread misinformation through social media, yet when it comes time to actually act in the best interests of Canadians, they filibuster.

I could talk about Bill C-2. Bill C-2 deals with lawful access amongst other things. The Conservative approach to that was that they did not want it to go anywhere. They were so stubborn in filibustering Bill C-2 that the government had to come up with a new piece of legislation, Bill C-12. Bill C-12 was a huge effort by a couple of ministers, in particular the Minister of Immigration, to deal with the types of issues that the Conservatives are talking about in their motion, yet Bill C-12, the new bill, has not passed, just take a look at the time it took for the Conservative Party to get it out at third reading.

Bill C-2, on the other hand, on lawful access, is going nowhere. The Conservative Party refuses to enable our law enforcement agencies to have lawful access. Every one of the other Five Eyes countries has it, just not Canada. The Conservative Party refuses to allow it to proceed. They talk about extortion, but if they believe in fighting extortion, then they should pass Bill C-2.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today, if a non-citizen enters Canada, there is nothing to stop them from committing a serious violent crime and then going on to make a bogus asylum claim. This is why Conservatives put forward an amendment to Bill C-12 to close this loophole.

Could the Leader of the Opposition speculate as to why the Liberals are trying to pass off the one-year, get-out-of-jail-free card, bogus refugee policy that is in Bill C-12 right now as a good thing, as opposed to actually fixing the problem?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, we care deeply about this issue. That is why we put forward six bills to help address it. If the Leader of the Opposition cared so much, he would put forward a genuine suggestion, not one in a motion that is made moot by Bill C-12, the stronger immigration and borders act, which is already in the Senate. It makes all of their suggestions moot. What he should do is address the issue of Bill C-2, which is lawful access. Police have been asking for this provision across this country.

Let me put it in simple terms that the Leader of the Opposition would understand: Would he allow the vote and pass the bill, so that, therefore, we could catch the criminals?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to correct a falsehood, that we stopped criminal background checks. That is completely false. We did not stop any type of background criminal checks from being done.

Second, would the member agree that this motion is completely moot because of Bill C-12? Anyone who has been convicted of a serious crime and who has been in this country for over a year would be ineligible to apply for asylum with Bill C-12. They would not be able to make the claim.

It is the Conservatives who have stalled that bill. That was a provision in Bill C-2, which we tabled in the House back in June, and they did not allow it to progress through the House. Also, anyone who comes in irregularly through our ports of entry would, after only 14 days, not be able to apply for asylum.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Canada is facing a crisis that begins at our borders and ends up in our communities. Criminals have been emboldened by weak Liberal policies, and non-citizen criminals have been able to exploit our asylum system. Some of these criminals are now exploiting the refugee system, and those with false claims are remaining in Canada.

At the same time, extortion has exploded 330% since the Liberals were elected. Families and small businesses in places such as Brampton, my hometown of Edmonton, Surrey, Vancouver and Calgary are living in fear. Many of them are actually contemplating leaving this country.

Violent crime is at the highest level we have ever seen in Canada. In British Columbia alone, extortion is up nearly 500%. This is happening right across the country and in plain sight. In fact, these criminals are filming themselves shooting at houses, creating videos and posting them. When non-citizen criminals are caught committing serious crimes, including extortion, many of them file false asylum claims, which delay deportation and provide more lenient sentencing. In fact, under the Liberal government's catch-and-release bail laws, many are put right back on the streets, where they are free to reoffend.

Despite many Conservative proposals on both issues of broken immigration and soaring crime, the government continues to make things worse by letting unvetted criminals into our country, and then allowing them to stay as they exploit asylum loopholes. The government is also refusing to enforce tough penalties for serious crimes. No wonder crime is out of control and victims are the ones paying the price.

Just last week, the Premier of British Columbia expressed deep frustration with Canada's immigration laws as they pertain to non-citizens committing serious crimes and subsequently making asylum claims. He asked for our laws to be changed and called the abuse of our system “ludicrous”. Ten years of weak Liberal laws have allowed serious dangerous criminals, many of whom should never have been in Canada in the first place, to gain a foothold and terrorize our communities.

What is happening today with foreign gangs and criminals across this country is a symptom of two deep structural failures caused by the Liberal government. First, foreign criminals have learned that Canada's asylum system is porous and easily manipulated and second, weak Liberal laws have made our system unable to keep criminals in jail or deport non-citizen offenders. These two failures are driving up crime almost everywhere across the country.

On top of this, the Liberals stopped performing criminal record checks on immigrants, allowing people with criminal pasts to come here and continue their criminal careers. Before the summer, I asked the government what it was doing to protect Canadians. The answer was that it is going to hire 1,000 new RCMP officers. In the fall, we asked how many of them had been hired. Those RCMP officers have not yet been hired.

Weak legislation on crime, which does not even keep the worst criminals in jail, as well as Canada's asylum system, which has become a shield for foreign gangs and criminals, continue to spread crime and disorder throughout our streets without an end in sight.

Conservatives have put forward real solutions. On extortion, I introduced my private member's bill, Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act, that would have restored mandatory jail time. The Liberal government voted against it.

On asylum abuse, we warned the government years ago that criminals were exploiting gaps in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and in November, the Conservatives proposed an amendment to Bill C-12 to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in Canada from making refugee claims. This was a common-sense proposal that would have prevented the abuse of our asylum system and stopped non-citizens from using refugee claims as a tactic to delay deportation after committing serious crimes. The Liberals rejected it at committee.

The Premier of British Columbia has said that Canada's immigration laws must change, and he is right. Conservatives agree with him that non-citizens convicted of serious crimes should not be allowed to file asylum claims. We also agree that Canada must bar non-citizens with active judicial proceedings for serious crimes from making refugee claims. This would stop those who believe they can commit serious crimes and avoid deportation by abusing Canada's asylum system.

Furthermore, the practice of judges granting leniency at sentencing to help non-citizens avoid deportation must end. Too many individuals convicted of serious crimes have benefited from this practice at the expense of victims and public safety.

Conservatives attempted to make these changes by amending Bill C-14, but Liberal members voted it down. That is why the member for Calgary Nose Hill introduced Bill C-220, which is a simple one-line change to the Criminal Code to end this practice once and for all. The bill will be up for a vote in a few weeks, and we hope the Liberal government will support the Conservatives with this bill.

The Liberal government has failed repeatedly. Its members voted against Conservative motions to end loopholes for false refugee claims. They voted against tougher sentencing for extortion in my bill, Bill C-381. They have refused to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which created Canada's revolving-door justice system. They have now rejected our common-sense amendment to Bill C-12 to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in Canada from making refugee claims.

Conservatives are calling on the government to stop blocking justice and to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims. We also must bar non-citizens with active judicial proceedings for serious crimes from making refugee claims and end the practice of sentencing leniency designed to help non-citizens avoid deportation.

There are overdue, crucial changes to Canada's immigration system and asylum laws that would finally close loopholes and prevent serious offenders from using Canada's immigration system to their advantage.

Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities. They deserve a government willing to stand up for victims, not criminals, and they deserve a federal government that will finally fix the asylum and immigration failures at the core of this crisis. Conservatives have the common-sense solutions. We are ready to work with the Liberals to expedite legislation that will deliver these long overdue changes and restore safety to Canadian neighbourhoods.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about a matter that is of deep and pressing concern to my constituents in Surrey Centre, as well as to those living in the Lower Mainland region in my home province.

The government's first priority is to protect Canadians and their communities. We are deeply concerned about the reports of people in B.C, in Ontario and across Canada who have been targeted by extortion, threats and violence. These types of crimes are insidious. They sow fear in our communities and prevent hard-working Canadians from running their businesses and sleeping soundly at night.

This is why we are working with a wide range of stakeholders and law enforcement to ensure that we address these issues head-on. Our government has tabled over six major public safety and criminal justice bills, legislation that is specifically designed to crack down on violent and repeat offenders, strengthen sentencing and modernize Canada's Criminal Code. This is why I find it surprising that the Conservatives have chosen this as their motion for today. Rather than fast-tracking the legislation that premiers, law enforcement, municipalities, police chiefs and police associations across the country have all called on Parliament to pass urgently, the Conservatives constantly delay and obstruct the committee and the House.

Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 will bolster Canada's law enforcement tool kit with critical assets, like lawful access, to combat transnational organized crime. For those who might not know what lawful access is, it is the ability to catch digital phone systems like WhatsApp and Signal and track them down to the subscriber.

In fact, there is nothing in the Conservative motion today that has not already been addressed or tabled in the House, or that is not categorically false.

Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, would bring in stricter bail laws to address violent and repeat offending and organized crime, and tougher sentencing laws for serious and violent crimes, including extortion. Combined, Bill C-2, Bill C-12 and Bill C-14 would crack down on intimidation and violence by using tools like lawful access, and reduce risks to victims and witnesses.

In addition to this legislation, we have held summits on extortion in collaboration with the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Ontario. These summits were a strong, collaborative effort, bringing together federal and provincial governments, local law enforcement and the RCMP to advance a joint response to extortion cases.

In fact, one of the few parties that have not been willing to collaborate is that of the sponsor of today's motion. Instead, they prefer to mislead Canadians by mis-characterizing our justice system. For instance, this motion calls to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims. First of all, Canadians cannot make refugee claims, so it sounds pretty odd.

Serious criminality is already grounds for inadmissibility for claims to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Asylum claims do not and will not prevent criminals from being punished to the fullest extent of the law. The minute the CBSA suspects someone of serious criminality, like extortion or firearms offences, it suspends their refugee claim. Everyone other than the Conservatives knows a person cannot claim asylum if they are being investigated for serious criminality.

While Conservatives continue to rely on slogans and ideological proposals, our government is delivering thoughtful, targeted reforms to strengthen public safety and protect Canadians. We have announced millions in funding through Canada's border plan for the creation of regional integrated drug enforcement teams, which will bring together law and border enforcement resources from multiple agencies and jurisdictions to fight organized drug crime and combat extortion. We have announced additional funding to help bolster the work of local law enforcement to combat extortion, support and provide services to victims and build on efforts already under way through local police task forces in Peel Region and in British Columbia.

The CBSA is committed to supporting the task force through the removal of inadmissible foreign nationals involved in extortion and other serious criminal offences.

Further, because we know that preventing crime in the long term means targeting its roots, we have allocated $390 million over five years to support provinces and territories with prevention programs and law enforcement activities through the initiative to take action against gun and gang violence. Our government is also providing $250 million through the building safer communities fund directly to municipalities and indigenous communities to bolster gang prevention programming and counter the social conditions that lead to criminality.

These actions build on the national coordination and support team, which was established by the RCMP in February 2024 as a nationwide alliance supporting police and helping to coordinate and advance extortion investigations across Canada. Through the national coordination and support team, the RCMP is working with police departments across Canada and internationally to address extortion and violent incidences.

In response to the call for more federal resources to address the extortion situation in Surrey, the RCMP is providing 20 additional federal officers and helicopter resources to strengthen local operational capacity. As I have made clear, we are collaborating across all levels of jurisdiction to combat extortion and help those who have been affected. We are also investing in an additional 1,000 new RCMP and 1,000 new CBSA personnel. This funding comes from budget 2025, which commits over $1.8 billion over four years to strengthen federal law enforcement.

To ensure that members in our communities feel safe, we have introduced legislation; made significant federal investments in enhancing federal law enforcement capacity, directly supporting provincial and locally led efforts; and continued to meet with affected communities. We are using all our tools to crack down on crime and protect our communities.

I would like to take this time to recognize the tireless work that our officers in the RCMP and CBSA do each and every day. If someone receives threats, we urge them not to comply with demands and to report the incident to their local police of jurisdiction. All of us have a right to live and work free of threats and intimidation. We will continue to work together with all levels of government and law enforcement to ensure that all Canadians have safe communities in which to live, work and raise their families.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, recently, members might have noticed that some of the criminals who are trying to commit crimes are seeking asylum. When we see Bill C-12, which has already gone through the House, pass through the Senate and get royal assent, they will not be eligible to claim asylum, effective June 2025.

What I am hearing on the ground is that the people who are caught should not be free. They should be kept behind bars. If the Conservatives and the opposition parties support Bill C-14, once it passes, those criminals will stay behind bars and not be out and free.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that Bill C-2, which would give lawful access to police forces, Bill C-12, which deals with asylum seekers, and Bill C-14, which deals with bail reforms, are the bills that police chiefs, premiers and the public want. There is only one party, the Conservative Party, that is blocking those bills and not letting them pass.

The Conservatives are the ones who are putting Canadians at risk every day. That is what I am hearing on the ground, and I am here to fix that problem.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey Centre.

Let me begin clearly: Extortion is a serious crime. It terrorizes families, threatens small business owners and undermines confidence in public safety. In Surrey and across British Columbia, I have met with constituents who are living in fear. They deserve real solutions, not political theatre.

The Conservative motion claims to be about fighting extortion, but it relies on misinformation and proposals that would weaken, not strengthen, our justice system.

In British Columbia, the federal government has provided significant resources to combat extortion. We have committed $4 million to strengthen the B.C. extortion task force through the regional integrated drug enforcement team. In addition, the federal government and the Province of B.C. have jointly provided $1 million to support victims of extortion. The federal RCMP will deploy up to an additional 20 RCMP officers, along with helicopter resources, to support on-the-ground enforcement efforts in Surrey. Further funding is being delivered through the federal gun and gang violence action fund to disrupt gun and gang violence linked to extortion networks.

We have also taken decisive action by listing the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist organization. The RCMP and the CBSA are actively supporting investigations, laying charges and, where appropriate, also pursuing removal orders against foreign nationals who are inadmissible due to criminality or to non-compliance with Canadian law.

Once passed, Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, would modernize immigration enforcement and crack down on transnational organized crime, including extortion networks, making it harder for violent offenders to exploit procedural delays.

Now let us address the Conservative proposals directly. They are claiming that non-citizens convicted of serious crimes can make refugee claims to avoid consequences. That is simply false. Claiming asylum does not and will not prevent criminals from being punished to the fullest extent of the law. Criminal matters take precedence over immigration matters. When CBSA believes a claimant is inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality, their claim is put on hold while their criminal case proceeds. If they are found inadmissible, their asylum claim is terminated, their lawful status ends, and they face removal.

Foreign nationals already subject to a removal order cannot make a refugee claim. In cases of serious inadmissibility, those individuals are permanently barred from re-entering Canada.

CBSA is aggressively pursuing the removal of criminals attempting to misuse the asylum system. Where credibility issues arise, CBSA prioritizes those files, presents evidence to the Immigration and Refugee Board and seeks dismissal or admissibility hearings leading to deportation.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a claim is already ineligible if the person is inadmissible for serious criminality or has been convicted in or outside Canada of an offence punishable by at least 10 years. Adopting the Conservative proposal would not close a loophole; it would create new administrative layers and invite litigation.

Paragraph (b) of the motion would bar asylum claims for those with active criminal proceedings. That, too, has already been addressed. CBSA officers may suspend eligibility reviews when a claimant is charged with a serious offence. Once the criminal case is resolved, the officer resumes the assessment and may deem the person ineligible. Canada's system already prevents asylum claims from advancing when serious charges are pending.

In paragraph (c), the Conservatives call for an end to so-called leniency to avoid deportation. What they are really proposing is to prohibit judges from considering immigration consequences at sentencing. Judges may consider immigration consequences to ensure that a sentence remains fit and proportionate, but never to reduce a sentence below what is appropriate. There is no evidence that the courts are improperly lowering sentences to avoid deportation. Any rare adjustments are reviewable on appeal and often reflect the joint positions of the Crown and defence. Eliminating judicial discretion would weaken, not strengthen, the justice system.

The Conservatives are also demanding the repeal of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Canadians elected this government with a mandate to strengthen public safety and modernize the justice system, and we are delivering. We have tabled more than six major public safety and criminal justice bills designed to crack down on violent and repeat offenders. Conservatives have delayed them, while premiers, police chiefs and municipalities have called for their urgent passage.

Bill C-75 did not weaken bail. It strengthened protections for victims of intimate partner violence by defining “intimate partner” to include former partners, creating a reverse onus for repeat offenders and requiring courts to consider prior convictions. Bill C-14 would go even further by clarifying that restraint does not mean automatic release, yet the Conservatives have blocked it. I have seen that in the House. The other day, speaker after speaker from the Conservatives did nothing but block Bill C-14, which would strengthen the bail act.

Bill C-5 did not allow house arrest for serious extortion. Conditional sentences are unavailable when sentences exceed two years or offenders pose a public safety threat. Mandatory jail time remains for extortion involving firearms or criminal organizations, which are exactly the cases that Canadians are most concerned about.

Our current legislation agenda targets extortion directly and effectively. Bill C-14 would create a new reverse onus for violent extortion, require consecutive sentences for related crimes like arson, prohibit weapons at bail and strengthen geographic restrictions. Together with Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and Bill C-12, these reforms would strengthen border enforcement, cybersecurity, hate crime laws and immigration integrity. These are evidence-based measures supported by law enforcement and municipalities across Canada.

Extortion is not a street-level crime; it is driven by organized networks and money laundering. That is why the response must be comprehensive. Fighting extortion requires evidence-based policy and firm endorsement, not false promises, and it requires a justice system that is tough on crime while still upholding the rule of law.

The Conservative approach is to blame immigration and repeal laws. Our approach is to dismantle criminal networks, strengthen enforcement, protect victims and uphold the rule of law. Victims of extortion want results, not slogans. This motion would divide communities, undermine due process and distract from real solutions.

For those reasons, I will oppose this motion and support the serious, targeted reforms needed to keep Canadians safe.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, would the member not agree that the motion is just an illusion of acting, that it is actually just window dressing?

We have already addressed the issue in Bill C-12. These criminals would not be allowed to apply for asylum, and even for those who have, their cases would be cancelled.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a little rich for the member opposite to be speaking about who should be shameful. After 10 years of allowing criminals, with the Liberals' catch-and-release policies, to be on our streets and attacking our communities, they have the audacity to stand up and talk about who should be shameful.

I will add this for the hon. member's education. He would know and, if not, he ought to know that all of the bills he mentioned go to committee and we make recommendations. I listed a very extensive list of amendments that we made specifically to Bill C-12. Every single one of them was rejected by the Liberals. That is who is obstructing Parliament from working. The obstruction here is happening by the Liberal Party and the Liberal government. They do not want Parliament to work. They put a piece of legislation together that is flawed, and they expect it to pass without respecting the will of other parliamentarians.

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

Madam Speaker, that would be a great speech if it were not for the fact that Bill C-12, which was already passed by the House, deals with just about everything that is in the opposition motion.

I heard the member stand up and talk about everything that the Liberals are not doing right. What about the fact that the Conservatives have held up Bill C-2, on lawful access, and prevented components of that bill from going forward? What about Bill C-9, a bill on hate speech, Bill C-14, on bail reform, or Bill C-16, which reinstates mandatory minimums? The Conservatives have routinely held up these bills. They obstruct Parliament from being able to pass very important pieces of legislation, and then they come in here and try to profess that they have the solutions in opposition motions like this, which serve as nothing more than to act as dog-whistle politics on immigrants.

I think it is absolutely shameful that the member and Conservatives would operate in this manner. If he does not know, he should educate himself. Everything they are looking for in the motion has already been passed by the House in this Parliament.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from the Bloc's speech, and I appreciate the fact that he talked about the human aspect of it and his concern about things being human.

I can assure him that that is exactly why this opposition day motion was presented. It was because of the human factor. A lot of my concern today is about legitimate refugee claimants who are possibly at risk or whose claims are delayed. Their housing and health care also suffer because we have criminals making false refugee claims.

I sit on the public safety committee with one of my Bloc colleagues, and she and I talk a lot about the human reasons for needing to crack down on this. I know she supported some of the Conservatives' recommendations on Bill C-12 for the same reason the Liberals voted against it.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on some of that.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, we need to work collaboratively in the House. The government tabled this bill back in June. It is a part of the government's responsibility to draft legislation and to table it in the House, but moving that bill forward through the House requires opposition parties to work with us and to put forward amendments to that bill. Once again, I would say Bill C-2 has been blocked due to opposition parties not supporting that bill. Conservatives and other parties are included.

Therefore, the compromise that we came to was that we took some aspects of that bill, put them in Bill C-12 and are moving those forward. This is because we do not want other things not to pass and progress through the House, but there are important measures, like lawful access, still left in Bill C-2. The Minister of Public Safety and I are working with civil society organizations to try to come to a compromise so that we can also get those measures passed, because police desperately need them.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. parliamentary secretary, and she is an honourable member.

I am opposed to Bill C-2, and I understand that she put it forward again in the House today as though there has been some delay on the part of opposition members. I want to ask her if she can explain the quite unusual procedure where Bill C-2, the so-called strong borders act, was put forth in June after more than 300 groups from civil society formed a coalition to stop it, groups from migrant workers' rights organizations to civil liberties unions, the United Church of Canada and so on. Then the government brought in a vastly similar bill, Bill C-12, and now we are asked about Bill C-2, which has not even gone through second reading.

The government controls when bills are put forward for votes. Opposition members do not do so, and I will not vote for Bill C-2 as it currently stands. I am wondering how they can bring forward Bill C-2 since vast portions of it, verbatim, have already been passed in Bill C-12, and it would violate our rules to bring forward the same motions twice in one session.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to lend my voice to the debate. I wish to assure Canadians today that our government is committed to protecting their safety and security and ensuring that all communities remain safe and free from violence. Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, includes measures that would expand Canada's law enforcement tool kit to combat transnational organized crime. It is the culprit.

Under this legislation, we would expand the CBSA's authority to access warehouses and export staging zones to identify and disrupt the movement of stolen vehicles and illicit commodities before they leave our shores. This provision would be game-changing. CBSA would be able to go into these warehouses to stop the export of items, whether they are drugs or autos, that are being exported out of our country and threatening the safety of Canadians. This is a good bill.

We would cut off the flow of fentanyl into our communities by accelerating the scheduling pathway under this bill for precursor chemicals. We would also crack down on money laundering by increasing the monetary penalties for anti-money laundering violations, ensuring that non-compliance is no longer just the cost of doing business.

Another critical section of Bill C-12 would establish clear legal authorities for IRCC to share information with provincial law enforcement partners. This means that investigators would be able to confirm the identity and immigration status of individuals in real time, eliminating delays, which previously hindered criminal investigations. This provision would directly correct a lot of the things that I think the Conservatives wish to correct as well. However, we have already done those things in our legislation, which is why I ask that they stop obstructing and allow this legislation to progress.

While Bill C-12 carries forward urgent priorities, Bill C-2, the strong borders act, would continue to advance critical tools to further secure borders. This would include measures to further facilitate law enforcement's access to basic subscriber information. In cases of extortion, this is critical.

Without the measures in Bill C-2, which were proposed and tabled in the House back in June, this is very difficult. We are basically tying the hands of our law enforcement officers if we do not give them these lawful access measures. This would not only help in extortion cases but also help in child pedophile cases, and I do not know why the Conservatives are against that. It would also enable Canada Post to perform warranted searches of mail to stop the circulation of fentanyl and other contraband, which is an issue that is of grave concern in Canada.

Finally, we are addressing the revolving door of justice through Bill C-14. This legislation contains changes designed to keep repeat violent offenders off our streets. The proposed legislation would expand reverse-onus rules for violent and repeat offenders, limit bail releases and mandate stricter public safety considerations. It would also impose tougher sentencing provisions for crimes such as motor vehicle theft, break and enter and extortion.

With respect to the crime of extortion in particular, Bill C-14 is a game-changer. Not only would it impose tougher sentences for this crime, but it would also mandate consecutive sentences for extortion when it is committed alongside arson or with a firearm. Our government introduced these bills to crack down on crime, protect Canadians and increase public safety.

The Government of Canada is aware of the growing concerns related to the growing crime of extortion and is deeply concerned about Canadians who are victims, as am I. We agree that the recent increase in the numbers and severity of extortion attempts are alarming. That is why we are committed to protecting the safety of Canadians and Canadian interests from all criminal threats, including extortion-related acts of violence. Whether this is through physical threats, coercion or blackmail, extortionists seek to profit at the expense of others' livelihoods, safety and well-being. It is a crime that involves using threats, accusations or violence to coerce someone into surrendering something against their will.

Extortion is not just a financial crime; it is a direct assault on the peace of mind of our citizens. We have seen a surge in extortion incidents targeting families and small businesses, particularly in the South Asian community, of which I am a part. This is an issue that is deeply concerning to me, not only as the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, but also on a personal level. As the member of Parliament for Brampton North—Caledon, I have personally witnessed the impacts of extortion on people's lives. They can be very scary and devastating.

In addition to our proposed suite of legislative changes, our government is moving to target extortion on a number of other fronts. The RCMP's national coordination and support team, which our federal government put in place, recognizing the seriousness of this issue, was started back in February 2024, when the crime was starting to surge. This support team supports investigations into extortion and intimidation tied to organized crime, working closely with police across Canada and international partners as well. The NCST serves to expand the reach and impact of police agencies by facilitating information and intelligence sharing between law enforcement agencies, and by providing tools, techniques, best practices and other resources to advance investigations led by the police of jurisdiction.

Across Canada, law enforcement agencies have applied significant resources to this issue. The Peel Regional Police established the extortion investigative task force. The Calgary Police Service stood up a South Asian extortion working group. In B.C., the province and municipal police forces have mobilized to stand up the B.C. extortion task force.

In B.C., the extortion task force, led by the RCMP, brings together the CBSA, the CFSEU‑BC, the Delta Police Department, the Metro Vancouver Transit Police, the Abbotsford Police Department and the Surrey Police Service. By combining expertise and intelligence, these agencies are expanding capacity, strengthening coordination and driving a unified response to dismantle organized crime networks and protect communities. To bolster enforcement, the B.C. RCMP has added resources to the task force, while the CBSA has opened investigations into foreign nationals who may be inadmissible, and it has already removed individuals from Canada.

RCMP surge resources continue to be deployed strategically, using an intelligence-led approach to support local police agencies. This evidence-led increase in police resources has ensured that additional tactical resources have more presence in identified areas.

As of January 17, 2026, the task force has taken conduct of 32 files from jurisdictions across the Lower Mainland. Investigators are analyzing physical, digital and forensic evidence to establish linkages and advance investigations toward enforcement into identified cluster groups. The task force has obtained almost 100 judicial authorizations and executed multiple search warrants across the Lower Mainland, in the southeast district, and in Alberta. Investigators have made arrests, conducted searches incidental to those arrests and obtained statements to lawfully secure perishable evidence. To date, task force efforts have resulted in seven individuals being criminally charged. Municipal policing partners have also secured charges in some of their respective investigations, both independently and through joint evidence gathering with the task force.

As of January 20, 2026, in support of this task force, the CBSA Pacific region is investigating 111 foreign nationals who may be inadmissible for immigration and refugee protection-related offences. So far, nine of these individuals have been removed from Canada.

I want to pause right here. This task force I am mentioning is in relation only to B.C. There have been many other arrests in Edmonton, Calgary and the Peel Region. Through the national coordination team and the intelligence provided, I am absolutely certain that we are going to continue to see success.

What is key, and this addresses the opposition motion today head-on, is that we have incorporated the CBSA directly into these task forces. The CBSA's job has been to work with police and process the removal of these individuals, sometimes even before charges are laid, when they are removable. If people are out of status in Canada and are connected to criminality, and the police are able to identify them, we are working efficiently and quickly to remove them from the country so that they do not take up resources and police time, and we are able to dismantle criminal transnational networks. We are putting in every effort and we are thinking outside of the box so that we can tackle these issues in a non-traditional sense.

Beyond that, there are many provisions currently in Bill C-12, like those I have named, which will also help in these cases. They will apply retroactively, once passed through the Senate, and they will no longer allow people who have been in the country for over 12 months to even file a claim for asylum. Those with criminal intentions, who often come between our official ports of entry, through illegal means, will not be allowed to file a claim of asylum after 14 days.

On top of that, I also wish to acknowledge that in this country, if someone has been found criminally liable and convicted on charges, that sheer fact makes them removable. They would be removed. If someone who is a PR or on some other temporary status serves a sentence in Canada today of six months or more, which one would for serious criminality, they are removed from Canada.

The Conservatives are raising sensational issues based on headlines in which the Crowns are also responsible. I would urge that in many cases where Crown attorneys dismiss charges or fail to adequately pursue the charges the police lay, they do it so that these people can then be removed by the CBSA. The system is there to make sure that we can quickly identify these people and remove them so that Canadians are safe.

Making a refugee claim does not exempt lawbreakers from the consequences of their actions. The CBSA continues to aggressively pursue the removal of extortionists attempting to evade justice by abusing Canadians' concern for genuine refugees in need of protection.

I do not want to single out only immigrants in this conversation, which I feel the Conservatives' motion does. They are trying to target immigrants and put them in a bad light, but the system is already there to identify when somebody has been criminally convicted in our country, and we have a process in place to remove them.

I just mentioned that we are also creating other informal processes to remove those who are already removable. In response to B.C.'s January 2026 request for additional federal support to address the acute extortion situation in Surrey, which was recently heard about in the news, our government is providing 20 additional RCMP officers and a helicopter to strengthen local operational capacity.

All of these efforts build on the federal leadership already demonstrated in November 2025, when the Government of Canada convened a trilateral summit in Surrey, B.C. It brought together federal, provincial and municipal leaders, along with law enforcement officials, to coordinate national action on extortion and organized crime. The summit focused on law enforcement, supporting victims and prevention. At its conclusion, federal, provincial and municipal leaders committed to enhancing and strengthening law enforcement capacity, expanding community safety planning and increasing supports for victims and prevention initiatives.

To strengthen Canadian law enforcement's capacity to disrupt organized crime groups that control the illegal drug market in B.C., the Government of Canada, in collaboration with provincial partners, is creating a regional integrated drug enforcement team, backed by a federal investment of $4 million over four years provided through Public Safety. It will bring together law and border enforcement resources from multiple agencies and jurisdictions to fight organized drug crime and combat extortion. To maximize collaboration, participants will co-locate in a centralized hub.

In January, we convened a summit on extortion in Peel, during which we announced another, similar $100 million to help the Peel Regional Police combat extortion, provide support and services to victims and build on the efforts already under way through its police force. This investment is further backed by a federal investment of $4 million to establish a similar drug enforcement team with the Government of Ontario.

Let me be clear: These are not the only resources that are being put into this matter. Provincial governments are responsible for policing their provinces, and they have also put in resources to tackle this issue.

The drug enforcement teams, or RIDETs, are a key part of Canada's $1.3-billion border plan. This is a historic investment. No other government has put this amount into its border plan. This, alongside proposed border security legislation, will support the provinces, territories and municipalities in combatting the illegal fentanyl trade and protecting communities from those who try to evade our border security measures.

As part of our border plan, we are hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers and 1,000 new RCMP personnel to further strengthen our ability to combat threats from organized crime. Extortion is one of those crimes that is organized and transnational in its nature. Investing in and expanding these resources means that we are cracking down on crimes like extortion, money laundering, online fraud and gun smuggling, which have caused havoc in our urban centres.

In addition to our focus on bolstering the capacity of law enforcement, we are making investments in prevention efforts and assistance for victims. To support victims of extortion, the Government of Canada and the B.C. government committed $1 million. The Government of Canada is also providing the Government of B.C. with $500,000 over two years through Justice Canada's victims fund for four additional outreach workers to assist the B.C. extortion task force and local police. These investments address the need for additional victims services and community outreach in Lower Mainland communities, particularly Abbotsford and Surrey. This funding will also support the development and translation of public resources, including web pages and safety planning tools, to improve cultural relevance and accessibility.

Through the crime prevention action fund, we recently announced $1.5 million for the Yo Bro Yo Girl Youth Initiative in Surrey to divert vulnerable youth away from gangs. The crime prevention action fund is a key component of the Government of Canada's initiative to take action against gun and gang violence. It was renewed in 2023 and provides $390.6 million over five years to provinces and territories. The government also launched the building safer communities fund in 2022, which provides $250 million directly to municipalities and indigenous communities to bolster gang prevention.

The reason I am listing all of these things is that they are all interconnected. It is important to understand that. No one fund or plan will solve the problem completely, but as I have been saying, we have a tough-on-crime agenda, we are adding resources, we have drafted legislation and we have tabled it in the House. All we have asked for is support from the Conservative Party of Canada to pass these measures so that we can catch and convict criminals in this country and, when necessary, also remove criminals from this country.

All I would say to the Conservatives is allow the vote, pass the bill and catch the criminals.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is the million-dollar question.

There is partisanship in this place. It is alive and well today. When we propose something that is good and constructive, it gets rejected. That is the mode of operating of the Liberal government. We want to see this country work. We want to see legislation that affects people in a positive way passed. We want to be helpful. We want to do what we can. That is why we are proposing amendments that we think are good amendments that everybody can agree with.

The problem is that the other side, the Liberal side, tends to say that, just because it came from us, it is a bad idea and therefore they are not going to support it. That happened multiple times on Bill C-12. I mentioned the example of barring criminals from claiming asylum, which is a great example of that. That is why we need to—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives had two objectives when introducing amendments to Bill C-12. One was to truly fix Canada's broken asylum system, and the second was to strengthen Canada's border security.

Can the member please tell us here in this place why the Liberals were so opposed to our very reasonable amendments?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, the bad news is that a significant minister of our country is very confused about her own legislation. It is Bill C-12 that is doing this. We were actually very co-operative with the government on the bill. We wanted to see it passed. We supplied many good suggestions and many good amendments, some of which were adopted. Most were not, as I described in my speech.

This is what we have been doing to help the House, to get good legislation passed, so that we can protect Canadians from things like this. That is what we want to do, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on this motion we put forward in the House.

I have had the privilege of travelling to Rwanda multiple times. It is a beautiful country. When I say I am going to Rwanda or have been to Rwanda, people look at me with shock on their faces, because they have an image of a country that was rocked by genocide 32 years ago, which it was. It was a tragic thing, but the country has been rebuilt. It is a beautiful country, hilly and tropical. The fruit there is amazing, and so are the people. It is now a very safe country that is well developed. There are roads and buildings. They have a beautiful soccer centre and a basketball centre. It is an amazing place. They had the cycling UCI Road World Championships there last year, which was the first time ever in an African country.

When I talk to Rwandans about what it is like in Canada, they do not believe me. The conversations are quite interesting. I talk about things like homelessness and how we can see homeless people in any major city, tent cities, people cooking on fires in our cities in Canada. When I tell that to people in Rwanda, they do not believe me. I talk about the drug use we see in our cities, the fentanyl use, people literally dying on our streets and the way our government actually supports that by providing tools and facilitating the use of drugs and in some cases giving hard drugs to people. They cannot believe that. One certainly does not see that on the streets of Kigali in Rwanda.

The obvious consequence of these things is that crime has increased since 2015 in Canada. Violent crime is up 55%, firearms crime is up 130%, extortion has skyrocketed and is up 330% across the country, sexual assaults are up 76%, and homicides are up 29%. This is the result of some of the changes that the Liberal government has made. It is hard to imagine that when one is sitting in a country like Rwanda. We have a perception that it should be a problem in Rwanda, but it is actually a problem here, not there.

Then I tell Rwandans that police are increasingly powerless. Any of us who have talked to police officers will hear every time that they got into policing to catch the bad guy and put him in jail. They are increasingly frustrated that they cannot do that because courts are releasing the bad guy. It is frustrating police officers to the point that they do not even bother to arrest some people for crimes now because it just does not matter.

Why is this happening? It is partly because of Bill C-5, which took away mandatory minimums. It allowed judges the freedom to give lesser sentences, which has happened across the board, and not for little things; it is for serious things such as gun trafficking, robbery with a firearm and drug trafficking. These kinds of offences are now not subject to mandatory minimums, and judges are free to give whatever lenient sentence they may choose.

Bill C-75 was a big expansion of bail. It was the bill that not allowed but actually required judges to consider the least possible thing they could do to a criminal. There is a thing called “the principle of restraint” that was introduced in the bill, for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention. It forces our criminal justice system to release criminals at the earliest possible opportunity. This is how we arrived at the revolving-door bail situation, where people are arrested and end up back out on the streets.

These are the things that have been done by the government that have caused crime to increase in our country and light sentences to prevail. The consequences of crime are gone. We have completely lost control of crime in our country. When I say these things to a person from Rwanda, they are shocked. This is not the view of Canada that they have, but it is the true Canada that we do have.

On the immigration side, we have to remember that somebody who is not a citizen of Canada showing up at our borders does not have the right to become Canadian. Canadians are the ones who decide who can become Canadian. Canadians are the ones who decide that we should allow certain people to come into our country and in certain quantities. Those are our decisions to make. They are no one else's.

For many years, Canada had a consensus on immigration. If someone is not an indigenous person, then they quite likely have an immigrant in their background somewhere. My grandparents came here 100 years ago, so I am the product of immigration to this country, as are most of us here who are not indigenous people. Canadians were happy and comfortable with that. We had a system that picked the brightest and the best people because that is what benefited Canada the most. If one talks to an economist, they will say that we should be selecting people who have the potential to earn higher-than-average incomes in our country to bring all of us up as a country.

This worked well, but we also left room to help those in need. We all recognize that there are refugees who come to our country, and we need to help those people too. This system worked, and immigrants would be the first to say that.

Then the Liberals completely lost control. They allowed in way too many people, and we have seen the impacts of that on our housing, our jobs and our health care. Trying to buy a house is expensive. Trying to pay rent is expensive. Jobs are hard to find. Our unemployment rate for youth is very high.

It has overwhelmed our system. Sometimes people forget about this, but we have a system in our country that was designed to process tens of thousands of people a year. It has now been dealing with millions of people a year, and it cannot keep up with that volume. Something like security screening, for example, is woefully inadequate and behind. As a result, someone can sneak into our country as a criminal and we probably will not catch it. This is a sad thing to say, but it is the reality. We see it every day.

We also have low-wage people coming into the country, which suppresses wages. It gives employers an opportunity to have a temporary foreign worker they can pay a low amount of money to, so Canadians do not have jobs. This is why we have such high unemployment among the youth in our country. Those same youth are faced with high rents while not having a job. They cannot find a place to live.

At the same time as that, we are letting in criminals, as I said, because we cannot really screen properly. We have, for example, IRGC members from Iran here in Canada, who have been able to come here, launder their money and have a pretty good life, and they should not be able to do that. We have scam artists who are taking advantage of the immigration system.

Let us remember that immigrants are not the criminals here. Immigrants are not the problem. There is a very small fraction of people who are the problem, but when we have a system we can take advantage of, bad things happen.

This leads me to the unholy marriage of an out-of-control crime system with an out-of-control immigration system. This is where we find ourselves. We talk a lot about immigration, and some of my constituents do not necessarily have experience with this, so I want to read this because it is shocking. This is an example of an extortion letter. It says:

WARNING...we are...gang members, we want our share from your busineses like protection money. as you seen on news on November...two shotting on houses...were targeted because we asked them [little] money they...denied.... We want...peacefully from you this amount if you...do...business here in abbotsford—

This is in Abbotsford.

—you have no other way...please make sure do not contact...POLICE....

We asking only 2 million...in cash...here or we might get...INDIA we have links all over do not ignore us, it will efect you realy bad. we will contact you next month we gave you 1 month to decide....

This an example of an extortion letter that people are getting, and it is not just one. There were 36 incidents like that in Surrey in the month of January alone. There was a situation on January 19 where a business received a message like that, and their place was shot up overnight. People do not necessarily even report these things. Also in Surrey, there were 15 suspects of this type of crime who were arrested by the police, and they immediately claimed asylum.

This a problem in our system. The asylum system is broken. There are 300,000 people in our asylum queue right now waiting for a hearing. That is the size of Saskatoon. The equivalent of the entire city of Saskatoon is currently waiting for nearly four years, which is how long it is going to take to process them. Because our system cannot process them, 100,000 of those people are simply waiting for security clearance.

This why NDP Premier David Eby from British Columbia called the situation “ludicrous”. He said that something had to change, that something has to be different. We proposed these changes. My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill proposed a change like this to Bill C-12 that would have barred asylum claims from people who are convicted of a crime. Premier Eby actually wants to go further by barring people from claiming asylum if they are in a judicial process for a serious crime. We think that is a good idea. We want to partner with the House to make that kind of thing happen.

Let us remember that Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimums for extortion with a handgun. There are also sentencing discounts, which allow judges to reduce sentences. There are multiple examples of this. It happens all the time. We need to fix this by undoing Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 so that there are true consequences. The member for Oxford brought in Bill C-242, which is the jail not bail act.

We need to fix Bill C-12, as I just described, but we also need to implement Bill C-220, which is from the member for Calgary Nose Hill. It would forbid judges from giving sentencing discounts where it impacts deportation. Criminals who are convicted of a crime greater than six months are subject to deportation, so judges are giving them sentences of less than six months so they are not subject to deportation.

We need to fix this. Something is wrong in Canada. We have to get crime and immigration back under control. The motion today would do that. For the benefit of Canadians, all Canadians, especially young ones, we need to do this today.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, how does a minister of the Crown not even know the bill that is in front of the House of Commons?

There are two things. Number one, it was Conservatives who went to Liberals to separate out the parts. The parts she talked about are in Bill C-12, not Bill C-2. That is wrong number one. Wrong number two is that Bill C-12 would not stop somebody from coming into Canada right now, committing a violent crime and then making an asylum claim.

The other thing is that there are 300,000 people in the refugee claim system right now, which means it takes years for those claims to be processed. In those years, those violent criminals can avoid deportation, claim social benefits and do all sorts of other things that make a mockery of Canada's immigration system and our justice system and harden attitudes toward immigration. That is disgusting. I cannot believe she does not even know the bill—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, what is disgusting has been the obstruction by the opposition.

Back in June, we brought forward Bill C-2, which contains provisions that would not have allowed those asylum claims to be made in Surrey that the member references. That portion, which is now in Bill C-12 before the Senate, would not allow any person who entered Canada over 12 months ago to make an asylum claim. They would be ineligible to even file the claim. All of those individuals, those 12 individuals, had been in Canada for over a year. They would have been ineligible had the Conservatives not obstructed and had passed that bill back in June, and that is disgusting.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

moved:

That, given that,

(i) extortion has risen by 330% in Canada since the Liberals were elected,

(ii) Liberals voted against Conservative motions to end loopholes for false refugee claimants seeking asylum,

(iii) Liberals voted against tougher sentencing for extortionists proposed by Conservative Bill C-381, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (extortion),

(iv) Liberals have failed to repeal bills C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and end the revolving door justice system,

the House call on the government to:

(a) bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims;

(b) bar non-citizens with active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims;

(c) end the practice of leniency to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes to avoid deportation; and

(d) repeal bills C-5 and C-75 to ensure repeat extortionists stay in jail.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon West.

The value of Canadian citizenship is predicated on maintaining a high trust society where everyone within our borders upholds the institutions that create our peaceful pluralism, particularly and at a minimum, upholding the rule of law. If someone is not a citizen of Canada and is a guest here, our laws state that if they commit serious crimes, they need to leave. However, in many cases that is not what is happening today. While millions of non-citizens of Canada come to our nation and are here playing by the rules, there is now a legion of cases of those who do not, and that number is rapidly rising.

This incredibly destructive trend is the direct result of a decade of Liberal government policies that have created loopholes and allowed serious criminals to be immediately released on bail, receive lenient sentences and even claim refugee status in order to avoid deportation. In short, thanks to the Liberal government, there are now far fewer deterrents for non-citizens' getting involved in gang activity, trafficking drugs and committing violent crimes.

I know that statement will make people in some quarters clutch their pearls because we cannot say that, but the reality is that if we are going to protect Canada's pluralism, this truth must be spoken and addressed. Every statistic and every lived experience imaginable for law-abiding families in Surrey, Brampton, Edmonton and beyond proves that what I have just said is desperately and disgustingly true.

Violent extortion schemes that have turned peaceful neighbourhoods into zones of fear are but one prime example. Since the Liberals assumed power in 2015, extortion incidents have surged by 330%. In British Columbia alone, extortion incidents have skyrocketed by nearly 500% since 2015. Across Canada, the number of people charged with extortion rose from 680 in 2015 to 1,258 in 2024, an 85% jump, while the rate per 100,000 ballooned from 8.56 to 31.82, a 272% increase.

That is a lot of statistics. It is a lot of numbers, but those numbers represent real people, real human beings who have had their lives and their communities shattered; small business owners who are receiving crude threats demanding protection money, only to have their shops shot up; homes riddled with bullets; and arson that destroys people's livelihoods and sanctity.

We would think that the Liberal government by now, after seeing all these cases and the fear that is exploding in many communities across Canada, would do something about it, right? Wrong. What has a decade of soft-on-crime policies and the rote partisan rejection of constructive Conservative proposals to end the tidal wave of violence has done? It has emboldened gangs, many with transnational ties, to prey on the most vulnerable communities in our country, many of which are made up of newcomers and immigrants.

The following comes from a very recent Global News story, which reported something worse:

Canada’s plan to expel those behind B.C.’s extortion epidemic has hit a roadblock after more than a dozen suspects facing deportation claimed refugee status.

The foreign nationals were identified by B.C.’s Extortion Task Force, but once the [CBSA] began investigating them, they claimed to be refugees.

As a result, deportations of the 14 suspects have been put on hold until the Immigration and Refugee Board decides whether they have legitimate [claims] for asylum.

Here we are today. The word used by David Eby, the leader of the British Columbia New Democratic Party, not a Conservative but a New Democratic leader, to describe this egregious abuse of Canada's asylum was “ludicrous”, and he is right. He asked Parliament to do something to change the laws. I say to Premier Eby that Conservatives have listened to his call.

We are here today to call on the Liberal government and all members of the House to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims, which seems like a no-brainer; bar non-citizens who have active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims, also a no-brainer; end the practice of giving leniency to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes so they can avoid deportation and avoid the spirit of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and repeal Liberal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 to ensure that repeat serious criminals stay in jail and do not get released back onto the streets immediately with impunity and the motivation to serially reoffend.

I would also note that Conservatives have already attempted to get the Liberals to ban non-citizens convicted of serious crime from making asylum claims in an amendment to Bill C-12, which is currently before the other place, but the Liberals in this place rejected the amendment, and that is crazy. I know the Liberals today will likely rise to debate and say everything is fine and that laws already cover these issues, but they do not. Here are the facts.

A massive backlog of asylum claims, nearly 300,000, or about the entire population of Burnaby, which has been amassed under the Liberal government, means that non-citizens can make asylum claims that take years to process. This includes non-citizens who have active legal proceedings for committing serious crimes, and Bill C-12, which is currently in the other place, would only, in theory, prevent non-citizens who have been in Canada for over a year from making asylum claims. It would do nothing to stop a non-citizen from entering Canada, committing a serious crime within a year and then making a refugee claim, especially a non-citizen with ties to transnational gangs, and we know there are major problems with screening right now. This is why Conservatives proposed the amendment that we did, and it is why the Liberals should have accepted that amendment, but they did not. That is, arguably, insane. That is what is fuelling this crisis.

There is also the massive problem of judges routinely giving lenient sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in order to avoid deportation, which is already set out as a consequence in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have a simple one-line bill to amend the Criminal Code that the Liberals could pass today and that would stop this practice, and yet when I brought forward my bill in the House, the Liberals were so tone-deaf that during the debate, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader made the false claim that judges do not grant special lenience in cases of, for example, sexual assault and questioned whether anyone seriously believed a rapist would receive preferential treatment because of potential deportation risks.

He implied, and Liberals have implied, that these scenarios are far-fetched. The very next day I rose in the House, and I could have given multiple examples but gave one in Barrie, where a non-citizen pleaded guilty of raping a 13-year-old girl and impregnating her twice but was given an adjournment specifically to evaluate how his guilty plea and sentence would affect his immigration status. That is absolutely disgusting. That is an abrogation of our democratic system, upholding the rule of law and our immigration laws. It is disgusting. There has been silence from the Liberals over and over again. Premier Eby is right that it has to change.

Not only have the Liberals made this situation worse, and empowered it, but they are silent today on this and are not doing anything. This is why immigration attitudes have hardened in Canada. It is the why. It is the silent thing that nobody wants to talk about, but it is true. It is destroying our pluralism and making the lives of everybody harder, Canadians and newcomers alike, and it has to stop. That is why we have this motion in front of the House of Commons today. These things have to change. They are real. They are destroying communities.

My colleagues later today will talk about the impacts of the fact that the Liberals have not repealed Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. These are bills that have enabled the catch-and-release justice system, that lowered sentences for serious crimes and provide every incentive possible for people to commit serious crimes in Canada and get away with it. Eliminating these deterrents signalled to criminals that repercussions are minimal, and it contributed to massive spikes across the country in violent crime, firearms offences and sexual assaults.

I thought we would get serious about sexual assault in this place, but no, that bill still stands. There is no deterrent for it, and the Liberals will not move. Every time I hear somebody talk about sexual assault, there is no action. Somewhere today, I bet right now, in Surrey, in Brampton, in Edmonton, in Calgary, somebody is receiving an extortion threat. Somebody has been defrauded of their life savings. Still, somebody is going to receive catch-and-release bail or might be able to make a refugee claim—

Public Safety

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following these cases very closely. In the case of B.C., where some people have filed for asylum, Bill C-12, which is in the Senate right now and progressing nicely, would make those particular claimants ineligible to file for asylum. We are closing those loopholes. We are working tirelessly to make sure that extortionists are caught.

Will the Conservatives help us give law enforcement the tools that are needed? I am asking for this. The lawful access measures in Bill C-2 are needed in order to catch child pedophiles and extortionists.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals voted against a Conservative amendment to Bill C-12 that would have barred non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from abusing our asylum system and making refugee claims. That is crazy.

Will the Liberals agree with Premier David Eby that the amendment is a proposal that should be accepted, and that non-citizens accused of serious crimes should not be able to make refugee claims? That is kind of bananas.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, the second bill we brought forward in this Parliament was Bill C-2, which addresses this very issue and provides other measures, such as lawful access. I am glad to see that the Conservatives have somewhat co-operated and split that bill to create Bill C-12, which is now in the Senate. This will create an ineligibility for precisely these types of people, who try to exploit our system. They will no longer be able to apply for asylum.

I would like the members opposite to also co-operate on lawful access, because we need to catch these criminals.

Justice

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, in 2018, Saskatchewan was rocked by the news of 16 tragic deaths in the Humboldt Broncos bus tragedy. Today we learned that the deportation process for the truck driver responsible may finally be ending, as his last bid to stay in Canada has been rejected, and the wheels of deportation are now in motion.

Our hearts remain with the families and loved ones of the 16 victims who lost their lives and the many more who were injured in this horrific accident. This is exactly why Conservatives tabled amendments to Bill C-12 last fall: to bar individuals convicted of serious crimes from exploiting asylum pathways and avoiding deportations.

It is outrageous that a non-citizen charged with or convicted of a serious crime could even attempt to avoid removal using the many delay tactics provided by the Liberal government. Falsely claiming refugee status or using other procedural tricks is an insult to the victims of these crimes.

Sadly, our reforms were rejected by the Liberals. It is just another slap in the face of everyday Canadians by the Prime Minister.

Conservatives stand ready to work with the government to close these loopholes and bring true justice to the victims of crime in Canada.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to look at what is in front of us right now, as we speak. We have a number of very important pieces of legislation that will address the issue that my friend opposite brought forward. There is Bill C-12, which is going through the Senate. There is Bill C-9. There is Bill C-14, which speaks to bail reform, as well as ensuring that there is consecutive sentencing. There is also Bill C-16. Again, I ask the members opposite to pass the legislation and make sure it becomes law.

Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation Act

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a new approach. I enumerated five bills that we already supported in the last year of this Parliament, Bill S-2, Bill S-3, Bill C-4, Bill C-5, Bill C-12, and now, in addition to that, Bill C-14 and the bill that is now in front of the House, Bill C-18. We have been supporting some pieces of legislation to move ahead.

The government would like to present a narrative that the opposition is being obstructionist, because I think it would like to pull the pin early on a federal election.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected a minority government, and Conservatives fully respect the democratic will of the electorate. That is why, as His Majesty's loyal official opposition, we will carry out our constitutional responsibilities within the House.

On some matters, we will oppose the government as the official opposition, which is a constitutionally mandated role in a Westminster parliamentary democracy. On other matters, we will support the government, seeing as Canadians did not give the government a majority, which requires the opposition to play a role in moving certain matters forward in the House.

Conservatives respect the democratic will of Canadians as expressed in the last election. The government needs to do the same. That means the government needs to understand that, on certain bills in front of the House, we will oppose the government, and on other bills in front of the House, we will support the government.

It is not reasonable for the government to expect the opposition in the House to support it in all and any bills that it brings before the House. That would undermine the constitutional role the official opposition has in holding the appointed executive to account.

The Conservatives support Bill C-18, just as we supported Bill C-13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and just as we have supported many other bills over the past year in this Parliament.

We have supported the following six government bills: Bill S-2, an act to amend the Indian Act; Bill S-3, an act to amend the Weights and Measures Act and other acts; Bill C-4, an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians; Bill C-5, an act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act; and Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act.

Recently, we agreed that we would expedite the study and passage of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. We have been clear that good ideas in the interest of Canadians will win our support. Including the bill in front of us today, we have supported eight government bills in this Parliament just in the last year.

The Conservatives support Bill C-18, an act to implement the comprehensive economic partnership agreement between Canada and Indonesia, because we support diversifying our trade with other partners, especially in the Indo-Pacific region.

This agreement would eventually reduce tariffs on 97% of Canadian exports destined for Indonesia. However, the government procurement in this trade agreement requires further scrutiny. Indonesian firms could bid on Canadian contracts, but Canadian firms could only bid on Indonesian government procurement if it is expressly opened. Indonesian government procurement is largely closed.

Other trading partners of Canada secured better agreements with Indonesia on government procurement rules, including the United Arab Emirates and the European Union. The European Union also negotiated a commitment to begin market access negotiations. Canada has no specific timeline to begin negotiating market access. For Canada, market access is left to further negotiations and no published coverage schedules.

However, Conservatives will support passing Bill C-18 to committee, but we would scrutinize the effectiveness of this agreement and point to ways that it could be better utilized.

I would like to conclude my remarks on our support for this bill by adding the following: Just signing trade agreements is not enough to diversify our trade away from our main trading partner.

To capitalize on these trade agreements and these investment deals, the Government of Canada needs to do two other things. These are two things that the government has not been doing and that, if left undone, would prevent us from significantly diversifying trade away from our largest trading partner.

The first thing we need to do is make Canadian goods and services more competitive to buyers in Asia and in Europe. Over the last decade, the Canadian economy has become uncompetitive, and many of our goods and services are no longer desired by buyers in Asia and in Europe. The trade data bears this out.

In the year 2000, Canadian exports, expressed as a per cent of our gross domestic product, were 42%. In 2024, the last year for which we have data, our global exports, expressed as a per cent of our GDP, had dropped to 33%, which is a 9% drop. Clearly, our products and services are not as desirable to foreign buyers as they once were. That is because the Canadian economy has become uncompetitive and over-regulated.

Our tax system has become a completely Byzantine mess, and this includes both the personal and corporate income tax system. We need to overhaul competition policy to make our economy more competitive. We need to eliminate regulation and the regulatory overburden that is strangling our competitiveness. We need to overhaul our personal and corporate income tax system in the same ambitious way that we once did in 1971 and in 1986. The government has introduced none of these types of reforms to get our economy moving and to make our goods and services more desirable for buyers in Asia and Europe.

The second thing we need to do is increase the physical capability of exporting more goods and commodities to global markets via the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Currently, we do not have the capacity to significantly increase exports of commodities or goods via our country's largest ports. The port of Vancouver, which is our largest port and a federal entity, is woefully inefficient. According to a Standard & Poor's global study that was commissioned in 2024 by the World Bank, the port of Vancouver ranked 389 out of 403 global ports for efficiency. It is critical to have sufficient trade corridor infrastructure to significantly increase the export of commodities and goods via our ports to Asia or Europe.

Here is another example of a lack of trade corridor infrastructure: Canada is the largest high-income nation in the world without a comprehensive national highway system, and by highway, I mean an autobahn, an expressway or an autoroute, a system that would run from coast to coast, be entirely grade-separated, have no cross-traffic and have four or more lanes, two or more in each direction, allowing travel that is unimpeded by traffic signals, driveways, stop signs or intersections.

I encourage anyone listening to go to Google Maps to map out the fastest way from Halifax to Vancouver or from Toronto to Vancouver. Every single route will route us through the United States of America, through the U.S. interstate system, which is faster and more efficient than any highway system we have in this country. That is just one example of the lack of trade corridor infrastructure that prevents us from significantly diversifying trade beyond that with our largest trading partner.

Again, the government has introduced no real plans to significantly expand trade corridor infrastructure or improve its efficiency.

As I said, we support Bill C-18, just as we have supported seven other government bills in the House. However, simply signing trade agreements will not do much to diversify our trade unless the government does the necessary work here in this country to make our economy more competitive and ensure that the essential infrastructure is in place to export our goods and resources to global markets.

Public Safety

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, small businesses in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and across Canada are being targeted by organized extortion. Businesses are receiving threats. Families are afraid, and communities are under real pressure from criminal groups that use fear and violence. This is happening in our neighbourhoods and on our streets, and it requires urgent action from Parliament.

Our government has introduced important public safety legislation, including Bill C-2, Bill C-12 and Bill C-14, to give law enforcement stronger tools to fight organized crime, strengthen Canada's bail system and toughen sentences for serious and violent crimes.

I call on the Conservatives to stop delaying and allow these bills to pass quickly, so law enforcement can confront organized extortion and better protect Canadians.

Protecting Victims Act

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for identifying some of the strengths and weaknesses of the bill. In particular, our hon. colleague, the shadow minister on this file, proposed a solution, which was for the government to split the bill in two: take the part where we have consensus across all parties to actually get public safety as a priority for victims here in Canada, and move those aspects where there is no agreement, that are going to take longer to debate, to the side.

Funnily enough, the government has sort of a track record of this. We saw it with Bill C-2 and Bill C-12. Could the member comment on this important solution?

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the chief opposition whip, for at least the festive part of that statement. If he wants to stand and propose that Bill C-14 be read at all stages and passed, we will absolutely support that on this side of the House.

Before discussing the business of the House, I would like to join with my hon. colleague and take this opportunity to thank all members of Parliament and their staff, who work hard every day for Canadians, whether here in the House of Commons or in their ridings.

I would also like to wish very happy holidays and a merry Christmas to all those who help us here in the parliamentary precinct: the clerks, the pages, the interpreters and the members of the Parliamentary Protective Service.

Many of them are residents in my own riding of Gatineau, which I continue to be very proud to represent in this House.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent in the House for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, be deemed read a third time and passed on division, and that the opposition of the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands be noted; (b) Bill C-13, An Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, be deemed read a second time on division and referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade; (c) Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, be deemed read a third time and passed on division, and that the opposition of the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands be noted; (d) following the adoption of this order, the House shall proceed immediately to the consideration of Private Members' Business, and during that time, no quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair; (e) no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 be taken up today; and (f) when the House adjourns later this day, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, January 26, 2026, provided that, for the purpose of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, December 12, 2025.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we have a sustainable and strategic immigration plan. This plan aims to attract the top international talent to build a strong economy, bring top researchers to Canada, invest in foreign credential recognition and support francophone and rural communities.

We will protect our borders and strengthen our immigration system with Bill C‑2 and Bill C‑12. I encourage the opposition to support these measures.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time that my colleague and I spent at the public safety committee last week trying to improve Bill C-12, which was so lacking with regard to border security. I will note that, every time the Liberals say they are going to hire more border security, they do not do it. It is about the announcement. Colour me skeptical if I do not believe anything they say they are going to do.

Just to reiterate some of the work that my colleague did last week, we tried to advance measures which would have made it more difficult for people who have a criminal past or criminal intent to enter the country by proposing common-sense, cost-free measures to Canada's immigration system, and the Liberals rejected that. Shame on them.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, they spent $15 billion, and Stellantis just left the country.

Yesterday, guess where Stellantis was. Its representatives were at the White House. Do members know what they were saying? They are investing $13 billion in the United States, a direct transfer from Canadian taxpayers to the United States of America, while rich Campbell's lobbyists, who I am sure are probably friends with some of these guys across the aisle, are talking about people who have to eat their soup. I do not think Canadians should be condemned to eating soup. They should have choice in food.

There was a startling report today showing that next year, an average Canadian family will have to pay, at minimum, an extra $1,000 for basic groceries. That is on top of the already huge increase in food prices.

In the province of Alberta, in my riding, food bank visits are at an all-time high. In Alberta, the 127 reporting food banks were visited 210,000 times, a jump of 21.8% compared to last year and 134% since 2019.

We have a budget where the government is dumping billions and billions of dollars, endless dollars, into corporate lobbyists and corporations that are not even trying to keep jobs here. The ministers did not even bother reading the contracts. Meanwhile, we should have some highly processed soup for dinner.

There is nothing in the budget for Canadians. There is a lot for the Liberals' rich friends and and a lot for corporations that have other benefits, like regulatory benefits that keep cellphone bills high. The layers of ways the Liberals screw the average Canadian, between regulatory capture and just forking out direct cash to their friends, are so magnificently bad.

In this budget, the level of debt is shocking. It is kind of tricky of the Prime Minister to say we are saving money, because he has tried to cook the books and restructure how expenses are categorized. We are not that dumb. He might think we are. That is how he treats some of his cabinet ministers or journalists when he tells them to “look inside” themselves instead of answering a question. That level of arrogance is not going to make my constituents able to go out for a nice dinner or just afford basic groceries.

I am the shadow minister for immigration, and I have never seen a more incompetent immigration minister in the Liberal government's history, and that is saying a lot. Through this budget, the Liberals are continuing immigration levels that are unsustainable. There are not enough houses, doctors or jobs for people in Canada right now, yet they are juicing these numbers. In one bill in front of the House of Commons right now, Bill C-12, the Liberals are trying to give themselves powers to mass extend temporary resident visas. We have an amendment that I hope the government will support on that front.

Everything is about increasing the size of government, increasing the largesse of the Liberals' corporate friends and increasing the population in unsustainable ways through immigration, and my constituents are left with having a can of soup that an executive of the company calls not nutritious and highly processed. At a bare minimum, in a G7 country, people should have more to look forward to than a bare cupboard at night.

I know there are people in my community, which was once very well off, who have lost their houses. There are now parts of my community where homelessness is a problem in a big way, and people cannot afford to make ends meet. I know there are seniors in my community who thought they were going to have a safe retirement but now cannot afford to buy groceries.

The Liberals are now asking us to support $78 billion when a company they gave $15 billion to just transferred $13 billion of it to the United States. Come on. Something has to give.

The Prime Minister told Canadians that he would be the person who could better manage Canada's finances. All he did was rack up debt on the credit card. He is not the only economist in this room. His economic policy is bad; it is failed socialist policy that does not benefit anybody.

No, I do not support this budget, nor should anyone else in the House.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to anyone that I totally disagree with my esteemed colleague's version of the facts. It is precisely the outbursts of Conservative members, true to their leader's example, with their three-word slogans and determination to upend the work of the House and committees, that prompted the decision by the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore to cancel this morning's committee work.

I encourage all members to focus on the issues. We introduce bills of great importance to all Canadians. We ensure that these bills move forward and are debated in parliamentary committees and in the House. The least we should be able to expect is to be treated with decorum, not in a heated, even frenzied way by the official opposition. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to tell his members that their behaviour, shouting and agitation are a disservice to our democracy.

This afternoon, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget. We hope the debate will end this afternoon.

Tomorrow, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

Next week, priority will be given to the third reading of Bill C-4, an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure. Canadians know well that we have cut income taxes for every taxpayer. We made sure we got rid of the consumer carbon tax and the GST for first-time homebuyers. This is something the Conservatives said they wanted to do, but apparently not.

Also, there will be the second reading debate of Bill C-13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a very solid piece of economic policy. We would think the Conservatives would be interested in that, but apparently not.

We have the report stage and third reading of Bill C-12, which would strengthen Canada's immigration system and border, something the Conservatives talk about a lot. However, apparently they have nothing to say about this substantial and very important piece of legislation.

There is the second reading of Bill C-2, the strong borders act. It contains a concept known as lawful access, which police forces across this country have been asking for. They have been calling the offices of Conservative members to say that they know the Conservatives are divided on that. They know they have had some very difficult conversations in their caucus. The police want the ability to deal with extortion and child pornography. The Conservatives said they wanted action on this. This is action, but the Conservatives want to hold it up.

Finally, should Bill C-15, the very good budget bill before the House, not collapse today, it will also be considered next week.

Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, wow, that is truly amazing. I just finished challenging them to sit until midnight, and they all jumped up to say that they would sit until midnight. I called their bluff and asked if there was unanimous consent to sit until midnight. What did we see? The people who were jumping up then said, “No, no.” This proves the point. Do we not see it? The Conservative line is, “Do not allow legislation to pass. Let us do whatever we can to prevent that from happening and continue to deny Canadians bail reform legislation.” This is what the Conservative Party's position is.

We have Bill C-2, Bill C-9 and Bill C-12, all of which would make our communities safer, and all of which the Conservative Party of Canada is preventing from passing. Then, when I say, “We should debate it”, they say they do not have enough time because they have more members who want to speak. They cry us a river. When they are provided with an opportunity to have more time to debate, what do they do? They sit on their hands and say nothing except, “No, no, we do not sit past six o'clock.” Do they know how many Canadians work past six o'clock across the country? It is a whole lot of Canadians. Let me leave it at that.

I will tell the House something: The only thing here is a Conservative Party of Canada that does not see the merit. If they really want more debate, why would they not agree to unanimous consent? Seriously, why would they not do it? It is not as if all of them have to be present for it. It just means they have to debate it. After all, that is kind of what they wanted, but they avoid it.

Public Safety

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives have been very clear in the House that we are generally in support of many of the measures in Bill C-12 and Bill C-14.

In respect of Bill C-2 and the Liberal government now tying it to extortion, the reality is that we are in a minority Parliament and the Liberals never work with us. They never addressed some of the charter challenges that will inevitably come from that legislation. If the Liberals would have acted in good faith, they would have seen more co-operation from the Conservatives, as we have done on many major policy initiatives that we initiated in the first place and that have been passed by this Parliament.

The reality is that extortion can be correlated directly to the changes to the Criminal Code that the Liberals brought forward. Once we removed any form of deterrence in our society, crime went rampant. It is what happened. I just implore the member opposite and I implore the government—

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about extortion in Canada, particularly in British Columbia. I can assure the House that the Government of Canada is actively working on this file and that it is more committed than ever to protecting Canadians, regardless of where they come from or where they live. All Canadians and Canadian interests must be protected from all criminal threats, including extortion and related acts of violence. This is not a soft-on-crime policy at all. It is quite the opposite.

Serious organized crime is complex, so a multi-pronged response to these criminal networks is essential. Incidents of extortion are alarming, and support is in place for those affected. Anyone who feels threatened online or in person should report the situation to local police.

In the Government of Canada's budget 2025, we announced an investment to hire 1,000 new RCMP members to increase federal policing capacity across Canada and combat organized criminal networks that threaten Canada's economic and national security, as well as 1,000 new CBSA officers to help crack down on illegal arms trafficking.

The Government of Canada also introduced bills C-2, C-12 and C-14, which seek to strengthen immigration and border security, combat transnational organized crime, tighten bail laws, and increase penalties to protect Canadians and strengthen the security of our communities.

Bill C-2 proposes modernized tools to facilitate law enforcement's lawful access to basic information and data. These measures are crucial to disrupting sophisticated organized crime networks that use modern extortion schemes. However, the Conservatives oppose them. I hope they will change their vote when we discuss this further next week.

Bill C-12 seeks to secure our borders and strengthen our immigration system by giving new powers to the Canada Border Services Agency and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. This will improve Canada's response to the rise in extortion by strengthening border enforcement and administration and improving information sharing.

Bill C‑14 establishes stricter bail and sentencing requirements by making it harder to get bail for violent and repeat offences as well as for organized crime. It also proposes consecutive sentences for serious and violent crimes. These reforms prioritize the Government of Canada's response to deter serious organized criminal activity, including extortion, and protect the public safety of Canadians. These commitments build on the Government of Canada's ongoing efforts to protect Canadians from extortion and other violent crimes.

In 2023, Public Safety Canada renewed the initiative to take action against gun and gang violence, which provides $400 million over five years to provinces and territories. Our government also launched the building safer communities fund in 2022, which provides $250 million directly to municipalities and indigenous communities to strengthen gang prevention programs and address the social conditions that give rise to crime.

In conclusion, we know that there is more work to do. We are taking the necessary steps to make our communities even safer. If the Conservatives are serious about addressing extortion, they should support Bill C‑2, Bill C‑12 and Bill C‑14.

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-12—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 28, 2025, by the deputy leader of the government in the House of Commons regarding amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures. The committee's report was presented to the House earlier the same day.

In raising the point of order, the deputy House leader of the government asked the Speaker to review the content of the report, arguing that nine of the amendments included therein were inadmissible on the grounds that they violated the parent act rule and should not have been considered by the committee.

The amendments in question propose changes to the Oceans Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. They include one amendment adding new clause 24.1 (CPC-2), six amendments adding new clauses 39.1 to 39.4 (CPC-8, CPC-13, CPC-14, CPC-15, CPC-16 and CPC-17) and two amendments adding clauses 75.1 and 75.2 (CPC-30 and CPC-33).

All nine amendments had been ruled inadmissible by the Chair of the committee, since they seek to amend sections of either the Oceans Act or the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are not amended by Bill C-12.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771:

…an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

The committee chair's rulings on these amendments were challenged and overturned. The committee then debated the amendments and adopted them.

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, in his intervention on the matter, argued that each amendment relates directly to Bill C-12's objectives, which he described as including strengthening public safety, reinforcing the integrity of the immigration system and improving its efficiency, transparency and accountability. He contended that the amendments are admissible on that basis and that the committee was acting within its authority when it decided to adopt them.

In his remarks, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière noted a decision by Speaker Regan that sets out key considerations related to the Parent Act rule. In a ruling on October 24, 2018, at page 22797 of the Debates, Speaker Regan stated:

The Parent Act rule, the idea that an amendment should not amend an act or a section not already amended by a bill, rests on a presumption that such an amendment would not be relevant to the bill. This can be true. Often, such amendments attempt to deal with matters not referenced in the bill, and this is improper.

However, there are also occasions when an amendment is relevant to the subject matter of a bill and in keeping with its scope but can only be accomplished by modifying a section of the parent act not originally touched by the bill or even an entirely different act not originally touched by the bill. This is especially so when the amendments are consequential to other decisions taken by a committee or by the House.

The Chair must therefore consider the scope of the bill and review the relevance of each amendment. In doing so, the Chair is bound by the House’s decision to adopt the bill at second reading, which fixes the scope of the bill and establishes certain limits on the amendments that may be proposed in committee.

The Chair has therefore carefully reviewed Bill C‑12 as adopted by the House at second reading, the amendments in question and their relationship to the relevant parent acts. The Chair will first address the amendments that concern the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, before examining the amendment relating to the Oceans Act.

The Chair notes that Bill C-12 proposes a wide range of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act across parts 5 through 8 of the bill. In the opinion of the Chair, a close reading of the text of the bill reveals five main legislative objectives in relation to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These are as follows.

The first is expanding immigration-related information sharing across federal departments and agencies. The second is eliminating the designated countries of origin regime by repealing provisions in the act which authorize the minister to designate certain countries whose claimants would be subject to a different review process. The third is modifying the powers and obligations of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Immigration and Refugee Board in determining how refugee protection claims are received, processed and decided upon. The fourth is expanding the Governor in Council's ability to make orders related to suspending or terminating applications and related to cancelling, suspending or varying documents issued under the act. The fifth is creating new ineligibility rules for refugee protection claimants.

The Chair has reviewed each of the amendments in question with a view to determining whether they are within the scope of Bill C-12's legislative objectives.

CPC-8 and CPC-14 together require officers and ministers to issue warrants for the arrest or detention of a person in certain circumstances; however, Bill C-12 does not include amendments to the detention and release process and the issuance of warrants among its legislative objectives.

CPC-13 seeks to limit the time within which a judge must determine the reasonability of a certificate; however, Bill C-12 does not amend division 9 of part 1 of the act, which provides for, among other things, the issuance of certificates of inadmissibility.

CPC-15, CPC-16 and CPC-17 establish additional reporting requirements for the minister in the context of the minister's annual report to Parliament. The Chair notes that CPC-15 includes several reporting requirements, among which is a requirement related to the number and category of documents varied or cancelled. While this aspect of the amendment appears to the Chair as potentially related to Bill C-12's legislative objectives, the Chair has been unable to identify a similar relationship between the other provisions in the amendment and Bill C-12. CPC-16 and 17 would add reporting requirements related to federal benefits received by refugee claimants; however, the bill does not amend provisions related to such benefits.

CPC-30 amends the section imposing penalties related to human trafficking; however, the bill does not amend the act with respect to the enforcement of human smuggling and trafficking, nor with respect to penalties more generally.

Finally, CPC-33 amends the residency requirement for the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board. While the bill does propose certain amendments to the board's exercise of its powers, it does not amend the act with respect to the composition, office and staff of the board.

In the Chair's view, while there may be certain connections between the substance of these amendments and the objectives for the reform of the refugee and immigration system debated by members at second reading and at committee, these amendments are not relevant to the bill's legislative objectives and were correctly ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee as being beyond the bill's scope. While members may find it tempting to add additional objectives when considering a piece of legislation, these must be in keeping with the scope and the principle of the bill as approved at second reading.

The Chair will now consider the provisions of the bill related to the Oceans Act. Bill C-12 proposes to amend section 41 of the act, with the objective of expanding Coast Guard services to include activities related to security and also to allow the Governor in Council to designate any minister as the minister responsible for Coast Guard services. During its clause-by-clause study of the bill, the committee adopted an admissible amendment to section 41 of the act, CPC-3, to assign responsibility for Coast Guard services specifically to the Minister of National Defence. No one has contested the admissibility of this amendment.

The committee also adopted CPC-2, an amendment adding new clause 24.1 that amends section 40 of the act, a section which is not amended by the bill. CPC-2 removes the responsibility for Coast Guard services from a list of responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries set out in section 40 of the act. In making this amendment, the committee was resolving an inconsistency between section 40 of the act and section 41 of the act, as amended by CPC-3, where each section would identify a different minister as responsible for Coast Guard services.

After careful review, the amendment to section 40 of the act appears to the Chair to be consequential to the committee's decision to assign responsibility for Coast Guard services to the Minister of National Defence. As a result, my conclusion is that this amendment is within the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.

Consequently, I order that the amendment adding new clause 24.1 be maintained and that the eight other amendments adding new clauses 39.1 to 39.4, 75.1 and 75.2 be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. In addition, I am ordering a reprint of Bill C-12 with the removal of the inadmissible amendments. This reprinted version will stand as the official version of the bill for consideration at report stage.

I thank members for their attention

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C‑12

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised on Friday by the deputy government House leader regarding the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C‑12, an act that deals with, among other things, “the integrity of the Canadian immigration system”.

In brief, the deputy government House Leader has asked that several common-sense amendments adopted by the committee be struck from the report and therefore stripped from the bill. Her argument relies on the so-called parent act rule. While she cited a passage from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, allow me to quote the October 24, 2018, ruling of Mr. Speaker Regan, found at page 22797 of the Debates, which elaborated upon this rule:

The Parent Act rule, the idea that an amendment should not amend an act or a section not already amended by a bill, rests on a presumption that such an amendment would not be relevant to the bill. This can be true. Often, such amendments attempt to deal with matters not referenced in the bill, and this is improper.

However, there are also occasions when an amendment is relevant to the subject matter of a bill and in keeping with its scope but can only be accomplished by modifying a section of the parent act not originally touched by the bill or even an entirely different act not originally touched by the bill. This is especially so when the amendments are consequential to other decisions taken by a committee or by the House.

...

The parent act rule was never intended to be applied blindly as a substitute for proper judgment as to the relevance of an amendment. Clearly, amendments that arise as a direct consequence of other admissible amendments should be considered relevant to the bill, even if they are made to a section of the parent act otherwise unamended.

Given that most of the challenged amendments touched upon the immigration portions of the bill, it is important to understand the purpose and the principle of the immigration-related measures proposed in Bill C-12. I can do no better than to quote the remarks of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during the debate at second reading on October 21.

The bill would also strengthen the flexibility, efficiency and responsiveness of the asylum system by establishing new ineligibility rules, creating a more streamlined application process....

The minister concluded her second-reading speech by remarking this:

We want to be simpler, faster, fairer and more focused. These reforms would enhance public safety and security, reinforce the integrity of our programs and improve services for those who rely on them.

Conservatives think those goals are worthy, though Bill C-12 falls short of realizing them fully, so we offered amendments at committee to help get it there.

Bearing those quotations in mind, let us turn to the amendments mentioned by the hon. member for London West in her intervention.

First, there are the amendments known in committee as CPC-8 and CPC-14. Collectively these amendments would require, rather than allow discretion for, the issuing of arrest warrants in certain circumstances, such as danger to the public or to national security. That certainly sounds relevant to the minister's description of the bill.

Then there is amendment CPC-13, which would impose timelines for decisions on judicial review of security certificates before the federal court. That surely speaks to the minister's objectives of efficiency, responsiveness and a streamlined process.

Next are amendments CPC-15, CPC-16 and CPC-17, which collectively would amend section 94 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which establishes the framework for the immigration minister's annual report to Parliament to require additional content in the report related to, among other things, removal orders, warrants, cancellation of documents and federal benefits for refugees.

This range of items touches upon proposals in the government's own legislation, such as the cancellation of documents, or speaks directly to the government's own stated objection with Bill C-12: public safety and security, responsiveness and, most importantly, integrity of the immigration system, which I would argue could be strengthened by public confidence built upon transparency and accountability.

With respect to amendment CPC-15, I might add that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship moved a subamendment, which the committee adopted. However, now there is a committee amendment that one London Liberal thought was good enough to ask the committee to tinker with, and another London Liberal wants the Speaker to throw the whole thing into the recycling bin.

With respect to amendment CPC-17, I might add that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, the Liberal responsible for shepherding Bill C-12 through the public safety committee, proposed a subamendment that, though defeated, suggests to me that again there is chaos inside the government caucus when one Liberal thinks a committee amendment is good enough to work with while another wants to tear it up.

I turn to amendment CPC-30, which would strengthen accountability for corporations convicted of human trafficking offences by increasing the maximum fine a court could impose from $1 million to $25 million. That too would strengthen public safety and security while reinforcing the integrity of our immigration system.

I might pause here to observe that during clause-by-clause consideration, the parliamentary secretary to the immigration minister asked questions of the public servant witnesses, which inspired a unanimously adopted subamendment. It is sad to see his London Liberal colleague the deputy government House leader now stand in the House and attack the work her fellow Liberals inspired at the committee table.

Next we come to amendment CPC-33, which would remove the requirement that the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board must live in the national capital region, and which would instead simply require that he or she reside in Canada. That simple gesture alone, I would argue, could boost public confidence in the integrity of the immigration system, knowing that the appointment is not in reality limited to a government crony or a bureaucratic crony living in Ottawa.

Finally, I would like to address amendment CPC-2, which would amend section 40 of the Oceans Act, an amendment which I must point out was identical to amendment G-3, standing in the name of the parliamentary secretary to the public safety minister. This amendment would reflect the reality that the Minister of Fisheries is no longer responsible for providing Coast Guard services, because that was reassigned, effective with Order in Council PC 2025-639, dated September 2, to the Minister of National Defence.

Moreover, amendment CPC-2 would simply coordinate with the change made by amendment CPC-3, which was identical to amendment G-4, to amend section 41 of the Oceans Act addressed in clause 25 of Bill C-12 to reflect the national defence minister's new responsibility for the Canadian Coast Guard. This amendment was admissible and was not subject to the deputy government House leader's objections.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to look at the challenged amendments through the lens of Mr. Speaker Regan's 2018 ruling, which I respectfully submit should lead you to the conclusion that the committee acted entirely within its authority and that it therefore legitimately adopted all the common-sense, Conservative amendments.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Compton—Stanstead for her incredible work at the SECU committee, and I want to thank the members of the SECU committee for making sure that Bill C-12 passes report stage at committee.

Bill C-12 would give law enforcement the tools to keep our borders secure and to combat organized crime, auto theft, extortion, money laundering and the trafficking of illegal weapons and drugs. The bill would enhance the integrity of our immigration system by creating robust screening standards, as well as ensuring fair and transparent enforcement.

Keeping Canada strong means keeping Canadians secure.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, despite obstruction and the stalling efforts of Conservatives, we successfully referred Bill C-12 back to the House. This legislation is critical to securing our borders, strengthening our immigration system and keeping Canadians safe.

Can the Minister of Public Safety tell Canadians why this legislation is essential to ensuring their safety and protection?

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-12

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier today, the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security was tabled in the House, respecting the consideration of Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.

I am rising on a point of order to bring to the Speaker's attention nine amendments adopted by the committee that the chair of the committee ruled inadmissible on the grounds that these amendments violated the parent act rule.

On page 771 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it states, in relation to the rules and precedents that govern the admissibility of amendments proposed in committee:

An amendment to a bill must be relevant in that it must always relate to the subject matter of the bill or to the clause thereof under consideration. In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

In the case of the study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-12, the following nine amendments were ruled inadmissible by the chair because they infringed on the parent act rule. In these nine circumstances, the majority of members on the committee voted to overturn the chair's ruling, and these amendments were subsequently adopted. These amendments are CPC-8, CPC-13, CPC-14, CPC-15, CPC-16 and CPC-17 to change part 6 of the bill, concerning asylum reform; CPC-30 and CPC-33, which would create two new parts of the bill concerning penalties for human trafficking and the location of the position of the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board; and CPC-2 to change part 4 of the bill, respecting ministerial powers, duties and functions related to the Canadian Coast Guard.

I therefore submit that these nine aforementioned amendments were inadmissible at committee. Should you agree, I would humbly request that the bill be reprinted without the offending amendments for the House to consider at the report stage.

Public Safety and National Security

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will not trouble members once more today with the exciting details of our memorandum of understanding with the Province of Alberta, but I will provide some transparency and clarity, as always, on the way forward for Parliament in the spirit of co-operation and transparency as we work with my honourable friend and, indeed, all members of the House.

This afternoon, we will continue the debate at second reading of Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, at second reading.

On Monday, we will see the House return to the third-reading debate of Bill C-4, an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians, which contains tax cuts. Indeed, I am sure the Conservatives will want to hurry that bill off to the Senate.

On Tuesday, we will resume the second-reading debate of Bill C-13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

On Wednesday and Thursday, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C‑12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.

For the benefit of those committees studying the supplementary estimates, I believe Tuesday, December 9 will be the final allotted day of the supply cycle, but I will confirm this at this time next week.

I also want to mention that there will be a ministerial statement on Thursday, December 4 to commemorate the Polytechnique massacre.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on a promise that the Liberals would stand strong against Trump and would fight American tariffs. He even did an elbows-up dance following the election.

What has the Liberals' rhetoric, with Canada strong against Trump and elbows up, looked like since the election? The U.S. has imposed a 35% levy on all Canadian goods, even though most are exempt under an existing free trade agreement. Trump has slapped sector-specific levies on Canadian goods, including a 50% levy on metals and a 25% levy on automobiles. Trump has imposed a new 10% tariff to the existing anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian lumber, bringing the levy to over 45% and crippling the industry. In addition, 25% has been imposed on certain finished wood products.

In the Prime Minister's definition of elbows up to appease Trump, he has rescinded the digital services tax, which is a 3% tax for massive multinational companies operating in Canada such as Google, Amazon and Netflix. This is a tax the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects would generate over $7 billion in new revenues over five years for Canadians.

While the Prime Minister wanted Canadians to believe that every tariff blow Trump threw our way was met with retaliatory countertariffs, in reality, after the initial hurrah, the Liberals removed all tariffs on goods from the U.S. that are covered by CUSMA. They then quietly removed countertariffs on American goods that are not compliant with CUSMA.

As if the Prime Minister was put on steroids to further appease Trump, he committed to boosting defence funding from 2% to 5% of GDP, and we saw a commitment of a whopping $81.5 billion over five years made in budget 2025.

It does not stop there. To further placate Trump, under the guise of border security to address Trump's imagined fentanyl border crisis, Bill C-12 was the Prime Minister's first piece of legislation in this House, a dangerous omnibus bill that threatens Canadians' civil liberties, infringes on their privacy rights, eliminates due process and takes a page directly from Trump's anti-refugee, anti-rule-of-law agenda.

When Trump took offence to an ad that accurately recounted former president Reagan's view on tariffs, the Prime Minister kowtowed to Trump and apologized. This is not exactly elbows up, is it?

The Prime Minister's actions are a far cry from his election promises to Canadians, and as it stands, Canada has become the only G7 nation without a trade deal with the U.S.

During the campaign, the Prime Minister promised Canadians he would get clean energy projects built. At no point did he say he would end the tanker ban and build a new pipeline. What is the Prime Minister doing? He is signing an MOU with Premier Danielle Smith on advancing a new pipeline to the B.C. coast, an agreement developed behind closed doors with zero consultation with B.C. and first nations.

British Colombians do not want another megaproject that increases emissions and threatens coastal ecosystems. The Prime Minister cannot justify negotiating a pipeline deal with Alberta that excludes B.C. entirely, affected first nations and impacted communities. None of them has been at the table.

British Colombians will not stand for the lifting of the tanker ban, and B.C. Liberal members know it. Instead of sowing division, why does the Prime Minister not work on truly nation-building projects that are good for the economy and the environment and help Canada meet its Paris accord commitments?

Canadians were told that budget 2025 is a bold statement of generational ambition. They were shown the headline figure of $1 trillion in public and private investments over five years and told that this budget would secure the future of Canada, yet despite all the fanfare, few Canadians feel inspired. Why? It is because the budget, at its core, is underwhelming, contradictory and deeply conservative in its priorities.

It is back to the future with austerity and the Liberal government.

The Prime Minister calls this a “generational investment budget”, but it is not the kind of investment that working Canadians have been asking for. It misses the mark.

The budget shifts resources away from everyday people in an affordability crisis. It has very little investment in indigenous communities and indigenous-led projects, and there is no mention of the calls for justice on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

It delivers deep cuts, at 15% across most ministries, and downsizes critical public services, all to make room for a record increase in military spending. The government is reining in its day-to-day spending through a so-called comprehensive expenditure review, cutting $13 billion annually by 2028-29, for a total of $60 billion in savings, it says. That means shrinking public services, targeting the very frontline workers who deliver the essential care that everyday Canadians rely on.

The Prime Minister hides the impact of the cuts in euphemism. The budget is riddled with terms such as “modernizing”, ”streamlining” and “recalibrating”. What does that really mean? It really means that services will be cut, and it imposes austerity that disproportionately affects women, frontline workers and vulnerable communities.

For the workers and families who have lost their jobs, or the 40,000 workers who will lose their jobs because of the 15% cut across all departments, with a few minor exceptions, there is no support for them in budget 2025. There is no EI reform for these workers and their families, retraining or transition; there is no support for them. It is not exactly a worker-friendly budget, is it? Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, a housing crisis and an overstretched health care system, yet the government is asking workers and families to tighten their belts while defence contractors get a windfall.

The cuts to the federal public services are short-sighted and unnecessary. These are the people who process benefits, GIS applications for seniors, tax refunds and EI applications, which are services that keep government running. Undermining these things means undermining services that Canadians need. A truly generational budget would invest in people, in affordable homes, green jobs, public health care, climate change mitigation and a post-secondary education system that has been decimated by the Liberals' mismanagement of student visas.

On the issue around housing, Build Canada Homes comes with a lot of hype and promises. The government talks about delivering 40% affordable units and deep affordability tied to 30% of the median income. It turns out that this commitment only applies to six sites. For the rest, there are no affordability criteria attached. Not only that, but there is only $6.5 billion of new money in budget 2025; the rest of the $25 billion is carried over from previous budgets. With that, so far, the only target we have heard from the government is that 4,000 new homes are scheduled to start next year. This is a drop in the bucket of the million non-market housing units needed over a decade to address backlogs.

The government is also leaning heavily on provinces to subsidize deep affordability. With no firm commitments, and without clear affordability guarantees, Build Canada Homes will fail to deliver the affordable homes Canadians desperately need.

Budget 2025 promises a lot, a trillion dollars of investment, but most of it is pre-committed, reclassified or private sector investment that may never materialize. The government talks a lot, and there is a lot of fanfare and hype, but in reality, much of it is just hot air, with recycled announcements and recalibration of existing programs and investments that have already been committed. A $25-billion headline number shrinks to just $0.3 billion in new R and D—

Softwood Lumber Industry

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is getting late and I would like to apologize.

I want to start by thanking many colleagues who have been in the take-note debate tonight. I am only participating virtually because I am simultaneously in the committee doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-12. Timing is tricky, and I know that I have only five minutes. I want to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

Many of the speeches tonight have been extremely powerful. I have been trying to observe them all, as we can imagine, back and forth between Zoom rooms while defending amendments to protect refugee rights. I want to say from the outset that the forest products industry is terribly important to Canada, and that, as a British Columbian, I grieve for every mill town that has lost its mill, for workers who have no wood to process.

As some members have mentioned already, the hon. member for Jonquière, for example, the forest industry is facing a perfect storm, and it is imperfect in its impact on the communities.

It is horrific. A lot of the impacts have been climate change-related, with insect infestations, the pine beetle outbreak in B.C. and wildfires, which have contributed to a hard time for supply and a hard time for forest workers.

I have been working on forest policy issues for a long time. I wrote my first book on Canada's forest policies in 1998 and the second in 2005. Through all of it, one persistent irritant has been the U.S.'s constant raising of objections to the structuring of our forest industry, unfair objections that claim we are subsidizing our forest industry. What I would like to suggest in my time tonight is that, as the U.S. is once again doing this, we need to think outside the box. We have been trying, for decades, to fix the softwood lumber disputes with the United States. Let us think about protecting our industry through new approaches to economic sovereignty.

Again, referencing the hon. member for Jonquière, I think it was a solid idea to think about paying some of the duties so that we protect the industry. I would also like to suggest that it has been more than decades, centuries, since we have thought of ourselves as hewers of wood and drawers of water, having a rip-and-ship mentality to how we handle our natural resources. What if we said no more to allowing a pellet industry to start selling pellets to Japan and the U.K. out of good, solid logs, as proven in research by Ben Parfitt from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives? What if we said no more to this fake carbon credit to the U.K. in taking Canadian logs and turning them into pellets to ship them overseas? No raw logs should leave this province or the country without being processed first.

I also want to suggest, in the time that I have, that it is time Canada created a strategic reserve of Canadian softwood lumber that the government buys. At this point, it is not as much as it used to be. There is $11 billion to $15 billion a year of Canadian softwood that ends up in the U.S. We could keep it here, process it here and use it to build Canadian homes. We could have structural lumber that creates greener building materials. We could continue to hold our softwood lumber here, use it here and process it here. Even one raw log exported is one raw log too many.

We could engage indigenous nations to work with us to ensure the sustainable management and the logging of our old growth and do more to ensure that every log harvested in Canada is processed in Canada. We could get those logs to sawmills and use them in Canada where we need them. Let Trump apply tariffs if he wants to, but we will not be shipping them any forest products anymore until they stop their practices that are prejudicial, illegal and unfair to Canadian forest-based communities.

I would urge the House to listen to all those strong voices and also thank every member in this place who spoke of the pain and suffering that forest communities are experiencing as mills close and tariffs increase. This is an urgent priority, just as important as aluminum and steel, and every member of the current government needs to recognize that.

Criminal Code

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today to private member's bill, Bill C‑220, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to immigration status in sentencing, introduced by the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

This bill raises fundamental questions about our justice system, such as the individualization of sentences, proportionality, parity and, above all, the key role the judiciary plays in determining fair sentences that are tailored to the circumstances of each case. It also touches on the delicate but very real intersection between our criminal justice system and our immigration system.

However, far from improving this system, Bill C‑220 weakens it. It seeks to take away some of the critically important discretion judges have and to overturn, without justification or evidence, the Supreme Court of Canada's unanimous jurisprudence. This should be of concern to us all.

According to the Conservative member who introduced this bill, the courts give preferential treatment or overly lenient sentences to non-citizens when they consider the consequences of immigration, such as the loss of the right to appeal or the possibility of removal from Canada.

The facts do not support this claim. No study, no analysis and no attorney general, either federal or provincial, has indicated that the courts are misusing the existing jurisprudence. When very minor sentence reductions occur, such as a one-day reduction, they are rare, transparent and entirely subject to appeal. The bill therefore proposes a heavy-handed and rigid solution to a problem that simply does not exist.

The bill creates a new section 718.202 in the Criminal Code that would explicitly prohibit judges from considering any immigration-related consequences when sentencing someone who is not a Canadian citizen. In other words, even if a sentence of six months, rather than five months and 29 days, automatically triggers the loss of the right to appeal a deportation order, the court would be legally obligated to ignore the very real impact and serious consequences this would have.

Citizens serve their sentence and return to their community. Permanent residents and people who came to Canada when they were children could be sent back to a country they do not know. Judges would be forced to pretend as though this reality does not exist. That is not justice, it is not proportionate and it is certainly not what our Constitution requires.

In 2013, under a Conservative government, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly stated that some of the very real consequences of sentencing include consequences related to immigration status and, as such, they can be considered by the courts. The court made two key points on the matter. Yes, a judge can take into account immigration-related consequences to ensure that the sentence, as a whole, remains proportional to the crime committed. The court also said that, no, those consequences cannot outweigh the seriousness of the offence or the moral responsibility of the accused, no matter what Conservatives say. The framework we have is balanced, reasonable and constitutional, and it has been working for over a decade. However, today, the Conservatives are proposing to abolish that jurisprudence. They were in power when that decision was made. They had two years to do something about it, if they thought it was really a problem, but they did not do so.

The member for Calgary Nose Hill and the Leader of the Opposition, who was the member for Carleton at the time, were government members then. However, they did nothing at the time. That tells us that what they are trying to do today is not to correct an injustice, but to recycle a punitive policy that, at the time, had already been subject to constitutional challenges on a number of occasions.

Anyone familiar with criminal law knows that. Sentencing is based on a fundamental principle: individualization. Two people who commit the same crime will not necessarily have the same history, vulnerabilities or family responsibilities, nor face the same consequences. The courts already take a wide range of collateral consequences into account for all Canadians, not just for immigrants. Collateral consequences can include the loss of a job, the risk of homelessness, a lengthy family separation, mental health impacts and, in some cases, the inability to pursue an education. Why, then, single out only one category of consequences—immigration consequences—and prohibit judges from considering them?

This inconsistency clearly shows that Bill C‑220 is not founded on legal logic, but on political logic. In reality, the effects of a criminal sentence vary widely depending on the immigration status of the person convicted.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that a sentence of six months or more means an automatic loss of the right to appeal a deportation order, and a sentence of more than six months or an offence punishable by 10 years means that it is possible to be deemed inadmissible on the grounds of a serious crime.

Those consequences are not part of the Criminal Code. They are the result of a parallel administrative regime created by Parliament. Prohibiting judges from considering those consequences means accepting or even institutionalizing the fact that two people convicted of the same offence will experience fundamentally different consequences. Yes, a two-tier justice system, that is what our Conservative colleague wants to set up with Bill C‑220, and it is the opposition's bill that would create that injustice, not the courts.

Our government opposes Bill C‑220, particularly because it is ill-conceived, because it is not based on evidence, because it violates the principle of proportionality, parity and fundamental justice, and because it would undermine judicial independence, a pillar of the rule of law.

When someone proposes measures to amend the Criminal Code, when they say they want to improve public safety, they need to approach it seriously in the House. They need to ensure that the proposed measures truly respect our Constitution. That is not the case here. Bill C-220 and other private members' bills introduced by colleagues from the official opposition would be struck down by the courts. This is simply a waste of time, a waste of resources and results in disappointment for Canadians.

On our side of the House, we understand that, and we make sure that we propose legislation that is truly tailored to the situations we are dealing with. We also ensure the proposed legislation is constitutional. For example, I am thinking of Bill C-14, which proposes a major overhaul of the Canadian bail and sentencing system. This bill proposes more than 80 amendments to the Criminal Code that are, I repeat, in line with our Constitution. We want to make it more difficult for criminals, particularly violent repeat offenders, to obtain bail and ensure that sentences are truly proportional to the crimes committed. We are very serious about safety in our communities. I invite my colleagues to support us in our legislative work on Bill C-14.

Other initiatives that come to mind are Bill C‑12, which aims to strengthen border security; Bill C‑9, which aims to combat hate crimes in our communities; and our commitment to better protect victims of intimate partner violence. There is also our strategy to combat fraud and financial crimes that typically impact vulnerable people such as seniors. Our government is serious. We are going to implement the first anti-fraud strategy, and we have allocated resources in the 2025 budget to support these initiatives.

I am also thinking of all the investments being made in the 2025 budget. This demonstrates how serious our new government is about public safety.

I am thinking of our border plan, the largest investment ever made Canada to ensure that our borders are secure. This is an important issue in my riding given that it has more than five border crossings. I am also thinking about our investments to increase the number of RCMP officers and CBSA agents. When we invest in public safety, we also understand that we must prevent crime upstream. That is why we are investing in housing, mental health and youth supports—to address the issue of petty crimes and property crimes before they even happen.

With Bill C‑14, we are strengthening actions against those who pose the greatest risks. In addition, with our budget, we are also investing in preventing crime from happening in the first place, and that is very important.

Bill C‑220 will not make Canadians safer. It will not build trust in the justice system. It will only lead to injustices, inconsistencies and predictable constitutional challenges. Our role is to build an effective, fair and evidence-based justice system, not to build one based on political slogans. However, the bill from the member for Calgary Nose Hill puts rhetoric ahead of sound, evidence-based policy. Justice must not be blind to the consequences of its own decisions. Bill C‑220 calls for exactly that, and for these reasons, I will be voting against the bill, and I am asking all my colleagues from all parties to vote against it.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

moved that Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (immigration status in sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, should judges be allowed to use a non-citizen's immigration status to issue a more lenient sentence to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault, just so that they can avoid deportation? The answer is no.

Tonight, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-220, the one law for all bill, which represents and reasserts the principles already laid out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with regard to the deportation consequences associated with non-citizens convicted of serious crimes, such as sexual assaults, in Canada.

The vast majority of people in Canada who have immigrated here abide by our laws. Removal from Canada for non-citizens after being convicted of a serious crime is a no-brainer to protect everyone, the value of Canadian citizenship and, frankly, every person who resides in our country and plays by the rules.

After a decade of Liberal postnationalism and excessively high immigration levels, accepting this change would allow the government to demonstrate respect for Canadian citizenship by affirming that, at a minimum, the privilege of residing here for non-citizens depends on adherence to the rule of law. Everything that I have outlined and that I will outline tonight will show that beyond rote partisanship, there is no reason for the government not to support this bill. In fact, to save Canada's pluralism, the government must start admitting its errors with regard to immigration and working across party lines to accept common-sense solutions.

Recent public polling shows that support for immigration among both Canadians and newcomers is at an all-time low. This opinion should shock and spur every person in this place to action to find ways to solve this problem. That is what I am trying to do with this bill today. Thankfully, the reason Canadians do not support immigration the same way they used to is not because Canadians are pointing their fingers at immigrants. Rather, Canadians who are unhappy about immigration are pointing their fingers where the blame should be placed, at a federal government that has, over the past decade, brought too many people in too fast for housing, health care and jobs to keep up, while simultaneously legislating a doctrine of postnationalism that asserts that there is no Canadian national identity, which includes things like an equanimous judiciary, for non-citizens to integrate into.

Canada is at a tipping point. The government must quickly act to restore the immigration system that it broke. If the government will not act, which it has not, then Parliament must. In the spirit of non-partisanship, I have used my private member's bill slot to correct one of the many areas the government needs to act on to fix the immigration system. Later tonight, I and my colleagues will move many amendments to Bill C-12 in a further effort to do the same.

Going back to this bill, to be fair to everyone and to prevent the further erosion of Canada's tolerance for immigration, we must ensure that non-citizens who commit serious crimes like sexual assault face the consequences that are already set out in our laws. At a bare minimum, non-citizens who abuse the great privilege of being in our country by committing a serious crime like sexual assault should face the deportation consequences that are already outlined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Here is how we can do that. The bill before us tonight amends the Criminal Code by adding a new general sentencing principle under section 718. This is the section of the code where Parliament has exercised its right to provide guidance to the courts on how convicted offenders ought to be sentenced.

My bill proposes to add a simple, one-line new principle, section 718.202, which states that a court, when sentencing a convicted criminal “who is not a Canadian citizen shall not take into consideration any potential impact the sentence could have on the offender’s immigration status in Canada, or on that of a member of their family.”

This simple one-line provision ensures that provisions that are already outlined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are enforced when sentencing non-citizens convicted of serious crimes, like sexual assault.

That is the how, and here is the why. In recent years, there have been multiple instances of judges issuing sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes that were designed to allow them to evade deportation. The net effect of this practice in considering a non-citizen's immigration status in order to give them more lenient sentences to avoid deportation is to create a two-tiered justice system between non-citizens and those with Canadian citizenship.

This is unfair and antithetical to the principles of fundamental justice, and it has eroded Canada's immigration consensus. Here are but a few examples of the rampant, excessive number of times non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault have been issued two-tiered, lenient sentences in very recent history, just so they would avoid the deportation consequences already set out in the law.

A non-citizen from India pleaded guilty to no fewer than four counts of voyeurism, which left his female victims with intense fear and anxiety and emotional distress. He was sentenced to five and a half months jail. Why? Despite the judge admitting that six to 12 months would have been a more appropriate sentence, this was to avoid deportation. The judge even said this.

In a 2024 Calgary case, another non-citizen from India was granted a conditional discharge for attempting to purchase sexual services from a 15-year-old girl. This was done to allow him to preserve his eligibility to become a Canadian citizen and avoid deportation. The judge cited in the sentence “the devastating collateral immigration consequences” of a harsher penalty. What about the victims'?

A non-citizen in Canada on a visitor permit was convicted of twice groping an 18-year-old woman's genitals under her skirt as she stood at a bar to buy a drink. This person, this non-citizen, received a discharge from the judge so he could have a deportation appeal.

In March 2024, a 24-year-old non-citizen from Surrey, B.C., received a conditional sentence of two years less a day for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon after stabbing a stranger. It sounds serious. What did the judge do? The judge rejected the Crown's four-year jail recommendation so the non-citizen would be able to avoid deportation.

In October 2025, just last month, Roosevelt Rush, a non-citizen from Jamaica, had his cocaine trafficking sentence halved from an expected term, while already serving six years for fentanyl and firearms offences, because the judge wanted to help him avoid deportation.

In 2024, in B.C., a non-citizen was convicted of fraud and received a six-month sentence, which a judge shortened from 10 months so he could avoid deportation.

In 2024, a non-citizen from Somalia was convicted of assault with threats against police and had their jail time cut short to evade deportation too. It was a refugee who committed these crimes while getting the benefit of Canadian sanctuary.

There is all this consideration for non-citizens convicted of serious crime to avoid deportation, but what about the victims? What about the value of Canadian citizenship or the responsibilities associated with being in our country? Being in Canada cannot just be about receiving the privileges and benefits of being in Canada, which are great. It also has to be about adhering to the responsibilities associated with that privilege, which includes adhering to the rule of law.

There are many other examples that illustrate the trend of immigration status being considered in sentencing, with criminal lawyers now routinely arguing for lighter sentences so their non-citizen clients can evade deportation or a denial of citizenship under IRPA's current provisions. Let me explain why this is happening.

Ever since the Supreme Court ruling in R v. Pham, the courts have been giving greater consideration to collateral immigration consequences when sentencing. To be clear, this court ruling explicitly ruled that this consideration does not constitute a charter right, a remedy or a charter breach. In fact, this ruling does not even mention the charter once. Furthermore, the court ruling also made clear that “The flexibility of our sentencing process should not be misused by imposing inappropriate and artificial sentences” and that to do so would be “circumventing Parliament's will”. That is clearly not what is happening.

Activist judges have twisted this ruling, as evidenced by the proliferation of examples I have given, beyond its scope in order to allow non-citizens who have been convicted of serious crimes to get more lenient sentences to avoid deportation. That is what is happening. Meanwhile, Canadians would not be given the same consideration, so we have a two-tiered justice system. The will of the court cannot be trusted if it is allowed to go unchecked, as it clearly has in all of these cases. My friends and colleagues, it is long past time for Parliament to exert its will and rein this poison in.

To be very clear to every colleague here, the Supreme Court has been clear that the people of Canada who are concerned by crimes committed by non-citizens have every right, through their elected representatives, to provide guidance to sentencing judges. That is exactly what this simple, common-sense, non-partisan bill would do. Just this morning, the Globe and Mail editorial board said that judges in our current system are “protecting non-citizens from the consequences of their criminal conduct”, lamenting that no one seems to consider “whether Canadians would want these offenders as citizens” in the first place. That was from the Globe and Mail.

While it is tempting to blame judges for this state of affairs, the fault lies with the federal government. In spite of the increased evidence of leniency in sentencing due to consideration of immigration status in recent years, it has declined to provide more clarity to judges through legislation. That is why I introduced a bill to amend the Criminal Code and rectify this issue. The rationale for this change is straightforward: Anyone seeking residence or citizenship in Canada, as I said, has responsibilities as well as rights.

The citizenship guide clearly states that citizens must obey Canada's laws and respect the rights and freedoms of others, and IRPA outlines the potential consequences for non-citizens who fail to do so.

A non-citizen in Canada should accept individual responsibility for defending the democratic institutions of Canada's constitutional monarchy, which is an ordered liberty rooted in the principles of peace, order and good government. In practice, this means they will defend shared Canadian rights, like freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of association; and the equality of women and men. All Canadians and those seeking to become one are expected to abandon any violent, extreme or hateful prejudices and to contribute to Canada. They are expected to respect the rule of law and accept the consequences for not doing so.

Without legislative clarity on considering immigration status in sentencing, judges can apply aspects of the Pham ruling to undermine that principle for non-citizens, effectively end-running the deportation consequences already enacted by Parliament that exist in IRPA. To those who would say this bill offends the principle of judicial independence, I want to make it clear that it is entirely appropriate for Parliament to offer guidelines to the courts on sentencing. Section 718 already does this in countless ways, but I will highlight four examples.

First, the very beginning of section 718 in the Criminal Code states in part that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is “respect for the law”. I would argue that Canadians lose respect for the law when it is not applied equally, as it has not been done in the case of non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault.

Second, section 718.1 states:

A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

I would assert that at no point has Parliament intended to say that the “responsibility of the offender” is reduced because of their immigration status. To suggest otherwise is to remove agency from an individual just because they were born in a different country, and that is wrong.

Third, subparagraph 718.2(a)(iii.1) lists the following as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing:

evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation

Many of the cases I highlighted tonight involve sexual assaults, which obviously have a significant impact on the victim and disproportionately impact women. Our bill seeks to re-establish this general sentencing principle, which has too often been ignored.

Finally, paragraph 718.2(b) states:

a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

Obviously, giving the offender a lighter sentence just because of their immigration status offends this principle. It is well within Parliament's purview to reassert this general sentencing principle by further clarifying for judges that they should not take into account an offender's immigration status.

In closing, I would like to thank Sean Phelan, an unsung hero in Canadian history. A lot of people will not know this name, but he has single-handedly worked to reform Canada's justice system over the last 10 years. I thank him for his help on this bill tonight.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want to arbitrarily grant citizenship to whoever they want, just like they did 30 years ago. That is right. In Bill C‑12 the Liberals want to give themselves the power to change temporary residents' visas to give them permanent residency.

The Liberals will be able to “cancel or vary documents, including permanent resident visas, permanent resident cards, temporary resident visas, electronic travel authorizations, temporary resident permits, work permits or study permits”.

The Liberals want to speed up access to citizenship. Are they doing that in the interest of Canada or in the interest of the Liberal Party?

Addressing the Continuing Victimization of Homicide Victims' Families Act

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss not to begin my speech on Bill C-236 by pointing out that Quebec's early childhood week is drawing to a close. Yesterday was National Child Day.

It seems only fitting to share that today, because it is a day for acknowledging that children are people and citizens in their own right who are entitled to freedom, safety and a life without violence. We must never forget that children are not only our future, but also our present, and we need to do everything in our power to take them into account, especially in our political decisions.

I thought it seemed appropriate to highlight that today, considering that many children in Quebec, in Canada and around the world are experiencing violence at this very moment. We need to reaffirm that children have rights. I would like to thank the community group ESPACE Suroît for sponsoring this awareness week in my riding.

We are here today to debate Bill C‑236, introduced by my colleague from Parkland, with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. His bill seeks to amend laws such as the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

Today we begin the second reading debate on this bill, which is part of a trend, a series of bills that have been introduced since the beginning of the parliamentary session. It may be worth reminding members that, this week, we debated Bill C‑221, which aims to support victims' families and keep them informed of developments regarding the offender's sentence. Bill C‑220 was also introduced, which also seeks to amend “the Criminal Code to provide that, in imposing a sentence on an offender who is not a Canadian citizen, a court must not take into consideration the offender's immigration status in Canada”. That bill was introduced by the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who sits on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and has been speaking on Bill C‑12.

We also debated Bill C‑225, which was introduced by another member who sits on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. This bill responds to the sadly growing phenomenon of domestic violence.

The government also introduced Bill C-14, which essentially covers six main points: It provides clarification on the principle of restraint, introduces a reverse onus for interim release, imposes tougher bail conditions, introduces sentencing measures, eliminates conditional sentences for sexual assault and makes amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

It is fair to say that, since the beginning of this Parliament, the legislative agenda has had a strong focus on crime, victims of violent offenders and bail. We have been very busy. As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I see that we will have a lot of work to do when it comes to hearing from witnesses on the various bills that will be passed at second reading and sent to committee.

I would like to thank my colleague from Parkland, who introduced this bill. He was motivated to introduce this bill because it responds to a real need. Lyle and Marie McCann of St. Albert, Alberta, disappeared 14 years ago. Their family cannot get closure because the murderer has never confessed to his crime. What is more, he refuses to reveal the location of Lyle and Marie McCann's remains. That is why this bill is called McCann's law.

I want to talk in more detail about the changes the bill would make to the Criminal Code.

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to add as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes and as a reason to delay parole the fact that a person who is convicted of certain offences refuses to provide persons in authority with information respecting the location of bodies or remains. It also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act to add that fact as a consideration in the making of certain decisions under those Acts.

The amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act are an important aspect of the bill.

In fact, the purpose of this bill is to consider the victims and the families who cannot grieve their loss because the location of their loved one's remains is unknown to them. Families, like the McCann family, suffer from not knowing the whereabouts of their loved one's remains, and many never get closure, as the bill's preamble explains.

The Bloc Québécois is aware of this reality and believes that the families of victims have the right to know the location of their loved one's remains. We consider it important that judges who choose to ignore this aggravating factor be required to provide a written explanation to help family members understand their decision.

In the past, little was said about victims' rights. In recent weeks, however, we have debated a number of bills that address them. This fall, we have talked at length about victims' rights only to conclude that victims also have rights, such as the right to information. They have a right to receive information during the parole process. They have a right to understand why the person who murdered their loved one can get parole after so many years. They have a right to understand and participate in the process. The bill introduced by my colleague from Parkland is another example of Criminal Code amendments designed to keep victims better informed.

The bill states that the court must be satisfied that the offender knows the location of the body. There may be extenuating circumstances. There was a case in Quebec where the person eventually revealed the location, but it was the St. Lawrence River. Obviously, it is nearly impossible to recover a body from the St. Lawrence River. The family of the victim, Lyne Massicotte, was never really able to mourn her death. After repeated questioning, the family finally found out that the murderer had thrown the body into the St. Lawrence. This brought them no comfort, as they could not arrange a funeral without her body. This is a very difficult situation for anyone to go through, and we understand how hard it must be for all the victims' families and loved ones.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Québécois will be supporting the bill at second reading so we can hear from witnesses and experts in committee. We want them to explain what is being done in Australia, England and the United States. We want to know how other countries, with which we have many international relations, are addressing this new phenomenon, namely, the location of victims' bodies remaining undisclosed. Is it similar to what my colleague's bill proposes? We want to hear these testimonies.

As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitating prisoners. We want to ensure that this particular aggravating factor is introduced, but without it being punitive or coercive. We want judges to take aggravating factors into account and uphold their decision.

Right now, many families, who may even be listening to us, are experiencing grief that they cannot process because they do not know where their loved one's remains are. My colleague's bill aims to give families and loved ones the opportunity to obtain this information. If the accused provides the information, it could perhaps allow them to obtain parole a little sooner. This could allow loved ones to get emotional closure.

We believe that loved ones deserve better and that thorough work in committee will shed the necessary light on this issue, for the sake of the victims and their families.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, what needs to happen is that the rhetoric from across the aisle needs to stop.

What we need to do is right in front of the House. We have Bill C-2, which has lawful access as a very important principle of criminal law. We have Bill C-12, the strong borders act, and we have Bill C-14, which speaks to the need for bail reform as well as sentencing. These are smart criminal justice reforms that are meant to keep Canadians safe, including Canadians who are experiencing extortion.

It is time to get serious and time for the Conservative Party to come forward and pass the legislation.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member for Brampton Centre for her incredible hard work and advocacy.

Our government is taking real action to stop people who commit extortion. The Conservatives, however, have failed to support measures, like lawful access, that law enforcement across Canada have been asking us to implement. They will not support Bill C-2. They will not support Bill C-12. They will not support Bill C-14. They will not support hiring 1,000 new RCMP personnel and 1,000 new CBSA officers.

Canadians expect their opposition to work together with their government. Let us stop the rhetoric—

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is such a pleasure for me to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to speak to budget 2025. This is an important budget delivered in extraordinary times.

Let us start off by being very honest about where we are. The world is more dangerous and divided, and Canada is very much facing a world that is rapidly changing and is increasingly uncertain. The rules-based international order and the trading system that powered Canada's prosperity for decades are being reshaped, which is hurting companies, displacing workers and causing major disruption and upheaval for Canadians.

In Canada, we have to focus on what we can control. Despite the headwinds, Canada has the fiscal capacity to transform our economy. This is our moment to build big, to build bold and to build now. As our Minister of Finance said, “This budget must be generational in its ambition.... There is no place for withdrawal, ambiguity or even standing still, only for bold and swift action.”

Let me speak to one of the many items that matter to the people in my riding of Davenport.

The number one thing I hear about is jobs. People continue to be worried. Will they continue to have good-paying jobs? Will their kids coming out of school have opportunities? Without a good-paying job, no one will be able to afford a home or live a decent life.

I am very proud that this budget invests heavily in training and creating opportunities. We are providing $1.5 billion over three years to address youth unemployment, including with 100,000 Canada summer jobs, which is 30,000 more than what was given this summer, and 55,000 new work-integrated learning opportunities for students, which is 15,000 more than we were able to do this past year.

Davenport has many union construction workers, and I want to give a shout-out to LIUNA Local 183, which is the largest union for construction workers. We are so blessed to have them in our city building our city and our country. They contribute so much to our national economy.

In budget 2025, we are providing $75 million over three years to expand the union training and innovation program for apprenticeship training in the Red Seal trades. For workers who are impacted by tariffs, we have $570 million over three years for training and employment assistance, plus new workforce alliances bringing together employers, unions and industry groups. Finally, we are also launching a youth climate corps, with $40 million over two years to train young Canadians to respond to climate emergencies and strengthen community resilience.

Another big priority for Davenport is culture and the arts. Very blessedly, there are many artists in my constituency. While these times are tough and our government has had to make some hard choices, let me be very clear: Culture matters and the arts matter. During uncertain times, we stay united by sharing our stories. The arts help us interpret the world around us. The arts and culture sector contributed $65 billion to our economy in 2024.

In budget 2025, we invest $769 million over five years in arts and culture, which includes $150 million for CBC/Radio-Canada, $150 million for Telefilm Canada, $127.5 million for the Canada Media Fund, and support for festivals and performing arts. We have also introduced an artist's resale right, allowing visual artists to receive royalties when their work is resold, something the sector, including many from my constituency of Davenport, have advocated for for years.

Public safety is the third top priority for Davenport. Residents are worried about auto theft, home invasions and gun crime. I want my constituents to know that this issue is among the highest priorities of our government.

The budget provides $1.7 billion over four years to the RCMP to hire 1,000 new personnel to fight transnational organized crime, financial crimes and money laundering. We are also providing almost $700 million over five years to the Canada Border Services Agency to hire up to 1,000 new officers, building on the $1.3-billion border plan announced in December. These officers will also stop guns and drugs from coming into our country. All this investment is in addition to a number of strong pieces of legislation making their way through the House, which include Bill C-14, Bill C-12 and Bill C-9.

Budget 2025 also has an important focus on seniors. For seniors, elderly benefits will reach over $83 billion in 2025-26, supporting 7.5 million Canadians. We are also launching a national anti-fraud strategy. In 2024 alone, Canadians lost $643 million to fraud, nearly a 300% increase since 2020. We continue supporting the new horizons for seniors program, which is a lifeline for many seniors in my riding and seniors across the country. Finally, we are introducing a personal support workers tax credit, providing up to $1,100 per year. This is to support the amazing people who take care of our loved ones, because as our loved ones get older, they need a lot more support.

As chair of the Canada NATO Parliamentary Association, I take our commitments to defence very seriously. Budget 2025 confirms we will reach the NATO 2% target this fiscal year and are on a pathway to meet the 5% defence investment pledge by 2035. This budget provides $81.8 billion over five years to ensure the Canadian Armed Forces have the support and the tools they need. We are also providing $2 billion in 2025-26 for additional military assistance to Ukraine. As our Prime Minister has said, there can be no prosperity without security. I would also add that we must continue to do all we can to ensure the war stops in Ukraine and to help bring a just and lasting peace to the country.

I know there are concerns about the deficit, but we are acting from a position of fiscal strength. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and the second-lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio. The IMF has validated the approach outlined in our budget, stating that we are using our fiscal space to make generational investments, and that is good. No one likes seeing large deficits, and we are committed to balancing the operating budget by 2028-29.

We are dramatically reducing how much we are spending to run government. Through our comprehensive expenditure review, we are achieving $60 billion in savings over five years, eliminating duplication and using made-in-Canada AI tools. We are spending less on day-to-day operations so we can invest far more in capital investments, in building Canada.

This budget will catalyze $1 trillion in investment over five years from provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous communities and the private sector. We are investing $51 billion over 10 years through the build communities strong fund for local infrastructure: hospitals, universities, roads, bridges, water systems and transit. The first two phases of nation-building projects are expected to trigger $150 billion in total capital investment. We are also diversifying our trade relationships, working to double our overseas exports within a decade and unlocking $300 billion in new opportunities for Canadian workers and businesses.

Canada has to make itself attractive to the world. Luckily, we are an amazing country. We have the critical minerals, the natural resources, the people and the leadership to do so.

Let me conclude with this. When times are tough, we stand together as Canadians. We look after one another. We invest in ourselves. We do not retreat; we advance. As our finance minister said, “To weather the storm of uncertainty, we will not lower our sails. Quite the opposite, we will raise them to catch the winds of economic change, because we believe in Canada.”

I believe in Canada. I believe in my riding of Davenport. I believe in the resilience, the diversity and the determination that make our community and our country great. This is a moment for bold action, a moment to build the future we want for ourselves and for generations to come. Canada has faced challenges before and we have always emerged stronger. Budget 2025 is our plan to do exactly that: building our economy, protecting our communities, empowering our people and ensuring Canada emerges as the strongest economy in the G7.

I am proud of this budget; I am proud to support it, and it is always an honour to represent the people of Davenport.

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick note. When we take a look at the legislative agenda, we could talk about what we have brought in. We had Bill C-2 for safer borders. We have the lost Canadians bill. We have the tax break in today's legislation. We have the one Canadian economy bill. We have bills for critical cyber systems, to combat hate, for modern treaties and to transfer the military court to civilian court. We have the new borders bill in Bill C-12. We have the treaty between Canada, England and Northern Ireland. We have the bail reform legislation.

There is a lot of substance that would benefit Canadians. We ask for the Conservatives to get on board and support good legislation. There is a lot of it.

To the member for Regina—Lewvan, I sure hope to have that debate, maybe in December. I would be happy to help organize something for December or January. Hopefully, he will show up.

Public Safety

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, what is the Conservative plan? We heard it in the House earlier today; it is to stall our legislation. We brought Bill C-2. We brought Bill C-12 and Bill C-14, all measures that would help with these types of crimes. The legislation would give tougher sentences. It would make it harder for offenders to get bail.

However, the Conservatives do not want to support real solutions; they just want to delay, they want to cut and they want to fundraise for their own personal means.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news. The Conservatives have a chance, in this Parliament, to vote for Bill C-2, to vote for Bill C-14 and to vote for Bill C-12.

This weekend, I spoke to an extortion victim. They told me that it has taken the police months to get permission from the courts to link the phone number they are being extorted from to an actual suspect. Lawful access, which is in Bill C-2, would help provide the solution to this problem. When will the Conservatives get on board and vote for lawful access measures?

Jail Not Bail Act

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, improving safety in our communities is a mainstay of our Liberal platform.

Six months into the new government's mandate, we have clearly backed up our commitments with a series of concrete actions, as the budget tabled earlier this week shows.

During the election campaign, we promised Canadians that this new government would make bail reform and tougher sentences a priority. That is exactly what we are doing with Bill C‑14, for example.

On this side of the House, our approach is responsible and constructive. We ensure that proposed amendments to the Criminal Code are constitutional. Otherwise, if the bill passes, the courts would strike it down. This wastes time and resources, and leaves Canadians disheartened. That is not something we want.

Looking at Bill C‑242, one really has to wonder whether our colleagues in the official opposition have really taken the time to analyze it from a constitutional perspective. If my colleagues' goal is truly to make communities safer, I wonder why they are promoting a redundant bill that creates confusion and poses constitutional risks, rather than working to implement Bill C‑14.

I will take the next few minutes to explain why Bill C‑14 is a step in the right direction to make our communities safer, as we committed to do during the election campaign. Bill C‑14 proposes a comprehensive reform of Canada's bail and sentencing systems, with more than 80 targeted amendments. This is a major undertaking that will meet the public's expectations. It includes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

With regard to strengthening the bail system, Bill C‑14 will create new reverse onus provisions for serious and violent crimes. This means that bail will no longer be the norm for these types of crime. The accused would be detained by default, and would then have to prove why they should be released on bail. This applies to crimes that are plaguing our society. I am thinking in particular of organized auto theft. In recent years, people going on vacation are finding that their vehicles have been stolen from the airport. People should not have to worry about whether or not they will find their vehicle when they return home. We are therefore going to make bail harder for people who engage in organized auto theft.

We are going to crack down on home invasions. People should feel safe in their own homes. It will be more difficult for those who attack people in their own homes to get bail. The same is true for people who engage in human trafficking and smuggling. People who exploit vulnerable individuals should have a harder time getting bail, and that is what we are doing with Bill C‑14. This bill also addresses crimes such as violent assault, sexual assault and extortion involving violence. It will be more difficult for those who commit such crimes to get bail in Canada. I believe that this is what Canadians expect of us.

We are also going to ask the courts to take into account allegations of random or unprovoked violence. Let us say that someone attacks me when all I was doing was walking down the street, minding my own business. That will be an aggravating factor that must be considered when determining whether the person should be kept in custody while awaiting trial. It is the same thing if the accused has a history of intimate partner or other violence.

We will also change the conditions of release. For people charged with offences related to auto theft, burglary, extortion, and organized crime, courts will have to consider imposing stricter conditions, such as curfews, geographic restrictions, and no-contact orders. For those charged with extortion or organized crime, the same will apply, and there will be prohibitions on possessing a weapon.

When a court assesses the grounds for keeping a person in custody pending trial, there are three main factors to consider. First, it is essential to make sure the person will appear in court. Is the person a flight risk? Second, the protection of the public must be ensured. If the person is released, does this pose a risk to public safety? Finally, public confidence in the administration of justice must be maintained. This last reason is very important. That is why, with Bill C‑14, we are introducing an amendment to require courts to take into account the number and seriousness of pending charges.

This means that if a person appears in court for a crime and has several other pending charges, those charges could play a role in the decision to take the person into custody or not, in order to maintain public trust in the administration of justice.

Bill C‑14 also provides stiffer sentences for different serious and violent crimes. We need to ensure that the sentences imposed are proportional to the severity of violent offences committed by repeat offenders. During the election campaign, people asked us to review these sentences, and that is what we are doing through Bill C‑14, because stronger deterrence through sentences that fit the crime is important.

New aggravating factors are going to be added, which ultimately means harsher sentences. This includes offences against first responders in the performance of their duties. Examples include police officers or firefighters, who put their safety at risk every day to protect us. These people deserve protection. If crimes like assault are committed against our first responders, the perpetrator will face harsher prison sentences.

Earlier this week, I attended a cocktail party hosted by the International Association of Fire Fighters, and I had the opportunity to speak with a number of firefighters from across the country. Many of them told me they were very pleased to see this measure included in Bill C‑14. They said that it was a step in the right direction and that it made them feel included in our deliberations. It is very important to ensure that our first responders are protected.

If the accused is a repeat violent offender who has previously been convicted of a violent offence in the last five years, this will also be an aggravating factor. If someone is serving a sentence, gets out of prison and commits another violent crime, they will have to go back behind bars. It just makes sense.

Organized retail theft in businesses and stores is now recognized as an aggravating factor. Small business owners and their staff get up every morning and work hard to earn a living. These people deserve to be protected. They do not deserve to be robbed. By better protecting them, we are sending them a message that we recognize how important they are to our country and our economy. If people commit crimes in their businesses, whether it is shoplifting or offences related to organized crime, they will be punished more severely.

It is the same thing for offences the interfere with essential infrastructure, especially copper theft. When a person steals copper from transmission lines or towers, it interferes with essential infrastructure. Let me give an example. Last summer, in Restigouche, in my riding, someone stole copper, which caused several cell towers to stop working. A large area was left with no cell coverage. Had there been an emergency, the public could have been in danger. That is why we need to crack down on this type of crime.

We will also increase penalties for certain crimes. For example, house arrest will no longer be an option for those who are found guilty of aggravated sexual assault or child sexual abuse. These individuals will have to serve a prison sentence. I think that Canadians expect such crimes to be severely punished. This is a measure that I unequivocally support, and it is included in Bill C‑14.

Bill C‑14 is part of a comprehensive approach to fighting crime put forward by our government. Our approach also includes Bill C‑12, which will strengthen security at our borders, and Bill C‑9, which will strengthen the fight against hate crimes. In addition, we have made commitments that will very soon result in legislative changes to better protect victims of intimate partner violence. There is our anti-fraud strategy, which aims to better protect our seniors from financial crimes. There are also the investments announced in the budget, plus those dedicated to crime prevention. We want to crack down on serious crimes, but we also want to prevent them. That is why we are investing in housing, mental health and youth support to strengthen crime prevention.

Bill C‑14 and all the other measures we are putting in place show that our new Liberal government takes the fight against crime very seriously. Sometimes I get the impression that my colleagues across the floor see politics as theatre. They propose ideological measures such as Bill C‑242, which would probably not even pass constitutional muster. On this side, we know that community safety is not about theatrics, it is not a matter of political gamesmanship. It is a serious issue that deserves concrete and constitutional measures such as Bill C‑14.

I think this is an excellent bill, particularly because we listened to the public, the provinces and the territories. I invite all of my colleagues to work collaboratively on adopting the Liberals' Bill C‑14 instead of continuing to promote a bill like Bill C‑242.

Citizenship Act

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak again in the House about this issue. Bill C-3 has been before the House a number of times already, so here we are talking about it again.

One big reason that we are talking about this comes back to the fact that the immigration system has been messed up by the Liberals over the last 10 years. In the bill, Bill C-3, in particular, we are talking about the value of citizenship. The bill would actually devalue citizenship. I want to chat this morning about that and how we are struggling with the way that the immigration system has been broken by the Liberal government. I remind people here, as we are all aware, that we are going to be seeing a budget later today, which will also give out the immigration-levels plan. We are all very curious to see whether there is any hope of restoring faith in our immigration system. I guess we will see that later today, potentially.

Bill C-3 all started because there was a lower-court ruling that the existing second-generation limit was not proper. The core problem is that the current Liberal government chose not to appeal that ruling and instead just accepted the ruling as it was. It really reflects, in my view, something we have seen many times from the government, which is that rather than actually putting forth legislation and exerting Parliament's influence and power in this country to make laws and make the laws people want, the government tends to rely on what the courts say: What the courts say, they will just accept. That is what happened here. A lower court made a ruling. I did not agree with it, and the federal government had every right to appeal that ruling, clarify it and try to get something that was more in line with what Canadians want.

We see that all the time; for example, we see it with Bill C-12, which is also before the House right now. The government has had warnings that the powers it is putting in Bill C-12 would be likely to be challenged constitutionally and are likely to fail, yet the government does not want to promote legislation that would be good and ultimately pass. Instead, the Liberals are throwing it to the courts and letting the courts tell them what to do. That is completely wrong.

What we, as a committee, attempted to do was to clean this up a bit. Bill C-3 is really about chain migration. It is about people not born in Canada getting citizenship and having children who are not born in Canada, never even living in Canada but having a very loose connection to Canada, and then passing on that citizenship to generation after generation after generation. We tweaked it a bit and tried to make it better, and that is what came back to the House. That was defeated by the NDP and the Liberal government, the NDP-Liberal coalition that still seems to be alive and well. Now we are back to the original text of the bill, which in my view is not good. The reason I do not think it is good is that in the bill that we are debating today, the original text of Bill C-3, we would hand out citizenship and lower the value of citizenship. We would create a situation of chain migration.

We would not ensure that people who attain citizenship through this method can speak one of the languages and are not criminals, which are basic things. The Liberals have said that this is not about that; it is about automatically getting citizenship. The reality is that what the Liberals have proposed has a condition, which is that people have to have spent 1,095 days in Canada as a parent before the birth of the child. There is a condition there, so it is not automatic citizenship; they are not deemed to be a citizen automatically. If a parent not born in Canada has a child not born in Canada, that child would not automatically be a citizen under the new legislation. There is a condition there, which is that it has to be at least 1,095 days. What we proposed was to tighten those conditions even further to make it 1,095 days, which is three years, within a five-year period. That would show a substantial connection to Canada. If someone has spent three out of five years in Canada, that is a substantial connection. We also want to make sure that an older person coming into the country speaks one of the two languages, is not a criminal and understands what it means to be Canadian. These are not unreasonable things; they are just further conditions to what the Liberal government has already proposed.

The other thing that I find quite telling is that we proposed and passed at committee, with the help of the Bloc, the requirement for the government to report to Parliament the number of citizens created by this method. Of course the government refused to do that. The Liberals are not at all into transparency. They do not want anything that is done by them to be known by Canadians. As a result, when this amended bill came back to the House, the government, with the help of the NDP, undid those changes.

Therefore, here we are with devalued citizenship again, with citizens of convenience. These are people who do not live in Canada but realize that, through a loophole, they can actually claim citizenship, because their parents spent a random 1,095 days in Canada. These are going to create future problems for future governments, for future ministers and for the people of Canada in the future. The bill would further make sure that Canada's immigration system remains a joke.

I neglected to mention that I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

That leads me to our broken immigration system. We have a broken system in Canada. I know the Liberals do not like to talk about Canada's being broken, because it just reveals everything they have done to our country in the last 10 years. However, by any objective measure at all, Canada's immigration system is a mess. In fact, it has become a bit of a joke in the world, and it is an embarrassment, to be frank.

The asylum system is one good example. We had this infamous tweet that has been mentioned many times, by Justin Trudeau; it said, “#WelcomeToCanada”. Of course, that started an avalanche of people coming into our country, wanting to get into our country through Roxham Road. That is a good example, in which they were not using normal processes and not using the same system that every other newcomer to our country has followed. By the way, the people whom I talked to who are the most upset about this system are the actual newcomers who used the system the way it was intended to be used, who waited the time they had to wait and filled out the paperwork that they had to fill out, as opposed to those who came into our country through a backdoor system.

Of course, the government, in its infinite wisdom, not only endorsed this method but built infrastructure and instructed the police to welcome people. It is such a strange thing, to say, “Sorry, you cannot cross here, but welcome to Canada” and help them carry their bags in. It was ridiculous. Ultimately, that is part of our broken system.

The other thing I wanted to highlight is what is called our humanitarian and compassionate category. Certainly, it is important for us to focus newcomers in our country on skills and requirements that we have in our country, so the newcomers who come here are able not only to work and succeed but actually to add great value to our country. That has been the history of immigration in Canada for years and years. That is not happening right now.

However, there is one category that we should always try to do, and that is to help people when we can. We can only help so much, but we should still be doing that. There have been cases with Ukrainians, for example, or with Hong Kongers who have been invited to come to our country. They are now here, but the government is not providing a way for them to actually become citizens.

It is really quite ridiculous, so we end up with wait times, and we can go and see it on the website. It is hard to believe, but it is true. It actually says 10-plus years of wait time for some of these categories. In the briefing notes that were given to the immigration minister when she became minister in the spring, it said, in some cases, over 50 years, which is absolutely ridiculous. It just further proves how broken our system is.

That brings me to today, which is budget day. We are going to hear about the levels plan, which tells how many people the government hopes and intends to let into this country. One thing I want to point out is that we have asked numerous times, and the government is unable to provide a number of people who would become citizens through the legislation. They defer the question. They do not seem to know, which does not give me much confidence that they actually know what they are doing. They have a lot of people working for them, as we know. There are hundreds of thousands of people working for the government, yet they cannot figure out how many people this would have an impact on.

One thing I want to note is that, in the last year's levels plan, it showed that our non-permanent, temporary resident population was going to come down to 5% in 2026, so I am very curious to see how that number is reflected today. Are we going to hit the 5% number for 2026? I would remind the government that 2026 is a couple of months from now. I think we are well over 7% now, so I would say the plans made a year ago are probably not going to happen, if I were a gambling man. I am just curious about what we are going to see from that. I am also very curious about how we are going to see spending come in at a “generational” level, as the government likes to say. To me, that is generational debt. We are giving generational debt to our children.

The system is broken. The bill would devalue the value of citizenship. It would create a chain migration system that I believe is wrong. I would encourage people in the House to vote against this. This is not something that would help our country, and the government could have done a far better job creating legislation that would stand up to the courts, that would protect Canadians and that would restore and protect the value of citizenship.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to the bail and sentencing reform act, one of the most comprehensive updates to Canada's bail and sentencing laws in decades.

I have the privilege of representing one of Canada's safest communities, with an overall crime severity index that is the sixth-lowest among Canadian cities. It is an improvement from our ranking as eighth-lowest in 2023 and a dramatic improvement from our ranking of 19th-lowest in 2018, but Guelph used to be the safest city in Canada, and we are seeing a concerning rise in some serious crimes.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the people in community organizations that work to prevent crime by addressing root causes and that support victims of crime, and of course Guelph Police Service for its excellent work in our community. It is a collaboration.

People in Guelph and across Canada do not just want an improvement in the statistics; they expect and deserve that their communities should feel safe. They want to be safe. They expect a justice system that protects victims, supports the people on the front lines and holds repeat and violent offenders to account, and I agree with them. People expect all levels of government to take steps to ensure that these things happen. The new government is playing its part.

The bail and sentencing reform act would introduce over 80 clauses of targeted reforms to strengthen both our bail and our sentencing regimes to respond to this reality. This comprehensive and constitutional bail reform is more than a motion or a slogan, and it is not a warmed-over version of failed U.S. policies. It is the result of extensive engagements with the provinces and territories, police, prosecutors, victims' advocates, indigenous partners, and community organizations. Through these discussions, it became clear that one of the most urgent areas for reform was the bail system, particularly for cases involving repeat and violent offenders.

Let us talk about bail reform first. Over the past several years, people in Canada have seen too many tragic headlines about violent crimes committed by individuals who were already out on bail, sometimes with a long history of prior offences. Police, mayors and victims' advocates have all told us that the bail system was not working as it should in these cases.

The bail and sentencing reform act would address these criticisms head-on. In fact, Michael Gendron of the Canadian Police Association has said, “Front-line police have long called for pragmatic reforms to strengthen Canada's bail and sentencing framework. This legislation is an important and timely step to improve public safety and restore confidence in our justice system.”

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police welcomes the introduction of Bill C-14, calling it “a landmark piece of legislation that strengthens Canada’s response to repeat and violent offenders, organized crime, and threats to public safety.”

Why do we have the support of these police associations and so many mayors and community organizations? First, it is because Bill C-14 would make bail stricter and harder to get for repeat and violent offenders.

The bill would create new reverse onus provisions, meaning it would be up to the accused person to demonstrate why they should be released, and not the other way around. In particular it would create new reverse onus provisions for violent and organized crime-related auto theft; break and enter of a home; trafficking in persons; human smuggling; assault and sexual assault involving choking, suffocating or strangulation; and extortion involving violence. This is intended to help ensure that the people who pose the greatest risk to public safety would remain in custody until it is proven they can be safely released.

The bill would offer clarity to police and courts regarding how to apply the principle of restraint. This includes clarifying that the principle would not in fact require release and that an accused person should not be released if their detention is justified, including for the protection and safety of the public.

At the bail stage, courts would be required to consider key risk factors, such as whether the allegations involve random or unprovoked violence, and the number or seriousness of any outstanding charges that the accused has accumulated while on bail. Specifically, courts would need to assess whether releasing the accused person would undermine confidence in the justice system. They would also have to impose weapons prohibitions at bail for people accused of extortion and organized crime, unless this is not required.

Importantly, in reverse onus cases, the accused would have to present a credible and reliable bail plan. Courts would need to closely scrutinize those plans before granting release.

These reforms are about protecting the public and ensuring accountability for those who repeatedly show disregard for the law and the safety of others in a way that balances the charter rights of people accused of a criminal offence. However, making bail is stricter is only part of the solution.

Our sentencing laws also need to reflect the gravity of violent crimes and the harm done to victims and communities. The bill therefore proposes significant sentencing reforms to make penalties tougher for repeat and violent offending, including car theft, extortion and crimes that endanger public safety. For example, the act would require consecutive sentences when violent auto theft is committed with a break and enter, or when extortion is committed with arson. This means that offenders would serve one sentence after another rather than serving them at the same time, which may result in a longer penalty's being imposed.

The bill would also enact new provisions concerning aggravating factors, and I think we can all agree on that. Sentencing would be tougher for crime against first responders, which would be an egregious crime; retail theft, which is growing and concerning; and offences that impact critical infrastructure such as power stations, water systems or communication networks, on which we all depend.

The bill would end house arrest for serious sexual assaults and child sexual offences, ensuring that custodial sentences are served in a secure setting appropriate to the severity of the crime. The bill would restore driving prohibitions for offences like criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death, or manslaughter. It would also improve fine enforcement to make sure that penalties are meaningful and are able to be enforced.

As all members know, the criminal justice system in Canada is a shared responsibility. I want to thank the provinces and territories, which have been strong advocates for these reforms. They have shared their on-the-ground experience with repeat violent offending, and they have helped shaped a package of measures that is practical, targeted and grounded in evidence. I look forward to seeing provincial investments in courthouses, detention facilities and mental health services to ease existing backlogs and speed up trials.

The proposed amendments are very focused in nature to clarify areas that have led to litigation and uncertainty and to assist the provinces in administering sentences and making some other technical improvements.

The bail and sentencing reform act is part of a broader modernization of Canada's justice system and action on community safety. Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 would tackle auto theft, money laundering, human trafficking and drug trafficking. We will introduce anti-scam measures in the coming months. We will bring forward further changes to address court delays, strengthen victims' rights and better protect people facing sexual and intimate partner violence, as well as take new steps to keep children safe from horrific crimes. These are all issues that are close to my heart.

Canadians deserve to be safe in their homes, on their streets and in their communities. They deserve a justice system that protects the innocent, supports victims and holds offenders accountable. The bail and sentencing reform act would deliver on that commitment. lt would balance firmness with fairness, and it would strengthen bail and toughen sentencing.

These changes would underscore that a strong Canada means strong communities and a justice system that works for everyone. They would occur in parallel with investments in upstream prevention of crime, such as in housing, mental health and youth supports, to reduce petty crime and property crime before they happen. We are cracking down on the people who pose the highest risk to community safety, while investing in prevention so fewer people turn to crime in the first place.

Firearms

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, our government is doing everything we can to ensure that guns are off our streets. This includes Bill C-12, and this includes a $1.3-billion investment at our border, 1,000 new RCMP and 1,000 new CBSA officers. We have Bill C-14, which will address the issues around bail. We also have a compensation program that will ensure that law-abiding Canadians can get compensation for prohibited weapons, which we hope will be expanded across Canada.

This is our approach to a range of issues involving crime. I invite the party opposite to support these initiatives.

Citizenship Act

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to once again be on my feet to talk about some of the government's latest legislation. As a refresher from high school civics, the bill is now at third reading. This means it has been introduced in the House, debated, sent to a committee, amended and is now being debated a final time before we vote on whether to pass it. At every stage of this process, Conservatives have stood up to make the legislation better, to fix many of the glaring flaws in the bill and to be the voices of the people who sent us here. At every stage, it has also been made stunningly clear just how much the Liberal government has broken our immigration system after only 10 years in power.

Let us look at the facts. We know that immigration levels were too high for too many years in this country. We know that senior public servants in Ottawa knew that, too. We know they told the then immigration minister, who has also been the housing minister and is now the Attorney General. We know the Liberal government continued with the unsustainable, out-of-control immigration numbers anyway. It let in over a million people in just one year.

There are many reasons the Liberals and their bureaucrats would want to continue with high levels of immigration. Maybe it is to cover up for a declining GDP per capita, for cheap temporary labour or for other reasons, but the Liberal government did not pay the price for its bad decision-making. That has been paid by people in communities such as Cambridge.

In the last few years, Cambridge has been growing so quickly that it now feels like a metropolis instead of the small town we still see ourselves as. The demand for housing increased so quickly, and the prices went up so fast, that many people cannot afford a home in the neighbourhoods where they grew up. Our schools are bursting at the seams, and good luck trying to find a family doctor or getting into the ER if needed. Crime in the community is also rising. We know repeat violent offenders are often the culprits, but multinational gangs and criminals are also to blame.

The Liberal government literally allowed somebody who appeared in an ISIS video to come to this country. The new immigration minister herself still cannot say if the current process is sufficient or describe any of the steps in the process whatsoever. Those violent terrorists are in addition to the gangsters and gunrunners who have been taking advantage of our lax laws and security for years. These are people like Arjun Sahnan, who came here at just 19 years old, committed drive-by shootings and extortion and got arrested, but he hopped on a plane and fled to India for two years until he felt brave enough to come back to Canada last month when, luckily, he was arrested.

It was so infuriating to see the Liberals propose Bill C-3 in its original form because it was simply a rehashing of the same failed Liberal policies that got us here in the first place. It would allow unlimited chain migration to Canada in amounts that the government could not even properly estimate. It would have let people in with no security screening and without having to demonstrate proper language skills. Almost no substantial connection to Canada would have been required. This is the wrong way to go about fixing our immigration system. It is like leaving the front door of our house wide open and trusting that anybody who walks in is only going to sit down in the living room to watch TV. It just does not work like that, and Canadians know better.

However, the bill in its new form could go much further, and that is thanks to the advocacy and hard work of Conservative MPs here in Ottawa. There are amendments on the table to now include residency requirements, meaning those who want to be a citizen should demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. That is common sense. There are also amendments to include language requirements, meaning people should be able to fluently speak English or French to become a citizen here. There is also a citizenship test, because everybody who becomes a Canadian should know about our country and its history.

The amendments also include a mandated security screening, so we can make sure that everybody who gets citizenship is somebody we can trust. Finally, there are requirements mandating that the minister reports to Parliament each year about the number of people who get Canadian citizenship. These are the kinds of things that people expect from our immigration system. It should meet our needs, keep us safe and preserve the value and honour of citizenship.

That is the main point of distinction. The Liberal government, frankly, has degraded the value of Canadian citizenship. It has made it easier for people who have committed crimes to stay here in Canada instead of deporting them. It abandoned all sense of restraint or reasonable immigration level targets. It even wanted to let people take their oath of citizenship, a solemn and dignified honour, online. It literally wanted to allow people to get their citizenship with a click of a button.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, want to protect the honour in citizenship and make our system stronger. That is why we put forward these amendments. It is why we worked with advocates and stakeholders to make the bill stronger.

I am noticing a trend in this place. Last week, I got up to speak to a similar bill, Bill C-12, and on that piece of legislation too, it was Conservatives who stood up to make a bad law better. That is exactly what we have done here with Bill C-3, and it is what we are going to do day in and day out with other proposals too.

I am really proud when I can go back to Cambridge every weekend and point to accomplishments like this as proof that our Conservative team is united, strong and working hard for the people we serve. If it was not for us working with other parties and stakeholders, a bad bill would not have just been proposed; it also would have become law by now.

I call on all members of this House to support these amendments. If it is not common sense to perform security screenings, if it is not common sense to have a citizenship test and if it is not common sense to make sure the people we welcome here have a substantial connection to Canada, then I really do not know what it would be.

The Liberals have not even fixed the mess they made of the immigration system over the last 10 years, and they already want to expand it. The Liberals' own ministers have said they cannot account for all the people they have lost in Canada who should not be here. With this many people currently undocumented and lost in Canada, it puts everyone in danger, especially those vulnerable to becoming victims of human trafficking and exploitation.

This is a widespread modern-day slavery crisis happening right here in Canada. It is well known that just last year, the UN put out a report that referred to Canada's temporary foreign worker program as a “breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery”. The report came out last year and is entitled “Visit to Canada”. It is only 22 pages long, and I highly recommend that all Canadians, but especially my colleagues across the aisle, read it to properly understand the Liberals' failures, which must be addressed before opening up Canada to even more exploitation.

The cheap, inhumane labour that the Liberals refuse to address is also further pricing young Canadians out of their future here in Canada. With the dream of home ownership already taken away by the Liberal housing crisis and so many of our youth struggling to put food on the table and living paycheque to paycheque, they are now having their jobs taken away by the Liberals. With the labour market becoming oversaturated, youth unemployment reached 15% in September according to Statistics Canada.

What future is the government leaving for the next generation when they cannot find jobs, afford food or look for a place to live? If the Liberals cannot even offer a future to current Canadians, what is left to offer new Canadians? Instead of trying to address the problems the Liberal government has made, it is already moving on to find new ways to expand the problem with bills like Bill C-3.

I will close by saying this. Canada is a proud country and we are all proud to be Canadians. This place was built by people who came here from places all around the world to contribute their talents and achieve their dreams. If we did not have immigration, we would not have a country, plain and simple. It is up to us now to make sure that this system and the immigration structure work for everyone. That is what we want to do here in Ottawa, and that is what we will always keep fighting for on Parliament Hill.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my friend that ministers and the Prime Minister are in Ontario meeting with Premier Ford, members of the business community, and the private sector. We take these matters very seriously. The Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Industry and others continue to work with communities, unions and employers to challenge the decisions the big auto companies have announced, which we obviously regret very much and are determined to make good on for the people of Ontario and the people of Canada.

This afternoon, we will continue with the fourth day of debate at second reading of Bill C-12, concerning the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system.

Tomorrow and Monday, we will debate Bill C-3, which would amend the Citizenship Act, at report stage. Our hope is to deal with third reading of this bill on Wednesday of next week.

Next Tuesday, we will call Bill C-13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was introduced by the Minister of International Trade earlier this week.

Next Thursday, we will begin second reading debate on Bill C-14 on bail and sentencing, which was proudly introduced this morning by the Minister of Justice.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of Canadians is the first and most primary responsibility of the government. This is why we have taken very important measures in order to ensure the safety and security of Canadians, including having the highest level of removals in a decade. Over 20,000 people will be removed from Canada for being here improperly. This is why we have introduced bail reform and sentencing reform just this afternoon. This is why we have Bill C-12, which is going through the House.

I encourage the party opposite to support these measures in order to keep Canadians even more safe.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Oakville West for the hard work she does with the Halton Regional Police Service. I had the opportunity to visit her last week.

From January 1 to September 19, CBSA seized close to 2,600 grams of fentanyl, 77,000 grams of other opioids, 662 firearms and over 11,000 prohibited weapons.

Bill C-12 would enhance law enforcement's ability to do its work, as would the additional thousand CBSA and RCMP officers we will be hiring, to keep Canadians safe—

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, which is before the House today, reflects our government's commitment to protecting Canadians by expanding border security resources, fighting transnational organized crime, stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl and cracking down on illicit financing at the border while supporting our frontline officers and reinforcing the integrity of our immigration system.

Could the Minister of Public Safety tell Canadians how this critical legislation enhances our ability to protect Canadians and keep our communities safe?

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I will agree with my esteemed colleague on is wishing all Canadians a happy Thanksgiving.

We have much to be thankful about in this country, and that includes a very healthy and vibrant democracy and exchanges like this one. We have a lot of blessings in this country, and I wish every Canadian a happy Thanksgiving.

The member referred to an emergency take-note debate, but Mr. Speaker, I would never presume to impede your judgment in these matters.

This afternoon, however, we will continue with debate on the opposition day motion brought forward by the Conservative party that, let us agree, always includes a bit of sketchy detail, despite what the hon. member tried to convince us of.

Tomorrow we will resume consideration and second reading of Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

When we return on Monday, October 20, we will begin debate at second reading stage of Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, introduced yesterday by the Minister of Public Safety. We will continue that debate on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, we will resume consideration of Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

I will end where I began, by wishing everyone a happy Thanksgiving.

Border Security

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday our government introduced Bill C-12 to secure and protect the integrity of Canada's immigration system, reinforce our border and curb the transnational flow of fentanyl.

Can the Minister of Public Safety inform the House why we need to move swiftly to pass Bill C-12?