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.

The House proceeded to 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There are 51 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-12.

Motions Nos. 1 to 51 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 51 to the House.

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

moved:

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting the short title.

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

,

seconded by the member for Vancouver East, moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved:

That Bill C-12, in Clause 47, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 4 to 8 on page 23 with the following:

(a) in the case where the person has voluntarily returned to the country in respect of which they claimed refugee protection and the Refugee Protection Division has not yet made a decision in respect of the claim, must determine that the claim has been abandoned; and

(b) in any other case, must not commence, or must suspend, consideration of the claim.

(b) replacing lines 12 to 17 on page 23 with the following:

(a) in the case where the person has made the appeal and has voluntarily returned to the country in respect of which they claimed refugee protection and the Refugee Appeal Division has not yet made a decision in respect of the appeal, must determine that the appeal has been abandoned; and

(b) in any other case, must not commence, or must suspend, consideration of the appeal, other than an appeal by the Minister.

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

,

seconded by the member for Vancouver East, moved:

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 66.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 71.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 72.

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

moved:

That Bill C-12, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 32 with the following:

“permanent resident status or to grant or extend study permits or work permits.”

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

,

seconded by the member for Vancouver East, moved:

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 73.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 74.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 75.

[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, and this is certainly no exception.

Bill C-12, which was originally conceived of as Bill C-2, has really had a very long journey. Let us be real. The election was in April. We came here in May, and Bill C-2 was the first substantial bill. I had not really dealt with a lot of omnibus bills, and I still remember when the Liberals came to power and talked about the effect of omnibus bills on democracy. They talked about the use of parliamentary tricks, omnibus bills, time allocation and things like that and how they would never, ever do that. We now see the Liberals, to be very candid, have put way too much in one bill. They may have, so to speak, bit off more than they could chew.

When lawful access, for instance, is put into parts 14 and 15 of a bill that touches on the sex offence registry, puts the Coast Guard under the authority of the Minister of National Defence, talks about cash transactions over $10,000, requires mandatory reporting from all sorts of financial agencies and has dramatic immigration reforms, we are going to end up with a bill that is a hodgepodge of policies.

Lo and behold, we dealt with a bill that was largely unworkable at the end of the day. We know it was unworkable because the bill was originally tabled in the form of Bill C-2. It is now Bill C-12. The Liberals can claim that this was a good thing, but the reality is that they had to, word for word, take various parts of Bill C-2 and hive them off into another bill.

In fact, I was at the public safety committee not long ago. We had a legal expert appear, somebody who was an expert in, I believe, constitutional law, and she was asked about lawful access. Lawful access is something lawyers debate. It is not an easy topic to comprehend. I would not disregard anybody in the House if they said they were having trouble wrapping their head around lawful access. What the expert said is that lawful access requires its own bill, yet we had a bill that essentially was forced on us.

The Liberals, to this day, are attempting to shame us into passing a bill on lawful access that throws everything and the kitchen sink into a bill. They expect us to produce a shining, gleaming bill when the privacy commissioner, I believe, was not even asked for input.

For those at home who are watching and do not know, lawful access is about what the government can do without a warrant. It sounds good. Warrants or judicial authorizations can come in many forms; a warrant is one of them. When a person has an expectation of privacy and a search is not prescribed by law, as in there is no law saying someone may search something, then a warrant is needed. Search warrants are the most common ones, but other authorizations might include a production order or things like that.

The Liberals roundly mocked the Harper government when the Harper government introduced lawful access. They said to the Harper government that it was going too far, yet what do they do? They bury lawful access, a critical legal element in this bill, Bill C-2, and then expect everybody will turn a blind eye to what may at least be, and are potentially likely, breaches of section 8 of the charter, which says that Canadians have a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

The Liberals love to wield the charter when it suits their purposes. However, when it does not suit their purposes, they say that it is okay because it is charter-compliant, as though we are supposed to take their word for it. We have seen where it goes when we are supposed to take the Liberals' word for it.

In fact, we just had the justice minister table Bill C-16 yesterday. I cannot say how many times in committee I brought up the issue of mandatory minimum jail sentences and was laughed at. I was mocked by people like Minister Lametti and Minister Virani. Minister Virani and I had a good relationship, but he would literally defend the lack of mandatory minimums. They would say, “No, we do not want to tie the hands of judges.”

In fact, just the other day, my colleague from Lethbridge was giving an impassioned speech, and I could not believe what I heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. This was about making sex offence sentencing consecutive. I mean, who is against that? Apparently, the Liberals are against that. She talked about the unconstitutionality. We cannot make this up. She said that it would not be constitutional. What? There is an analogous provision for sex offences against kids, but they do not want to talk about that.

This is the cherry-picking of the charter that we often see. They say they do not want to do that. The cherry on top of that was that they said they do not want to tie the hands of judges. We do that all the time. In fact, we do it in bills that say they must get a warrant or the parameters of what a warrant can be. In one case, we are tying the hands of peace officers. In the other case, we are telling judges what they can and cannot do.

A murder conviction, for instance, has a mandatory life sentence. We are okay with tying judges' hands there. What about house arrest? What about house arrest for sex offences? For years, they told us that was not the case and that it was okay. I brought this up to many ministers at committee, and we were told, nope, they would not tie the hands of judges. However, just yesterday Bill C-16 came out and, look, the Liberals say we should be giving them high-fives. We should be patting them on the backs because they finally listened to the Conservatives.

On one hand, they do not want to tie the hands of judges. On the other hand, they are expecting people to praise them for doing that very thing. This is just unbelievable. We have the colossal failure that was Bill C-2, which has gone so far in the form of Bill C-12. I will be candid. When Bill C-12 came to the SECU, colloquially known as the public safety committee, there were not a lot of amendments because the controversial stuff had been taken out, such as the stuff like Canada Post being able to open our mail.

I will note the member for Winnipeg North still cannot wrap his head around this even though it is plain as day, and his own official said, yes, they can open mail without a warrant. I guess the fact that justice officials said they can open mail without a warrant according to Bill C-2 was not good enough for the member for Winnipeg North. He just wanted to repeatedly say that they needed a warrant, even though they did not, not that I am counting or anything.

Be that as it may, there are a lot of amendments, and there has been a lot of hard work that has gone into this. I recognize the member for Calgary Nose Hill for her exceptional work when it comes to immigration. I was at the table when I believe something like 48 amendments were moved. It was a number along those lines. I was actually quite surprised because, in some cases, the Bloc voted with the Conservatives on these things. It was common sense, like when someone lies about their application, when they commit fraud to get into Canada, they should not then be able to resile from that fraud and still expect the same treatment as somebody who did not commit fraud.

I am saying this as a child of immigrants. I owe everything in my life to immigration. The night of my first election, my mom asked me if I could imagine what my nonno Pasquale, my grandfather, would say if he were observing this. He had to borrow money to buy a chicken on Christmas Day when he first got to Canada.

When we think about these things, nobody on this side of the House is opposed to immigration. Nobody is. The member for Winnipeg seems to disagree. He says that it is true, but it is audacity to say that, when we have members on this bench who immigrated to Canada. That member can be quiet. I am making a point.

That member can be quiet. We can joke around about different things, but that member says that we are “meh” on immigration, when our front bench has people who came to Canada for a better life. Our front bench has people who I would get behind and who would get behind me, and who would fight for families like Bailey McCourt's.

They say that we are “meh” on immigration. My family did not have two pennies to rub together, and I am darned proud of my immigration legacy. I am proud of the legacy of every member in the House, whether they were born here or they came here for a better life.

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

Madam Speaker, it would be for another day how I do not believe that 100% of the Conservative caucus, and the stuff they put on social media, is what I would classify as immigrant friendly. Let us just leave it at that.

The issue that we have before us today is a substantive piece of legislation that is going to make our communities and our country safer. We have had, through this government, a number of pieces of legislation, some of which the member has actually brought forward. Part of the frustration that the government has experienced is with the way in which the Conservative Party, as an opposition party, is preventing, and in many ways filibustering, legislation from ultimately passing so that we can provide things such as bail reform.

The question I would ask the member is this: Would he feel any sort of obligation to see some of the legislation passed, which likely will not because of filibustering?

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

Madam Speaker, can someone tell me if the filibuster that the Liberals were doing at transport committee is still going on? When the Liberals filibuster, it is A-okay, but it is not when the Liberals cannot get their house in order or figure out how to pass their own legislation. They sat on bail legislation for 10 years. They told us that there was no problem, and then they have the audacity, after mocking our party on immigration, to waltz in here to say that they will not pass bail legislation. This is after they told us, for 10 years, that there was no problem. Now they are saying we should turn on a dime and do it, when they cannot figure it out for themselves.

That is their fault and their problem. They sat on their hands. Now they have to navigate it through. I really wish we could have heard from the member from Vancouver, but hopefully we will have more time for that, because I do not think he would be mocking us on our immigration policies.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague pointed out, there was excellent collaboration at committee on Bill C-12. It is unfortunate that the government has decided to set aside certain amendments.

What is interesting about this bill is that the government now explicitly recognizes that there was a problem with asylum seekers. For a long time, harm was being done to the reputation of the Bloc Québécois and that of all Quebeckers who were concerned about immigration. Quebeckers want a stronger immigration system that allows for integration, of course, but that also plugs the gaps. It seems like the Liberal government is finally acknowledging how cavalier it has been about asylum seekers.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

When it comes to refugees and asylum seekers, I do not think anybody in the House says that there is a problem with people coming from another country who are fleeing persecution. Some of the greatest Canadians I know fled persecution. There is somebody who, with redistribution, is no longer in my riding, but he fled Afghanistan with a backpack. I believe he actually watched a family member be killed. I do not take issue with that person. He has come here for a better life, fleeing persecution.

I want to be very clear when I talk about the Conservative standpoint. When we refer to refugees, under international law, and asylum seekers, under international law, we must be welcoming to these people. I could talk about this for hours. I could probably have a long conversation about the immigration portion, and I am sure my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill is going to talk about the issues that we sometimes have there. However, for people arriving as legitimate asylum seekers and people who are legitimately seeking to arrive as refugees, in my view, and on behalf of the Conservative Party, there is absolutely no issue with legitimacy in immigration in those regards.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot, Finance.

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

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say I was pleased to rise today. December 10 is coincidentally Human Rights Day, and I stand here at the point of report stage on Bill C-12, which threatens to actually violate international human rights law. I will go into why I believe that to be the case and why I am offering amendments at this late stage.

I want to extend my deep appreciation to the hon. member for Vancouver East for seconding my amendments. She also worked hard to put amendments forward during clause by clause at the national security committee, where we met. A number of other members of this place continued to try to make amendments, some of which I agreed with, others of which I did not, until midnight, when we were cut off from trying to make amendments, but we tried.

I want to give the people who are watching these speeches right now some more context.

I want to thank my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. We may disagree on some of the points, particularly those on refugee protections, but I agree and want to associate myself with his very elegant preamble on what is wrong with omnibus bills, how many things are stuffed into the bill we have before us and whether it is appropriate to do that. I agree with him that it is not.

It is true that the Liberals used to make comments about the horrible Conservative omnibus budget bills. We have an omnibus budget bill before us today that passed on division, which, by the way, coincidentally means that members of Parliament were not able to register personal votes. I was not able to vote against it, as I would have wished to have done, but it was agreed that it would be passed on division by the recognized parties, which means that the Greens and the NDP MPs in this place could not register opposition to Bill C-15, the mother of all budgetary omnibus bills, at over 600 pages long.

Never mind that. Right now we are talking about my amendments, and those of others, to Bill C-12.

Let me start briefly by sharing the path this bill took, as the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola has done in brief.

Back in June of 2025, as the numbers indicate, Bill C-2 was one of the very first bills put forward by the new administration under the Liberal Party in a minority Parliament. It did not take long for Bill C-2 to attract attention. I have never seen such quick work by as broad a range of civil society organizations, and I have seen lots of opposition.

There is a huge coalition of more than 300 NGOs that are completely opposed to Bill C‑2 because of the human rights violations, because of the interference with and violation of privacy rights, which the member for Kamloops talked about. One example is allowing Canada Post employees to open personal mail.

I will just briefly list some of the organizations to give a sense of the breadth and depth of concern. There was OpenMedia, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the United Church of Canada, the Muslim legal rights association, Women's Shelters Canada, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and Amnesty International. A broad range of organizations said that Bill C-2 should not pass, that it was appalling.

I will quote the executive director of OpenMedia, Matt Hatfield, who happens to be one of my constituents. He said that Bill C-2 was all about one thing, which was “pleasing President Trump”.

Bill C-2 was a target. I know many of us as MPs received so many letters from constituents saying we have to stop Bill C-2. I thought we had won a victory when it was reported in the media that the Liberal government was going to withdraw Bill C-2 and replace it with something that was not odious.

I have had the great honour of serving in this place since 2011, but I have never seen a shell game as gross as this. In October 2025, the government brought forward the bill that is before us today, Bill C-12, which contains as many offensive elements toward the rights of refugees and violations of human rights law internationally as the original bill, Bill C-2. The Liberals sort of did a bait and switch. The Liberals withdrew the parts about being able to open our mail and have access to our data from Internet service providers. Those are not in Bill C-12, but the surprise is that they remain in Bill C-2.

Bill C-2 remains on the Order Paper. We have been informed more recently that, once Bill C-12 passes, the government will bring back Bill C-2, having removed the sections that they expect us to pass it quickly, and it will probably pass quickly because that is how things go around here. Bill C-12 will go through, and then we will get Bill C-2 back, but without the sections we have passed in Bill C-12. I hope members are following me in this attempt to explain what the government is doing.

Bill C-2 attracted widespread public opposition, so it was a bait and switch. We are replacing Bill C-2. We have Bill C-12. The provisions of Bill C-12 remain offensive to the same groups that say nothing has changed since the original Bill C-2. This process is still about pleasing Donald Trump. Bill C-2 had a catchy title: the strong borders act. Bill C-12 has a less catchy title: strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. They are pretty much the same animal. We will get Bill C-2 back, but with the sections that have been passed in Bill C-12 removed.

What is offensive about all this? I had hoped to have a chance to speak on December 10, on Human Rights Day, to talk about international human rights. Ironically, I am because I am presenting amendments to Bill C-12. Otherwise, Human Rights Day would go by unobserved in this place. We observe it by pushing through a piece of legislation that violates international human rights.

What about this bill makes it offensive? As I mentioned before, the so-called lawful access pieces, going into Canadians' mail and accessing Internet service provider information, have yet to come forward in a stripped-down version of what was put forward in June in Bill C-2. We will get that back again. Meanwhile, Bill C-12 takes away the rights of people who would ordinarily have the rights of refugees to come to Canada and say they need to claim refugee protection.

Here is the the catch: Bill C-2, and now Bill C-12, say that, if someone has been in Canada for a year, they no longer have the right to ask for refugee protection. They no longer have the right to ask for a hearing for a fair assessment of their case. I will just explain why it could be that someone who has been in Canada for a year has not yet asked for refugee status.

Let us say someone came to Canada on a valid work permit or a valid student visa. They had no reason to imagine they were not going to be able to continue their studies or continue their work. The situation in their home country could have changed, the government shifted and they suddenly knew that, if they returned, they would be jailed. Their previous activities or their exercising of free speech would put them in jeopardy. This does not automatically give anybody a claim to stay in Canada to be able to avail themselves of the rights that Canada signed on to in international treaties to protect refugee rights. It just says they are allowed to ask for protection and the system will decide if they are a valid refugee or not. Those opportunities have ended. The rules changed for people who have already been in Canada for a year and would have no reason to think they need to ask for refugee protection.

I have put forward numerous amendments here today, as we heard the Speaker read out, and I am grateful to the hon. member for Vancouver East for seconding them. These amendments, even if carried, could not remedy what is wrong with this bill. The appropriate thing to do would be to withdraw it completely and to not try to interfere with human rights in the guise of making Donald Trump happy. We do not have ICE in Canada raiding institutions, schools and workplaces to grab people and say they are getting shipped out of the country before they can get due process. That is not us.

That is not Canada, but we move closer to that actually being who we are if Bill C-12 is passed without amendment and without accepting the amendments put forward today by the hon. member for Vancouver East and me. We need to protect human rights.

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

Madam Speaker, the member alluded to things in Bill C-2 compared to Bill C-12. One of the issues in Bill C-2 was that of lawful access. When we think of lawful access, I think it is important to note that Canada is the only one of the Five Eyes nations that does not have formal lawful access legislation, and I would ultimately argue that there is a need.

Is the leader of the Green Party saying that there is no need for lawful access legislation, or are there just certain areas of concern she would have with respect to lawful access?

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

Madam Speaker, my answer to the hon. member's question would have been different a month ago, for instance, before the United States under President Trump adopted a new national security strategy that makes me wonder if it is safe for Canada to remain in the Five Eyes. The new national security strategy of the U.S., the so-called Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, is deeply distressing, but let us set that aside.

I would say, yes, a lawful access program makes sense. We need to know when there is probable cause to decide that we need to move to access to mail or information, but that should be the process of long consultation, deeply respectful of human rights and Canadian rights, and that was not where Bill C-2 came from.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her amendment motions today. We in the opposition are here doing our level best to stop this; rightfully, Bill C-12 should be withdrawn.

With that being said, I wonder what the member's thoughts are with respect to this. During committee, I tried to move an amendment for the government to at least change the provisions related to the one-year bar: to, instead of deeming someone ineligible to make a refugee application if they have been here in Canada for one year, at least strike that provision, or, at minimum, instead of having the date be that of the first entry into Canada, move it to the latest entry into Canada.

I wonder what my colleague's thoughts are, because the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc voted against it.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East and I are in the unenviable position of being forced, by motions passed by every committee, to produce amendments on 24 hours' notice, but to not be allowed to vote on our own amendments.

Yes, I completely support what the member for Vancouver East was trying to do. It only makes sense. Why go back and say it should depend on someone's first entry into Canada as opposed to when they last came to Canada? They could be asked whether it has been a year since their last entry into Canada as opposed to since their first. Much changes with time. Governments are toppled, and human rights are suspended.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I found the last question very interesting because democracy was thwarted during the committee's review of Bill C‑12. Amendments were presented, duly voted on and supported by the majority. Unfortunately, the government used a sleight of hand to then overturn them here in the House.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this and on whether she feels that what happened was in keeping with democratic rules and the work that needs to legitimately happen in committee. Sometimes there are things we do not like. Sometimes there are proposals that are no longer in line with our political interests. At the very least, the institution must respect the work of the committees. That seems to me to be the minimum requirement.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the problem with this minority Parliament is that MPs do not have equal rights. Members of parties with fewer than 12 MPs are at a disadvantage. That was the case for the Bloc Québécois in 2011. I remember it well, because I worked with the four Bloc Québécois members at the time, and we worked well together. Today, the voices of certain federal parties are absent from the committees. I respect the work done by committees, but members who are not on committees would like to bring forward and pass important amendments, and they cannot do so in committee.

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

Madam Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon be allowed to use the speaking slot allocated to the member for Winnipeg North for this debate. That the member for Winnipeg North not be deemed to have spoken, that he retain his right to speak, and that this right be used in the first of the slots allocated to the Bloc Québécois.

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

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

Hearing none, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, particularly with you in the chair. You and I founded the all-party maritime caucus. That is proof that we can work together even if we are of different political persuasions.

I also want to sincerely thank the member for Winnipeg North and the member for Calgary Nose Hill for very generously allowing me to move up my speaking spot.

Teamwork is the calling card of the Bloc Québécois. Bill C‑12 is a big bill, a massive bill, an omnibus bill. It has not been easy to work on this bill because it amends so many laws. In addition, we did not have a lot of time because there was an agreement between the Liberals and the Conservatives to cut certain witnesses' time short. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security split the work of studying Bill C‑12. It was a monumental task.

Doing the clause-by-clause study of such a huge bill is a team effort. I would like to sincerely thank my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who studied the entire part dealing with amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

It was a big job for him, for the entire team in the offices of the leader and whip, for our researchers, Maxime and Michaël, for my assistant, Racim, and especially for the witnesses, who appeared before both the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We must not forget our legislative counsel, our analysts, Sabrina and Alexsandra, our clerk, Mr. Wilson, and, of course, all the staff who provide interpretation services.

The Bloc Québécois moved amendments to Bill C-12. One amendment was adopted. We take a very constructive and rigorous approach to our work. When we are considering a bill, we determine whether it is good for Quebec. If it is, we support it.

We worked hard and effectively. We listened. We supported amendments from the Conservative Party and adopted clauses proposed by the government. I also remember voting on an amendment from the member for Vancouver East. That goes to show the value of committee work, when we are conducting a clause-by-clause study of a large bill.

We also passed an amendment that I am quite proud of. It was drafted in the wake of a visit from the Privacy Commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, whom I salute and thank for his thoroughness, his work and his vigilance. He reads every bill to see if it can be improved.

The Bloc Québécois introduced an amendment to clause 4 in order to add clear and specific guidelines to ensure that a warrant is required to search a home. There was some ambiguity about that, because the clause was not entirely clear. This clarification helps protect privacy. Privacy and security are often pitted against one another, but the Bloc Québécois believes that it is possible to strike a balance between security and privacy. For us, these two elements are not at all incompatible.

We supported amendments that compel the government to be more transparent and more accountable. We supported amendments that sought to clarify the extraordinary power granted to the minister to cancel, vary or suspend various immigration-related documents. We opposed amendments that were too harsh, that violated the fundamental rights of asylum seekers or that went against the spirit of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Even though all the committee members acted in good faith, I was still surprised by the deal that the Liberals and the Conservatives struck to have the committee sit until midnight to speed through the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

I thought that was unproductive and inconsistent with the concept of work-life balance. How energetic, productive and attentive can members still be when they are made to work until half past midnight?

There was this deal, which really surprised me, and it led to a long day. We sat until quarter past midnight. Unfortunately, this meant that we were unable to study the briefs. There were some briefs that we did not even get to read, because we received them after the clause-by-clause study had been finalized. In fact, about eight briefs were not translated in time by the Translation Bureau. The committee sped through its work so fast that the Translation Bureau could not provide us with the translated documents. That means that people took the trouble to write briefs and send them to us, but we did not have access to them before the bill was adopted.

I was also really surprised by the filibustering by some colleagues around the table who were strategically trying to buy time so they could debate certain clauses a little later. It was disgraceful of them to waste the time of the public servants and interpreters for the sake of parliamentary strategizing. I am not the most partisan member of Parliament, but it bothers me when public servants come to support us for clause-by-clause study and the time is not used for that. It was a waste of time for the public servants, interpreters, and also the members who were there to work.

Some of the amendments introduced at report stage, if adopted, would make Bill C-12 practically useless. We are obviously going to oppose some of the amendments proposed to us this evening. I think we worked diligently. In my opinion, we could have taken a little more time to study this bill. I feel a little disheartened for the people who asked me to invite them to testify before my committee on the very day the bill was adopted. Obviously, since everything had already been adopted, inviting them was no longer an option.

It is often said that there is no shame in looking foolish. An hour before we started the study, we listened to a witness make recommendations concerning Bill C-12. Obviously, we could not take those recommendations into account, since the amendments had been tabled several days earlier and everything was sealed for debate and for the work to begin.

I would still like to thank all my colleagues. I really enjoyed working with the member for Calgary Nose Hill. She is a hard-working and diligent member who explained her amendments to us with passion and determination. It was obvious to us how much knowledge she has accumulated over the years on the issue of immigration. We do not always agree, but we do share a mutual respect for parliamentarians' ability to express themselves calmly and debate their ideas. Sometimes we agree to work together, and sometimes we prefer not to. That is understandable, and we do not hold it against each other. I wish other parliamentarians could show the same degree of respect, given that this is meant to be a place for debate. I wanted to emphasize that I really enjoyed working with her, as well as with my colleagues from the other parties who, throughout the study of Bill C-12, seemed to have a genuine interest in improving it.

I will conclude by saying that we look forward to voting at report stage of the bill so that we can move on to third reading. Although we are eager for the House to rise, we at the Standing Committee on Public Safety are eager to move on to another bill, because there is another important one waiting for us. We are supposed to start studying Bill C-8 on cybersecurity after the holidays.

Again, I want to thank everyone for putting in all the necessary effort to improve the government's bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I think I will take advantage of the member's goodwill. There has been a great deal of co-operation, in terms of getting Bill C-12 through the system.

Especially in the last number of years, I have been looking for ways the House could update, modernize or potentially have legislation go through a certain process. I would be interested in her viewpoint. I always thought that with a standing committee, there were ways we could make changes that would allow for more time at the committee stage and ensure more actual studying takes place.

At some point, we will be reviewing the standing orders. The member may have some specific examples of what she would like to see, in terms of how we could better facilitate more dialogue that is, maybe, not as political, so we can go through legislation line by line. Does she have some thoughts?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which I find particularly interesting as a former whip.

We have studied the rules and procedures extensively and are always looking for ways to improve participation in debates in a constructive manner. I do not know whether we will manage to present any suggestions this time around to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to move in that direction, but I am a great believer in teamwork and compromise, which often make partisan games less likely.

Unfortunately, what currently dominates in committee, as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights clearly shows, is not the pursuit of the common good or the consideration of the merits of a bill, but rather ways of working that I find horrifying, because partisan games take precedence over the common good. I find that very sad.

I will reflect on my colleague's question and perhaps get back to him with some suggestions.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague as well for her collaborative efforts in amending Bill C-12. The member for Jonquière raised the issue that the government took several of the amendments we had worked collaboratively to pass and then, on its own initiative, exercised House procedure to strip out those amendments.

I wonder if my colleague could expand on the fact that, in regard to a lot of the measures we passed that were in the bill that came to the House, the government is probably going to have to undertake them anyway. We have been talking about House time being wasted. Would it have not been better for the Liberals just to let those amendments go through, rather than initiating House procedure to remove them?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. The idea is that committees are masters of their own proceedings. When we study a bill and we come to an agreement on amendments, even if they do not please the government, it is strange, not to say unacceptable, that the Speaker of the House can then rule amendments that were duly debated and adopted out of order. That means that they disappear completely from the bill, which I find rather odd. To answer the member for Winnipeg North's question, perhaps we could look at the procedure to ensure that this does not happen anymore.

We had a similar situation with Bill C‑3. The committee did a lot of hard work and then, because the government of the day was not happy with the result, it teamed up with the NDP to destroy all the democratic work the committee had accomplished. The Bloc Québécois was in a minority position in 2011 and 2015, and the rules provide that, when a party is not recognized, it does not get permanent seats on committees. That does not mean that the work done in committee should not be respected. In my opinion, that should be changed in order to safeguard democratic debates that are truly important.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about a major problem that Bill C‑12 does not resolve. According to the union, the Canada Border Services Agency is short between 2,000 and 3,000 officers. Does my colleague have any thoughts on this?

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-12 is full of intentions for border security, but I believe that the government does not have the means to achieve its ambitions and that 1,000 officers will not be enough to fulfill all of the ambitions that the government has set out in Bill C-12.

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

Madam Speaker, after a decade of Liberal mismanagement, describing Canada's immigration system as a tire fire sorely in need of competent management and dramatic reform would not be an exaggeration. Therefore, Conservatives, to show we are a government in waiting, proposed multiple constructive amendments to the immigration components of Bill C-12 in an attempt to improve the legislation and fix Canada's broken immigration system.

Here is what we proposed and why we did it. First is the why. Recently, Britain's governing Labour Party proposed drastic, sweeping immigration reforms in response to the ongoing illegal migration and bogus asylum claim crisis in its country. Those who think the situation is better on our side of the pond are profoundly wrong. In fact, between January 2022 and October of this year, the United Kingdom had around 375,000 people enter the country and make asylum claims, representing about 0.5% of their population. During the same time frame in Canada, we saw nearly 500,000 claims, or roughly 1.2% of our population today.

The fact that the Liberals also paired the surge in illegal migration and bogus asylum claims with allowing record levels of temporary foreign worker and foreign study permits is extraproblematic. This is an incredibly serious situation that has strained Canada's public health care system and many other taxpayer-funded social programs past their breaking point. It has made housing unaffordable, caused a youth jobs crisis and led to heavier reliance on social programs. It has also begun to tear apart Canada's social fabric, just as it has in the U.K.

The volume of people the Liberals have allowed to enter Canada has also made security screening difficult. A recent explosive news story claimed there are, at a minimum, hundreds of people in Canada with links to a state-sponsored terrorist organization. All of this has led to a precipitous drop, very concerningly, in support for immigration among the Canadian public, and this must change.

If that is the why, then this is the how. Conservatives proposed a series of substantive reforms to address these issues, presented as amendments to Bill C-12 during its clause-by-clause review at committee. I want to thank my colleagues Miguel Ricin, Andrew Evans and Chloe Clifford for working literally endless hours with me, until 1 a.m. on a Friday a couple of weeks ago, over six months to develop nearly 40 substantive amendments that, taken in combination, present one of the most substantive sets of immigration policy reforms seen in decades.

Given Bill C-12's scope, our amendments had two objectives. The first was to truly fix Canada's broken asylum system. Once an efficient and compassionate means for Canada to welcome and protect the world's most vulnerable and truly persecuted persons, in the last decade the system has morphed into a backdoor, lucrative means for illegal migrants who likely would not have otherwise had a pathway to permanent residency in Canada to skip the line and stay here. The evidence of this is overwhelming.

Canada's asylum backlog has exploded from fewer than 10,000 claims in 2015 to nearly 300,000 today under the Liberals, due to their foolish #WelcometoCanada and open-border policies. We all remember the #WelcometoCanada tweet in 2017. We all remember the Roxham Road border crossing. We all remember the government lifting the visa requirement on Mexico with no plan to stop illegal, bogus asylum claims. Here we are today with a broken asylum system and a loss of faith in Canada's immigration system.

Unfortunately, the immigration measures in Liberal Bill C-12 would fail to substantively address these problems. Committee witnesses testified that the system changes Bill C-12 proposed were half measures, certain to face immediate court challenges that would further clog an already overburdened justice system instead of curbing their abuse. In effect, the Liberals would be off-loading their illegal migration mess onto strained courts and past the next election cycle.

Committee testimony exposed further flaws untouched by Bill C-12. It would fail to disincentivize people from coming to Canada to make bogus claims. For example, rejected asylum claimants have the right to appeal to a judge. While those cases work their way slowly through our clogged courts, they continue to receive full health care, housing and social benefits. The pedantic and loophole-ridden process for appealing a bogus claim and removing bogus claimants from Canada also begets system abuse and needs reform, which C-12, as written, would not provide. The asylum and deportation system also urgently requires greater accountability and transparency. It needs to be far easier for MPs to get the data they need in these areas in order to hold the government to account.

To fix these issues, Conservatives attempted to amend Bill C-12 to undertake the following system changes: removing the ability of migrants with failed asylum claims to claim any federal social benefits beyond emergency health care; disallowing asylum claims to be made by nationals of, or by those arriving in Canada having transited through, a G7 or EU country; modernizing security requirements; requiring educational institutions that accept foreign students to share the cost of any bogus asylum claims made by foreign students they welcome to Canada; requiring that claims made by migrants who return to their home country while their claim is pending be abandoned; rejecting claims made after a claimant is found to have lied to an officer; placing the onus on a claimant to prove they have made their claim in a timely manner, not the government; requiring asylum claimants arriving in Canada to immediately provide, on the record, their full grounds for seeking protection, preventing the later use of unscrupulous lawyers to game the system; creating a new, transparent and clear reporting requirement for the government to disclose the amount of federal benefits received by asylum claimants; updating the content of the annual report to Parliament; and introducing merit-based appointments at the Immigration and Refugee Board to better consider the provinces and to include more board members with law enforcement experience.

The second objective of our amendments was to strengthen Canada's border security vis-à-vis non-citizen criminals. Bill C-12 purports to strengthen Canada's border security, but it would leave gaping holes for non-citizens convicted of an indictable offence in Canada, such as sexual assault, to avoid deportation penalties. For a non-citizen, our laws and practices state that staying in Canada is a privilege, not a right. Non-citizens who are convicted of an indictable offence, like sexual assault, in Canada should face deportation. To be effective, those deportations should be carried out in an expeditious manner, which currently they are not. Recent reports show that the Liberals have lost track of nearly 600 non-citizen convicted criminals scheduled for deportations, and that there are tens of thousands of deportations that should have been carried out long ago but have not been.

To fix these issues, Conservatives attempted to constructively amend Bill C-12 and make the following changes that would strengthen our borders: clarifying the definition of “serious criminality” under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to be conviction by an indictable offence or a hybrid offence where the Crown proceeded with an indictable charge; preventing non-citizens ordered removed from blocking deportation by barring repeat pre-removal risk assessments unless substantive new evidence of changed circumstances was presented; and modernizing the time period and processes related to the enforcement of removal orders.

It is deeply disappointing that the Liberals opposed most of our amendments, which I suspect they will have to work into legislation in the near future anyway. They missed an opportunity to immediately fix the system. That said, I want to thank colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, particularly the members for Lac-Saint-Jean and Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, for working in good faith with us to pass close to half of our amendments.

However, when the bill was reported back to the House, the Liberals initiated procedures to try to gut many of the proposals that passed. In spite of their best efforts, I am pleased to report that several still remain in the bill. It is my understanding that, after negotiations, the government intends to support the amendments that remain in the bill today in order to receive our collective support for the bill. This is possible, because Bill C-12 included some supportable, but in need of amendment, components of Bill C-2 that exclude the non-supportable parts.

These Conservative amendments include one that would see a pending asylum claim deemed abandoned if a claimant returned to the country they were fleeing from. This is a no-brainer. I would just like to say that Conservatives will support the clarifying amendment from the government on this matter. Other Conservative amendments that remain in the bill include new substantive quarterly reporting requirements and new processes for terminating bogus asylum claims.

Finally, Conservatives also successfully amended Bill C-12 to better constrict and make transparent the extraordinary powers in part 7 that would allow officials to mass change, extend or cancel immigration documents. This amendment should give recourse to committee witnesses who raised concerns about the lack of clarity on how these powers should be used and how the government should be held to account after. Additionally, thanks to a Conservative amendment, use of these powers would now require a substantive reporting requirement to Parliament each time the powers are used.

Conservatives also amended the bill to prevent the Liberals from using the powers to turn temporary residents into permanent residents en masse. We would not want that to happen. It is my understanding that the amendment I am presenting today and speaking to now, to ensure part 7 powers could not be used to mass extend temporary work visas or foreign student permits, will also be supported by the government.

Colleagues, a minority Parliament means the government has to work with the opposition to develop legislation. I am proud to say that we forced the Liberals to do something that resembled work.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, following the member's speech, I am trying to understand what it is that the Conservative Party actually stands for. In her speech, she started with anti-immigration conspiracy theories, which undoubtedly will be used to grift and fundraise. Then she blamed immigrants for destroying Canada's social fabric, which frankly is straight-up racist. Then she went into some MAGA-theory talking points about immigrants and migrants. This rhetoric is damaging. It is damaging to our democracy. It is damaging to Canadians. Just last month, we had anti-immigration rallies in Hamilton, which were roundly denounced by Hamilton leaders, as they should be.

Is the member from Oklahoma representing Canadians or just the MAGA White House?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report to my colleague that he will be voting in favour of many of our amendments. I am sure he will enjoy that, and I will enjoy watching him while he does it.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the exchange we just witnessed is somewhat symptomatic of what we frequently see in the House. Let us just say that some people are extremely sensitive when it comes to immigration. The Bloc Québécois has spoken many times about the Roxham Road issue and the influx of asylum seekers, which was putting enormous pressure on Quebec without the federal government agreeing to pay its share.

With Bill C-12, we realize that the federal government has finally conceded the argument, at least in part. However, the reputational damage has been done. Some members of the public have picked up this rhetoric, this idea that if anyone talks about immigration in a critical way, that automatically makes them racist.

Perhaps my colleague could talk to us about that.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. What we have seen from the Liberals over the last 10 years, including that incomprehensible tirade from a backbench Liberal member whom I just dunked on, is that the Liberals have lost the fact that calling things racist and not addressing the real problems Canadians have, that whole process, is what has undermined Canadian pluralism.

One of the things that I am very excited about in Canada is that, rather than like in the U.K., where we see people starting to blame immigrants for the problems that previous governments and the current government there had in terms of bringing too many people in too fast, Canadians are saying, no, that is not where the finger should be pointed; it should be pointed at the Liberal government.

I have been pleased to see Canadians reject the vitriol that we just heard from a backbencher, whom I think will remain a backbencher for some time. While I have the opportunity, I would encourage my colleague across the way, in good faith, to do something that resembles work here. We just worked together with the government and with the Bloc Québécois, and we amended a bill to make it better. That is how we earn respect in this place and how we earn the respect of our constituents. It is not by doing stuff like that in the House.

I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, from Jonquière, for raising that really relevant question. I think that is where the debate on immigration in Canada is going to go. I would also encourage the government to undertake some substantive reform and to perhaps limit some of the disappointing rhetoric that we saw from their members tonight.

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

Madam Speaker, I do understand, and I was watching in committee, that there was collaboration between the Bloc and the Conservative Party, but I am not unhappy that those amendments have been removed. I agree that the process should be more open and that there should be a conversation. However, I was deeply unhappy with the member for Calgary Nose Hill's amendments to restrict access to medical care for people who are in this country and are not under deportation orders. They are awaiting their fate to be decided, and they could be told that they can only get access to medical care if their life is at risk. As I understand the amendment and as I recall it from close to the midnight hour, I thought that it was really not like my country and how we treat people who are in need of medical assistance.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the member. Somebody who has made an asylum claim that is bogus should not receive federal benefits. Somebody who does not have the right to be in the country should not have better access to care than a Canadian senior who has paid their way here. It is that shift in thinking that needs to happen to restore order and sanity. My colleague is wrong. Most Canadians think she is wrong, and we should be undertaking legislation that fixes the system and does not perpetuate system abuse.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to speak to very important legislation. It is legislation that Canadians want and have been asking for.

In fact, before I get under way with the specifics, I want to take a holistic approach in terms of what the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament have been very proactive on since the last election. We have a Prime Minister who made a solemn commitment to Canadians to deal with things such as securing Canada's borders, such as bringing in substantial bail reform legislation and such as reinforcing the strength of our RCMP and CBSA. Shortly after the election, what we saw was a commitment from the Prime Minister to upsize to the degree of 1,000 new RCMP personnel. We saw a commitment to upsize in regard to the Canada Border Services Agency by 1,000 personnel. We saw several pieces of legislation brought forward to the House for debate, ultimately in the hope that they would pass through the system.

It pleases me to a certain degree that we have had some co-operation with regard to securing Canada's border. It is something, but I and my colleagues in the Liberal Party would have loved to see more legislation get passed. I can recall standing here a number of weeks ago saying that the Prime Minister pledged that we were going to get bail reform legislation in the fall and we did that, yet we are not seeing that legislation pass. We saw actions today to try to turn the tables, as if the government does not want to see it pass.

Let there be no doubt. We have a strong agenda with respect to crime and safety in our communities, trying to make all of our communities safer, whether it is at the borders or in and around the neighbourhoods in which we all live. That is something that the government has been focused on. Canada's newly elected Prime Minister, just months ago, made that commitment and the Liberals have been working diligently to materialize that.

We have substantial pieces of legislation. We can talk about Bill C-2. We can talk about the hate legislation that is before a committee right now. We can talk about the bill that we are debating today, Bill C-12, respecting strengthening Canada's borders.

We can talk about the bail reform legislation. That is my personal preference, which I would have loved to see pass, and it is never too late to see that pass. We can still do that. It would require unanimous consent at this point, but we can still do it. It is something that I said weeks ago, and I know colleagues in the Liberal caucus would have loved to see that legislation and new bail laws in place before the end of the year. That is what I was asking for weeks ago.

In terms of how we operate as a caucus bringing forward legislation that is a reflection of election commitments and platform issues that we want to deliver for Canadians, we want to be able to co-operate where we can with opposition parties when there is a willingness to do so. In a minority situation, we are very much dependent on opposition parties. In fact, Bill C-12, the act regarding securing borders, is here because of the opposition parties' desire to break down Bill C-2. They did not like what was in that particular piece of legislation and gave a clear indication that they would give no co-operation in terms of passing it. However, if we take stuff out of that legislation and put it in another piece of legislation, that being Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, then we have a chance of passing it.

I am glad we did that. At least we are getting legislation through, so that is a positive. However, there is a negative side to it. I appreciate the co-operation that was put together to get the bill to this point, but let us look at what Bill C-2 also had to offer.

I asked the question about lawful access. Lawful access legislation is something that every other country in the Five Eyes has. That is why I posed this question to the leader of the Green Party: Does she support the principle of lawful access legislation? If I understood her answer correctly, it was, yes, she supports the principles but has a great deal of concern.

There is no reason why Canada cannot have lawful access legislation, which was proposed. Why is it important? Thinking in terms of money laundering or terrorist financing, these are very serious issues that pose a genuine threat to Canadians. It is one of the reasons why Five Eyes nations have that type of lawful access.

The Conservative critic raised the issue of the mail and the letters. I genuinely believed, when I spoke on Bill C-2, that we would not have letter carriers opening up mail. My concern is that we have northern communities and communities in virtually all regions of the country where someone could put a bit of fentanyl in an envelope and mail it, and we cannot do anything about it. Taking Canada Post out and allowing us to have access, I believe, is a good thing, with checks and balances, but we are not doing that either. Whether it is lawful access or dealing with the Canada Post issue, I think we have lost something that, ultimately, Canadians would have benefited from.

If we take a look at what is in this legislation, we do need to support the Canada Border Services Agency. We are enhancing its opportunity to build up the resources, space and equipment necessary by obligating ports of entry and exit. We are also beefing up our coasts, which is a really good thing, because when we think of issues like auto theft, drug trafficking or transnational organized crime, law enforcement officers have been calling for support, and the Prime Minister and government have responded to it.

This is why I say that I am glad that we are able to get something passed through, but I honestly believe that we could have done a lot more. We have a couple of days left before the session rises, and I would have welcomed the opportunity to speak on a number of other important pieces of legislation that deal with the crime file.

We have lost that opportunity, and it is not because the government did not want to see the legislation. We brought legislation in because we want it to become law. At the end of the day, for a wide variety of reasons I suspect, and I will not go into that kind of detail right now, it is not coming forward.

On the changes to immigration and asylum and the way we can better manage those so that they becomes more efficient, I think, at this time, we need to bring them into place. I understand the concerns that the New Democrats and the Green Party have, but I really and truly do not believe that it takes away from the integrity of the system when we say to someone that if they have been here for a year, there is still a need to enable that person. If someone came under a study visa, for example, and they have been here for a year, a year later, they could say that they are going to claim asylum.

The need for change is there within the system. As the Prime Minister has indicated, we need to stabilize our immigration system, and we are doing just that. This is one part of it. I look forward to any questions members might have.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, my colleague alluded a little to the important work of committees and to how, when we are able to take an issue that is before a committee and actually come together and work together to better address the issue, this is what is good for Canadians.

Can my colleague elaborate a little on why it is so important that committees function well? I understand that we have to play the game sometimes and that there are filibusters and so on, but the important work that happens in committees can make a real difference for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will speak as a parliamentarian first and foremost. We will find in Hansard that, when I was in opposition, at times I said that time allocation is sometimes a necessary tool in order to get legislation through. I say that only because I genuinely believe that it is time Canada modernized its rules, to enable the programming of government legislation.

I do not want to put limits in terms of hours or days, or in terms of how we would do it in the committees and bring it back into third reading, but I do believe that, if we were ultimately to move in that direction, we would have a better sense of co-operation. That goes both ways: from government to opposition and from opposition to government. I do believe that there is an opportunity for us to do something on that. What we have witnessed over the last 15 years, in my 15 years here, is that it does not matter whether one is in opposition or in government; at times it can be very difficult to get things through.

The best example I can cite is what happens with Private Members' Business. I am not saying we have to have the same as with Private Members' Business, but programming works for Private Members' Business, and I would suggest that it could also work for government agendas.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, part 1 of the bill would:

[amend] the Customs Act to provide [CBSA] 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.

This would force operators to provide facilities for both import and export inspections. As CBSA can already compel operators to provide this, would CBSA, or the government really, actually compel operators to provide these facilities, or is that just words in the bill? Along with the fact that the agency needs to have qualified, trained people to carry out these inspections, I am just curious to know whether the government is serious about providing the inspections, the facilities and the training to complete the requirements under the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is a high level of professionalism within our Canada Border Services Agency. A great deal of training goes into that, which will continue. Where there are ports of entry or exit, there would be an obligation for those entities to ensure that we have the proper space and to actually have the proper tools, whatever those tools may be, to ensure that we can enforce and protect the interests of the laws that we pass here in Ottawa and to protect and secure our borders.

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

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Is he replying to himself?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass—

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

The hon. member cannot ask a question to himself, I believe.

The hon. member for Ponoka—Didsbury is rising on a point of order.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not want people to think I am going insane, or anything of that nature. That is what I was going to ask for.

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

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from December 10 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑12, strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act.

I want to begin by thanking the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for their thorough study of the bill and the seriousness with which they approached their work. I also want to thank the many witnesses who shared their comments and suggestions about Bill C‑12.

Our border with the United States is the longest in the world. Every day last year, nearly $3.6 billion in goods and about 400,000 people crossed the border. Our RCMP and CBSA officers work hard, 24 hours a day and seven days a week, to ensure that our border remains one of the most secure in the world. However, our methods need to evolve all the time, just as the methods used by criminals and transnational organized crime groups are evolving. That is why Bill C‑12 is important. It amends our laws so that law enforcement finally has the tools and powers it needs to address the threats to our border.

There are three main thrusts to the bill: strengthening border security; combatting transnational organized crime, illicit fentanyl and illicit financing; and modernizing how we process immigration applications, including for asylum seekers.

To strengthen our border security, Bill C‑12 would amend the Customs Act to protect our borders from illicit drug trafficking, firearms smuggling and auto theft. Regarding auto theft, owners and operators of certain ports of entry and exit will be required to provide and equip facilities to enable the administration and enforcement of the CBSA's mandate, including examining and detaining goods for export. This will go a long way toward curbing the illegal export of stolen vehicles.

The bill would also amend the Oceans Act to add security activities to the range of services already provided by the Canadian Coast Guard. This will allow the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze and share information and intelligence for security purposes. With respect to information sharing, the bill proposes to strengthen the RCMP's ability to share information about registered sex offenders with domestic and international law enforcement partners.

In addition to border security measures, the bill also contains measures that will strengthen our response to transnational organized crime, particularly when it comes to money laundering. Transnational organized crime groups cannot operate without access to funds. By making it more difficult for them to obtain additional funds, we are undermining their illegal activities. Bill C-12 will thus make it possible to impose tougher, higher penalties to combat money laundering. In fact, the monetary penalties have been multiplied by 40 to ensure that they have a major impact on the finances of businesses that may be tempted to tolerate money laundering operations.

The measures proposed in the bill will also enhance supervisory collaboration and support high standards of regulatory compliance. They will enable the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, to share supervisory information on federally regulated financial institutions with the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee, thus improving co-operation and communication.

All of the measures set out in Bill C-12 will strengthen current efforts to protect our border from coast to coast to coast. These measures include the creation of the joint operational intelligence cell, which builds on existing co-operation mechanisms between law enforcement partners and security agencies to better leverage information sharing to target transnational organized crime, money laundering and drug trafficking.

The government has also established the integrated money laundering intelligence partnership with Canada's big banks. This partnership strengthens our ability to develop and use financial intelligence to fight fentanyl trafficking and other crimes. Bill C-12 complements other measures, such as the fentanyl czar, who ensures coordination between the Canadian and U.S. governments, or the listing of eight transnational organized crime groups as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code. Of course, everyone knows that transnational organized crime groups pose a serious threat to our allies and to our own security. It serves the common good that we use every means available to neutralize them.

Bill C-12 goes hand in hand with another bill previously introduced, Bill C-2, the strong borders act. Bill C-2 also advances measures that give law enforcement access to basic information essential to police investigations. It provides for enactment of the supporting authorized access to information act, expands the inspection authority of Canada Post and imposes new restrictions on third party deposits and large cash transfers.

The government listened to the concerns of stakeholders and parliamentarians, and we drafted Bill C-12, which will advance essential measures while giving us more time to study Bill C-2.

In conclusion, Bill C-12 grants the necessary powers to take decisive action to protect Canadians. I am therefore counting on my colleagues in Parliament to quickly pass this bill so that we can implement these essential measures as soon as possible.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to engage in debate and to ask some questions.

We have seen over time that the issue of the border is a big one. I am wondering if the member has any thoughts as to when the government is going to start the process of getting the 1,000 CBSA guards it promised in the election.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the work to determine where these officers will be stationed is already complete. The budgets were recently approved and arrangements have been made with schools in Rigaud for the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, and at the Depot Division in Saskatchewan for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP.

The president of the CBSA and the RCMP commissioner both estimate that, three years from now, these 1,000 additional officers combined will be on the job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will add to that. The member asks about the 1,000 new border control CBSA officers' being added, which the Prime Minister committed to. There has been a substantial commitment to Canadians to deal with the issue of border security, along with crime. There are a number of pieces of legislation before the House dealing with things such as bail reform and securing the border.

Yes, it is nice that we are making some progress with legislation the opposition has allowed to pass, but would the member not agree, given the election commitment and platform, and the general feeling Canadians have of wanting things like bail reform to pass, that it would be nice if the Conservative Party would relax its stubbornness and allow us to pass other legislation like bail reform—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this time of year is indeed a good time to seek everyone's co-operation in adopting measures that the majority of members want to adopt. These include tougher penalties, bail reform, tougher measures for sex offenders and measures to protect victims.

I hope we can implement this set of measures early next year.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is the holiday season. We are going to be nice when we ask our questions and make our comments because we do not want to part on bad terms right before Christmas.

I understand that the government is introducing Bill C-12. It used to be Bill C-2 and was much more robust. My Conservative colleague and I sit on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where we made many amendments to Bill C-12. I think we improved it considerably.

If we can come up with such robust, significant measures to change what is happening at the border and in immigration, because this also affects the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, what has the Liberal government been doing for the past 10 years that caused them to show up today with Bill C-12? How is it that they are forced to introduce a bill that completely overturns the laws of three departments: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; Citizenship and Immigration; and Justice? Why do the Liberals have to resort to this when they have been in power for 10 years?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what everyone needs to understand is that the processes of both crime reduction and immigration reform are dynamic. They must evolve in response to global changes and organized crime, which is constantly using increasingly sophisticated methods to transport illegal drugs and launder money. The government must constantly improve and refocus its measures to effectively combat organized crime.

Our government has demonstrated that it is listening to law enforcement and public safety agencies in order to effectively combat crime and protect Canadians.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the good people of Abbotsford—South Langley as I rise to speak to Bill C-12, legislation that has potential to strengthen Canada but that unfortunately misses the mark once again.

Conservatives, to show we are a government-in-waiting, proposed multiple constructive amendments in the immigration components of Bill C-12 in an attempt to improve the legislation and fix Canada's broken immigration system. For years, Canadians have carried the weight of an economy strained by inflation, while also enduring unacceptable wait times in our health care system. At the same time, foreign nationals who have committed heinous crimes, including sexual offences, remain in Canada without being deported. Disturbingly, even the Minister of Public Safety was unable to say where these individuals are or to provide any clarity on our immigration levels.

When our country faces this degree of scarcity, it is no wonder Canadians feel jaded. The support systems they rely on are simply not there. At the core of this challenge is the overwhelming pressure placed on our infrastructure by unregulated immigration. When the Liberals accept bogus visa applications, ignore the urgent housing needs across the country and allow crime to run rampant, it is our citizens who bear the brunt of this scarcity.

There are now over three million temporary residents in Canada, far more than our country can sustainably support. This rampant and unplanned growth has crowded our housing market, pushed rents and home prices beyond reach and left fewer opportunities for our next generation of Canadians who are trying to enter the workforce. Families feel the ripple effect in every corner of their lives, from longer wait times in emergency rooms to rising classroom sizes and basic challenges of finding an affordable shelter.

This is not an abstract policy problem; it is a lived reality for Canadians who see their communities stretched thin while the federal government continues to operate without a plan. By refusing to regulate intake levels responsibly or to enforce existing systems with seriousness, the Liberals have allowed pressure to build to a point where our infrastructure simply cannot keep up. Canadians expect compassion in immigration, but they also expect competence. Right now they are getting neither.

Prior to the challenges within Bill C-12, the strain on Canadian infrastructure would have continued unchecked. The amendments proposed by the opposition would introduce a measure of steadiness, structure and accountability into the immigration system, which has grown chaotic under the Liberal government's management. It would also ensure that criminals would be prosecuted for their crimes in Canada. These proposed changes are not radical; they are responsible steps to ensure that Canada would welcome newcomers in a way that is sustainable, fair and safe for everyone.

A few of the Conservative amendments that passed with support across party lines in the Standing Committee on Public Safety, which I am proudly a part of, would instate harsher penalties for those convicted of human trafficking. Individuals convicted of human trafficking would face fines of up to $1 million or life imprisonment. Corporations would also face fines of up to $25 million for trafficking offences. The Liberals must answer why they voted down one particularly important amendment that would have denied asylum to any claimant deemed a danger to national security. Why are the Liberals so reluctant to hold people accountable for criminal behaviour?

There are also immense pressures on housing, the backlog of removal orders, the surge in temporary residents, and the gaps in enforcement. These are not problems that require another year of paperwork to diagnose; they are obvious, urgent and already well understood by Canadians.

Statistics Canada has revealed that the Liberals have failed to account for an astonishing 38% of temporary residents in the most recent census. This comes after reports earlier this fall showing that more than one million temporary residents hold visas that are about to expire, and the Liberals have admitted that they have no plan to ensure that non-citizens will depart after their visa expires. For months the Liberals even resisted Conservative calls to release basic entry and exit data. This raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the information they rely on.

Throughout the process, our Conservative team has been working tirelessly to strengthen our immigration system and hold the Liberal government to account for its incompetence. Canadians are demanding tangible change. They are asking for the government to enforce its own laws, create efficiency in an overwhelmed system, protect public safety and ensure that immigration happens in a fair and sustainable way.

These amendments create a structure for greater scrutiny, but scrutiny alone is not enough. What is needed now is political will, decisive action and real, concrete reform rather than more bureaucratic delays. Canadians deserve confidence that an individual required to leave Canada will do so. The same is true for our provinces, whose hospitals and classrooms have been placed under immense strain after a decade of Liberal mass immigration.

If the Liberals actually meet their commitments to hire 1,000 new CBSA employees, there will be a vast improvement in our country's safety. However, there is a track record that keeps leaving Canadians uncertain. My community has been under constant danger with the rise of extortion and gun crime. Given that I represent a border riding, it is abundantly clear to me and my community members that the smuggling of illegal weapons is largely responsible for the spike in crime. It has taken the lives of many and fractured dozens of families across my home riding.

Many members of my community no longer feel safe, as organized crime becomes increasingly prevalent. Families and young adults frequently ask me how they can protect themselves when incidents of gun violence occur in broad daylight. My heart goes out to those who have lost parents, siblings and loved ones due to extortion. Despite its concerns, the current Liberal government has not attended any vigils or community town halls on issues such as extortion, nor has it taken meaningful action to support our communities. This leaves many of us wondering why our concerns continue to go unaddressed by the current Prime Minister.

The gaps in this bill are very simple, yet they are being overlooked. We must hire more border personnel. We must deport foreign nationals committing crimes in Canada. The results will mean our communities will become much safer. Conservatives are calling on Liberals to listen to Canadians and implement the reforms needed to make our immigration system fair and efficient, serving citizens and newcomers alike. When we begin to see immigration as a movement of people rather than a movement of numbers, our ability to foster communities across our country will naturally improve.

Everyone in Canada deserves to live with dignity. If we start by ensuring immigration occurs in a thoughtful, responsible and sustainable manner, every person, newcomer and citizen alike, will have a better chance at succeeding. Those who are entering our country from any nation deserve to see Canada as a safe, harmonious and flourishing place. This vision is only achievable if we take care of our institutions that take care of us. Enacting high standards for our immigration system not only protects our livelihoods but places the Canadian economy in a stronger position to grow and succeed.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to be factually correct, the government has, actually, had a summit on the issue of extortion, in Vancouver. There is another one being planned in Ontario. At the end of the day, we do take the issue of extortion very seriously.

That said, in the spirit of Christmas, I want to acknowledge that with Bill C-12, we have seen a great deal of co-operation, to the degree that we are going to be able to pass it. I think the expectation Canadians have is that we work together. That might even be one of our New Year's resolutions, that we can jointly agree it would be nice to see more legislation, more opportunity, whether it is Private Members' Business or government business, to deliver for Canadians by passing legislation.

Would the member not agree?

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, photo ops are not going to bring forward policies that will make differences in Canadians' lives. Community members from our Lower Mainland are affected. The Liberals are doing these group meetings over and over again, not attending to the real root problems, actually meeting the victims and their families or understanding what is happening in our communities. This is not going to be any mystery they cannot solve. They should be able to implement change. They should have been able to implement our bill that we put forward as a Conservative team on extortion. If they really cared for Canadians, they would have adopted that a year ago.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑12 is the new version of Bill C‑2. The Bloc Québécois believes that the government is taking a step in the right direction with this new iteration, but there is still a major problem.

In their platform, the Liberals proposed hiring 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 additional CBSA officers. The RCMP will be fine; it was in the throne speech. However, that is not the case for the 1,000 border services officers. According to the union, the CBSA needs another 2,000 to 3,000 officers to fulfill its mandate.

I would like to hear from my colleague about the government's stated intentions versus the actions it has taken to fulfill those intentions.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the government has not been taking any of these precautions seriously. We have been working very well with our Bloc colleagues to make sure that in our committee meetings, when we are going through committee, we implement and hold the government to account. We need more border personnel.

Personally, I can tell members that in my community, as Abbotsford—South Langley is a border riding, we need border officials. It is something on which the government has failed us over and over again.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the residents in Vaughan—Woodbridge. I am sure my colleague is as concerned as I am, considering he comes from an area in the country where extortion is very prevalent, that over at the justice committee, we are seeing the Liberals constantly vote down motions to bring their own bail reform ahead of all of the other legislation so that we could give that the scrutiny and debate it deserves, and so that it could be reported back to the House and we could then pass bail reform as quickly as possible.

I am also wondering if, perhaps in the spirit of Christmas, the member could elaborate on why it is so crucial that the government quickly fulfills its promises and hires the CBSA agents that it said it was going to.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we see the Liberal government, again and again at committee, filibuster and not answer the questions that Canadians want answered, whether on extortion or on religious freedoms. We need to make sure we hold the government to account. We have a couple of days left. I hope we can continue to give the questions that we need answers to, and that they can be answered by the end of this week, and hopefully, go into the new year with real, concrete movements for proper legislation, with amendments that are being brought forward by the Conservative government.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in the strongest possible terms against Bill C-12, a bill that represents not only poor public policy but a profound abandonment of Canada's legal obligations, humanitarian commitments and democratic safeguards.

The legislation is not an effort to strengthen our immigration system. It is not an attempt to improve processing, bolster safety or address affordability. Rather, it is the latest chapter in a troubling pattern: Liberals and Conservatives competing to see who can scapegoat migrants more harshly. It deflects blame for successive Liberal and Conservative governments' own long-standing failures in their housing policies and economic planning. It preys on the fears and insecurities of Canadians in the face of an affordability crisis through the politics of division. It codifies in law the stigmatizing narrative that treats refugees as security threats rather than human beings seeking protection.

Contained in Bill C-12 is a one-year bar on refugee claims. What does that mean? It means that anyone who entered Canada more than 12 months before filing a refugee claim becomes ineligible for the refugee protection process that has existed for decades. The bar is retroactive to June 24, 2020, based on the individual's first entry into Canada. That means someone's safety is based not on whether they have a valid refugee claim or a claim of persecution, or that their life is in danger, but on some arbitrary date.

Experts across the sector, like the Canadian Council for Refugees, women's organizations and more, have warned us of the consequences. The Canadian Bar Association's Immigration Law Section was unequivocal. It said this bill risks “exacerbating rather than alleviating existing problems”, undermines Canada's commitments to refugee protection, and erodes the checks and balances fundamental to our parliamentary democracy. It further noted that the retroactive nature of the one-year bar is “particularly offensive to the rule of law.”

Amnesty International's Julia Sande said this bill judges people on how and when they enter the country, factors that have nothing to do with whether they need protection. She warned that under this bill, even someone who first entered as a baby for a single day and who, decades later, faces persecution due to war, political violence, their gender identity or their sexual orientation would be denied the chance to have their claims heard. A date on a piece of paper could determine whether or not they can have safe harbour.

We have seen the harm caused by similar rules in the United States, where one-year deadlines have resulted in refugees being deported despite having a genuine fear of persecution. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees advised Canada against this approach as far back as 1999, reminding us that under international law, the passage of time does not alter our obligation of non-refoulement, our duty not to return people to danger. These are not theoretical concerns. They are lived realities.

In a Canadian Press story from October 31, we heard from Asya Medea, a trans woman from Turkey. She came to Canada in 2018 on a student visa. As conditions for LGBTQ2S+ people in Turkey rapidly deteriorated, she filed a refugee claim 18 months after her arrival, a claim that was accepted in 2020 because the threat to her life was real. Under Bill C-12, she would never have had that opportunity. She would have been barred from seeking protection simply because her claim came after 12 months. This bill would have sent her back into the hands of a state that was targeting her for who she is.

It is also clear that the one-year bar will disproportionately harm women, 2SLGBTQ+ people, survivors of gender-based violence and trafficked persons. The FCJ Refugee Centre explained that many survivors cannot file a claim within a year due to trauma, fear, coercion by abusive partners or complexities of escaping trafficking networks. Some have abusers who have already been deported back to the country of origin and are waiting for them. Under this bill, they would be stripped of the right to seek safety. They would be sent back into the hands of those who have threatened, harmed and exploited them.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association made another critical point. The government's supposed justification for the one-year bar of deterring fraudulent claims is unfounded. Those intent on deception will simply file quickly. The people who will be excluded are those who delay filing because of trauma, confusion, language barriers or evolving circumstances. In practice, this bill punishes vulnerability and not fraud.

At committee, the NDP proposed specific amendments to protect survivors of gender-based violence, unaccompanied minors and individuals from moratorium countries. The Liberals, Bloc members and Conservatives all voted against them.

Bill C-12 also undermines due process, as it would deny individuals access to a full oral hearing before the refugee protection division. The Minister of Public Safety, a refugee himself, said to not worry and be happy because there are safeguards and guardrails in place. What are they? He cites the pre-removal risk assessment system, a process with one of the worst records in recognizing legitimate need for protection.

The NDP proposed amendments to maintain access to hearings. We proposed reducing the severity of the time limit, even though all arbitrary deadlines violate basic principles of refugee protection. Every one of our amendments was defeated.

Bill C-12 does not stop here. It also grants the government sweeping unprecedented powers to cancel immigration applications, suspend processing and revoke people's status en masse. These powers can be applied to entire classes of people without individualized assessment, without due process and without clear constraints. Families who have lived and work here for years could wake up one morning to learn that their pathway to permanent residence has simply been erased, not because of anything they did but because the minister granted themselves the authority to do so.

The Canadian Bar Association expressed “grave concerns about the vague and undefined language throughout the Bill”, describing the power as “overreaching”, “undemocratic” and specifically insulated from normal regulatory scrutiny. It warned that, once granted, these powers “will be impossible to control.”

Amnesty International reinforced this warning, noting that the bill opens the door to politically driven decisions capable of destabilizing lives, separating families and uprooting people who have built their entire future here. It cautions that this legislation risks violating international law, including the right to a fair and effective asylum procedure, the right not to be deported to danger and the prohibition on discrimination.

The NDP proposed two amendments to impose parliamentary safeguards so that any such order would require scrutiny, committee review, a tabled framework and statutory oversight. We also proposed defining “public interest” in a way that aligns with public safety, public health and genuine security concerns. These amendments were rejected by the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc. Instead, the Liberals adopted a sweeping and overly broad definition of “public interest”.

This bill reflects an immigration system where decisions can shift overnight and where people are denied hearings, appeals and due process, a system disturbingly reminiscent of the worst policies of Trump south of the border. The bill is not about system integrity. It is not about public safety. It is an attempt to appease Donald Trump and import a Trump-style agenda into Canadian law. It trades in fear, division, scapegoating and misinformation.

The remaining provisions of Bill C-12 that target refugees only compound the harm. The NDP proposed 13 amendments in total. None of them was accepted.

This bill would not strengthen Canada's borders. It would not make our communities safer. It would not build homes. It would not address affordability. It would not shorten immigration processing times. What it would do is push refugees, migrant workers, students, families and survivors deeper into precarity. It would ensure our neighbours live with the constant fear that their lives can collapse overnight. It punishes people who are trying to survive, people who deserve safety and who contribute daily to this country.

Let us do the right thing and vote against Bill C-12.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the right thing to do is to recognize that things change over time and that situations allow us to modernize aspects of our immigration and refugee policy. This legislation fits that. It absolutely makes Canada stronger and secures our borders even more.

At the end of the day, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people who are here under temporary visas. The member is implying, through her comments, that each and every person who comes to Canada under a temporary visa should be able to apply for refugee status. That might be great for lawyers, consultants and other types of advocates, but the reality is that we need to modernize the system.

Does the NDP member continue to support the idea that anyone who works in Canada, or visits, should be able to stay in Canada indefinitely?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is just nonsense.

Bill C-12 says to refugees that we will not listen to them, we will not hear them and we will not allow them to prove that their fear is real. It is cruelty dressed up as law, and this legislation has been cooked up in a haphazard way. Even at committee, critical experts like the Canadian Council for Refugees and women's organizations were not even invited. They were not witnesses at the committee who could share their concerns.

How does the government justify this? It cannot.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. She spoke quite a bit about the one-year ban on asylum claimants, and she cherry-picked a couple of stories. I am sure we can always think of somebody who has been badly affected by any of the legislation we have.

However, there are many cases of people abusing the system. Just today, I read that in her home province of British Columbia, there were 14 extortion suspects who, once they were charged with extortion, all mysteriously claimed asylum. All 14 of them claimed asylum. This is a classic example of what happens in our system with the way it is, the way it is open and loose. This is the part that we support closing, because it needs to be fixed.

How can the hon. member support all of these criminals, rather than regular, ordinary Canadians?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is such nonsense. The NDP is not supporting criminals. We are supporting due process. We are supporting people having the opportunity to submit applications.

Canada has a system that sets up the IRB, which is independent from government, as an independent process to assess claims. That is the issue. The member just cherry-picked an example that preys on fear and illustrates the scapegoating approach that the Liberals and Conservatives continue to embark on.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver East made her disdain for Bill C-12 clear. It goes without saying that I respect her opinion.

There are groups that claim this bill will not stand up in court. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the possibility of certain parts of the bill being challenged in court. I would like to hear her opinion.

Does she think that is the case? Which parts are least likely to stand up in court?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, legal experts have actually expressed that opinion, so I encourage the member to read their opinions.

In fact, better still, I encourage the member to speak with them directly because they are the people who can tell him exactly what is wrong. I absolutely support their point of view. I do believe that this bill will be challenged in the courts, and I think the government is heading in the wrong direction. This is a Trump-style approach to immigration law, not an approach that Canadians want to see.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a question of fairness.

Is it fair to the Canadian public that we are now going to pay for these 14 asylum claimants that my friend referred to, for the next four years? They are going to have their education, housing and health care paid for. Is that fair to the Canadian taxpayer?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is also just complete nonsense.

If the Conservatives want to say Canada is now closing all doors to refugees, then they should have the courage to say so. Canada signed on to the 1951 convention and is supposedly abiding by international law that says we will not send individuals back to their country of origin to face danger. If you want to go down that road, then say so, do so and stop pretending otherwise.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. We will be sure to address our comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, it is important to note that in introducing the nearly 130-page document originally known as 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, the government was doing a complete 180°. I say this because, as I am sure members will recall, the Liberal government has mismanaged a lot of border crises over the past few years. I am thinking in particular of the wave of irregular immigration at Roxham Road, the human smuggling rings that sprang up at the border to take advantage of migrants and that continue to thrive, the Mexican cartels that set up shop at the border, the wave of car thefts at the port of Montreal, gun trafficking, and plenty of other examples. The Bloc Québécois believes that with Bill C-12, formerly Bill C-2, the government is indeed taking a step in the right direction. However, we also believe that this bill, if passed, leaves one major problem unaddressed, and that is the staffing shortage at the CBSA and the RCMP.

Let us go back a few months. In its election platform, the Liberal Party promised to hire 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 additional CBSA officers. The Speech from the Throne mentioned the 1,000 RCMP officers, but there was no mention of the 1,000 CBSA officers.

The customs union is saying that the CBSA needs another 2,000 to 3,000 officers in order to do its job properly. Although the government stated that the border plan it introduced in December 2024 would result in the hiring of additional officers, I am sure members will agree with me that we are still nowhere near the staffing levels the union asked for, and nowhere near the number the Liberals promised during the election campaign. This is another broken Liberal promise.

In an effort to resolve this issue, the Bloc Québécois and the customs union are asking Ottawa to allow CBSA officers to patrol between border crossings. The aim is not to replace the RCMP, but rather to give federal agencies more depth and flexibility in enforcing the law. This would not require a legislative amendment, only a regulatory change, or maybe even just an administrative change. It really depends on whether the federal government is willing to implement more effective measures to secure the border, while responding to a request from current officers. This is a straightforward and practical request that is coming from the union, but we know what the Liberals are going to say: Why do things the easy way when we can do them the hard way?

The Bloc Québécois has been calling on the government to make changes for some time now. Overall, we are satisfied with the principle of Bill C‑12. We applaud the government's intention. The bill seeks to address several issues that we have been raising for months, if not years. Like all Quebeckers, the Bloc Québécois remains staunchly committed to welcoming people fleeing persecution and hardship.

The bill would mostly ensure that the system that welcomes migrants is fairer and more effective. I wish to commend my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for their tireless work on this bill. I am sure that like me, many members of the House have noticed that the important parliamentary work and committee work being done in this Parliament does not appear to be of much interest to the new Prime Minister of Canada. He seems far more interested in meeting with the leaders of what I will politely call countries with unsavoury reputations, such as China and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, parliamentarians are working diligently in committee to improve bills and to contribute to reports and recommendations on issues that are often complex and poignant. I am thinking in particular of the colleagues with whom I have the honour of serving on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, as well as my peers on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, whom I recently worked with to study Bill C-3 on lost Canadians. Our amendments to that bill received support from the majority of committee members, but they were stripped out when the bill got to the House.

Today, I must reiterate the importance of the work parliamentarians do in committee. I know that this aspect of our work requires a lot of rigour, precision and, above all, willingness to work together and improve things. Unfortunately, it is clear that this government does not seem to understand the amount of work that is involved in serving on a committee or the legislative scope of that work.

As I was saying, overall, the Bloc Québécois is satisfied with the principle of Bill C-12, and we applaud the government's intention. However, several questions remain unanswered. I am thinking about resources in particular, but also about processing times for asylum claims, which I have to say are more than problematic. After analyzing the bill, I am having a hard time understanding how those processing times will be reduced. I quickly realized what the government is really doing with Bill C-12: It is transferring the influx of claims from one place to another and it is getting away with it by saying that it has solved the problem.

The public servants who process asylum claims and those who conduct pre-removal risk assessments have different training. That was mentioned in committee. Given that the training is different, the claims will likely just be transferred from one processing centre to another, which means that the overall volume of claims will not change. The claims will just be moved from place to another. Not only will the volume of claims not change, but the processing times will skyrocket. There will likely not be enough employees with the training to deal with pre-removal risk assessments. They will not be able to deal with those claims.

Obviously, my other concern is the distribution of asylum seekers. It is not right that asylum seekers arriving in Montreal suddenly find themselves without shelter because we lack the means to properly provide for them on arrival. Meanwhile, some provinces in the rest of Canada are doing absolutely nothing. They are making no effort at all to take in their share of these asylum seekers.

I want to remind the House that, in 2024, the former immigration minister, the member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, who is currently the heritage minister and is already making unseemly remarks, announced with great fanfare that he was going to form a committee and make sure asylum seekers were distributed across the country. It was all a dog and pony show. He held a big press conference alongside provincial immigration ministers from across the country. The federal government proudly proclaimed that it had finally found the solution. Since then, all that we have heard is dead silence. The committee was never mentioned again. The Liberals never came up with any more solutions. It is a damn shame.

As I was saying, we support the basic principle of Bill C‑12. I noticed the government's attempt to respond to the Bloc Québécois's priority request to remove the 14-day rule, which was included in the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement and which has created a loophole that has been exploited by human smuggling networks at the border. However, in Bill C‑12, the 14-day rule was not dealt with in the right way. The actual impact of the alternative that has been proposed is pretty hard to pin down. Quite frankly, I think that the networks that are currently exploiting migrants will still be able to do the same thing even if Bill C‑12 passes.

Simply put, the safe third country agreement should have been reopened, as requested by the Bloc Québécois, so that this provision could be removed, because that would have put an end to the exploitation of vulnerable people at the mercy of smuggling networks. The government decided otherwise, but I do not think people understand the extent to which human smuggling networks take advantage of the 14-day rule. We talk to people on both sides of the border, in the United States and here in Quebec and Canada, who work with migrants and try to help them. These people tell us that human smugglers are using the 14-day rule.

They used to just ask migrants for money to smuggle them across the border illegally. Now, they add a clause to the contract saying that they will smuggle them across illegally and, as a bonus, they will hide them for 14 days. After hiding for 14 days, migrants can apply for asylum. The thing is that these people, who have to hide for 14 days because of this provision in the safe third country agreement, are at the mercy of human smuggling networks for 14 days and do not dare to leave their hiding place because, if they do, their asylum claim might no longer be valid.

It is frankly mind-boggling. The same legislation tells migrants that they have to break the law in order to comply with the law. If they cross the border irregularly, then they have to hide in the country for 14 days. Once they have done that, once they have broken the law, they can apply for asylum, and their application will be admissible.

What G7 government asks people to break the law in order to comply with it later?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to recognize that there has been a much higher sense of co-operation coming from all sides of the House with Bill C-12. That is encouraging because the bill would make our borders that much more secure. Even though many of us would like to see other government legislation pass, I do recognize the sense of co-operation that has taken place here.

The member made reference at the beginning of his comments to the RCMP and border control. The Prime Minister and the government, the Liberal caucus as a whole, has been very clear about 1,000 RCMP and 1,000 border control officers. That is a commitment we have made, and that will materialize. There are some hurdles that have to be overcome, and those will be overcome.

Does the member have anything else he would like to add specifically about the RCMP and border control?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things to consider. First, the CBSA union has said that there is currently a shortage of between 2,000 and 3,000 officers. Second, according to the union, the government could grant border services officers the power to patrol outside border crossings immediately, through a simple administrative decision, without having to introduce a bill.

The union says this measure alone could help, and it would mean that not as many RCMP officers would need to be hired. Border services officers could do their job and get to the scene of a tipoff much faster than the RCMP. There are things the government can do right now, but it is not doing them. The CBSA union is asking the government to do those things. We heard from representatives of that union in committee.

CBSA officials, the minister and the deputy minister have all told us that they will not do those things. It is rather unfortunate that the government simply cannot see how quickly it could take action without even having to use Bill C-12. That would be a game-changer.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, for all the work he does on behalf of persecuted peoples from around the world with his work at the immigration committee, the public safety committee and other venues in this place. His knowledge of the bill and his effort is obviously evident from his speech.

Bill C-12 arises from an original bill, Bill C-2, which was tabled in Parliament way back when as part of a large omnibus bill.

Would the member comment on how this place could operate efficiently? We are now to a point where there is some co-operation, but the ideas of reform here were initially introduced through a large omnibus bill. Does he think that is a good idea when the government had said that it would not do that?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleague whom I have had the opportunity to work with on several committees. He works tirelessly and does so for the right reasons. Even though our views sometimes differ, we are able to debate, make progress and collaborate.

Since the government took office, it seems to have forgotten one thing: It is a minority government. It behaves as though it were a majority. Just look at the bills it has introduced since coming to power. It seems to think it is all-powerful, when in fact it needs to work with the opposition parties. We are capable of that. We did so during the study of Bill C‑12. Without my Conservative Party colleagues, Bill C-12 would not be what it is today. We worked together to make changes, and we did so by keeping in mind those who will be affected by this bill.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my esteemed colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean on his speech.

The government likes to repeat itself to give the impression that it is doing a good job. In April, the Prime Minister announced at a press conference that the government was going to hire additional CBSA officers to secure our borders. However, that request came from the Americans. It was not his idea.

Then he held another press conference in October and announced the same thing again. He said there would be an announcement in the budget. He keeps repeating the same announcements over and over again. However, he never states the number of people needed, the number that the border services union is asking for.

Does my colleague think that this government is making things up as it goes along, or does it have a plan with a very clear vision?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I find fascinating about Bill C‑12 is that the government is telling us that we need a drastic course correction, that we need to modernize border processes, that it is important, that what is happening at the border is terrible and that we need to change our laws on immigration, justice and public safety, because things are not going well. However, this government has been in power for 10 years. The Liberals have been in power for 10 years, but they just now realized that things are not going well and that we need to change course. Give me a break.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Bullying, discrimination, homophobia, racism and hate have no place in the House or in any corner of Canada.

During the justice committee meeting on Tuesday evening, I experienced mocking comments directed at the way I speak English and other remarks that undermined and attacked my intelligence. In addition, a non-permanent member moved my nameplate without my permission. These actions—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

This is a point of order, and I will hear the point of order. If there are other interventions afterwards, I will hear them as well.

I will ask the member to resume.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these actions, whether intentional or not, undermine the standard of respect and decorum expected in parliamentary committees. They affect not only my ability to participate fully but also the principle that all members of the House, including those from minority and newcomer communities, deserve to be treated with fairness and respect.

I ask you to remind all members, permanent or substitutes, that committee proceedings must be conducted with courtesy and professionalism and that all materials, such as nameplates, should not be moved without the member's consent. Upholding this standard ensures that all members of the House can contribute fully and effectively and that our committees reflect the dignity of this House.

Finally, I respectfully request an apology from the member of Parliament for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, the member of Parliament for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the member of Parliament for Peace River—Westlock so that our committees can continue to function fairly and with dignity.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for Burnaby Central for his intervention.

It would be a good time to remind all members of the importance of upholding the high standards of this place in committees. Further, I would add that the matter raised is a matter for the committee. The member has the opportunity to raise it in committee, and through the proper course, it would be for the chair to report it back to the House. I thank the member for raising the matter.

Resuming debate, hon. member for Oshawa.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this morning on behalf of my neighbours in Oshawa to speak to Bill C-12.

One issue has constantly been at the top of the list for the people I speak to and represent, and that is safety. They want the government to fix its broken border and immigration system and restore public safety. This concern is not limited to Oshawa, of course. Across Canada, people are living in a country they barely recognize, and they worry about the violence in their communities, about dangerous drugs devastating neighbourhoods, about weak border controls and about a chaotic immigration system. They worry that their government is failing in one of its most basic responsibilities, which is keeping Canadians safe.

For over a decade, the Liberal government has promised the opposite. It has promised safer communities, stronger borders and a credible immigration system. After 10 years, the results speak for themselves: Crime is up, border enforcement is down, hard drugs are more accessible than ever and confidence in our immigration system has collapsed. Canadians are justified in asking why this government refuses to take responsibility. This is the context in which we are debating Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act.

The bill before us is the government's attempt to convince Canadians that it now wants to repair the very problems it created. We are being told it will strengthen border processes, improve enforcement, remove individuals who pose risks and restore confidence in the system.

Canadians have heard these promises before. They heard them when the government weakened bail laws in 2019 and insisted that everything was fine. They heard them when violent repeat offenders were released time and time again. They heard them when the government claimed its drug policies were working while overdoses increased. They heard them when the government claimed that the border was secure while irregular migration surged. Canadians are right to be skeptical.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I studied Bill C-12 closely. It became very clear, quickly, that the bill is incomplete and does not address many of the core concerns Canadians have raised.

Conservatives approached this process in good faith. We were ready to work, ready to improve the bill and ready to deliver solutions. Unfortunately, the government showed little interest in rising to the seriousness of the moment. Too often, it dismissed legitimate concerns and brushed aside constructive proposals, even when those proposals were aligned with what frontline and academic experts have been calling for.

We listened to expert witnesses, examined the details and brought forward roughly 40 substantive amendments focused on enforcement, accountability, border security and removal processes. These amendments were practical and grounded in the concerns Canadians voice every day. I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for her leadership on the immigration components of the bill, and the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for his contributions. Their expertise ensured that our amendments were well researched and solutions-oriented.

Our amendments targeted the major gaps in Canada's border and immigration enforcement system. We clarified what serious criminality means under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, ensuring that convictions for indictable offences, including hybrid offences proceeded by indictment, are treated as serious for immigration purposes. This is simple common sense. We addressed endless deportation delays by stopping repeat removal risk assessments when there is no new evidence. Canadians expect that when someone is found inadmissible for public safety reasons, the removal actually happens.

We also modernized outdated timelines and procedures so that removal orders could be enforced more predictably. We strengthened the asylum system by deeming a claim abandoned if a claimant returns to the country they claimed to be fleeing for safety. We added quarterly reporting requirements to bring transparency to asylum pressures and costs. We gave decision-makers better tools to dismiss clearly fraudulent claims, and we placed clear limits and oversight on the extraordinary powers in part 7 of the bill, which would allow the government to extend en masse, cancel or modify immigration documents.

We insisted on transparency and parliamentary oversight so that temporary resident status could not be modified behind closed doors. These were reasonable, constructive amendments. Some even received support from our colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, yet the Liberals rejected far too many of them and in some cases attempted to gut the ones that did pass.

The safety of Canadians should not be a partisan issue. We expect a government that secures the border, enforces the laws, and manages immigration with competence and fairness. Instead, they have watched trust erode year after year. We have seen cases where individuals who clearly pose a risk to Canadians were not removed quickly, even when removal was fully justified. These failures compromise public safety and undermine confidence in the entire immigration system.

When trust collapses, the system itself begins to break down. This debate matters, because Canadians want real solutions. They want a system that prioritizes safety, fairness and order. They want an immigration system based on common sense, not on political messaging that works for a time.

In Oshawa, I hear this often from newcomers who followed every rule and are proud to be Canadian. They are frustrated by a system that no longer operates predictably or fairly. I hear it from long-time residents who support strong, sustainable immigration but want it managed securely and transparently. They want a system that rewards honesty, not loopholes. They want a border policy that treats public safety as a priority, not as an afterthought.

These voices are not extreme. They are not partisan. They are simply asking for competence and responsibility from their federal government. Canadians want compassion, but they also want accountability. They want a system that works, so if the government wants to restore trust, it must acknowledge the consequences of its own policy.

Conservatives believe in safe communities, secure borders and an immigration system that is firm, fair and focused on public safety as well as success. We believe trust must be rebuilt, and that begins with leadership, so I say again, if the government wants to restore trust, it must acknowledge the consequences of its own failed policies, give law enforcement and border officials the tools they need, and bring accountability back to a system weakened for nearly a decade.

We talk about trust, and it is at this point I want to mention that the members opposite in earlier questions and comments were talking about Bill C-14 and swiftly passing it, and simultaneously, their colleagues in the justice committee, as we speak, are actively blocking Conservative unanimous consent motions to move to Bill C-14. Again, this Liberal government speaks out of both sides of its mouth. It does not know what it wants to do and does not even really care, and that is the saddest part of it all.

My neighbours in Oshawa want a government that takes public safety seriously. They want order restored to our immigration system. They want leadership focused on results, not excuses. Canadians deserve better, but they should not fear: Conservatives stand ready to deliver better.

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

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the Prime Minister or the government as a whole, we have provided for the Conservatives to do better, because we have provided substantial legislation, not only to enhance Canada's borders and provide more security there, and not only to stabilize our immigration system. There is a number of commitments that the Prime Minister has made to Canadians that Canadians want to see, like bail reform legislation. That legislation and the budget is all there before us, and the biggest roadblock to delivering it for Canadians is that the Conservative Party does not allow it to proceed.

Would the member not agree? On issues like the bail reform, we can deliver it for Canadians. We just need to get more support from the Conservatives.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled that the member asked me that question. Clearly, he was not listening to the last few minutes of my speech. I spoke, very clearly, on the bail reform bill and about wanting to move it forward. As we speak, Liberal members of the justice committee are blocking our motions to move on to Bill C-14, so that we can start moving that through committee. Liberal after Liberal, time and time again, is voting against moving to Bill C-14.

Perhaps the member would commit to walking over to the Wellington Building, speaking to his comrades at the justice committee and asking them to pass our motion to move on to Bill C-14, as he claims we do not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, would the House give unanimous consent to allow Bill C-14 to pass committee and come to debate for third reading today?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my Conservative Party colleague.

From 2017 to 2023, some 150,000 people crossed the border irregularly at Roxham Road. It is fair to say that, at the time, the Bloc Québécois pretty much talked itself hoarse in the House asking the government questions to try to get the situation resolved. The Conservatives were pretty quiet on this issue. In fact, they stayed completely mum.

I think that shows that there were problems at the border. The government has said several times that it is going to increase staff at the borders, but, according to the border services union, it is not enough.

I would like my colleague to explain her point of view. What would it really take to restore people's confidence in our borders and keep all the people we represent safe?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for all of the times they brought up the concerns that were shared with regard to Roxham Road. I assure him that Conservatives share those concerns.

We have repeatedly called on the Liberal government to fix our borders and strengthen our officers and their ability at the borders to do their job. It brings up another very important point that one of his colleagues has helped us bring forward for study at the public safety committee, and that is the psychologically toxic workplace at CBSA. That is not going to make things any better. We talk about 1,000 new officers, but with attrition at nearly 100%, I wonder if they mean a net 1,000 new officers or just 1,000 more to replace the 1,000 who have left.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has spoken about the people who want real solutions. How do the problems of porous borders and broken trust, like drug trafficking, the potential for consumption sites near schools, gun smuggling and irregular migration, show up in her community, and what does that mean for families and local safety?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member probably knows the answer, because, in all of our communities, we are seeing that it is difficult to walk the streets in our neighbourhoods and walk the streets where my office is in Oshawa, without watching people shoot up and overdose. The folks in my office keep Narcan on hand. It is not a safe place to live. I imagine that many places in our country are the same. A lot of that is because of the government's failure. In fact, I would say most of it is from the government's failure to protect our borders and keep hard drugs from coming into our country, and from its allowing repeat violent offenders to get out of jail free, or very close to free, to hurt and harm and sell drugs in our community.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a great time to get up to speak. We are into the Christmas season now and kind of in that spirit. I was reading this morning about something the NDP interim leader, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, said yesterday. Apparently he had asked the Prime Minister to grant party status again to the NDP in order to, in his words, make the House “function better”. I do not think it is a good idea.

I was thinking that maybe the member was just continuing his comedy shtick from the parliamentary press gallery thing a week ago, which, by the way, I think was quite funny. He was not as funny as our leader, but it was pretty good. Actually, if we are in that mode, I have a better idea of something to ask the Prime Minister, and that is to grant Canadians what they really want, which is for him to go back to his job at Brookfield and allow the Conservatives to run this country and fix the massive problems we have.

Continuing on the Christmas theme, I want to give heartfelt thanks to all the support staff in this place. There are translators, pages, people in food services, security people and all kinds of staff in this building, including our party staff and all our own staff, who work so hard. I really want to thank all of them and wish them all a very merry Christmas.

I also want to give a special shout-out to the parliamentary dining room staff. They are always missed in the thanks. I am not a very good tipper, so this is my way to make up for that. Canadians would probably be happy to know that oftentimes many of us from different parties meet in the dining room and talk about substantive issues. We actually are able to talk with each other and get business done. I want to thank Lynn, Charles, Guy and all the staff in the parliamentary dining room, as well as my dining room colleagues I talk to many times; they all know who they are. I thank them so much and wish them all a merry Christmas.

I will move on to Bill C-12. This was the marquee legislation of the government when it was introduced as Bill C-2. Just so everybody is clear, Bill C-2 is the designation for the first bill introduced by a government. Bill C-1 is kind of a technical thing. The government members put all their effort into Bill C-2; it is the most important thing. Has anyone heard of the current session's Bill C-2? No, they have not, because it became stalled because it was a mess.

The pieces of Bill C-2 that the government could rescue came into what is now Bill C-12, which is what we are debating today. This is part of the government's pledge to do amazing things at unimaginable speeds. Here we are, and there have been no amazing things done. In the whole year, I think the government has passed two bills. If that is unimaginable speed, then I do not understand the word “unimaginable”.

The purpose of the bill, partly, was to fix immigration problems around asylum and deportation, because everybody in our country knows we have tremendous problems in that area. There were some good things in it, but there were so many more things that we needed to do in order to properly fix our flawed system.

We proposed 27 different amendments, and I think eight of them were accepted, so there were many that were not accepted. I have to commend the Bloc, which worked very hard at committee to help. Its members put forward some of their own ideas, we put forward ideas, and we were able to work together and get the committee to agree to a lot of things.

Even the Liberals agreed to some things, but then of course had the Speaker turn them down once they came to the House. For example, with respect to foreign criminals, we had created an amendment that would deport people convicted of serious crimes, because there are many cases where judges are letting immigrants get lesser penalties. However, that amendment was not passed by the Liberals.

Our asylum system is so broken. There is a story today from British Columbia, where 14 people were identified by the British Columbia extortion task force and were charged with extortion. A lot of effort was put into this. Extortion is a big problem right across the country, but particularly in B.C. Guess what all 14 of these newly charged people did. They claimed asylum, so their charges are now on hold because they are in the asylum system. It is probably a four-year wait, and of course they get benefits. They receive all the wonderful benefits we choose to give to people who are claiming asylum, even though we know the claims are illegitimate.

We put forward an amendment to automatically reject asylum claims from any non-Canadian guilty of a serious offence, but of course it was rejected by the Liberal government. We put forward many amendments to restore sanity to the asylum system, such as that lying to an officer would result in an automatic removal, that knowingly withholding information would automatically terminate a claim and that not showing up or not complying with basic requirements would terminate a claim.

We also proposed that once someone had been denied, but then appealed, only emergency health care would be provided. That was rejected. We also proposed that designated learning institutions be on the hook when they bring someone into the country and that person claims asylum, but that was also rejected by the Liberals.

We did work on human trafficking, trying to get amendments for tougher penalties to protect victims, but of course the Liberals voted no. We also put forward amendments on transparency so we could bring back some basic transparency on reporting. Often we have to do deep questioning and written questions to the government to try to find answers, and the government refuses to provide some of that information. Some of the amendments were passed, but not all of them, and some of them were stripped out.

Probably the biggest success the Conservatives got was that we proposed that the government would not be able to do mass conversion of temporary residents to permanent residents; that amendment was accepted. We also proposed that the government would not be allowed to give mass extension to temporary residents with student visas and things like that.

The bottom line is that we worked very hard to toughen up and fix our weak system. Unfortunately the Liberals blocked most of this work.

Speaking of working hard, I want to mention that we on this side of the House have put a lot of effort and work into improving our immigration policies. A lot of people think the opposition's job is to oppose, and it certainly is, but we also want to propose solutions, so we have proposed many. Our entire caucus worked very hard under the leadership of our shadow minister for immigration, who is the member for Calgary-Nose Hill. She worked very hard and did a great job of making sure we had substantive policies that would actually help to fix our country.

For example, we worked to restore the value of citizenship. That is a problem we have in our country right now. For example, we were very concerned about Bill C-3. It is the bill that would generate endless chain migration, which allows people not born in the country to become citizens, have their children not born in the country become citizens, and on and on. We tried very hard to put some common-sense amendments in the bill, which, of course, were rejected.

The other big one is online citizenship ceremonies. The one-click online citizenship ceremonies are still, certainly in Saskatchewan, the majority of the ceremonies. For many newcomers to our country, the ceremony is the most important thing to them in this phase of their life. To have them sitting behind a computer at home because it is expedient for the department is just embarrassing, frankly. It does not convey the true purpose and meaning of becoming a Canadian citizen. We pushed hard to eliminate the online ceremony, and the government is, I think, slowly moving in that direction, but not fast enough, in our opinion.

We suggested an end to the temporary foreign worker program. There is a youth jobs crisis in our country right now; the unemployment rate for Canadian youth is hovering around 15%, which is far too high. The temporary foreign worker program is part of the reason.

Of course we need to consider agriculture and some other considerations, but generally we have way too many temporary foreign workers, and we do not need our immigration minister to be the chief HR officer for a place like Tim Hortons. I have nothing against Tim Hortons, but there are many Canadians who could work there. The minister confirmed, by the way, just a couple of days ago, that the program is staying. She said that nothing is going to be changing there.

We worked hard to restore the sanity of sentencing immigrant criminals. The member for Calgary-Nose Hill introduced Bill C-220 to end sentencing reduction for immigrants. This is a big issue. An editorial in The Globe and Mail said that judges in our current system “are protecting non-citizens from the consequences of their criminal conduct”, and the author lamented that no one seems to consider “whether Canadians would want those offenders as citizens” in the first place.

Essentially, judges look at the current rules, which say that if a non-citizen is convicted of a serious crime with a sentence of six months or more in jail, they have to be deported, and they reduce the sentence to below six months so it does not affect the non-citizen's citizenship status, which we think is wrong. There should be one standard for all people. Whether they are a Canadian citizen or non-Canadian citizen, the same standard should apply, and that is not the case.

Of course, there is ending the pull factor for asylum, including getting rid of free hotel rooms, endless medical benefits, and departure tracking, which are other things we do not do in our country that the Conservatives have some good policy ideas for.

There are so many things that we worked hard on this year in order to provide good policy solutions for the government. Pretty much all of them were, of course, rejected, but the bottom line is that we worked hard on them. We believe that we can fix our system, but there are so many things that need to be done.

The Liberals took the lazy route with Bill C-12 and did the bare minimum number of things that need to be done, but there is so much more. Conservatives will continue to work to fix legislation like C-12 and continue to propose solutions to make this country better and to make our immigration system work better.

Once again I wish everyone in the House a merry Christmas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I might be somewhat biased, but I would ultimately argue that Canada is one of the greatest countries, if not the greatest, when it comes to democracy and our fundamental principles.

None of that would be possible if we did not have the incredible people who support Parliament. The member made reference to a wide spectrum of individuals. Whether it is the people in Hansard, security, television production or the Clerk's office, or the pages, there are so many individuals who make Parliament work, beyond the members of Parliament. I would join with the member in expressing my gratitude and appreciation for what they do.

On the issue that the member has raised, he referenced Bill C-2. In Bill C-2, there is lawful access. We had to leave that out, yet we believe it is essential. We are the only one of the Five Eyes countries that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to give time for the member to respond.

The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 is sitting there; it has not moved forward. There is a reason that it has not moved forward, which is that it was bad legislation, which is just indicative of the way I see the government.

As I said in my speech, the bill is the very first one the government brought forward. It is the Liberals' marquee legislation. After the election, it is what the Liberals focused probably most of their efforts on as to what they should do first. They all got in a room and figured this out, put everybody to work on it and came up with the legislation. Where is it? It is still sitting there. It has not moved forward, because it is extremely flawed, and no member of the House wants to move it forward, including the government; the Liberals do not want to move it forward either. It is just a great example of how so little has been accomplished by the government in the current term.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to wish everyone a merry Christmas. I also want to thank my colleague, whom I enjoy working with at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We work really well together. I think we are showing that it is possible to do really solid collaborative work together in committee.

Speaking of committees, things are not going very well in some of them, such as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Some of my Conservative colleagues are not very keen on the work that is being done there at the moment because the Bloc Québécois wants to repeal the religious exemption in the Criminal Code.

I will give my colleague a gift. I would like to know where he thinks his Conservative colleagues from Quebec stand on the religious exemption.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

The member for Lac-Saint-Jean and I work well together on the committee. We do not always see eye to eye, but we are able to work very well, and that is what Canadians want to see when they look at Parliament. They want to see people who may not agree, and different ideas that come forward, but also that we can work in a constructive and positive way. I certainly believe we have that kind of relationship with the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

Regarding the question, of course we are united. I cannot speak for the specific beliefs of every single person in our party, but we have a common position and we are moving forward in a common way on the legislation. What is most important is that we do move forward and that we are able to voice opinions.

The problem I see with the justice committee is that the government has continually stopped meeting. The Liberals have cancelled meetings, they have shortened meetings and they do not want to actually do the hard work that needs to be done by the justice committee.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I were elected at the same time, and I know that in that time frame, we have both found that the government is really, really bad at legislation. It is even worse at managing the House calendar.

I am just wondering if my colleague can elaborate a bit more on some of the amendments that the Conservatives put forward to strengthen the bill that the Liberals have no idea how to properly legislate.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, we were elected at the same time, and it has been six years of seeing very little accomplished and six years of longing for something different, and we are hoping the day will come soon.

We have put forward so many amendments. The one I just want to highlight goes back to the issue of criminality. So often, non-citizens are charged with a crime, go before a judge and are guilty of the crime, and then the judge actually lessens the sentence because the judge knows that it will impact their immigration status and may cause them to be deported; therefore the judge then reduces the sentence to something lesser than we would get, and it is just not fair.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Winnipeg North in his intervention described himself as only partially biased. He is clearly misleading the House, and I am wondering if you could address—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I know there is tongue firmly planted in cheek, but we will leave that for debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Windsor West.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Windsor West, and I am grateful for the privilege they have given me by sending me here to the House.

I rise today not just as a legislator but also as someone who spent nearly three decades in policing. Of those three decades, two decades were in policing a border community. In Windsor, the border is not a distant concept; it is part of our daily rhythm. Families cross it every morning for work or school. Trade pours through it every minute, and criminals try to exploit it every day and night. That was my lived reality for nearly 30 years in uniform.

When we work the front line in a border city, we see things that do not make the evening news. We see the family torn apart by fentanyl. We see the gun trafficked across the river showing up at a crime scene. We see CBSA officers struggling with outdated equipment, short-staffed shifts and facilities that were never meant to handle the volume they do today. We see police officers, good and dedicated people, being asked to carry the weight of government policy failures.

I remember hearing countless officers I worked with say that they are covering every gap in the system there is. That is not a complaint. It is a sober description of the reality on the ground. They are right. We are responding to mental health crises because mental health supports are not there. We are responding to addiction because treatment beds are not available. We are responding to violent offenders because bail laws send them back out the door soon after their arrest. In border communities like mine, we are responding to the consequences of smuggling operations that exploit every weakness in the system.

Former Dallas police chief David Brown, in a moment of reflection during the funeral service for five of his police officers killed in action, said that society asks police to solve every problem but only equips them for one. That line has stayed with me for years because it captures, exactly, our lived reality.

It is the same pattern with Bill C-12. The Liberals talk about strengthening the border, but this bill does not deal with the fundamentals. It adds responsibilities without adding resources. It expands authorities without addressing bail failures. It gestures at privacy protections while leaving gaps big enough for any government to drive through. It completely ignores the fact that CBSA officers in places like Windsor are being stretched thinner than ever. Windsor residents are not fools. They understand the realities of living next to the busiest international crossing in North America. They know the risks, they know the pressures, and they know when Ottawa is not listening.

Let me be clear about the lived reality these folks face: CBSA officers in my region are trying to intercept dangerous drugs and firearms with equipment that belongs several other decades behind us. They are understaffed. They are overburdened. Some units run at minimum manpower every day. While the officers do heroic work, government after government has failed to give them the tools that match the scale of their responsibility.

This bill pretends those challenges do not exist. It assumes that if we simply legislate more expectations, outcomes will magically flow. However, in policing, and in border work especially, expectation without capability is a dangerous combination. It does not work. This bill fails to address the things police officers and families talk to me about all the time. It does not fix the catch-and-release bail system that puts repeat violent offenders back into neighbourhoods before police finish their paperwork. It does not introduce mandatory sentences for fentanyl traffickers, the very people fuelling the deaths we are seeing in our emergency rooms; we have lost nearly 50,000 people since 2015. It does not impose mandatory jail terms for gang members caught with illegal firearms. It does not prevent house arrest for serious and violent crimes that devastate families and communities.

When I talk to parents, they tell me they want their kids to be safe while they are walking to school. They want their neighbourhoods to be stable. They want drug use and trafficking to be addressed at the source, not just managed on a street corner, yet at the committee, the health minister could not commit to stopping fentanyl consumption from taking place near schools or day care centres.

In Windsor, we understand what that means. We have seen neighbourhoods destabilized because the government failed to draw basic, common-sense lines. The bill even gives the Canadian Coast Guard expanded surveillance powers, but it does so without the guardrails that prevent overreach or misuse. The Conservatives fought to make sure the Minister of National Defence, not a patchwork of agencies, is accountable for how those authorities are used. That matters in a free society.

At the end of the day, this comes down to something very simple: trust. People in Windsor trust institutions when those institutions prove they understand reality, but this bill does not reflect the reality that border communities like mine live every day. It reflects talking points, not lived experience. As someone who has spent his career responding to the consequences of weak laws and under-resourced agencies, I can say exactly what works and what does not.

We need real bail reform, not more slogans. We need mandatory jail time for fentanyl traffickers and violent gun offenders. We need strong privacy protections, not blank-cheque powers. We need accountability for expanded surveillance authorities. We need CBSA resourced properly with modern equipment, adequate staffing and the capacity to interdict smuggling before it hits our streets. Above all, we need a government that understands safety and freedom must go hand in hand.

Windsor knows the truth. We live on the front line. We feel the consequences of Ottawa's decisions faster and harder than most people do in the rest of the country. What we see today is a bill that does not rise to the moment, unfortunately. After three decades in policing, I will say this plainly: We cannot protect a border, protect a community or protect a country with wishful thinking. We need clear laws, real consequences, strong institutions and a government willing to prioritize public safety over politics. The bill fails that test.

The people of Windsor have been saying this for years: It is time for change.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Canada elected a new prime minister. Since then, we have seen substantial change take place. We have bail reform legislation. We have anti-hate legislation. We have secure border legislation. We have a number of pieces of legislation and a budget that supports Canadians. We have build Canada strong legislation. All this has happened in the number of months following the newly elected Prime Minister and government.

It is up to the Conservatives to recognize this, as we have, and deliver. We want to deliver this legislative agenda. We need more co-operation from the Conservative Party.

Will the member commit to more co-operation with—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the reminder that we elected a new prime minister seven months ago who has only managed to pass one or two bills in that time period. That is a shameful record for any prime minister in the House of Commons. This is not something that I would say is a badge of honour for any politician worth his salt in this chamber.

On co-operation, Bill C-2, the predecessor of this bill, was an abject failure. It was a disgrace. The Liberals had to go back to the drawing board and come up with this bill, and it still fails. I do not know how many times they will have to go back to the drawing board in order to come up with proper legislation so that we, on this side, can work with them.

That is the whole issue. We are ready to work, but we are not seeing any co-operation from the government, unfortunately.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

The collaboration between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois on improving Bill C-12 has been mentioned several times since the beginning of today's debate. In fact, the original version of the bill was unacceptable or at least, as my colleague said, parts of it were extremely hard to swallow.

The government had made commitments, including a commitment to hire Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers and Canada Border Services Agency officers, as requested by the union, which decries the shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 border services officers.

Solutions have been proposed, including some by the Bloc Québécois. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with our proposal, which is incidentally consistent with the proposal by the Customs and Immigration Union. The idea is to allow border officers to move between border crossings in order to provide better coverage and to back up the RCMP in order to fill needs not met by the government.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that, just this past week, I heard that the government sent letters to senior officers, or officers who have several years of experience, offering them voluntary retirement. Meanwhile, it has not taken any steps to hire the 1,000 RCMP officers or the 1,000 CBSA officers it promised us. It is zero, crickets. Even the minister responsible had no idea how many people would be lost through attrition, yet there is no chance of any new hires coming on board. It is all talk and no action, unfortunately.

To my colleague's point about officers being able to go to other posts and cover gaps in the system, I say, absolutely. That makes total sense. We need to have a proper system in place, where every border crossing is covered. We need to have the right people in place to cover those contingencies and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Niagara South.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have come to know my colleague from Windsor West over the last several months, and I want to thank him for his years of service as a police officer, protecting Canadians and our borders. I appreciate his service to our country.

My riding is at the opposite end of Lake Erie, and we share similar border issues. We just learned, for example, that the CBSA has eliminated 40% of its capacity for custody of people coming illegally into the country. The government talks about hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers when there is no capacity to actually train 1,000 new people. It has now reduced capacity for the custody of people breaking the law and coming into the country illegally.

I wonder if my friend could comment on that in relation to the weaknesses of this bill.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the failures and weaknesses in the system are nothing new. They have been around for a long time and are being exacerbated by the policies instituted and the new legislation brought about by our friends opposite. It is a disgrace to see this kind of legislation being brought forward. It is an insult to the officers working the border posts and the police officers working the border communities, because they are not seeing the help they need. These kinds of cuts are undermining and eroding the trust not just of police officers in the communities but also of us here in this chamber.

The government is all talk and no action. People out there are saying that they have had enough of the smoke and mirrors show. They want results. They want action. They want the government to show them that it is doing something for them, rather than just putting out slogans and playing politics with their lives and their future.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on Motion No. 1.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3 to 21, 23 to 47 and 49 to 51. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 requires a question to be put on Motions Nos. 22 and 48.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3 to 21, 23 to 47 and 49 to 51.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded divisions stand further deferred until later this same day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

I believe the member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that, if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to suspend until 2 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Perhaps the member would agree that we suspend to the call of the Chair, which will be just prior to two o'clock.

Is it agreed that the House will suspend to the call of the Chair?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Sitting Suspended

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The House is suspended to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:58 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 1:58 p.m.)

The House resumed 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 3:18 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motions at report stage of Bill C-12.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #56

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3 to 21, 23 to 47, and 49 to 51. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 22 and 48.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this one, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting no.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree to apply the results of the last vote to the current vote, with New Democrats voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party also agrees to apply the vote and will be voting yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #57

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 3 to 21, 23 to 47, and 49 to 51 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 22.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting in favour.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree to apply the results of the last vote to the current vote, with New Democrats voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the results of the last vote to this vote. The Greens vote no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 22, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #58

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare Motion No. 22 carried.

The question is on Motion No. 48.

The hon. chief government whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yea.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting in favour.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting yes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree to apply the results of the last vote to the current vote, with New Democrats voting nay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am agreeing to apply the results of the last vote to this vote, with the Green Party voting no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 48, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #59

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare Motion No. 48 carried.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Speaker, I propose it be adopted on division.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

(Motion agreed to)