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.