Debates of Oct. 21st, 2025

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to protect the rights of Canadians. We cannot accept this power being unchecked. Canadians deserve to have protection within the Constitution. That is why we cannot accept this kind of power being unchecked and being given without any kind of balance.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I look at Bill C-12, as I have mentioned previously, I see it as a very important commitment that the Prime Minister made to Canadians, which was to secure our border and make sure that we have an increase in personnel, with 1,000 new border patrol officers and 1,000 new RCMP officers. This will have real and tangible results.

I am wondering if the member opposite could provide his thoughts on why it is important that we see a legislative initiative taken to support a secure border.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, these kinds of promises and commitments have been recycled many times. If they are very serious about providing the resources and the manpower to strengthen our security system, they should have done so many weeks or months ago and not recycled the same commitment again and again, pretending that they are doing something.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S‑211, an act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising.

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 Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for Riding Mountain, Health; the hon. member for York—Durham, Public Safety.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, a border is not just a line on a map. It is a symbol of our security, our sovereignty and our ability to make our own decisions.

For 10 years, the federal government has been turning a blind eye while stolen vehicles leave our ports, fentanyl crosses our borders and Quebec alone bears the brunt of unprecedented migratory pressure.

Today Ottawa is taking action, but only because it no longer has a choice. During all that time, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for better border control and increased efforts to combat organized crime and drug trafficking.

To us and the Government of Quebec, Bill C-12 is a step in the right direction. However, let us be clear: Our support is not a carte blanche endorsement.

Before praising the bill, we must also recognize its limitations. This bill incorporates several measures already included in Bill C-2, which is intended to combat transnational organized crime. Rather than piling up more legislation, the government would do better to enforce existing laws.

I would like to remind the House that the government's border security promises are not new. On April 10, 2025, in the midst of the election campaign, the Liberal leader, the Prime Minister that is, proudly announced in Brampton that his government would hire 1,000 RCMP officers and another 1,000 CBSA officers in order to curb the flow of migrants and combat fentanyl trafficking.

Six months later, on October 17, the same Prime Minister repeated the same announcement word for word, this time presenting it as a bold new measure. The same numbers, the same promise, the same speech—in short, nothing new at all.

If anyone is looking for concrete proof of the disparity between words and actions, they need only think of Roxham Road, a symbol of the Liberals' failure to control our borders. Between 2017 and 2023, more than 150,000 people crossed this border irregularly. In 2022 alone, there were nearly 40,000 crossings, more than all previous years combined. Of these irregular entries, nearly 90% were in Quebec. Quebec therefore bore the human, logistical and financial burden of this situation alone, spending more than $400 million on accommodation, services and support. Rather than taking action, Ottawa allowed the issue to fester, repeating that nothing could be done, until the pressure became untenable.

When the Bloc Québécois asked to renegotiate the safe third country agreement to close Roxham Road, the government responded with bureaucratic excuses. As a result, there have been six years of neglect and Quebec was left to fend for itself.

This makeshift system where Quebec's role is to pay up while Ottawa communicates is a shining example of the federal government's denial. A border left open for six years is no border. It is an abdication of responsibility.

Ottawa likes to talk about a strong Canada. However, a strong country is not built on press releases. It is built with staff, equipment and commitment.

Let us talk about staff. The customs union estimates that the Canada Border Services Agency currently needs another 2,000 to 3,000 officers to properly fulfill its mandate. The government keeps making announcements, but on the ground, positions remain vacant. Inspections are not being conducted at ports, and border regions are still awaiting reinforcements.

The government even promised to review the pension plans of frontline officers in recognition of the fact that their jobs are so difficult, but once again, there was no meaningful follow-up. Officers are still waiting for concrete action, not press releases.

The government may be proud of its promises, but what it is saying in press conferences does not match reality. Trust is built on action, not on mere intentions.

The Bloc Québécois, like the customs union, is asking that Ottawa authorize CBSA officers to patrol between border crossings. We are not talking about replacing the RCMP, but rather empowering CBSA officers to intervene on the ground in places where trafficking and illegal border crossings occur. Nothing is preventing the government from doing so, apart from its own inaction.

When containers filled with stolen vehicles leave our ports without undergoing any inspection, this is not an administrative detail. It is a loss of sovereignty.

The border is also a matter of economic sovereignty. When imported products are brought into the country in violation of trade rules, our producers and local businesses pay the price. The Bloc Québécois will support any measure that protects Quebec's security and economy.

As the Bloc Québécois's science and innovation critic, I would also like to address the issue of asylum claims filed by some international students. For months now, universities have been sounding the alarm about the worrisome issue of fake students who enter Canada on a student visa, attend no classes and make an asylum claim after one year. These cases of fraud undermine the credibility of our university system and deny genuine talent a place at these institutions. In a system that limits the number of international students, every spot matters.

The most troubling thing about this is the way Ottawa has reacted. Instead of taking responsibility, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is asking universities to police foreign students and to verify every student's attendance record and legitimacy. It seems to expect deans to act as immigration officers. Meanwhile, the same department is refusing to provide universities with data on individuals who filed a refugee claim after getting a study permit. In other words, Ottawa is asking universities to solve a problem without giving them the necessary information to do that. This inconsistency is irresponsible. The Bloc Québécois will not allow universities to become an administrative appendage of a department that is not doing its job. We are pleased that the bill seeks to close this loophole, but a lot more needs to be done to make Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada genuinely transparent and accountable.

This bureaucratic inconsistency is also clear from the way Ottawa administers the safe third country agreement. For too long, this agreement allowed anyone who entered irregularly outside an official point of entry to file an asylum claim if they were not intercepted within 14 days. This provision encouraged clandestine and sometimes hazardous crossings. The government partially closed this loophole, but it did so without negotiating with Washington, preferring a unilateral solution instead. Now, anyone intercepted after 14 days will be returned to their country of origin, unless it is a moratorium country. This is progress, but it is still incomplete.

The Bloc Québécois will be monitoring the impact of this reform to ensure it does not create any new inconsistencies. We will also be scrutinizing the provisions that give new powers to the federal immigration minister, particularly the proposed addition to section 87 that would allow the minister to suspend, cancel or refuse to process visas, electronic travel authorizations or study permits. There is a legitimate objective for that, namely to combat fraud.

However, these powers must be circumscribed, especially if they impact permanent residents selected by Quebec. If there are no guardrails on this power, it could even invalidate decisions made under the Quebec experience program or other federal-provincial agreements. This would set a momentous precedent.

For years, Quebec has accepted a disproportionate number of asylum seekers, significantly in excess of its intake capacity. This situation has become untenable. The Bloc Québécois will ensure that Quebec's voice is heard, so that a fairer redistribution can be put in place and refugees can be accommodated in a way that respects Quebec's capacity and jurisdiction.

At committee, we will propose that the public safety minister be required to table a public report each year on the resources and operations of the CBSA. Quebeckers have the right to know whether their border is really being protected. This debate highlights a broader issue. When Ottawa centralizes, Quebec waits. When Ottawa promises, Quebec must be patient. When Ottawa fails, it is Quebec that pays the price.

To summarize, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-12 at second reading, but let us be clear: Our support is not a free pass.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his commitment to supporting the bill at second reading. We listened to stakeholders' concerns, including those raised by the Bloc Québécois. That is why we are introducing a bill with a narrowed scope and with provisions that are better suited to what we really want to address.

The Bloc Québécois members have often said that people want stricter border measures and tougher action on crime. I do not know why, but since the Bloc has heard about this bill, they have not taken a position on the new scope of the document.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty easy to understand. What we want is to restore public trust in the security of our borders. I will say it again: Trust is built with actions, not intentions. Right now, we are constantly being fed recycled statements.

As I said in my speech, the Prime Minister repeated what he had said six months ago. Now we are being told that there will be money in the next budget on November 4. The Liberals cannot even tell us how many new officers they hired in the last six months. They are patting themselves on the back and telling us to trust them because there will be 2,000 new officers, but they are short more than the number that they promised. This is already an inconsistency. Once again, why wait months to do something that they could have done before?

I am all for hearing that things are going in the right direction, but they need to stop trying to pacify people with press conferences and take action, instead of questioning motives and saying nice things at press conferences.

[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.

I appreciate what my colleague just said, and I want to build on the question that was just asked.

I recently met with the union for the CBSA. The CBSA can maybe get 700 people per year through training. It loses between 500 and 600 people a year through attrition. Job satisfaction is extremely low, potentially the lowest in the government. The max number of people it can get through training per year is 200. Furthermore, since there is no budget, when it comes to police, anybody who is doing an acting job cannot get paid, so delaying the budget has real consequences.

Does my colleague see these things as concerns? To me as a Conservative, as a critic and as a Canadian, they are large concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, we can see the consequences. I gave the example of Roxham Road. I would have liked the Conservative Party to get more involved in this issue. When 150,000 people use a loophole to enter irregularly, I think that is a problem, but the Conservatives only get involved when it suits them.

To answer my colleague's question, the consequences are already apparent: Organized crime is becoming more prevalent in communities and people feel unsafe. Then there is fentanyl. Again, this requires coordination and mobilizing resources, not just good intentions. I hope the government will get to work as soon as possible. It needs to hire officers, but also ensure coordination, with a coordinated strategic plan.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the good intentions in what the government is saying. However, my colleague also raised the fact that there is a shortage of officers. He said that the government has promised to hire 2,000 more officers, which may not even be enough. During the election campaign, we were told that about 2,000 officers would be hired, but the Speech from the Throne only mentioned 1,000 additional RCMP officers, not CBSA officers.

The Customs and Immigration Union is asking Ottawa to allow border services officers to patrol between border crossings, not to replace the RCMP, but rather to give federal agencies more depth and flexibility in enforcing the law. The Bloc Québécois also supports this request.

Can my colleague comment on that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The member for Rimouski—La Matapédia has 35 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, 35 seconds is not enough time to explain this government's bungling over the past 10 years. Again, Roxham Road is a monumental disaster.

To return to my colleague's question, last April the government promised us 2,000 officers: 1,000 for the RCMP and 1,000 for the CBSA. Last week, the Liberals held another press conference and repeated what they said in April. They told us that we have to wait for the next budget, that it will be in there. That is just straight-up recycling.

What we are telling them is that they need to listen to what the people on the ground are asking for and saying. According to the Customs and Immigration Union, Canada has never had so little control over its borders. I am not saying that to scare people, but if we want to find solutions to a problem, then we have to face reality and tell people the truth in order to bolster public confidence.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be representing the people of Beauce today once again in the House.

Today, we are debating a bill that goes to the very heart of our country: our ability to welcome, integrate and protect those who choose to come to Canada. The Liberal government's Bill C‑12 is an improvement over Bill C‑2. We must acknowledge this.

Bill C‑12 aims to modernize the immigration system. It claims to make the process more transparent and to improve the planning of the long-term immigration levels in order to meet Canada's economic needs. In reality, this bill lacks clear direction. It is weak and has lax security measures. Most importantly, it is disconnected from the reality on the ground. We need to listen to Canadians. Paying attention to the reality on the ground should be a priority for everyone, but especially this Liberal government.

For years now, the Liberals have been promising to reform the immigration system. During these years, the system has been crumbling, backlogs have been piling up, processes have gotten increasingly complex and the provinces have been left to fend for themselves to deal with the consequences of the decisions made by the Liberals in Ottawa.

While the government keeps coming out with more and more announcements and slogans, communities are feeling the direct pressure of these poorly planned policies. Canadians, the people of Beauce, families and business owners are all saying the same thing: The Liberal government has lost control.

My colleague will be pleased to hear me say that Roxham Road became the symbol of this loss of control. It was wide open. Tens of thousands of people entered Canada illegally in plain sight. Everyone saw that. There was no security and no proper screening. What did the government do? It did absolutely nothing. It allowed things to get worse, weakening our immigration system and eroding public trust.

Let us be clear, there is a difference between legitimate refugees fleeing war and persecution and illegal migrants circumventing the law. The situation is also very different when it comes to economic workers, who are desperately needed in certain regions of Canada. The Liberal government created and maintained this confusion.

Meanwhile, the consequences are very real: We have a housing shortage, skyrocketing rents and overburdened public services. This is not ideology; it is a simple mathematical reality. When hundreds of thousands of people arrive without a plan to accommodate them and without enough housing, rents go up. It is simple math. That is fundamental. It is simple. Everyone saw it.

Bill C-12 claims to strengthen the security and integrity of the system, but once again, it is superficial. There need to be more resources, fewer announcements and some decisive action. The government needs to implement effective mechanisms to deport criminals and improve border surveillance.

While the government dwells on processes, criminals are getting organized. Drug traffickers, arms smugglers and groups associated with cartels are taking advantage of these government loopholes. As we said earlier, the border is really porous. Our borders have become a vulnerable point.

Canada needs a clear plan, well-monitored borders and rigorous screening at entry and exit points. Our border officers and police officers need more support. Most importantly, there needs to be the political will to act. Bill C‑12 is weak on crime, weak on gangs and too weak to address what is actually happening on the ground. Again, I am talking about the reality on the ground.

Beyond immigration, another crucial issue for the safety of Canadians is the reform of the bail system. Too often, individuals accused of serious crimes are being released without sufficient safeguards, which endangers the public and undermines confidence in our justice system.

The Liberal government has failed to take decisive action on this issue, favouring measures that prioritize the rights of alleged offenders over the safety of victims and citizens.

It is essential that Bill C-12 or any other reform include more rigorous mechanisms for denying bail to individuals who pose a real risk to society. We must strengthen the role of judges so that they have the tools they need to protect Canadians, taking into account not only the presumption of innocence, but also the paramount importance of public safety.

Furthermore, protecting the fundamental rights of Canadians must remain an unwavering priority in any legislative reform. A responsible government must be able to rigorously defend these rights, while ensuring social peace and the rule of law. This is how Canada will maintain its status as a free and orderly society.

A poorly monitored border is an open door to illegal activities such as arms and drug trafficking or illegal immigration. Our border officers do an excellent job, but they simply lack resources. Again, the government is only making announcements. It is not taking action.

It is important to remember that some regions, like Beauce, share a direct border with the United States, in my case, with the state of Maine. This geographic reality demands greater vigilance. Bill C-12 does not propose any measures to better protect these sensitive areas. It completely ignores the unique challenges specific to border regions. This is a serious flaw in an already fragile system. Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government that protects them, takes action and stands up for the integrity of our country. The safety of Canadians must always come first. We have seen the consequences when that is not the case: exploitation, fraud, crime. A responsible government does not throw open its doors without ensuring that those who enter share our values, respect our laws and contribute to our society.

Demanding rigour does not mean one is against immigration. We support a system that is fair, orderly and respected. The Conservative Party believes that we can welcome people with compassion, but also with caution and judiciousness. It is a matter of respect for Canadians and for newcomers.

Meanwhile, the Liberals are inflating immigration thresholds without taking the reality on the ground into account. The housing crisis is getting worse. Inflation is driving up housing prices. Millions of Canadians, including people in Beauce, are struggling to find housing. Rents are skyrocketing. Mortgages are drifting out of reach. There is no coordination with cities or provinces to adapt infrastructure, hospitals, schools or housing. That is irresponsible. In many regions, including Beauce, businesses are desperately looking for skilled workers. The current federal system is failing employers. They have to navigate a complicated and lengthy bureaucratic maze while highly skilled foreign workers wait in limbo.

Bill C‑12 is a step in the right direction, but it does not solve anything. It does not align immigration with actual economic needs. It overlooks rural and industrial regions. It does not support businesses, families or local growth.

Another essential element is that the provinces have been excluded from the planning. There is no coordination, no serious dialogue. However, they are the ones that must provide education, health care and housing services. As a result, schools are overwhelmed, hospitals are overflowing and there is not enough housing. Ottawa makes all the decisions but then always blames everybody else.

The Conservative Party is proposing a different path, an approach based on collaboration, listening, and shared responsibility. Provinces and municipalities have to have a say, because they are close to the reality and know their limitations. Immigration cannot be simply a matter of quotas. It also needs to take integration, social cohesion and shared values into account. That is what we, as Conservatives, promise to do.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a stretch for my colleague from the Quebec Conservative caucus to say such a thing when he knows full well that the Province of Quebec is actively consulted on all decisions affecting immigration. It is consulted more than any other province and territory in Canada.

It is a shame that what should be a debate of ideas is still being used to present divisive rhetoric on immigration.

With regard to crime, I would invite my colleague to check out the remarks made by the Prime Minister last week. We have stated very clearly what we are going to do about the issue of conditional sentences.

The Conservatives say they want stronger borders and a crackdown on organized crime. If my colleague is serious about that, will he support this bill?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague is familiar with the business world, but it has been left to its own devices. When it comes to the threshold that was approved without consulting the provinces, there is a difference between illegal immigrants and the foreign workers who are needed in our regions, especially those where the unemployment rate is extremely low—that is, less than 5.5%—as the Conservative Party has mentioned.

I would like to remind my colleague that it is essential to consult the provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was obviously speaking of the reality on the ground.

I would like him to tell us where the Conservative Party was when people were entering Canada through the irregular border crossing at Roxham Road. In five years, more than 150,000 people made that journey. That is the reality on the ground. The Conservative Party said not a word; it had no plan and no solutions.

I would also like to remind my colleague of Quebec's motto: “Je me souviens”, or I remember.

When the Conservative Party formed the government in 2015 under Stephen Harper, its plan was to cut border officers. That is the reality on the ground today.

I would like my colleague to tell us, in all honesty, what the plan is: Does he want more border control, but fewer staff? I would like him to explain that to me.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. He is one of my most pleasant colleagues here. I appreciate him.

As to his question, I was not in the House at the time. However, I am not sure about this, but I believe he was here and supported a number of the Liberal government's decisions, some of which had to do with Roxham Road.

I am surprised that he is talking to me about it, given that he supported most of the Liberal government's proposals when he was in the House.

I am a little disappointed.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the scourge of fentanyl and what it is doing to Canadians. More Canadians have been killed over the last 10 years, since the Liberals took over, than died in the Second World War.

I wonder if my colleague could opine on what he thinks the reason is that the government has waited so long to bring in some of these reforms. Fentanyl has been killing Canadians for a full decade. Why have the Liberals waited until just now to bring in some of these necessary reforms?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they did nothing for 10 years. The answer to my colleague's question is as simple as that.

By anyone's standards, the borders are porous. We have all seen that. Outside those doors, we can all see that one plus one equals two. Only the Liberal government cannot see it. Drugs get through the borders. There are not enough officers. They need support. Announcements have been made, but there are none on the ground.

As we said earlier, it is important to have those on-the-ground connections and be close to the people. That right there is one of the Liberal government's big problems.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to clarify something. I am a bit confused.

At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, our Conservative colleagues seem to want to destroy the temporary foreign worker program, saying that it is not needed and that it is causing youth unemployment, when we know full well that businesses need it, as my colleague said.

I would like him to clarify the Conservative Party's position.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some parts of Canada are experiencing very high unemployment. We can agree with that. As our proposal says, regions where unemployment is below 5.5% need foreign workers.

That is our proposal, and ours is the best one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, a piece of legislation the Liberals have hastily introduced in the wake of Conservative opposition to their previous omnibus bill, Bill C-2.

Before addressing Bill C-12 directly, it is essential to reflect on the deeply flawed Bill C-2. This omnibus bill, which sprawls across 140 pages and would amend over a dozen pieces of legislation, was a dangerous attempt by the Liberals to consolidate sweeping powers that would trample on Canadians' fundamental rights and freedoms. The bill was so broad and so intrusive that it sparked serious concern not only from Conservatives, but from legal experts, privacy advocates, opposition parties and of course everyday Canadians. At my office, we received numerous calls and have had numerous correspondence with constituents who are deeply concerned with the provisions of Bill C-2, which I will detail later in my speech.

The Conservatives played a pivotal role in pushing the government back from its original overreach in Bill C-2. Part 4 of Bill C-2, for example, would have allowed Canada Post to open any mail without a warrant, which is a flagrant violation of privacy in a country that prides itself on liberal democratic values. Thankfully, this part has been stripped from Bill C-12, though it is still in Bill C-2, which remains before Parliament.

Similarly, Bill C-2 included sweeping warrantless powers for the government to demand personal data from electronic service providers, banks and telecommunications companies, which was done under parts 14, 15 and 16. These powers would have allowed the government to collect detailed location and subscriber information without judicial oversight, disregarding basic principles of privacy and due process. The Privacy Commissioner himself confirmed that the government had failed to consult him before pushing these alarming measures, which is a stark reminder of how little regard the Liberals have for Canadians' privacy rights.

The clauses within Bill C-2 were sharply criticized for threatening personal privacy and potentially breaching the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including section 15, the right to be treated equally under the law. This is according to an analysis by the Library of Parliament.

Matt Hatfield, the executive director of the advocacy group OpenMedia, said, per The Globe and Mail:

...the proposal could compel a large range of electronic service providers, including social media platforms, e-mail and messaging services, gaming platforms, telecoms and cloud storage companies, to disclose information about their subscribers including the province and local area where they use their services without judicial oversight.

This is not the Canada that Canadians expect. Law-abiding citizens deserve privacy protections, not to be treated as collateral damage in a government's quest to expand its control.

Again, the Conservatives have been proud to stand firm and force the government to remove these unjustified intrusions from Bill C-12. That is the duty of a principled opposition: to safeguard Canadians' freedoms and hold the government accountable.

While Bill C-12 is an improvement and is something that the Conservatives plan to support and send to committee for further study, it does remain incomplete. One glaring failure of Bill C-12 is that the Liberal government still refuses to take seriously the fentanyl crisis, a crisis ravaging Canadian families, devastating communities and destroying lives across this country.

Let me remind the House of the Prime Minister's own words earlier this year, when he dismissed the fentanyl crisis as merely a “challenge” in Canada, while calling it a “crisis” in the United States. Such minimization is not only out of touch, but deeply irresponsible.

Health Canada reports that fentanyl was involved in 79% of opioid-related deaths in the first half of 2024, a staggering increase over previous years. Despite this crisis, the Liberals continue to push for drug consumption sites near schools. At the health committee, the Conservatives called for the Liberals to shut down fentanyl consumption sites next to children, but the health minister refused to rule out approving more of these consumption sites next to schools and day cares.

Canadian police have uncovered and dismantled superlabs manufacturing kilograms of this lethal drug within our borders, fuelling a national emergency that the government continues to downplay. Bill C-12 fails to implement mandatory minimum sentencing for fentanyl traffickers, the very criminals who are poisoning our streets and fuelling the opioid epidemic. The Liberals continue to resist measures that would ensure traffickers face serious consequences for flooding our streets with this extremely lethal poison.

The Liberal government claims to be tough on crime. We have heard the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime say this very thing, yet people of my riding of Vaughan-Woodbridge and across this country see it very differently. They see a much different reality, one marked by rising shootings, brazen bank robberies and increasing violent crime.

The Liberals continue to refuse to close the loopholes that allow catch-and-release bail for fentanyl dealers and firearms traffickers, loopholes that criminal gangs exploit to terrorize our communities. The Liberal government has had ample opportunity to address the seriousness of crime affecting our country. Since they have taken power, violent crime is up 50% and violent firearms offences are up 116%, increasing for nine straight years. Auto theft, which is a huge issue in Vaughan, is up 46% nationally. Everyone in my community knows someone who knows someone who has had their vehicle either stolen or attempted to be stolen. Gang related homicides are also up 78%.

The Conservatives unequivocally believe that trafficking lethal fentanyl is the moral equivalent of murder. That is why we demand mandatory, harsh prison sentences for those who manufacture, import, export and traffic fentanyl. Those who profit from addiction must face swift and serious consequences. The government's unwillingness to adopt these common-sense measures sends a clear message: Criminals can operate with impunity while Canadians suffer.

The failures do not end there. The Liberals also refuse to acknowledge their abject failure on border security, another critical element that Bill C-12 purportedly aims to address. Earlier this year, the Canada Border Services Agency revealed that 600 foreign criminals were scheduled for deportation, but now they have gone missing in custody. This is completely unacceptable and represents a grave threat to public safety.

Canada's border must be secure to protect Canadians from criminals and illegal activities, including fentanyl trafficking and gun smuggling. Canadians deserve better from their government, one that respects their privacy, does not overreach with warrantless surveillance powers and is serious about fighting fentanyl by imposing real consequences on traffickers. Canadians deserve a government that protects our borders, enforces immigration laws fairly and firmly and supports law enforcement in combatting organized crime, and a government that does not leave foreign criminals at large in our communities.

Canadians are looking to this House for leadership, not partisanship, on critical issues like public safety and immigration. While we have serious concerns about how the government first approached matters in Bill C-2, we also acknowledge that Bill C-12 represents a step in the right direction. This very step came because Canadians raised their voices and the Conservatives did our job: We were listening, we pushed back and we demanded better on behalf of the citizens of this country.

Our work here is not done. We will support moving Bill C-12 to committee, where it will be scrutinized carefully, and we will work to improve it even further.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concerns about why addressing crime is so important. My father was in the RCMP for 24 years, and I work in the emergency department, where I see the effects of crime.

I found the statements in his speech rather incongruous. It is almost as though this is Schrödinger's government: at one point being too soft on the population and, on the other side, violating people's rights.

The member talked about mandatory minimum sentences, yet the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly said that mandatory minimum sentences are a violation of human rights. Does the member think we should not obey the Supreme Court of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, in the Supreme Court's decision in R v. Lloyd, the Supreme Court ruled that the government should narrow its scope for mandatory minimum sentencing, and that is exactly what I spoke about in my speech. We should narrow the scope and target it toward people who are trafficking, importing and producing fentanyl. We should target it toward organized crime and, as we said before, have the harshest mandatory minimums for people who produce and traffic in excess of 45 milligrams, which is a lethal dose. That is very targeted and specific and fits the scope.