Debates of Oct. 21st, 2025

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his fine speech. I have the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Industry.

As he said, my party will also support this bill at second reading. We look forward to thoroughly analyzing this bill in committee.

That said, the major problem we see is that there are a lot of commitments, but there are staff shortages at the CBSA and the RCMP.

What does my hon. colleague think about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern and disbelief, frankly, because what we have seen over and over again with the Liberals is they say one thing and do nothing. As we know, so far no new border agents have been hired, and we certainly support the hiring of more border service agents to ensure we have widespread security across our border.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, can my colleague give his opinion on the government's inability to commit to banning consumption sites near schools and playgrounds?

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

Mr. Speaker, it comes down to a lack of attention to the problem, in my view. We have been sounding the alarm for a while now that having drug consumption sites next to schools and day cares is completely unacceptable. It is an infringement on the morals we hold deep in this country to keep drugs and crime away from children. We know these areas are riddled with drugs and criminal activity. We hope the Liberals do the right thing and decide to remove drug sites around schools, day cares and the presence of children because it is the right thing to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, provinces and municipalities dictate where the safe sites go. To try to blame Ottawa for something that is not within its jurisdiction is irresponsible.

Does the member not have any confidence in the municipalities and the province he represents? Does he believe the province should not be responsible for safe sites, along with municipalities?

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

Mr. Speaker, frankly, what I find irresponsible is that the other day when we heard the Prime Minister's announcement on crime, there was no attention paid to removing the principle of restraint, which was endemic to Bill C-75, the very principle that is allowing for catch and release to continue. I would ask the members opposite to put some forethought into this to make sure this principle is removed so we can keep criminals off the streets.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today as the member of Parliament for Windsor West to speak to Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.

Let us begin with how we got here. The original version, Bill C-2, was deeply flawed. It would have given the government warrantless access to Canadians' financial data and unchecked powers to manipulate platforms. It would even have allowed Canada Post to open private letters without a warrant. All of this was proposed without consulting the Privacy Commissioner, of all people. Conservatives and Canadians said it was enough, so our Liberal friends backed down.

Now we have Bill C-12. It is more focused, yes, but it still misses the mark, especially when it comes to public safety, border integrity, and fentanyl and meth trafficking.

Windsor is Canada's busiest border crossing, handling over half a billion dollars in trade every single day, yet our frontline agencies there are stretched thin, underfunded, understaffed and overwhelmed. When President Trump raised concerns earlier this year about the northern border, Ottawa scrambled. The government spent $5.3 million leasing Black Hawk helicopters and flew 68 patrol missions in just six weeks. That program has ended, by the way. The RCMP called it rapid response capability, but only one interdiction came out of all that effort. That is not enforcement; it is border security theatre.

Senator Sandra Pupatello, who hails from Windsor, recently raised the alarm about illegal crossings by kayaks and motorboats in southwestern Ontario. She is absolutely right that if it floats, it can be used to smuggle guns, meth, fentanyl and cash. It is all moving across the river, yet the federal government continues to ignore the voices of those on the ground who are sounding the alarm.

Canada's failure to act has had consequences far beyond our borders. After an investigation done by W5, a report aired this past week. According to W5, a young man named Aiden Sagala died in New Zealand in 2023, after unknowingly drinking liquid meth disguised as beer, which was exported from right here in Canada. He was just 21 years old. Authorities in New Zealand seized 29,000 cans shipped from Toronto. Did we do anything about it? Sadly, no. There were no charges, no suspects and no answers. The RCMP has remained silent. That is not just negligence; it is a public safety failure.

Since 2016, 49,000 Canadians have died from opioid overdoses, and I have been to a few funerals myself. Seventy-nine per cent of those deaths involved fentanyl, yet Bill C-12 does not include mandatory minimum sentences for fentanyl or meth traffickers or for gang members using firearms. That is not progress. That is abdication of the government's responsibility to Canadian citizens.

In British Columbia, labs are producing kilograms of fentanyl every week. These criminals are profiting from addiction and misery. Canada has become a low-risk, high-reward destination for traffickers, and not just for drugs. We have also become a haven for money laundering, with billions flowing through shell companies, real estate and even casinos. TD got fined last year by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for these kinds of activities. This is not just a health crisis but a national security emergency.

Our bail system is broken. Known traffickers and repeat violent offenders are walking free, sometimes the very same day they are arrested. In Windsor and across Ontario, auto theft is up 167%, extortion is up 350%, and firearms violence is up 97%. Roughly 90% of the guns that are used in crimes are smuggled across our borders. There are no answers to that either. What is not up, one might ask? Resources, helicopter patrol hours, Coast Guard funding and border surveillance equipment are not up. We are asking our officers to do more with less while criminals operate with complete impunity.

Windsor is not just the front line of Canada's economy; it is now the front line of the drug crisis and the fight to secure our borders. If the government cannot track lethal drugs hidden in beverage cans that are exported overseas where innocent people are dying, how can we trust it to protect our own communities?

We are not just risking lives; we are also risking our relationship with other nations, and our reputation as a reliable security partner is also being questioned. The question we need to ask ourselves is this: What message are we sending to our allies, our citizens and the brave officers who are out there? Whether they are from CBSA, the RCMP or municipal or provincial police services, what are they expecting of us, and how are we helping them to stay safe?

Conservatives support sending the bill to committee. There are elements worth exploring, but we will be pushing for serious amendments to ensure that law-abiding Canadians are protected, criminals are held accountable and border communities like Windsor are no longer left behind. Canada's border is not just a line on the map; it is a front line in crisis, and it is time we started treating it that way, with urgency, investment and real leadership.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can say that real leadership does not come from a Conservative leader who insults the RCMP as an institution. That is despicable, yet we still have not heard him apologize to Canadians for making what I would classify as a stupid statement.

Having said that, my question for the member is with respect to fentanyl. Conservatives talk about wanting the government to do more on the fentanyl issue, yet when it brought in a mechanism to deal with fentanyl being distributed through the mail, they jumped up and down and said we could not do it that way. I wonder why, when we actually take an action to deal with something, it is the natural disposition of the Conservatives to oppose the government no matter what. That is what it seems at times.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. If it is done legally, done properly, done sensibly and done with common sense, we will support it. Anything less we will not support.

We are not here to trample on the rights of Canadian people; we are here to stand up for them and fight for them.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I would like to get the member's opinion on. Members on the opposite side in the last couple of years both attended defund the police rallies and specifically called to defund the police.

I wonder how the member, as a former law enforcement officer, feels about the calls from that side of the aisle to defund his colleagues in the police force.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, whenever that happens, it is always deeply troubling, because members of law enforcement, whether with the CBSA or police agencies, no matter where they serve, serve with integrity. They have values they follow. They sacrifice. They miss birthdays and weddings so all of us stay safe. They miss Christmases and Thanksgivings with their family. When they see or hear these sorts of things, such as “defund the police”, it truly is tragic that this is the value somebody has placed on their work.

It is deeply offensive. It was offensive to me when I was a police officer and still is today that the sacrifice is not acknowledged. We add value to the lives of our citizens by protecting them and by serving them. However, the reward we get in turn is to hear that we should be defunded.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member still has not answered the question.

I agree that police officers miss family birthdays and Christmases, and they risk their life. I was raised by an RCMP officer, and I know this. Why have not any members on the other side of the House stood up against their leader's disgraceful statements disparaging the RCMP?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is pretty rich coming from these folks. These kinds of statements are sowing division, not unity. The challenge we have is whether or not we are going to be united.

With respect to these sorts of matters, we have to follow the evidence. If the evidence is there, let it be, but the evidence has to be explored and dealt with properly. If a statement is made by any member of the House, it has to be reviewed and looked at properly in the sense of whether that statement was made with any basis.

I believe the leader when he says there are issues with those investigations. I know for a fact that there were. If members want to have a committee hearing, I would be happy to endorse that. However, just scolding someone or alleging that they did something wrong or insulted somebody is absolutely facetious and does not help the conversation.

[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, the member was requesting some information, and I would be happy to table a document with unanimous consent—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. We are quickly delving into debate.

I will give the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes 10 seconds to ask a very brief question.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the faux outrage and pearl-clutching on the other side. For 10 years, we have listened to the government chew on the RCMP. Here is a headline quoting the public safety minister: “RCMP racism is ‘intolerable’”. The former prime minister called the RCMP a racist organization—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. I have to give the member 10 seconds to respond.

The member for Windsor West.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. There is a lot of fake outrage with no substance to it.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

moved that Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (prior review of treaties by Parliament), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to speak to my bill, C-228. I will read the summary of the bill:

This enactment amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to add certain requirements for the tabling in Parliament of documents relating to treaties entered into by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of Canada.

More specifically, Bill C‑228 provides for the following: systematic tabling of treaties in the House of Commons; a requirement to wait 21 days after tabling before ratifying treaties in order to give the House an opportunity to consider them; and publication of treaties in the Canada Gazette and on the website of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I will define what we mean by “major treaty” later on, but the bill proposes a requirement to obtain the advice of the House before ratifying major treaties and a requirement to consult civil society through a parliamentary committee before Parliament votes on major treaties, which I will come back to later.

Canada is currently bound by 4,400 international treaties. These are treaties in the broad sense and include agreements, protocols, conventions and amendments to existing treaties. These are all examples of different kinds of international treaties. Treaties affect all aspects of society, including taxation, investment, exports, environmental protection, human rights, labour law, international trade, government procurement and standards to be applied to marketable products. These treaties clearly have a considerable impact on all aspects of life, both economic and political.

I would like to point out that, in many cases, treaties are more important than laws. In today's world, who would deny that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States has a greater impact on the people of Canada than the law governing Parliament's official poet? I picked a law at random. The current tariff crisis is demonstrating the consequences that a free trade agreement can have.

Furthermore, while any legislation passed in this Parliament could be amended in the next Parliament, the same cannot be said for treaties. Since they are essentially contracts between countries, they cannot be changed without the other country's consent. Meticulous and transparent review of treaties is even more essential given the relative permanence of treaties. Laws are passed after a well-established process that includes detailed study in committee after public hearings. Parliament, on the other hand, is largely excluded from the treaty-making process. That is not necessarily the case in other jurisdictions, and it is not how it works in other countries. In short, let me be clear: If the people's representatives are left out of the process, then the people are also being left out when it comes to ratifying treaties.

I would like to explain how international treaties are ratified. There are five main steps, and within those five main steps, there are a number of undemocratic processes that this bill attempts to fix.

The first step is to adopt a mandate. That is the starting point. Cabinet decides to start negotiations for a treaty and gives a mandate to the negotiator, setting objectives to be reached and red lines that must not be crossed. This is the mandate. The decision to start negotiations is generally public. We know that when the government wants to renegotiate CUSMA or develop new international treaty agreements, it is generally clear about its intentions. However, the negotiating mandate is not made public. The public remains in the dark about what will be negotiated and how.

Cabinet alone makes that decision, even if the proposed treaty deals with matters that are normally within the purview of Parliament and even if the treaty affects matters under the legislative jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Anyone can see that this is undemocratic.

After the mandate comes negotiation. This is when countries try to agree on a text that works for both of them. As we all know, this horse-trading, the entire negotiation process, takes place behind closed doors. Quebec and the provinces are generally not part of the negotiating teams, although they are often consulted and kept informed. Parliament, however, is rarely kept apprised of the status of ongoing negotiations and discussions.

The third step is signing the agreement. This is when countries wrap up negotiations, say they have agreed on a final text and commit to doing whatever their legislators need to do to ratify it. From that point on, there is a relatively final text that can be looked at. That is where Bill C‑228 comes in. It would require the text of major treaties to be tabled in the House of Commons. Then, after committee scrutiny, the House would have to vote on those treaties.

Here is how we would define “major treaty”. Members can probably see where I am going. What we want to see is a treaty approval process comparable to the legislative process. Generally speaking, “major treaties” means those that require the enactment of a federal law, confer new powers on the government, impose a significant financial obligation, result in a change to Canada's boundaries, the imposition of sanctions, or a transfer of jurisdiction to international institutions, affect the government's jurisdiction, or concern international trade.

As an opposition party, we are clearly able to define what a major treaty is, yet the government is still unable to define what a project in the national interest is. That was just a friendly reminder.

The fourth step is implementation. At this stage, countries change their internal operations to bring them into compliance with the requirements of the agreement. We are talking about changes to laws, regulations and government programs. That is the only step that Parliament is currently involved in. However, it is important to note that Parliament currently does not become seized with the treaty itself and cannot propose changes to any aspect of it. The treaty is unalterable, and parliamentarians only consider amendments to existing laws that will allow it to come into force.

In fact, the very minimal impact we can have is through our control, so to speak, over existing legislation. Since trade treaty implementation legislation affects tariffs, which have a financial impact, a confidence vote is usually involved. That is another problem. If we refuse to accept a treaty tabled in the House, Parliament could potentially be dissolved. This gives the government a disproportionate amount of leverage.

The fifth and final stage is ratification. This is the stage where the countries involved declare that their domestic laws are consistent with the requirements of the agreement and that they agree, under international law, to be bound by the obligations set out in the agreement. This stage comes under the exclusive authority of the executive branch.

If I can summarize, all these stages show that the process for ratifying international treaties is clearly undemocratic. In Canada, cabinet adopts the mandate unilaterally and keeps it secret. Federal negotiators report exclusively to the executive branch and do not have to report to anyone about the progress of discussions. The government alone brings the negotiations to a close and signs the final text of an agreement before disclosing it to anyone. Public debate is possible only after negotiations have ended and the text of the agreement is signed. That means it cannot be changed, whether by civil society, which can lobby elected officials, or by the elected officials themselves, whose ability to make changes is quite minimal.

In short, Parliament is essentially relegated to the role of a rubber-stamp chamber. It does not get to study the treaty itself. It merely adopts the changes to the laws that allow the treaty to come into force. During the review of the bill, any amendment that would affect the draft treaty is even ruled out of order.

Worse still, the government does its job with a knife to our throats, since laws to implement trade treaties generally affect taxation, which means they involve a confidence vote. That makes it impossible to change them. Either we approve them, or we face an election. Once again, this gives the executive branch a disproportionate amount of leverage.

What Bill C-228 would do is make the treaty-making process a little more democratic in five ways, which I will summarize briefly. First, it would require all treaties to be tabled in the House of Commons. Second, it would require the government to wait 21 days after tabling before ratifying a treaty to give the House an opportunity to consider it. Third, treaties would have to be published in the Canada Gazette and on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. Fourth, it would add a requirement to obtain the advice of the House before ratifying a major treaty, which I defined earlier. The requirement to obtain the opinion of the House is not binding. I will see what my colleagues have to say about that. Lastly, civil society would have to be consulted by means of a parliamentary committee before Parliament votes on major treaties.

Quite frankly, when it comes to treaties, Canada is one of the least democratic countries in the industrialized world. The bill we are introducing is somewhat inspired by what is being done in Quebec.

In Quebec, there is an obligation to table and publish treaties. This obligation is set out in the Act respecting the Ministère des Relations internationales. This Quebec law also provides that the ratification of an international agreement or the making of an order cannot take place with respect to an important international commitment until the commitment is approved by the National Assembly. This mechanism allows the entire assembly, not just the executive branch, to express opinions. My colleagues will see that Bill C‑228 is largely based on the practice in Quebec, which requires that parliamentary approvals be published, and that is what Bill C‑228 seeks to replicate. It is also based on what is done in most European countries.

Canada is lagging behind when it comes to transparency, democracy and treaties, and that can be seen simply by looking at what is done in Europe and the United States. Parliamentary approval of treaties is the norm rather than the exception in Europe. Belgium even requires that regions and communities give their approval before it ratifies a treaty that affects their jurisdictions. Obviously, Bill C‑228 does not go that far. In the United States, Congress itself adopts the negotiating mandate. It is kept informed of the discussions and must approve the text before ratification. In Europe, the European Commission cannot enter into trade negotiations without the authorization of the European Parliament and a mandate from the member states represented on the European Council.

It is clear that, in many countries, parliaments adopt treaties through a far more democratic process. Furthermore, in some European countries, the adoption of treaties is considered important enough to be enshrined in their constitutions. That is the case in France, Germany, Denmark and Italy. Pursuant to its constitution, the U.S. must obtain legislative approval for certain categories of international agreements before they can be ratified.

In terms of transparency, Canada made some progress under the Harper government. I am sure that my Conservative colleagues will be pleased to hear this. It was in 2008 that the government outlined a new policy requiring all treaties signed by Canada and other states or entities to be tabled in the House before being ratified.

However, the tabling of treaties in the House remains a courtesy, similar to the courtesy shown by the Chair in letting me know that my speaking time is over. I am looking forward to hearing my colleagues' opinions. I believe that this is a bill that calls for greater democracy and transparency. I hope everyone shows such good faith.

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

Madam Speaker, when I think of this private member's bill, the first thing that comes to mind is that we have literally dozens, if not hundreds of treaties that have been brought in. Since I was first elected, there have been probably 400-plus treaties.

I contrast what the member is asking for with the sorts of procedures we have had over the years. For example, on trade agreements, we have opportunities for opposition days. There is all sorts of debate when legislation and so forth come forward.

I have never really heard someone say they have an objection to how the majority of the MPs in the chamber did not support a particular treaty. Is he aware of any treaties that the majority of MPs did not support?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, we need to focus on treaties that have a slightly broader scope. Why have all the other countries, like the European countries and the United States, decided to have a more democratic treaty-making process? I suppose it is because they believe in the role of elected officials when it comes to international treaties.

We have seen some major blunders in the past. I was first elected to the House in 2019, when Canada had just renegotiated CUSMA. One sector that was left out was aluminum. Aluminum was the only sector that was not protected under CUSMA, even though steel was.

A Canadian negotiator candidly told us that this situation had come about because the problem was not addressed at the negotiating table. If the government was in the habit of consulting elected officials who are aware of the realities and the needs on the ground, this type of problem might not happen.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for introducing this very important bill in the House. As he said, most European countries and the United States have a process that involves parliamentarians before final ratification.

I was elected in 2015, and there was a lot of talk about protecting supply management. I am pleased because we just passed a law that protects it, but in the last three trade agreements, supply management was sacrificed and used as a bargaining chip with other countries, whether it was with Europe, the United States, or as part of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

If we had a more democratic law, such as this one and such as exists in Europe and the United States, would Parliament have had the tools and means to protect the supply management sector?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, what an intelligent question. I think that is fantastic. The answer is yes. During a recent discussion that my party caucus had with Daniel Johnson, who was premier of Quebec and also a trade agreement negotiator, Mr. Johnson told us how dysfunctional Canada's approach was, since it does not involve the terms of negotiation being validated by its houses of assembly.

In the United States, the negotiating mandate comes from politicians. Unfortunately, that is not the case in Canada, which for a long time sidelined the much-debated issue of supply management; not only is it essential to Quebec, but it also serves the interests of other agricultural producers in Canada.

It took a lot of painstaking work by the Bloc Québécois to get supply management on the federal government's legislative agenda. We had to fight with senators. During CUSMA negotiations, this issue could have been resolved quickly if the House had been asked, and perhaps even if Quebec City had been consulted to find out what was important to them in trade negotiations.