Debates of Oct. 21st, 2025

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

What would you do differently?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I would do more.

Mr. Speaker, I would keep the Crown accountable. I would keep the bureaucracy accountable. We would keep the system working for the benefit of the people and would ensure fair treatment of refugees and that people fleeing persecution and abuse worldwide have a safe haven in Canada.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during his speech, my colleague mentioned the opening of private citizens' mail without a warrant. Perhaps he can explain to fellow Canadians what that would mean to them regarding violations of privacy.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, mail is one of the most sacrosanct private communication methods we have in society. There is a presumption of privacy in our mail, and the bar must be exceedingly high to have a judicial review on any attempt or ability of the government to interfere with it or surveil it.

I am very concerned. Any weakening of privacy conditions is problematic and prone to abuse.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleague to the House. This is the first chance I have had to address the new member for Bow River. I will miss his predecessor. We always had a good time in this place.

I just want to correct one aspect of my hon. colleague's speech. This is certainly not a point of order; it is debate, but he did say that only the Conservative Party will stand up. I just want to make it very clear that the Green Party also vigorously opposes Bill C-2, which is still on the Order Paper, and Bill C-12. Somehow, the Liberal members of this place have claimed they built on Bill C-2 to come up with Bill C-12. They subtracted some parts of Bill C-2 that were offensive, but not all parts that are offensive, and the legislation is substantially the same.

I double-checked our parliamentary procedure, but I wonder if the hon. member for Bow River thinks that both bills should be in front of this place at the same time.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a scholar of the Standing Orders. I understand that two items cannot be debated at the same time, but from that perspective, I cannot comment.

I would like to thank the member for correcting me on the notion that Conservatives are the only ones who stand for the right thing to do. Every member of the House has the potential to cross the aisle and join the Conservative Party.

[Mark Gerretsen]

They would not take me.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Well, Mr. Speaker, there may be some we would have to be more selective with, just like a very good asylum system.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the candid answer. Let me give the member a real challenge.

The leader of the Conservative Party attacked the RCMP last week. What he said was despicable. If we reflect on the institution of the RCMP, it is world-class and recognized around the world, yet the leader of the official opposition said the things he said, disrespecting the RCMP. We even have Conservatives challenging him on what he said.

Does the member believe, as I do, that the RCMP deserves the respect of all members of this House and that the Leader of the Opposition owes an apology to Canadians for what he said last week, which was so disrespectful toward the RCMP?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP indeed had a reputation globally of being absolutely top-shelf, but like any institution, it is subject to the potential of management weaknesses—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are very good analogies all over government and all over private industry, but we have seen management weakness in previous governments and even in the most recent Parliament. That is what has brought us to this place today.

I think all of us could ask for the best performance possible from our institutions globally.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us get back on track to the topic at hand.

In Bill C-2, there was a failure to group the different topics that were in it. Bill C-12 is a step in the right direction; however, serious amendments are required to the bill.

Can you just highlight, in your opinion, some of the more poignant issues that Bill C-12 needs amendments for? We are hopeful that the government will listen to the amendments that Conservatives intend to bring forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would remind the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner not to use “you”. He must speak through the Speaker, so “the member” is the way it should be worded.

The member for Bow River.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my esteemed colleague, whom I highly respect.

Bill C-12 is going in the right direction. It has merit, but on the reinforcement of accountability measures and the punishment and treatment of people abusing the system who are outright criminals, we need to ensure there is no more bail and that we fully follow through on all of these things. Otherwise, society will never step back.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, the House is debating Bill C-12, a reincarnation of Bill C-2. Bill C‑2 sparked a great deal of criticism regarding privacy rights, so the government was forced to go back and make revisions. It has returned with a new version of Bill C‑2, now called Bill C‑12.

The main difference we see is the removal of the controversial elements of Bill C‑2 involving invasion of privacy, most of which were found in part 4 of the bill. They would have allowed Canada Post and customs officers to open people's mail. These provisions drew heavy criticism.

Generally speaking, we in the Bloc Québécois were already open to working on Bill C‑2, sending it to committee, and working collaboratively on moving it forward. With Bill C‑12, we have even more reason to want to see this bill advance. We are keeping an open mind and are willing to work with all members of the House and with the witnesses who will testify in committee. I will not have the opportunity to sit on that committee, but I wish I could.

Without going into a comprehensive analysis of the bill, I will nonetheless raise a number of points that merit our attention. The first is part 1, which makes amendments to the Customs Act to expand customs officers' law enforcement powers, including access to facilities. It is that access to facilities that I wish to discuss.

Often, when CBSA officers inspect goods, they are goods coming into the country. Goods leaving the country, however, are usually not inspected, and this causes all sorts of problems, as the media recently reported. These include auto theft, a crime that is plaguing Ontario, Quebec and, presumably, the rest of Canada as well. Resources are an issue, of course, but there is also the matter of facilities for doing the work, especially in rail yards. If they want to pull a rail car out for examination, for example, they need a place to put it. There will now be an obligation to provide facilities so customs officers can do their job. Without facilities, without dedicated areas for the inspection of goods, this was becoming problematic.

One of the problems raised by customs officers was that they needed to get a warrant every time they wanted to open a container. The process was becoming difficult, complicated and time-consuming. The bill includes measures that would make it easier for them to open containers as needed and inspect the goods inside without the many authorizations required in the past. We see that as something positive.

However, this provision raises the challenge of resources. We can provide customs officers with all the extra authority, infrastructure and facilities we like, but if there are not enough officers to do the work, we have a problem. The Liberals, incidentally, made that promise during the last election campaign. They promised 1,000 more customs officers and 1,000 more RCMP officers. Although one of these two promises—the one concerning the RCMP—made its way into the Speech from the Throne, we are still waiting to see whether it had any tangible impact on RCMP staffing.

As for the CBSA, the wait continues.

Also, will the 1,000 additional employees mentioned in the government's election promise be enough? The answer is no. The Customs and Immigration Union says that 2,000 to 3,000 people are needed. The election promise covers one-third, and we do not even know whether the government is really going to try to keep the promise, because we have no indication that it is really going to give the CBSA what it needs to do a reasonable job.

We know that it takes resources to secure the borders and deal with illegal immigration, arms trafficking, drug trafficking and auto theft. Unfortunately, that is not in the bill, because bills do not prescribe the hiring of staff. If it could be done, however, perhaps it should be, to ensure that this government hires the necessary staff to do the work that needs to be done at our borders.

Another point that we would like to address with respect to this bill is part 4, which amends the Oceans Act to allow a minister other than the Minister of Fisheries to be responsible for the Coast Guard. Essentially, this would transfer the Coast Guard from the Department of Fisheries to the Department of National Defence. We completely agree with that. Transferring the Coast Guard to the Department of National Defence was actually in the Bloc Québécois's election platform.

From an accounting standpoint, it would make it possible to increase defence spending, enabling Canada to fulfill some of its commitments in that area and enhancing coordination between the two services. We know that the Coast Guard is not armed, and this occasionally limits its scope of intervention. Placing it under the Department of Defence would, at a minimum, enhance coordination and information sharing with the Department of Defence, particularly when it comes to interventions that require the presence of National Defence or individuals who are better equipped to face a possible threat. For that reason, we think part 4 is very positive.

I will now turn to part 7. Obviously, I will not go through all the sections. Part 7 of the bill grants more powers to immigration officers to suspend, vary or cancel a visa or document under conditions to be prescribed in regulations. Immigration officers will be given more powers to suspend or vary visas, but the details will be prescribed in regulations. That is all interesting, but we would have preferred to see more details. Bills always provide more certainty than regulations do. Governments always want to have more flexibility, but we do not necessarily agree. We will see how this goes.

The bill also adds an interesting provision that would allow the minister to personally suspend, refuse to process or cancel permanent or temporary resident visas, work permits, electronic travel authorizations or study permits.

We think that is quite interesting, because we know that there have been many allegations of fraud in relation to permits and visas. The problem is that if people obtained documents, visas or resident status fraudulently, we should not simply allow them to run loose without taking any action. We should not just say that now that they have a visa, there is nothing we can do. That is more or less what is happening now. With these kinds of powers, the minister will be able to share information with Public Safety and cancel these fraudulent visas and permits so that the government can take the kind of action that is long overdue. We applaud this step, though we wonder why it was not taken sooner.

We now turn to part 8, which is the most substantial part of the bill and the one that has got the most people talking. I think this is the part that will probably have the greatest impact. Part 8 addresses the Bloc Québécois's concerns regarding the safe third country agreement.

Under this agreement, a person wishing to claim asylum must do so in the first safe country they reach after leaving the country where they were in danger. However, we know that what often happened at Roxham Road was that people were leaving the United States and coming to Canada to file a claim for refugee protection because they believed that they had a better chance of being allowed to enter Canada or that they would receive better treatment in Canada. That led to a large influx of asylum seekers that Quebec had to take in, since Roxham Road is in Quebec.

We found that problematic because we felt that if someone were really in a life-threatening situation, they would not cherry-pick the country they want to settle in. They would go to the first country they could move to to be safe, and this is perfectly legitimate. We felt that this was a problem, but part 8 closes some loopholes. With the safe third country agreement, if a person could come to Canada and hide here for 14 days, they would not have to go back to the United States or another country and could file their claim in Canada.

The new measure in the bill means that people will be sent back to their country after the 14 days. That means it is in their best interest to turn themselves in to the authorities quickly rather than go into hiding. We see that as a fairly positive thing. For the first 14 days, a person caught during that period would simply be sent back to the United States. Obviously, Canada does not have extradition agreements with all countries. This would not apply in those cases. Furthermore, people whose lives are in danger could still report that.

Will this bill fix all the problems? No. Will it help solve some of them? Yes, absolutely. We wish the government had listened to us much sooner, because we know that Quebec—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I must interrupt the hon. member. His time has expired.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate how the Bloc's approach to Bill C-12 very much recognizes the need for the change. I think, as immigration has generally flowed over the last number of years, at times we need to make a change. I know that the Province of Manitoba did what it could to assist the Province of Quebec with some of the asylum claims.

When we look at the legislation as a whole, and I posed a related question to one of the member's colleagues, we see that many of the issues that have been raised in the debate are, I think, worth having more discussion on to get answers to some of the specific questions being posed.

My question for the member is this: Would he not agree that a wonderful forum for that is at the committee stage, given that everyone is in principle supporting the legislation?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security will probably improve the bill and help us to understand it better. Witnesses will come and tell us what needs to be done differently. However, the question we need to ask is this: Why did it take so long before something was done? The government has been in power for 10 years. We have been complaining about this situation, about the government's lax approach at our borders, for years.

Every time we raised the issue and proposed measures like the ones now set out in this bill, the government called us every name in the book, claiming that we were being unwelcoming. However, Quebec currently takes in 40% of asylum seekers in Canada, even though it represents only 20% of the country's population. That amounts to twice its demographic weight. This is a serious problem.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Bloc Québécois member to clarify his party's stand on part 7(a) of the bill's summary, which reads as follows:

...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;

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot really comment specifically on part 7(a). Earlier, I spoke in general about part 7, which the Bloc Québécois saw as a positive because it seeks to combat certain fraudulent claims that might have been made or certain massive claims that might be made to bog down the system.

If the bill prevents fraudulent claims and attempts to bog down the system, then I think that is a good thing. Obviously, we will see whether further amendments are needed after hearing what the witnesses have to say in committee. After asking many of his colleagues the same question today, what I would have liked my Conservative colleague to tell me is whether the Conservatives agree that we need a fair distribution of asylum seekers across the country.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member clearly showed that the government has been slow to act, particularly with regard to part 8, which deals with temporary migrants.

As my colleague rightly pointed out, during the previous Parliament, when the Bloc Québécois highlighted the issues with foreign students and asylum seekers, the government did terrible damage to our reputation. We were called all sorts of names.

When we made sensible proposals on immigration, the Liberal government took such an ideological stance that it could not listen to us, and now it realizes that our proposals were just common sense, to quote another opposition leader.

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

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the real problem is that asylum seekers are supposed to be people who are coming here because they fear for their safety, because they are in danger in their own country.

However, we have seen that the asylum process increasingly became a completely separate immigration stream used to get around the regular immigration process. This was tolerated by the government and suited its purposes. When we spoke out about this situation, members on the other side of the House called us every name in the book. It was very problematic.

What is unfortunate is that we could have resolved this situation 10 years ago. Everything in this bill, or most of it, helps to address the problem. The system became bogged down and all sorts of crises were created, including the housing crisis, the homelessness crisis and the public service crisis, just because this government did not want to deal with the problems.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on Bill C-12.

Bill C-12 touches upon immigration and border security, issues that matter deeply to the great people of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

The bill is actually a direct result of Conservative leadership, our commitment to holding the government accountable and our pushing back against some of the divisiveness we saw in Bill C-2. Let us not forget that, after the election, Canadians were very clear with everyone across Parliament that we needed to work together and that they wanted to see leadership from the Conservative Party to put the best interests of Canadians forward. I think that what we are seeing here today, which is actually quite historical in the context of government legislation, shows to Canadians that, while we are willing to compromise, we are also standing firm in our principles about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

We supported the tax cuts the Liberals put forward. We supported measures to improve interprovincial trade, and today, we are supporting some long-standing measures in Bill C-12 that would improve public safety.

The bill before us today covers everything from border measures and money-laundering rules to sweeping surveillance powers buried deep within it. Excuse me. That was in the previous bill. In the previous bill, there were provisions on Canada Post and sweeping new surveillance powers. These are not included in the legislation, which many Canadians are thankful for. In fact, many of my constituents wrote to me, explaining that they did not want me to support a bill with such measures.

In the new bill, in what we can see today, there are measures for the Canada Border Services Agency that would grant authority to inspect outgoing shipments in the same way that border services agents inspect imports. That is an important change. Canada has long monitored what comes into the country but not always what leaves. These new powers could help stop illegal exports, arms trafficking or the flow of fentanyl precursors across our borders.

According to Health Canada, between January 2016 and June 2024, more than 49,000 Canadians lost their lives to the opioid toxicity crisis. In the first half of 2024 alone, fentanyl was involved in nearly 80% of accidental opioid deaths, a 39% increase since national tracking began. In the last two years alone, police have dismantled major fentanyl labs in Langley, Falkland and the Hatzic valley in my own riding.

Strengthening CBSA's ability to track and intercept illegal exports, particularly precursor chemicals used in fentanyl production, is a necessary step if we are serious about disrupting the flow of deadly opioids, which are taking lives unnecessarily in our country.

The bill would also amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to allow the Minister of Health to quickly schedule new precursor chemicals used in fentanyl production. Conservatives support this because we have been calling for tougher and faster action in response to the opioid crisis for years. These are warranted powers for the minister. It would also give law enforcement officers clarity and legal protection while handling controlled substances during investigations, which makes sense from an operational perspective.

The bill would expand the Coast Guard's authority to share information with security and intelligence partners, and it modernizes how departments handle immigration and refugee files. It strengthens penalties for money laundering and terrorist financing by reforming FINTRAC, our national financial intelligence agency. Real reforms are needed to fix what the previous government broke, to rebuild trust in a fair, secure and efficient system.

I will note that it is a Liberal government that is fixing the problems of a previous Liberal government, but there are still problems with the bill. The Liberals have left too many details to regulation. Rather than writing clear, enforceable laws, they have chosen to permit future decisions through regulation, decisions that can be quietly changed by cabinet behind closed doors, with no parliamentary oversight. That means that the real power, in some cases, may remain in the hands of the ministers, not in the text of Canada's Criminal Code and accompanying legislation.

There is a lot of public interest in how refugee and immigration claims are being handled, and people want to know how the system is being managed responsibly. This is a pattern we have seen time and time again with the government. Whether it is how they spend, how they tax or how they regulate, the Liberals do prefer a regulatory approach over clarity, and secrecy over accountability. That is why the Conservatives will support Bill C-12 to committee, but we need to insist on a couple of things that I believe should be looked at closely when the bill is brought to the committee stage.

The first is FINTRAC. We need to ensure Canada's financial intelligence agency has the proper tools and oversight to effectively tackle money laundering, transnational crime and the illicit flow of fentanyl that undermine both our economy and our border. From this bill alone, we cannot tell if it does a good enough job. We need to study that in detail at the committee stage.

Second, we need to look very closely at the broad discretionary powers included in this bill. For example, it gives ministers wide latitude, particularly on immigration and refugee files. Committee study must examine whether these powers could be misused and how to include clear safeguards, because Canadians deserve a fair, transparent and accountable system.

Third, there is the CBSA's authority to inspect outgoing cargo. While these powers are essential for stopping criminal gangs and fentanyl traffickers, we must also ensure there is a balance. Trusted exporters, through the trusted exporter program, should not be burdened unnecessarily, and inspections must be targeted and reasonable. Again, we need to see this carefully addressed at committee.

From my first reading of the bill, I believe that by focusing on the three amendments, or things to be studied closely, we can hopefully strengthen the legislation to give our law enforcement the necessary tools to improve public safety and work toward improving trust in government institutions across our country.

In British Columbia, I have seen containers ready for export to Asia full of stolen cars. I have seen the devastating impacts of fentanyl, which is destroying lives. Billions of dollars have been laundered into Canada's economy and, in some cases, it is driving up the price of real estate and increasing crime in our community. My hope is this bill takes some measurable steps to improve all the things Canadian society sees wrong with the way our institutions handle these critical issues.