Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2025

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak today in strong opposition to Bill C-12, the so-called border security and immigration act.

Let us be clear: The bill is not a new approach. It is a repackaging, a political sleight of hand. Bill C-12 is simply Bill C-2 with a fresh coat of paint. It would not fix the fundamental problems of its predecessor. It doubles down on the same anti-migrant, anti-refugee agenda that civil society, legal experts and human rights advocates have already rejected in overwhelming numbers. More than 300 civil society organizations, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to the United Church of Canada, have called for the full withdrawal of both bills.

The organizations are right, because Bill C-12 would maintain the sweeping new powers in Bill C-2 related to refugee asylum seekers, whereby the minister and cabinet, at the expense of transparency, fairness and human rights, could engage in a host of actions and would be given a host of authorities.

Let us talk about some of the most egregious elements of the bill and what it would actually do. Bill C-12 would give cabinet the authority to suspend or terminate immigration applications and cancel visas, work permits or permanent resident documents whenever it is deemed to be “in the public interest”.

However, there is no definition of “public interest”, none; there are no guidelines, no guardrails, no requirements for evidence and no judicial oversight. The government could use this clause to shut down entire classes of immigration overnight.

As reported by the CBC, for people who apply under the humanitarian compassionate stream, the processing time right now is up to 600 months. That is 50 years. For caregivers, it is nine years; for the agri-food stream, it is 19 years. For entrepreneurs, it is 35 years. This is unheard of. By the way, all this came out of the minister's transition binder.

The fear is that the government will just cancel applications en masse. That is what Bill C-12 would allow the government to do. It is stoking fear. If the government wants to say that Canada wants to shut its door to asylum seekers, then it should just say that instead of doing this under the pretense that somehow this is just and fair and respects procedural fairness.

This is not good governance. It is not just the actions that the government might take with this kind of power that we should be concerned about. It would be giving that power to future governments as well.

The bill also allows the government to block refugee hearings, to impose retroactive one-year bars on asylum claims and to strip people of their status en masse. These are powers that echo some of the most extreme anti-migrant policies we have seen south of the border.

The Prime Minister likes to claim that this is about modernization and efficiency. It is not. It is peddling a racist, discriminatory narrative with Trump leading the charge.

The bill would directly harm refugees and vulnerable migrants, people fleeing war, persecution and violence. Frankly, it is un-Canadian. Let us remember that Canada once prided itself on being a refuge for those in need. Bill C-12 sends the opposite message. It says, “If you didn’t file your paperwork within a year, we don’t want to hear your case.”

We can imagine a woman fleeing gender-based violence, arriving in Canada with nothing, struggling with trauma, with no access to legal support, just trying to survive, and then being told she is too late to seek safety. As Women’s Shelters Canada and LEAF have pointed out, arbitrary timelines such as these deny survivors the ability to seek protection when they need it most.

We should be upholding the rule of law, not concentrating power in cabinet. Bill C-12 represents a dangerous step backward. It undermines our international obligations, our charter values and our reputation as a country that welcomes those in need. The NDP stands with the hundreds of organizations across this country, civil liberties advocates, refugee lawyers, women’s groups and faith communities who are united in saying that we should withdraw Bill C-12 and Bill C-2.

How can the government put forward legislation that will knowingly endanger survivors of violence or those being persecuted for who they love? Sixty-four countries criminalize homosexuality. That is not all. Under the U.S. administration, Trump's executive orders threaten the rights, the health care and the existence of transgender people. More and more, actually, my office has heard from people who are living in fear in the United States.

Bill C-12 is also a blow to civil liberties. It authorizes unprecedented information sharing across departments without proper safeguards. It empowers border agents to access private facilities and detain goods for export. It expands the Coast Guard’s role into intelligence collection and surveillance.

Even though the government removed some of the most intrusive measures from Bill C-2, such as the warrantless access to Canadians' private data, the spirit of the bill remains the same: centralization of power and erosion of rights. The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group has warned that the bill “fast tracks...the most egregious aspects” of its predecessor. It would not fix the problems; it would accelerate them.

Let us not kid ourselves: Bill C-12 exists because Bill C-2 became too toxic to pass. Rather than listening to the hundreds of organizations demanding its withdrawal, the government chose to split the bill into two, hoping Canadians would not notice. However, we do notice. We notice that these measures come at a time when asylum claims have dropped by 34% and when the average number of daily refugee claims has plummeted from 165 to 12.

What is the crisis, exactly, that the government is responding to? This is not about border security; it is about politics. It is about appeasing a Trump-style, anti-immigrant, anti-migrant narrative that is creeping into our political discourse. There is a dangerous pattern emerging under the current government, an obsession with centralizing authority and sidestepping accountability. It is carrying out the Conservatives' agenda but with a new Liberal leader dressed in red. Bill C-12 would expand cabinet's ability to rule by order. It would give ministers unilateral power to cancel applications, suspend rights and make regulations without parliamentary oversight. This is not the Canadian way. Our immigration and refugee system should be based on clear laws, fair processes and independent decision-making, not on who happens to sit in cabinet.

Let us recognize who would bear the brunt of these policies: women fleeing violence, LGBTQ2+ refugees seeking safety, migrant workers exploited in precarious jobs and indigenous people in border communities, who already face racial profiling. Bill C-12 would deepen these inequalities instead of addressing them.

Let us make sure we do this right. When we talk about immigration, we are talking about people: families, workers and children who come here seeking safety and a better life. We should be strengthening our refugee system and not weakening it. The Liberals put women and girls at risk of being deported back into danger. The one-year bar is a copycat of the U.S. refugee determination system. Get this: In the U.S., the one-year timeline starts at their most recent entry into the United States. Canada's proposal is actually worse; it starts at the beginning, the first time they visit Canada. This means that if someone visited Canada some years ago as a child and they are now being persecuted, they will not be able to apply for asylum here in Canada, and that is wrong.

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

Madam Speaker, we see the extremes. We have the leader of the Conservative Party, who, in essence, wants everyone to leave. Then we have the NDP members. I do not think they fully understand what the situation or the reality is on the ground level. I really and truly believe that.

The New Democrats try to give a false impression that there is no need for us to modify or make changes to the system of asylum. I do not understand it. I deal with immigration virtually every day. Every Saturday, I talk with people who want to come to Canada. I do not understand where the member is getting her numbers from, to try to give the false impression that there is nothing wrong with the system.

We have a Prime Minister and a government that recognize that we have a very serious situation. We need to stabilize the whole asylum area and stabilize immigration in general. It is good for the Canadian economy for us to do that. Bill C-12 would, in good part, do that. I do not understand why the NDP does not support the legislation.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the numbers actually come from the minister's transitional binder. I would advise the member to read the bill. The bill is egregious in its violation of rights. There has been plenty wrong, with the Liberals at the helm for the last 10 years, in Canada's immigration system. I can go on for days about that. However, stripping people of their rights or putting women who face gender violence in danger is not the right way to go. Putting the lives of LGBTQ2 members in danger is not the way to go. Stripping refugees of their right to due process is not the way to go. In fact, I tabled a private member's bill calling for an immigration ombudsperson. That is what we should do to ensure that we do this fairly and properly and not just give carte blanche power to a government.

By the way, the Liberals, although dressed in red, are acting just like the Conservatives.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I guess, if we are throwing insults, she is behaving like a Communist. They are so far to the left.

Does the member understand that we have a 7% factor to a 5% factor in terms of temporary permits? Does she believe that Canada should be moving toward that 5%? The Prime Minister and the government do believe that we should be leaning toward 5% on temporary permits.

Does she support that? Does she support the government trying to address the asylum issue? There is an issue there. Does she believe we should address it, or should we just sit back, close our eyes and put our heads in the sand?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me put this on the record for all members to hear very clearly. My mother passed away on October 4. She left China, a Communist regime that attacked her and her family. They fled to Hong Kong and eventually moved to Canada, where we established ourselves. I am not a Communist. Let us be clear about that. I am actually being persecuted right now by the Chinese government under the foreign interference act. They are targeting me as an evergreen target.

Let us be clear. I am not Communist, but I stand for equality, justice and what Canada has always been in my eyes, which is standing up for people and protecting them. That is what the refugee system has been, and bit by bit, the Liberal government, under Bill C-2 and now under Bill C-12, is eroding that.

I want refugee and asylum claimants to have access to due process under the IRB. Yes, there needs to be reform, but not this way.

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

Let me first offer my condolences to the hon. member.

Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. member for Waterloo has the floor.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I also want to offer my sincere condolences on the passing of the member's mother.

I do believe it is important, when we are having debates on such important topics, that we get to hear what can make legislation better. We are at second reading. The legislation will go to committee. I think that was a little of a reaction to the comments made by the member suggesting that wearing a certain colour makes someone of a certain party and whatever the case may be.

Right now, this is an important bill. We do need to try to get it right. Canadians are asking for it. We had an election. Canadians sent us, in our respective roles, in this chamber. The NDP knows that they did not even receive party status, but they do have an important role to play here. I know that I have constituents who also recognize their important work.

I would ask the member, does she see the value in this legislation? Could it be improved at committee? Does she have some feedback that she would like the government to hear so that we can try to get it right to serve Canadians in the way we all have a desire to do?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me say this: Over 300 civil organizations are against the bill and are calling for the government to withdraw it.

My question is this: Why should a person's claim be ineligible simply because they visited Canada sometime in the past?

This is more of an attempt of the government to try to hollow out Canada's refugee determination system, the IRB, by pre-emptively stopping people from even applying or making an application. Perhaps that is the goal of the government, after all, to move Canada's system to where almost no one will be heard by the IRB.

Canada can do better, and we must do better. The NDP do not support the approach the government has adopted. We have lots of suggestions of how the government can do better. Let us engage in proper consultation and scrap this bill. I will be at the table with the government to work with it to bring better legislation forward to enhance and support our immigration system.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak in the House. I rise to speak to Bill C-12. I would like to remind the House that it was Conservatives who forced the Liberals to back down on Bill C-2, which would violate Canadians' individual freedoms and privacy. The Privacy Commissioner confirmed that the Liberals did not even consult with him when trying to grant themselves sweeping new powers to access Canadians' personal information from service providers, such as banks and telecoms, without a warrant. Law-abiding Canadians should not lose their liberty to pay for the failures of the Liberals on borders and immigration.

Now the Liberals have introduced Bill C-12. Conservatives will examine this bill thoroughly to ensure that the Liberals do not try to sneak in measures that breech law-abiding Canadians' privacy rights.

Canadians are generous and welcoming. We believe immigration should be fair, compassionate and firmly grounded in the rule of law. After years of drift, this bill is a chance to restore integrity at our borders, disrupt transnational crime and reduce the flow of the deadly synthetic drugs that are devastating families across the country.

However, security is not just a line on the map. It is reducing the number of ineligible or bad faith immigration applications so we can better fill vacant health care roles in urban, rural and indigenous communities with qualified health professionals, including medical radiation technologists, rural doctors and nurses. It means making sure that the many families in Edmonton Northwest, who have waited months or years for IRCC to process applications, have certainty about whether their loved ones or caregivers can come and stay in Canada. It is also about welcoming people who are ready to invest their time and resources to help grow Canada’s economy.

Security is built on trust and respect among neighbours, including indigenous partners on the Canadian border. It is today’s newcomers learning Canada’s story, joining the work of reconciliation and building strong communities. Bill C-12 can help us do all this if we get it right.

What does Bill C-12 do in a positive light? There are some things that we agree with. The Liberals have taken steps to strengthen some of the previous iterations of Bill C-2. First, it enables CBSA to access and examine goods upstream, in warehouses and transportation hubs, not just at the last gate. Officers will be able to find contraband hidden deep in supply chains. Second, it accelerates listing the precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl and other street drugs. Third, it improves information sharing among federal agencies, and affirms a coastal security role for the Canadian Coast Guard. This is critical across our vast shorelines and in the Arctic. Fourth, it clamps down on access to financial services by criminal networks that harm our communities. Finally, it helps to address the ongoing epidemic of crimes against indigenous women and girls by enabling information about sex offenders to be shared with indigenous police services.

Conservatives support many of these principles and aims because Canadians expect compassion, safety and accountability.

The toxic drug crisis demands urgency. Drug-related death and illness is a daily, unwelcome part of indigenous realities both on and off reserve and in our cities, where many indigenous people have chosen to live. This has had a devastating effect on current and future generations of indigenous people.

In Alberta, the toxic drug crisis is hitting indigenous people far harder than the general population, both on reserve and in cities. Despite first nations people being 3% to 4% of Alberta’s population, we accounted for 20% of opioid poisoning deaths between 2016 and 2022, and death rates have been reported at five to nine times higher than those of non-indigenous Albertans. When I was last chief, the ISC regional director reported the life expectancy for indigenous men in Alberta to be 58 years old, a nearly 20-year difference between Canadians.

The urban impact is acute. From January to May 2025, Alberta saw a sharp rise in deaths involving carfentanil, with 68% of opioid fatalities province-wide and 78% in Edmonton involving carfentanil. The most toxic supply is concentrated in major centres where many indigenous people live, work and seek services. Organized trafficking networks exploit remote communities and urban corridors, causing loss of life every day.

The losses compound intergenerational trauma, housing and economic insecurity, and barriers to culturally safe care, ultimately the resources and capacity for nations to build self-sufficiency. Nationally, more than 53,000 apparent opioid deaths have been recorded since 2016, with B.C., Alberta and Ontario bearing most of the burden, regions with large indigenous populations both on and off reserve and in urban neighbourhoods.

The reasons are complex. They include racism in system of care, housing insecurity, unsupplied policing services, a poisoned drug supply and many more things. However, one part is clear: organized crime and transnational crime networks are flooding us with deadly products.

Bill C-12 could help to improve collaboration with indigenous police forces, such as the Blood Tribe Police Service’s drug task force, which conducts drug-trafficking investigations and seizures with the RCMP crime reduction unit near the U.S. border. It could also help other indigenous police forces follow the lead set by Akwesasne Mohawk Police, which deals with human trafficking and other smuggling across its internal borders between New York, Quebec and Ontario. There are also opportunities to collaborate among first nations, CBSA, RCMP and the Coast Guard to build capacity, share crime data, and enforce Canada’s laws and first nation laws on land and water.

Bill C-12 could also help to disrupt human trafficking networks and prevent crimes against indigenous women and girls. RCMP-related agencies would be able to better track and share information about registered sex offenders with law enforcement partners, indigenous governments and U.S. partners, as well as facilitate disclosure of offender travel data. Strong cross-border and inter-agency sharing can help track high-risk offenders who move between jurisdictions that intersect with indigenous communities on and off reserve.

I would like to acknowledge the Tsuut’ina Nation Police Service, which has worked with U.S. police forces. Doing this work is a real example of the leadership indigenous communities can show with their police forces this past year.

I ask the government to go beyond symbolic gestures using the tools provided in Bill C-12. After the Auditor General’s scathing reports about the government’s chronic failure to meet its fiduciary obligations to indigenous peoples, here is an opportunity to improve safety through collaboration and reconciliation.

In conclusion, security and reconciliation are not opposites They reinforce each other when we walk together and grow trust. We must work with indigenous leaders on safeguards, such as clear limits on secondary use of data, strengthening community relationships and cultural safety, and indigenous-led measures, so the expanded powers do not encourage racial profiling or erode trust. Bill C-12 gives tools to make Canada safer if we work together with other communities, rural communities, rural Canadians and indigenous communities near our borders, our cities and beyond.

I encourage my colleagues to work in committee to amend this bill to better defend our borders and deepen our bonds through trust and security. Even with the Liberals' second attempt at such a bill, it still fails to address things such as bail reform. Catch and release is alive and well for those who traffic in fentanyl and firearms, as well as those who are using our porous border to victimize Canadians. Sentencing provisions have not been included as much as they should be. There are still no mandatory prison times for fentanyl traffickers. There are still no new mandatory prison times for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes, despite the Liberals' campaign against legal gun owners. House arrest is still permissible for some of the most serious offences.

Liberals continue to push for safe consumption sites near schools. At the health committee, my hon. colleague, the member for Riding Mountain, called on the Liberals to shut down fentanyl consumption sites next to children. This is a common-sense measure. However, the Liberal minister refused to rule out approving more consumption sites next to schools and day cares, despite acknowledging they are repositories for rampant fentanyl usage.

Only Conservatives will continue standing up for Canadians' individual rights and privacy, and hold the Liberals to account on the safety that is needed to protect Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, it is really encouraging to see collaboration in the House, where we can hash something out at committee and come to a level of agreement for the best interest of all Canadians. In particular, I appreciate the member's highlighting the impacts of the opioid crisis on indigenous communities, and I would suggest some of those impacts are very similar for urban indigenous populations across Canada, including Hamilton, with subsequent issues, such as homelessness.

I am hoping, as we will very soon be tabling bail reform and strengthening sentencing legislation in the House, we will see a similar level of collaboration among all parties.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree that bail reform, as mentioned, and being tougher on crime are needed, but collaboration is needed from Canadians from province to province; from different agencies, like the CBSA, the RCMP and provincial police forces; and from indigenous communities, urban and rural alike. I also think the Liberals need to look at their promises.

We put forward solutions on this side of the House, and they denied our solutions when it came to three-strikes laws and putting criminals away. I think this country needs to be a little more black and white. Tough love is still love in our communities, and I think the country needs to look itself in the mirror so that promises to keep Canadians safe can be kept.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks of the government's recent announcement that it plans to hire 1,000 additional Canada Border Services Agency officers.

According to the union, there is a shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 officers. Is my colleague satisfied with this announcement about hiring 1,000 additional officers? Does he think CBSA should aim more towards what the unions are calling for, which is 2,000 to 3,000 additional officers?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree that our police forces, whether they are the CBSA, the RCMP, provincial police forces or indigenous police forces, deserve that investment and recognition, but I do not get my hopes too high, to be honest. This announcement has been made a number of times over the last number of months, and not one officer has been hired.

I agree this is the way to go forward, but making announcements on spending money is not going to solve this. We just saw a scathing report on indigenous policing. In our communities, $13 million has gone unspent. Money that went to the RCMP did not flow down for hiring officers, so I do not get my hopes high when these simple rhetoric-type announcements are made.

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

Madam Speaker, what has become clear during our debate on Bill C-12 over the last number of days is that the measures in this bill respond to long-standing grievances outlined by the Conservatives, mainly on immigration and the open-door policies that Canada suffered under Justin Trudeau.

With some of the provisions in this bill, we hope to see some improvements in public confidence about immigration in Canada. What would the member from Alberta like to see with respect to changes to immigration policy to improve public confidence in our immigration system?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will reflect on my own family. They live on a first nation in a rural community next to a large urban centre, and they have been noticing that immigration has been mismanaged by the Liberal government. They feel forgotten in the conversation on how to improve the management of immigration.

Certainly, we welcome people who come to this country who can contribute, with compassion, and who have something to offer to Canadians, and we can live in harmony, but at this time, as we talk about employment, job readiness and a worker shortage, an indigenous population has been there forever and has been underutilized. I would like to see the engagement of first nation communities so they are part of the immigration policy context.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, before I dive into my comments on Bill C-12, I want to acknowledge that I was here 11 years ago on this date, October 22, when Parliament came under attack by a lone gunman. I want to publicly thank the Parliamentary Protective Service and the RCMP for the safety they provided to all members of the House.

I also want to acknowledge that, during that same series of events, Corporal Nathan Cirillo lost his life while being part of the ceremonial guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Constable Samearn Son took a shot to the foot here in Parliament, and Constable Curtis Barrett was able to neutralize the threat. I want to acknowledge those individuals as well.

The Liberal government is asking Canadians to believe that Bill C-12 is different from Bill C-2 and is a new safeguard for the country. It is not. Behind the new title lies the same design: more intrusion, more bureaucracy and less freedom for Canadians. Conservatives will stand as the barrier between Canadians and any act that weakens their privacy or erodes their freedoms, and mistakes government control for public safety.

Bill C-12 must be fixed. When Conservatives forced the government to withdraw Bill C-2, it was more than another Liberal failure. That bill sought to give cabinet sweeping authority to collect and share potential personal data without judicial oversight. By stopping it, we reminded the government and our country that freedom in Canada is not a privilege granted by the government but a charter right, which we will not tolerate being trampled on by the Liberal government. The withdrawal of Bill C-2 proved that a determined opposition can still discipline a government that has grown careless with its authority and abuse of power.

When drafting Bill C-2, the government did not consult the Privacy Commissioner before proposing to grant itself warrant-free access to Canadians' financial and digital records. The text of Bill C-2, and now echoes of it in Bill C-12, envisioned power to retrieve information from banks and telecommunications providers as the “Minister considers necessary”. Wow. There would be no court order, no independent review and no safeguard against those kinds of abuses. A government that can reach into private accounts and call it protection is not defending citizens; it is blatant overreach. Rather than protection, it is control over them, and Canadians deserve better than governance by surveillance.

Law-abiding Canadians should not forfeit their freedoms to pay for the government's negligence at the border. Years of weak enforcement and negligent immigration management have left Canada vulnerable to the very criminal networks that the bill claims to confront. Rather than tightening entry controls, the government has turned inward, treating every citizen as a potential suspect.

Bill C-12 is not a defence of sovereignty, but an admission that the government has been unable or unwilling to control those who seek to enter illegally, so it will instead attempt to control its citizens. Until the government can provide the security and protection of our freedoms and sovereignty, Canadians will be the ones who bear the consequences of bad Liberal policies, policies they never asked for.

Years ago, Justin Trudeau said that he admired what he called the “basic dictatorship” of Communist China. Those remarks were not casual. They revealed a mindset that efficiency matters more than consent, that control is strength and that democracy is a hindrance to decisive rule. Yet again, the Liberal government is demonstrating that it still thinks like Justin Trudeau.

Bill C-12 carries the same impulse. Translated into law, it hides coercion in the language of administration. It expands government access to personal data, centralizes authority in ministerial hands and calls this intrusion public safety. The bill would empower officials to require any person to provide any information relevant to the minister's determination. These are not targeted, investigative powers; they are open-ended instruments of surveillance disguised as administration. Canadians should believe the Liberals when they say things like this. The Liberal project has been to replace accountability with administrative control, one regulation, one surveillance clause and one warrantless power at a time.

Now the government has returned with Bill C-12, revised in wording, but unchanged in purpose. Canadians have learned what that means: less privacy, more bureaucracy and another significant overreach into their lives under the banner of safety.

We will examine every line, every clause and every authority that Bill C-12 would grant. We will ensure there are no hidden regulations that would turn oversight into surveillance. We are not a passive opposition; we are now the country's safeguard in Parliament.

Canadians may have elected the Liberal government, but we will still protect them from its overreach. We will defend their right to live free from suspicion, to transact without intrusion and to remain citizens, not data points in a government database.

Bill C-12 would do nothing to correct the failures of the bail system, which releases violent offenders back into our streets. A government serious about justice would not tolerate repeat offenders moving drugs and weapons while communities bear the costs. The reality is that Canadians are living with the consequences of a system that mistakes leniency for progress.

True public safety begins with control of the border and certainty of punishment. Those who traffic fentanyl, smuggle weapons or endanger lives must face penalties appropriate to the crime and ones that will keep our citizens safe. A government that fails to enforce its own law creates conditions for chaos. A nation that cannot or will not secure its border cannot guarantee the security of its people.

On sentencing, the failures are unmistakable. Bill C-12 leaves untouched the absence of mandatory prison time for those who traffic in fentanyl, an offence that destroys Canadian families and communities every single day. It introduces no new mandatory penalties for gang members who commit crimes with illegal firearms. The government imposes restrictions on law-abiding hunters and farmers while failing to strengthen penalties for those who commit crimes with illegal firearms, which is by far the vast majority of gun-related crimes.

This inversion of justice reveals a deeper problem: the failure to connect law with consequence. Deterrence works only when punishment is certain and proportionate. Without it, every sentence becomes a suggestion and every criminal learns that Canada will forgive what it refuses to prevent.

A government that governs without moral distinction cannot preserve order. When there is virtually no distinction between crime and compliance and they are treated alike, the rule of law decays. Canadians do not ask for vengeance; they ask for accountability. They ask for a justice system that protects the innocent, restrains the violent, re-establishes moral clarity in law and provides appropriate punishments for criminals.

Even for serious violent offences, Bill C-12 would continue to permit house arrest. A criminal who has shattered lives should not complete punishment on the couch in his living room playing Xbox. The government calls this rehabilitation. In truth, it signals that consequences have been replaced by convenience.

When justice no longer imposes real cost on wrongdoing, crime becomes just another risk of the trade for those who profit from it. For those who are accountants and listening today, criminals do a cost-benefit analysis as well and have obviously determined that under the Liberal justice system, the cost is worth the potential benefit. This is so wrong.

The measure of justice is not leniency but credibility. Every time the government offers comfort to those who destroy others' lives, it destroys the authority of law and the safety of the public. If the government will not restore the proportion between crime and punishment, Parliament must.

The government's tolerance of so-called safe consumption sites near schools is a direct failure of responsibility and is abhorrent. No responsible nation permits narcotics facilities near schools and describes it as public health policy. These neighbourhoods deserve order, not policy experimentation presented as compassion by a woke government.

What the government calls harm reduction has become harm relocation, shifting the crisis from alleyways to doorsteps and from addicts to families. Leadership demands drawing lines, and the first line must always be to protect the innocent.

Canadians are watching a government that punishes the law-abiding citizen while excusing repeat offenders. It expands bureaucracy, weakens enforcement and governs through regulation instead of principle.

The Conservatives stand for something different. We stand for a nation where law protects the innocent, not the offender, where privacy belongs to the citizen, not to the government, and where power is exercised under restraint, not carelessly or impulsively. Real leadership defends the public without breaking its confidence. Real justice distinguishes guilt from innocence instead of confusing both through bureaucratic process.

Bill C-12 fails every one of those tests. It would add layers of control but no layers of accountability. It would strengthen institutions while breaking public confidence. It calls expanded surveillance “security” and judicial leniency “reform”.

As Conservatives, we will defend Canadians and ensure the government, once again, serves them rather than manages them. Canada deserves order rooted in freedom, justice grounded in truth and leadership that governs with courage instead of suspicion. That is what Conservatives will restore.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comments and for expressing some sentiments we hear in communities across the country. Canadians are aware there are challenges in our cities and they have turned to the government and the leadership of the Prime Minister—

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

I see a member is rising on a point of order. He will not be recognized because he is not in his seat.

The hon. member for Victoria.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his remarks and for expressing sentiments that many Canadians share. We have challenges in our cities that require focused attention and require policy revisions, and that is what the government is taking on board. That is exactly the set of commitments that has already been announced and will be released in legislation forthcoming this week.

Does the member agree that one of the changes being called for by stakeholders across the country to address some of these challenges has to do with reforming our bail system? This means that people who are repeat violent offenders or repeat chronic offenders will no longer be on our streets creating some of the urban disorder that is ultimately leading to some of the challenges and social disruptions that the member is concerned about.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Victoria for acknowledging many of the things I said in my speech. The lack of accountability, the lack of real consequences for repeat violent offenders and doing things like putting injection sites next to schools are all creating many problems in society and in our communities.

I applaud the member for his recognition of the things I identified in my speech. Together, I hope we can move legislation forward that will protect Canadians better, while not intruding on their privacy.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my colleague agrees with us and with the customs officers' union. We all agree that there is a staffing problem. It is all well and good to say that staffing levels are going to be increased. It is time to do it. I am not minimizing the issue. There is a staffing problem; there is a staff shortage.

Does my colleague agree that Canada Border Services Agency officers should be allowed to patrol between border crossings? It is not a matter of doing the RCMP's job for them, but about bringing more operational flexibility.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, of course, we were very disappointed in the Liberal government's failure to hire the 1,000 CBSA officers that were promised and would have strengthened our security at our borders.

Would we support expanding the authority that CBSA officers have in between ports, as they only have jurisdiction within a certain perimeter around each port of entry? I think that should be looked at and considered. It is not a bad idea. We need to strengthen our borders.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I understand that, at the health committee, one of our colleagues called on the Liberals to shut down fentanyl consumption sites next to areas with children. However, the Liberal health minister refused to rule out approving more consumption sites next to schools and day cares, despite acknowledging the fentanyl usage in the area.

I live in an area where there is a school downtown and I watch parents walk with their children in the morning out of apprehension. At 4:00 in the morning, there are cleaners out washing the streets because of the dynamics around two consumption sites in my community and near a school.

What would the member say in response to the fact that this is an issue related to families, children and safety in our communities? Police sirens and ambulances are heard night and day. People are living on the street and in the corners of retail spaces in the area where I walk to and from work.

Can the member expand more on how this is even allowed? It is incomprehensible when we think about the value of our children and families.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from Saskatchewan for her observations about the damage being done by these supervised injection sites. It is reprehensible and abhorrent that some of these sites are located next to schools where children are exposed to that kind of activity. They also have to be careful that they avoid used needles and other debris and carnage from that kind of activity. I think that needs to be addressed.

I do not think there should be any supervised injection sites at all in Canada. I think we need to treat people. We need to give them hope. We need to help them out of their addiction—

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

We are out of time.