Madam Speaker, I wish I could say I was pleased to rise today. December 10 is coincidentally Human Rights Day, and I stand here at the point of report stage on Bill C-12, which threatens to actually violate international human rights law. I will go into why I believe that to be the case and why I am offering amendments at this late stage.
I want to extend my deep appreciation to the hon. member for Vancouver East for seconding my amendments. She also worked hard to put amendments forward during clause by clause at the national security committee, where we met. A number of other members of this place continued to try to make amendments, some of which I agreed with, others of which I did not, until midnight, when we were cut off from trying to make amendments, but we tried.
I want to give the people who are watching these speeches right now some more context.
I want to thank my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. We may disagree on some of the points, particularly those on refugee protections, but I agree and want to associate myself with his very elegant preamble on what is wrong with omnibus bills, how many things are stuffed into the bill we have before us and whether it is appropriate to do that. I agree with him that it is not.
It is true that the Liberals used to make comments about the horrible Conservative omnibus budget bills. We have an omnibus budget bill before us today that passed on division, which, by the way, coincidentally means that members of Parliament were not able to register personal votes. I was not able to vote against it, as I would have wished to have done, but it was agreed that it would be passed on division by the recognized parties, which means that the Greens and the NDP MPs in this place could not register opposition to Bill C-15, the mother of all budgetary omnibus bills, at over 600 pages long.
Never mind that. Right now we are talking about my amendments, and those of others, to Bill C-12.
Let me start briefly by sharing the path this bill took, as the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola has done in brief.
Back in June of 2025, as the numbers indicate, Bill C-2 was one of the very first bills put forward by the new administration under the Liberal Party in a minority Parliament. It did not take long for Bill C-2 to attract attention. I have never seen such quick work by as broad a range of civil society organizations, and I have seen lots of opposition.
There is a huge coalition of more than 300 NGOs that are completely opposed to Bill C‑2 because of the human rights violations, because of the interference with and violation of privacy rights, which the member for Kamloops talked about. One example is allowing Canada Post employees to open personal mail.
I will just briefly list some of the organizations to give a sense of the breadth and depth of concern. There was OpenMedia, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the United Church of Canada, the Muslim legal rights association, Women's Shelters Canada, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and Amnesty International. A broad range of organizations said that Bill C-2 should not pass, that it was appalling.
I will quote the executive director of OpenMedia, Matt Hatfield, who happens to be one of my constituents. He said that Bill C-2 was all about one thing, which was “pleasing President Trump”.
Bill C-2 was a target. I know many of us as MPs received so many letters from constituents saying we have to stop Bill C-2. I thought we had won a victory when it was reported in the media that the Liberal government was going to withdraw Bill C-2 and replace it with something that was not odious.
I have had the great honour of serving in this place since 2011, but I have never seen a shell game as gross as this. In October 2025, the government brought forward the bill that is before us today, Bill C-12, which contains as many offensive elements toward the rights of refugees and violations of human rights law internationally as the original bill, Bill C-2. The Liberals sort of did a bait and switch. The Liberals withdrew the parts about being able to open our mail and have access to our data from Internet service providers. Those are not in Bill C-12, but the surprise is that they remain in Bill C-2.
Bill C-2 remains on the Order Paper. We have been informed more recently that, once Bill C-12 passes, the government will bring back Bill C-2, having removed the sections that they expect us to pass it quickly, and it will probably pass quickly because that is how things go around here. Bill C-12 will go through, and then we will get Bill C-2 back, but without the sections we have passed in Bill C-12. I hope members are following me in this attempt to explain what the government is doing.
Bill C-2 attracted widespread public opposition, so it was a bait and switch. We are replacing Bill C-2. We have Bill C-12. The provisions of Bill C-12 remain offensive to the same groups that say nothing has changed since the original Bill C-2. This process is still about pleasing Donald Trump. Bill C-2 had a catchy title: the strong borders act. Bill C-12 has a less catchy title: strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. They are pretty much the same animal. We will get Bill C-2 back, but with the sections that have been passed in Bill C-12 removed.
What is offensive about all this? I had hoped to have a chance to speak on December 10, on Human Rights Day, to talk about international human rights. Ironically, I am because I am presenting amendments to Bill C-12. Otherwise, Human Rights Day would go by unobserved in this place. We observe it by pushing through a piece of legislation that violates international human rights.
What about this bill makes it offensive? As I mentioned before, the so-called lawful access pieces, going into Canadians' mail and accessing Internet service provider information, have yet to come forward in a stripped-down version of what was put forward in June in Bill C-2. We will get that back again. Meanwhile, Bill C-12 takes away the rights of people who would ordinarily have the rights of refugees to come to Canada and say they need to claim refugee protection.
Here is the the catch: Bill C-2, and now Bill C-12, say that, if someone has been in Canada for a year, they no longer have the right to ask for refugee protection. They no longer have the right to ask for a hearing for a fair assessment of their case. I will just explain why it could be that someone who has been in Canada for a year has not yet asked for refugee status.
Let us say someone came to Canada on a valid work permit or a valid student visa. They had no reason to imagine they were not going to be able to continue their studies or continue their work. The situation in their home country could have changed, the government shifted and they suddenly knew that, if they returned, they would be jailed. Their previous activities or their exercising of free speech would put them in jeopardy. This does not automatically give anybody a claim to stay in Canada to be able to avail themselves of the rights that Canada signed on to in international treaties to protect refugee rights. It just says they are allowed to ask for protection and the system will decide if they are a valid refugee or not. Those opportunities have ended. The rules changed for people who have already been in Canada for a year and would have no reason to think they need to ask for refugee protection.
I have put forward numerous amendments here today, as we heard the Speaker read out, and I am grateful to the hon. member for Vancouver East for seconding them. These amendments, even if carried, could not remedy what is wrong with this bill. The appropriate thing to do would be to withdraw it completely and to not try to interfere with human rights in the guise of making Donald Trump happy. We do not have ICE in Canada raiding institutions, schools and workplaces to grab people and say they are getting shipped out of the country before they can get due process. That is not us.
That is not Canada, but we move closer to that actually being who we are if Bill C-12 is passed without amendment and without accepting the amendments put forward today by the hon. member for Vancouver East and me. We need to protect human rights.