Debates of Dec. 11th, 2025

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my esteemed colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean on his speech.

The government likes to repeat itself to give the impression that it is doing a good job. In April, the Prime Minister announced at a press conference that the government was going to hire additional CBSA officers to secure our borders. However, that request came from the Americans. It was not his idea.

Then he held another press conference in October and announced the same thing again. He said there would be an announcement in the budget. He keeps repeating the same announcements over and over again. However, he never states the number of people needed, the number that the border services union is asking for.

Does my colleague think that this government is making things up as it goes along, or does it have a plan with a very clear vision?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I find fascinating about Bill C‑12 is that the government is telling us that we need a drastic course correction, that we need to modernize border processes, that it is important, that what is happening at the border is terrible and that we need to change our laws on immigration, justice and public safety, because things are not going well. However, this government has been in power for 10 years. The Liberals have been in power for 10 years, but they just now realized that things are not going well and that we need to change course. Give me a break.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Bullying, discrimination, homophobia, racism and hate have no place in the House or in any corner of Canada.

During the justice committee meeting on Tuesday evening, I experienced mocking comments directed at the way I speak English and other remarks that undermined and attacked my intelligence. In addition, a non-permanent member moved my nameplate without my permission. These actions—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

This is a point of order, and I will hear the point of order. If there are other interventions afterwards, I will hear them as well.

I will ask the member to resume.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these actions, whether intentional or not, undermine the standard of respect and decorum expected in parliamentary committees. They affect not only my ability to participate fully but also the principle that all members of the House, including those from minority and newcomer communities, deserve to be treated with fairness and respect.

I ask you to remind all members, permanent or substitutes, that committee proceedings must be conducted with courtesy and professionalism and that all materials, such as nameplates, should not be moved without the member's consent. Upholding this standard ensures that all members of the House can contribute fully and effectively and that our committees reflect the dignity of this House.

Finally, I respectfully request an apology from the member of Parliament for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, the member of Parliament for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the member of Parliament for Peace River—Westlock so that our committees can continue to function fairly and with dignity.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for Burnaby Central for his intervention.

It would be a good time to remind all members of the importance of upholding the high standards of this place in committees. Further, I would add that the matter raised is a matter for the committee. The member has the opportunity to raise it in committee, and through the proper course, it would be for the chair to report it back to the House. I thank the member for raising the matter.

Resuming debate, hon. member for Oshawa.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this morning on behalf of my neighbours in Oshawa to speak to Bill C-12.

One issue has constantly been at the top of the list for the people I speak to and represent, and that is safety. They want the government to fix its broken border and immigration system and restore public safety. This concern is not limited to Oshawa, of course. Across Canada, people are living in a country they barely recognize, and they worry about the violence in their communities, about dangerous drugs devastating neighbourhoods, about weak border controls and about a chaotic immigration system. They worry that their government is failing in one of its most basic responsibilities, which is keeping Canadians safe.

For over a decade, the Liberal government has promised the opposite. It has promised safer communities, stronger borders and a credible immigration system. After 10 years, the results speak for themselves: Crime is up, border enforcement is down, hard drugs are more accessible than ever and confidence in our immigration system has collapsed. Canadians are justified in asking why this government refuses to take responsibility. This is the context in which we are debating Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act.

The bill before us is the government's attempt to convince Canadians that it now wants to repair the very problems it created. We are being told it will strengthen border processes, improve enforcement, remove individuals who pose risks and restore confidence in the system.

Canadians have heard these promises before. They heard them when the government weakened bail laws in 2019 and insisted that everything was fine. They heard them when violent repeat offenders were released time and time again. They heard them when the government claimed its drug policies were working while overdoses increased. They heard them when the government claimed that the border was secure while irregular migration surged. Canadians are right to be skeptical.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I studied Bill C-12 closely. It became very clear, quickly, that the bill is incomplete and does not address many of the core concerns Canadians have raised.

Conservatives approached this process in good faith. We were ready to work, ready to improve the bill and ready to deliver solutions. Unfortunately, the government showed little interest in rising to the seriousness of the moment. Too often, it dismissed legitimate concerns and brushed aside constructive proposals, even when those proposals were aligned with what frontline and academic experts have been calling for.

We listened to expert witnesses, examined the details and brought forward roughly 40 substantive amendments focused on enforcement, accountability, border security and removal processes. These amendments were practical and grounded in the concerns Canadians voice every day. I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for her leadership on the immigration components of the bill, and the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for his contributions. Their expertise ensured that our amendments were well researched and solutions-oriented.

Our amendments targeted the major gaps in Canada's border and immigration enforcement system. We clarified what serious criminality means under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, ensuring that convictions for indictable offences, including hybrid offences proceeded by indictment, are treated as serious for immigration purposes. This is simple common sense. We addressed endless deportation delays by stopping repeat removal risk assessments when there is no new evidence. Canadians expect that when someone is found inadmissible for public safety reasons, the removal actually happens.

We also modernized outdated timelines and procedures so that removal orders could be enforced more predictably. We strengthened the asylum system by deeming a claim abandoned if a claimant returns to the country they claimed to be fleeing for safety. We added quarterly reporting requirements to bring transparency to asylum pressures and costs. We gave decision-makers better tools to dismiss clearly fraudulent claims, and we placed clear limits and oversight on the extraordinary powers in part 7 of the bill, which would allow the government to extend en masse, cancel or modify immigration documents.

We insisted on transparency and parliamentary oversight so that temporary resident status could not be modified behind closed doors. These were reasonable, constructive amendments. Some even received support from our colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, yet the Liberals rejected far too many of them and in some cases attempted to gut the ones that did pass.

The safety of Canadians should not be a partisan issue. We expect a government that secures the border, enforces the laws, and manages immigration with competence and fairness. Instead, they have watched trust erode year after year. We have seen cases where individuals who clearly pose a risk to Canadians were not removed quickly, even when removal was fully justified. These failures compromise public safety and undermine confidence in the entire immigration system.

When trust collapses, the system itself begins to break down. This debate matters, because Canadians want real solutions. They want a system that prioritizes safety, fairness and order. They want an immigration system based on common sense, not on political messaging that works for a time.

In Oshawa, I hear this often from newcomers who followed every rule and are proud to be Canadian. They are frustrated by a system that no longer operates predictably or fairly. I hear it from long-time residents who support strong, sustainable immigration but want it managed securely and transparently. They want a system that rewards honesty, not loopholes. They want a border policy that treats public safety as a priority, not as an afterthought.

These voices are not extreme. They are not partisan. They are simply asking for competence and responsibility from their federal government. Canadians want compassion, but they also want accountability. They want a system that works, so if the government wants to restore trust, it must acknowledge the consequences of its own policy.

Conservatives believe in safe communities, secure borders and an immigration system that is firm, fair and focused on public safety as well as success. We believe trust must be rebuilt, and that begins with leadership, so I say again, if the government wants to restore trust, it must acknowledge the consequences of its own failed policies, give law enforcement and border officials the tools they need, and bring accountability back to a system weakened for nearly a decade.

We talk about trust, and it is at this point I want to mention that the members opposite in earlier questions and comments were talking about Bill C-14 and swiftly passing it, and simultaneously, their colleagues in the justice committee, as we speak, are actively blocking Conservative unanimous consent motions to move to Bill C-14. Again, this Liberal government speaks out of both sides of its mouth. It does not know what it wants to do and does not even really care, and that is the saddest part of it all.

My neighbours in Oshawa want a government that takes public safety seriously. They want order restored to our immigration system. They want leadership focused on results, not excuses. Canadians deserve better, but they should not fear: Conservatives stand ready to deliver better.

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

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the Prime Minister or the government as a whole, we have provided for the Conservatives to do better, because we have provided substantial legislation, not only to enhance Canada's borders and provide more security there, and not only to stabilize our immigration system. There is a number of commitments that the Prime Minister has made to Canadians that Canadians want to see, like bail reform legislation. That legislation and the budget is all there before us, and the biggest roadblock to delivering it for Canadians is that the Conservative Party does not allow it to proceed.

Would the member not agree? On issues like the bail reform, we can deliver it for Canadians. We just need to get more support from the Conservatives.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled that the member asked me that question. Clearly, he was not listening to the last few minutes of my speech. I spoke, very clearly, on the bail reform bill and about wanting to move it forward. As we speak, Liberal members of the justice committee are blocking our motions to move on to Bill C-14, so that we can start moving that through committee. Liberal after Liberal, time and time again, is voting against moving to Bill C-14.

Perhaps the member would commit to walking over to the Wellington Building, speaking to his comrades at the justice committee and asking them to pass our motion to move on to Bill C-14, as he claims we do not—

[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, would the House give unanimous consent to allow Bill C-14 to pass committee and come to debate for third reading today?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my Conservative Party colleague.

From 2017 to 2023, some 150,000 people crossed the border irregularly at Roxham Road. It is fair to say that, at the time, the Bloc Québécois pretty much talked itself hoarse in the House asking the government questions to try to get the situation resolved. The Conservatives were pretty quiet on this issue. In fact, they stayed completely mum.

I think that shows that there were problems at the border. The government has said several times that it is going to increase staff at the borders, but, according to the border services union, it is not enough.

I would like my colleague to explain her point of view. What would it really take to restore people's confidence in our borders and keep all the people we represent safe?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for all of the times they brought up the concerns that were shared with regard to Roxham Road. I assure him that Conservatives share those concerns.

We have repeatedly called on the Liberal government to fix our borders and strengthen our officers and their ability at the borders to do their job. It brings up another very important point that one of his colleagues has helped us bring forward for study at the public safety committee, and that is the psychologically toxic workplace at CBSA. That is not going to make things any better. We talk about 1,000 new officers, but with attrition at nearly 100%, I wonder if they mean a net 1,000 new officers or just 1,000 more to replace the 1,000 who have left.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has spoken about the people who want real solutions. How do the problems of porous borders and broken trust, like drug trafficking, the potential for consumption sites near schools, gun smuggling and irregular migration, show up in her community, and what does that mean for families and local safety?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member probably knows the answer, because, in all of our communities, we are seeing that it is difficult to walk the streets in our neighbourhoods and walk the streets where my office is in Oshawa, without watching people shoot up and overdose. The folks in my office keep Narcan on hand. It is not a safe place to live. I imagine that many places in our country are the same. A lot of that is because of the government's failure. In fact, I would say most of it is from the government's failure to protect our borders and keep hard drugs from coming into our country, and from its allowing repeat violent offenders to get out of jail free, or very close to free, to hurt and harm and sell drugs in our community.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a great time to get up to speak. We are into the Christmas season now and kind of in that spirit. I was reading this morning about something the NDP interim leader, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, said yesterday. Apparently he had asked the Prime Minister to grant party status again to the NDP in order to, in his words, make the House “function better”. I do not think it is a good idea.

I was thinking that maybe the member was just continuing his comedy shtick from the parliamentary press gallery thing a week ago, which, by the way, I think was quite funny. He was not as funny as our leader, but it was pretty good. Actually, if we are in that mode, I have a better idea of something to ask the Prime Minister, and that is to grant Canadians what they really want, which is for him to go back to his job at Brookfield and allow the Conservatives to run this country and fix the massive problems we have.

Continuing on the Christmas theme, I want to give heartfelt thanks to all the support staff in this place. There are translators, pages, people in food services, security people and all kinds of staff in this building, including our party staff and all our own staff, who work so hard. I really want to thank all of them and wish them all a very merry Christmas.

I also want to give a special shout-out to the parliamentary dining room staff. They are always missed in the thanks. I am not a very good tipper, so this is my way to make up for that. Canadians would probably be happy to know that oftentimes many of us from different parties meet in the dining room and talk about substantive issues. We actually are able to talk with each other and get business done. I want to thank Lynn, Charles, Guy and all the staff in the parliamentary dining room, as well as my dining room colleagues I talk to many times; they all know who they are. I thank them so much and wish them all a merry Christmas.

I will move on to Bill C-12. This was the marquee legislation of the government when it was introduced as Bill C-2. Just so everybody is clear, Bill C-2 is the designation for the first bill introduced by a government. Bill C-1 is kind of a technical thing. The government members put all their effort into Bill C-2; it is the most important thing. Has anyone heard of the current session's Bill C-2? No, they have not, because it became stalled because it was a mess.

The pieces of Bill C-2 that the government could rescue came into what is now Bill C-12, which is what we are debating today. This is part of the government's pledge to do amazing things at unimaginable speeds. Here we are, and there have been no amazing things done. In the whole year, I think the government has passed two bills. If that is unimaginable speed, then I do not understand the word “unimaginable”.

The purpose of the bill, partly, was to fix immigration problems around asylum and deportation, because everybody in our country knows we have tremendous problems in that area. There were some good things in it, but there were so many more things that we needed to do in order to properly fix our flawed system.

We proposed 27 different amendments, and I think eight of them were accepted, so there were many that were not accepted. I have to commend the Bloc, which worked very hard at committee to help. Its members put forward some of their own ideas, we put forward ideas, and we were able to work together and get the committee to agree to a lot of things.

Even the Liberals agreed to some things, but then of course had the Speaker turn them down once they came to the House. For example, with respect to foreign criminals, we had created an amendment that would deport people convicted of serious crimes, because there are many cases where judges are letting immigrants get lesser penalties. However, that amendment was not passed by the Liberals.

Our asylum system is so broken. There is a story today from British Columbia, where 14 people were identified by the British Columbia extortion task force and were charged with extortion. A lot of effort was put into this. Extortion is a big problem right across the country, but particularly in B.C. Guess what all 14 of these newly charged people did. They claimed asylum, so their charges are now on hold because they are in the asylum system. It is probably a four-year wait, and of course they get benefits. They receive all the wonderful benefits we choose to give to people who are claiming asylum, even though we know the claims are illegitimate.

We put forward an amendment to automatically reject asylum claims from any non-Canadian guilty of a serious offence, but of course it was rejected by the Liberal government. We put forward many amendments to restore sanity to the asylum system, such as that lying to an officer would result in an automatic removal, that knowingly withholding information would automatically terminate a claim and that not showing up or not complying with basic requirements would terminate a claim.

We also proposed that once someone had been denied, but then appealed, only emergency health care would be provided. That was rejected. We also proposed that designated learning institutions be on the hook when they bring someone into the country and that person claims asylum, but that was also rejected by the Liberals.

We did work on human trafficking, trying to get amendments for tougher penalties to protect victims, but of course the Liberals voted no. We also put forward amendments on transparency so we could bring back some basic transparency on reporting. Often we have to do deep questioning and written questions to the government to try to find answers, and the government refuses to provide some of that information. Some of the amendments were passed, but not all of them, and some of them were stripped out.

Probably the biggest success the Conservatives got was that we proposed that the government would not be able to do mass conversion of temporary residents to permanent residents; that amendment was accepted. We also proposed that the government would not be allowed to give mass extension to temporary residents with student visas and things like that.

The bottom line is that we worked very hard to toughen up and fix our weak system. Unfortunately the Liberals blocked most of this work.

Speaking of working hard, I want to mention that we on this side of the House have put a lot of effort and work into improving our immigration policies. A lot of people think the opposition's job is to oppose, and it certainly is, but we also want to propose solutions, so we have proposed many. Our entire caucus worked very hard under the leadership of our shadow minister for immigration, who is the member for Calgary-Nose Hill. She worked very hard and did a great job of making sure we had substantive policies that would actually help to fix our country.

For example, we worked to restore the value of citizenship. That is a problem we have in our country right now. For example, we were very concerned about Bill C-3. It is the bill that would generate endless chain migration, which allows people not born in the country to become citizens, have their children not born in the country become citizens, and on and on. We tried very hard to put some common-sense amendments in the bill, which, of course, were rejected.

The other big one is online citizenship ceremonies. The one-click online citizenship ceremonies are still, certainly in Saskatchewan, the majority of the ceremonies. For many newcomers to our country, the ceremony is the most important thing to them in this phase of their life. To have them sitting behind a computer at home because it is expedient for the department is just embarrassing, frankly. It does not convey the true purpose and meaning of becoming a Canadian citizen. We pushed hard to eliminate the online ceremony, and the government is, I think, slowly moving in that direction, but not fast enough, in our opinion.

We suggested an end to the temporary foreign worker program. There is a youth jobs crisis in our country right now; the unemployment rate for Canadian youth is hovering around 15%, which is far too high. The temporary foreign worker program is part of the reason.

Of course we need to consider agriculture and some other considerations, but generally we have way too many temporary foreign workers, and we do not need our immigration minister to be the chief HR officer for a place like Tim Hortons. I have nothing against Tim Hortons, but there are many Canadians who could work there. The minister confirmed, by the way, just a couple of days ago, that the program is staying. She said that nothing is going to be changing there.

We worked hard to restore the sanity of sentencing immigrant criminals. The member for Calgary-Nose Hill introduced Bill C-220 to end sentencing reduction for immigrants. This is a big issue. An editorial in The Globe and Mail said that judges in our current system “are protecting non-citizens from the consequences of their criminal conduct”, and the author lamented that no one seems to consider “whether Canadians would want those offenders as citizens” in the first place.

Essentially, judges look at the current rules, which say that if a non-citizen is convicted of a serious crime with a sentence of six months or more in jail, they have to be deported, and they reduce the sentence to below six months so it does not affect the non-citizen's citizenship status, which we think is wrong. There should be one standard for all people. Whether they are a Canadian citizen or non-Canadian citizen, the same standard should apply, and that is not the case.

Of course, there is ending the pull factor for asylum, including getting rid of free hotel rooms, endless medical benefits, and departure tracking, which are other things we do not do in our country that the Conservatives have some good policy ideas for.

There are so many things that we worked hard on this year in order to provide good policy solutions for the government. Pretty much all of them were, of course, rejected, but the bottom line is that we worked hard on them. We believe that we can fix our system, but there are so many things that need to be done.

The Liberals took the lazy route with Bill C-12 and did the bare minimum number of things that need to be done, but there is so much more. Conservatives will continue to work to fix legislation like C-12 and continue to propose solutions to make this country better and to make our immigration system work better.

Once again I wish everyone in the House a merry Christmas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I might be somewhat biased, but I would ultimately argue that Canada is one of the greatest countries, if not the greatest, when it comes to democracy and our fundamental principles.

None of that would be possible if we did not have the incredible people who support Parliament. The member made reference to a wide spectrum of individuals. Whether it is the people in Hansard, security, television production or the Clerk's office, or the pages, there are so many individuals who make Parliament work, beyond the members of Parliament. I would join with the member in expressing my gratitude and appreciation for what they do.

On the issue that the member has raised, he referenced Bill C-2. In Bill C-2, there is lawful access. We had to leave that out, yet we believe it is essential. We are the only one of the Five Eyes countries that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to give time for the member to respond.

The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 is sitting there; it has not moved forward. There is a reason that it has not moved forward, which is that it was bad legislation, which is just indicative of the way I see the government.

As I said in my speech, the bill is the very first one the government brought forward. It is the Liberals' marquee legislation. After the election, it is what the Liberals focused probably most of their efforts on as to what they should do first. They all got in a room and figured this out, put everybody to work on it and came up with the legislation. Where is it? It is still sitting there. It has not moved forward, because it is extremely flawed, and no member of the House wants to move it forward, including the government; the Liberals do not want to move it forward either. It is just a great example of how so little has been accomplished by the government in the current term.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to wish everyone a merry Christmas. I also want to thank my colleague, whom I enjoy working with at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We work really well together. I think we are showing that it is possible to do really solid collaborative work together in committee.

Speaking of committees, things are not going very well in some of them, such as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Some of my Conservative colleagues are not very keen on the work that is being done there at the moment because the Bloc Québécois wants to repeal the religious exemption in the Criminal Code.

I will give my colleague a gift. I would like to know where he thinks his Conservative colleagues from Quebec stand on the religious exemption.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

The member for Lac-Saint-Jean and I work well together on the committee. We do not always see eye to eye, but we are able to work very well, and that is what Canadians want to see when they look at Parliament. They want to see people who may not agree, and different ideas that come forward, but also that we can work in a constructive and positive way. I certainly believe we have that kind of relationship with the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

Regarding the question, of course we are united. I cannot speak for the specific beliefs of every single person in our party, but we have a common position and we are moving forward in a common way on the legislation. What is most important is that we do move forward and that we are able to voice opinions.

The problem I see with the justice committee is that the government has continually stopped meeting. The Liberals have cancelled meetings, they have shortened meetings and they do not want to actually do the hard work that needs to be done by the justice committee.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I were elected at the same time, and I know that in that time frame, we have both found that the government is really, really bad at legislation. It is even worse at managing the House calendar.

I am just wondering if my colleague can elaborate a bit more on some of the amendments that the Conservatives put forward to strengthen the bill that the Liberals have no idea how to properly legislate.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, we were elected at the same time, and it has been six years of seeing very little accomplished and six years of longing for something different, and we are hoping the day will come soon.

We have put forward so many amendments. The one I just want to highlight goes back to the issue of criminality. So often, non-citizens are charged with a crime, go before a judge and are guilty of the crime, and then the judge actually lessens the sentence because the judge knows that it will impact their immigration status and may cause them to be deported; therefore the judge then reduces the sentence to something lesser than we would get, and it is just not fair.