Debates of Dec. 11th, 2025

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is the holiday season. We are going to be nice when we ask our questions and make our comments because we do not want to part on bad terms right before Christmas.

I understand that the government is introducing Bill C-12. It used to be Bill C-2 and was much more robust. My Conservative colleague and I sit on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where we made many amendments to Bill C-12. I think we improved it considerably.

If we can come up with such robust, significant measures to change what is happening at the border and in immigration, because this also affects the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, what has the Liberal government been doing for the past 10 years that caused them to show up today with Bill C-12? How is it that they are forced to introduce a bill that completely overturns the laws of three departments: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; Citizenship and Immigration; and Justice? Why do the Liberals have to resort to this when they have been in power for 10 years?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what everyone needs to understand is that the processes of both crime reduction and immigration reform are dynamic. They must evolve in response to global changes and organized crime, which is constantly using increasingly sophisticated methods to transport illegal drugs and launder money. The government must constantly improve and refocus its measures to effectively combat organized crime.

Our government has demonstrated that it is listening to law enforcement and public safety agencies in order to effectively combat crime and protect Canadians.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the good people of Abbotsford—South Langley as I rise to speak to Bill C-12, legislation that has potential to strengthen Canada but that unfortunately misses the mark once again.

Conservatives, to show we are a government-in-waiting, proposed multiple constructive amendments in the immigration components of Bill C-12 in an attempt to improve the legislation and fix Canada's broken immigration system. For years, Canadians have carried the weight of an economy strained by inflation, while also enduring unacceptable wait times in our health care system. At the same time, foreign nationals who have committed heinous crimes, including sexual offences, remain in Canada without being deported. Disturbingly, even the Minister of Public Safety was unable to say where these individuals are or to provide any clarity on our immigration levels.

When our country faces this degree of scarcity, it is no wonder Canadians feel jaded. The support systems they rely on are simply not there. At the core of this challenge is the overwhelming pressure placed on our infrastructure by unregulated immigration. When the Liberals accept bogus visa applications, ignore the urgent housing needs across the country and allow crime to run rampant, it is our citizens who bear the brunt of this scarcity.

There are now over three million temporary residents in Canada, far more than our country can sustainably support. This rampant and unplanned growth has crowded our housing market, pushed rents and home prices beyond reach and left fewer opportunities for our next generation of Canadians who are trying to enter the workforce. Families feel the ripple effect in every corner of their lives, from longer wait times in emergency rooms to rising classroom sizes and basic challenges of finding an affordable shelter.

This is not an abstract policy problem; it is a lived reality for Canadians who see their communities stretched thin while the federal government continues to operate without a plan. By refusing to regulate intake levels responsibly or to enforce existing systems with seriousness, the Liberals have allowed pressure to build to a point where our infrastructure simply cannot keep up. Canadians expect compassion in immigration, but they also expect competence. Right now they are getting neither.

Prior to the challenges within Bill C-12, the strain on Canadian infrastructure would have continued unchecked. The amendments proposed by the opposition would introduce a measure of steadiness, structure and accountability into the immigration system, which has grown chaotic under the Liberal government's management. It would also ensure that criminals would be prosecuted for their crimes in Canada. These proposed changes are not radical; they are responsible steps to ensure that Canada would welcome newcomers in a way that is sustainable, fair and safe for everyone.

A few of the Conservative amendments that passed with support across party lines in the Standing Committee on Public Safety, which I am proudly a part of, would instate harsher penalties for those convicted of human trafficking. Individuals convicted of human trafficking would face fines of up to $1 million or life imprisonment. Corporations would also face fines of up to $25 million for trafficking offences. The Liberals must answer why they voted down one particularly important amendment that would have denied asylum to any claimant deemed a danger to national security. Why are the Liberals so reluctant to hold people accountable for criminal behaviour?

There are also immense pressures on housing, the backlog of removal orders, the surge in temporary residents, and the gaps in enforcement. These are not problems that require another year of paperwork to diagnose; they are obvious, urgent and already well understood by Canadians.

Statistics Canada has revealed that the Liberals have failed to account for an astonishing 38% of temporary residents in the most recent census. This comes after reports earlier this fall showing that more than one million temporary residents hold visas that are about to expire, and the Liberals have admitted that they have no plan to ensure that non-citizens will depart after their visa expires. For months the Liberals even resisted Conservative calls to release basic entry and exit data. This raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the information they rely on.

Throughout the process, our Conservative team has been working tirelessly to strengthen our immigration system and hold the Liberal government to account for its incompetence. Canadians are demanding tangible change. They are asking for the government to enforce its own laws, create efficiency in an overwhelmed system, protect public safety and ensure that immigration happens in a fair and sustainable way.

These amendments create a structure for greater scrutiny, but scrutiny alone is not enough. What is needed now is political will, decisive action and real, concrete reform rather than more bureaucratic delays. Canadians deserve confidence that an individual required to leave Canada will do so. The same is true for our provinces, whose hospitals and classrooms have been placed under immense strain after a decade of Liberal mass immigration.

If the Liberals actually meet their commitments to hire 1,000 new CBSA employees, there will be a vast improvement in our country's safety. However, there is a track record that keeps leaving Canadians uncertain. My community has been under constant danger with the rise of extortion and gun crime. Given that I represent a border riding, it is abundantly clear to me and my community members that the smuggling of illegal weapons is largely responsible for the spike in crime. It has taken the lives of many and fractured dozens of families across my home riding.

Many members of my community no longer feel safe, as organized crime becomes increasingly prevalent. Families and young adults frequently ask me how they can protect themselves when incidents of gun violence occur in broad daylight. My heart goes out to those who have lost parents, siblings and loved ones due to extortion. Despite its concerns, the current Liberal government has not attended any vigils or community town halls on issues such as extortion, nor has it taken meaningful action to support our communities. This leaves many of us wondering why our concerns continue to go unaddressed by the current Prime Minister.

The gaps in this bill are very simple, yet they are being overlooked. We must hire more border personnel. We must deport foreign nationals committing crimes in Canada. The results will mean our communities will become much safer. Conservatives are calling on Liberals to listen to Canadians and implement the reforms needed to make our immigration system fair and efficient, serving citizens and newcomers alike. When we begin to see immigration as a movement of people rather than a movement of numbers, our ability to foster communities across our country will naturally improve.

Everyone in Canada deserves to live with dignity. If we start by ensuring immigration occurs in a thoughtful, responsible and sustainable manner, every person, newcomer and citizen alike, will have a better chance at succeeding. Those who are entering our country from any nation deserve to see Canada as a safe, harmonious and flourishing place. This vision is only achievable if we take care of our institutions that take care of us. Enacting high standards for our immigration system not only protects our livelihoods but places the Canadian economy in a stronger position to grow and succeed.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to be factually correct, the government has, actually, had a summit on the issue of extortion, in Vancouver. There is another one being planned in Ontario. At the end of the day, we do take the issue of extortion very seriously.

That said, in the spirit of Christmas, I want to acknowledge that with Bill C-12, we have seen a great deal of co-operation, to the degree that we are going to be able to pass it. I think the expectation Canadians have is that we work together. That might even be one of our New Year's resolutions, that we can jointly agree it would be nice to see more legislation, more opportunity, whether it is Private Members' Business or government business, to deliver for Canadians by passing legislation.

Would the member not agree?

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, photo ops are not going to bring forward policies that will make differences in Canadians' lives. Community members from our Lower Mainland are affected. The Liberals are doing these group meetings over and over again, not attending to the real root problems, actually meeting the victims and their families or understanding what is happening in our communities. This is not going to be any mystery they cannot solve. They should be able to implement change. They should have been able to implement our bill that we put forward as a Conservative team on extortion. If they really cared for Canadians, they would have adopted that a year ago.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑12 is the new version of Bill C‑2. The Bloc Québécois believes that the government is taking a step in the right direction with this new iteration, but there is still a major problem.

In their platform, the Liberals proposed hiring 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 additional CBSA officers. The RCMP will be fine; it was in the throne speech. However, that is not the case for the 1,000 border services officers. According to the union, the CBSA needs another 2,000 to 3,000 officers to fulfill its mandate.

I would like to hear from my colleague about the government's stated intentions versus the actions it has taken to fulfill those intentions.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the government has not been taking any of these precautions seriously. We have been working very well with our Bloc colleagues to make sure that in our committee meetings, when we are going through committee, we implement and hold the government to account. We need more border personnel.

Personally, I can tell members that in my community, as Abbotsford—South Langley is a border riding, we need border officials. It is something on which the government has failed us over and over again.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the residents in Vaughan—Woodbridge. I am sure my colleague is as concerned as I am, considering he comes from an area in the country where extortion is very prevalent, that over at the justice committee, we are seeing the Liberals constantly vote down motions to bring their own bail reform ahead of all of the other legislation so that we could give that the scrutiny and debate it deserves, and so that it could be reported back to the House and we could then pass bail reform as quickly as possible.

I am also wondering if, perhaps in the spirit of Christmas, the member could elaborate on why it is so crucial that the government quickly fulfills its promises and hires the CBSA agents that it said it was going to.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we see the Liberal government, again and again at committee, filibuster and not answer the questions that Canadians want answered, whether on extortion or on religious freedoms. We need to make sure we hold the government to account. We have a couple of days left. I hope we can continue to give the questions that we need answers to, and that they can be answered by the end of this week, and hopefully, go into the new year with real, concrete movements for proper legislation, with amendments that are being brought forward by the Conservative government.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in the strongest possible terms against Bill C-12, a bill that represents not only poor public policy but a profound abandonment of Canada's legal obligations, humanitarian commitments and democratic safeguards.

The legislation is not an effort to strengthen our immigration system. It is not an attempt to improve processing, bolster safety or address affordability. Rather, it is the latest chapter in a troubling pattern: Liberals and Conservatives competing to see who can scapegoat migrants more harshly. It deflects blame for successive Liberal and Conservative governments' own long-standing failures in their housing policies and economic planning. It preys on the fears and insecurities of Canadians in the face of an affordability crisis through the politics of division. It codifies in law the stigmatizing narrative that treats refugees as security threats rather than human beings seeking protection.

Contained in Bill C-12 is a one-year bar on refugee claims. What does that mean? It means that anyone who entered Canada more than 12 months before filing a refugee claim becomes ineligible for the refugee protection process that has existed for decades. The bar is retroactive to June 24, 2020, based on the individual's first entry into Canada. That means someone's safety is based not on whether they have a valid refugee claim or a claim of persecution, or that their life is in danger, but on some arbitrary date.

Experts across the sector, like the Canadian Council for Refugees, women's organizations and more, have warned us of the consequences. The Canadian Bar Association's Immigration Law Section was unequivocal. It said this bill risks “exacerbating rather than alleviating existing problems”, undermines Canada's commitments to refugee protection, and erodes the checks and balances fundamental to our parliamentary democracy. It further noted that the retroactive nature of the one-year bar is “particularly offensive to the rule of law.”

Amnesty International's Julia Sande said this bill judges people on how and when they enter the country, factors that have nothing to do with whether they need protection. She warned that under this bill, even someone who first entered as a baby for a single day and who, decades later, faces persecution due to war, political violence, their gender identity or their sexual orientation would be denied the chance to have their claims heard. A date on a piece of paper could determine whether or not they can have safe harbour.

We have seen the harm caused by similar rules in the United States, where one-year deadlines have resulted in refugees being deported despite having a genuine fear of persecution. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees advised Canada against this approach as far back as 1999, reminding us that under international law, the passage of time does not alter our obligation of non-refoulement, our duty not to return people to danger. These are not theoretical concerns. They are lived realities.

In a Canadian Press story from October 31, we heard from Asya Medea, a trans woman from Turkey. She came to Canada in 2018 on a student visa. As conditions for LGBTQ2S+ people in Turkey rapidly deteriorated, she filed a refugee claim 18 months after her arrival, a claim that was accepted in 2020 because the threat to her life was real. Under Bill C-12, she would never have had that opportunity. She would have been barred from seeking protection simply because her claim came after 12 months. This bill would have sent her back into the hands of a state that was targeting her for who she is.

It is also clear that the one-year bar will disproportionately harm women, 2SLGBTQ+ people, survivors of gender-based violence and trafficked persons. The FCJ Refugee Centre explained that many survivors cannot file a claim within a year due to trauma, fear, coercion by abusive partners or complexities of escaping trafficking networks. Some have abusers who have already been deported back to the country of origin and are waiting for them. Under this bill, they would be stripped of the right to seek safety. They would be sent back into the hands of those who have threatened, harmed and exploited them.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association made another critical point. The government's supposed justification for the one-year bar of deterring fraudulent claims is unfounded. Those intent on deception will simply file quickly. The people who will be excluded are those who delay filing because of trauma, confusion, language barriers or evolving circumstances. In practice, this bill punishes vulnerability and not fraud.

At committee, the NDP proposed specific amendments to protect survivors of gender-based violence, unaccompanied minors and individuals from moratorium countries. The Liberals, Bloc members and Conservatives all voted against them.

Bill C-12 also undermines due process, as it would deny individuals access to a full oral hearing before the refugee protection division. The Minister of Public Safety, a refugee himself, said to not worry and be happy because there are safeguards and guardrails in place. What are they? He cites the pre-removal risk assessment system, a process with one of the worst records in recognizing legitimate need for protection.

The NDP proposed amendments to maintain access to hearings. We proposed reducing the severity of the time limit, even though all arbitrary deadlines violate basic principles of refugee protection. Every one of our amendments was defeated.

Bill C-12 does not stop here. It also grants the government sweeping unprecedented powers to cancel immigration applications, suspend processing and revoke people's status en masse. These powers can be applied to entire classes of people without individualized assessment, without due process and without clear constraints. Families who have lived and work here for years could wake up one morning to learn that their pathway to permanent residence has simply been erased, not because of anything they did but because the minister granted themselves the authority to do so.

The Canadian Bar Association expressed “grave concerns about the vague and undefined language throughout the Bill”, describing the power as “overreaching”, “undemocratic” and specifically insulated from normal regulatory scrutiny. It warned that, once granted, these powers “will be impossible to control.”

Amnesty International reinforced this warning, noting that the bill opens the door to politically driven decisions capable of destabilizing lives, separating families and uprooting people who have built their entire future here. It cautions that this legislation risks violating international law, including the right to a fair and effective asylum procedure, the right not to be deported to danger and the prohibition on discrimination.

The NDP proposed two amendments to impose parliamentary safeguards so that any such order would require scrutiny, committee review, a tabled framework and statutory oversight. We also proposed defining “public interest” in a way that aligns with public safety, public health and genuine security concerns. These amendments were rejected by the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc. Instead, the Liberals adopted a sweeping and overly broad definition of “public interest”.

This bill reflects an immigration system where decisions can shift overnight and where people are denied hearings, appeals and due process, a system disturbingly reminiscent of the worst policies of Trump south of the border. The bill is not about system integrity. It is not about public safety. It is an attempt to appease Donald Trump and import a Trump-style agenda into Canadian law. It trades in fear, division, scapegoating and misinformation.

The remaining provisions of Bill C-12 that target refugees only compound the harm. The NDP proposed 13 amendments in total. None of them was accepted.

This bill would not strengthen Canada's borders. It would not make our communities safer. It would not build homes. It would not address affordability. It would not shorten immigration processing times. What it would do is push refugees, migrant workers, students, families and survivors deeper into precarity. It would ensure our neighbours live with the constant fear that their lives can collapse overnight. It punishes people who are trying to survive, people who deserve safety and who contribute daily to this country.

Let us do the right thing and vote against Bill C-12.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the right thing to do is to recognize that things change over time and that situations allow us to modernize aspects of our immigration and refugee policy. This legislation fits that. It absolutely makes Canada stronger and secures our borders even more.

At the end of the day, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people who are here under temporary visas. The member is implying, through her comments, that each and every person who comes to Canada under a temporary visa should be able to apply for refugee status. That might be great for lawyers, consultants and other types of advocates, but the reality is that we need to modernize the system.

Does the NDP member continue to support the idea that anyone who works in Canada, or visits, should be able to stay in Canada indefinitely?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is just nonsense.

Bill C-12 says to refugees that we will not listen to them, we will not hear them and we will not allow them to prove that their fear is real. It is cruelty dressed up as law, and this legislation has been cooked up in a haphazard way. Even at committee, critical experts like the Canadian Council for Refugees and women's organizations were not even invited. They were not witnesses at the committee who could share their concerns.

How does the government justify this? It cannot.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. She spoke quite a bit about the one-year ban on asylum claimants, and she cherry-picked a couple of stories. I am sure we can always think of somebody who has been badly affected by any of the legislation we have.

However, there are many cases of people abusing the system. Just today, I read that in her home province of British Columbia, there were 14 extortion suspects who, once they were charged with extortion, all mysteriously claimed asylum. All 14 of them claimed asylum. This is a classic example of what happens in our system with the way it is, the way it is open and loose. This is the part that we support closing, because it needs to be fixed.

How can the hon. member support all of these criminals, rather than regular, ordinary Canadians?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is such nonsense. The NDP is not supporting criminals. We are supporting due process. We are supporting people having the opportunity to submit applications.

Canada has a system that sets up the IRB, which is independent from government, as an independent process to assess claims. That is the issue. The member just cherry-picked an example that preys on fear and illustrates the scapegoating approach that the Liberals and Conservatives continue to embark on.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver East made her disdain for Bill C-12 clear. It goes without saying that I respect her opinion.

There are groups that claim this bill will not stand up in court. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the possibility of certain parts of the bill being challenged in court. I would like to hear her opinion.

Does she think that is the case? Which parts are least likely to stand up in court?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, legal experts have actually expressed that opinion, so I encourage the member to read their opinions.

In fact, better still, I encourage the member to speak with them directly because they are the people who can tell him exactly what is wrong. I absolutely support their point of view. I do believe that this bill will be challenged in the courts, and I think the government is heading in the wrong direction. This is a Trump-style approach to immigration law, not an approach that Canadians want to see.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a question of fairness.

Is it fair to the Canadian public that we are now going to pay for these 14 asylum claimants that my friend referred to, for the next four years? They are going to have their education, housing and health care paid for. Is that fair to the Canadian taxpayer?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is also just complete nonsense.

If the Conservatives want to say Canada is now closing all doors to refugees, then they should have the courage to say so. Canada signed on to the 1951 convention and is supposedly abiding by international law that says we will not send individuals back to their country of origin to face danger. If you want to go down that road, then say so, do so and stop pretending otherwise.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. We will be sure to address our comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

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

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, it is important to note that in introducing the nearly 130-page document originally known as Bill C-2, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, the government was doing a complete 180°. I say this because, as I am sure members will recall, the Liberal government has mismanaged a lot of border crises over the past few years. I am thinking in particular of the wave of irregular immigration at Roxham Road, the human smuggling rings that sprang up at the border to take advantage of migrants and that continue to thrive, the Mexican cartels that set up shop at the border, the wave of car thefts at the port of Montreal, gun trafficking, and plenty of other examples. The Bloc Québécois believes that with Bill C-12, formerly Bill C-2, the government is indeed taking a step in the right direction. However, we also believe that this bill, if passed, leaves one major problem unaddressed, and that is the staffing shortage at the CBSA and the RCMP.

Let us go back a few months. In its election platform, the Liberal Party promised to hire 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 additional CBSA officers. The Speech from the Throne mentioned the 1,000 RCMP officers, but there was no mention of the 1,000 CBSA officers.

The customs union is saying that the CBSA needs another 2,000 to 3,000 officers in order to do its job properly. Although the government stated that the border plan it introduced in December 2024 would result in the hiring of additional officers, I am sure members will agree with me that we are still nowhere near the staffing levels the union asked for, and nowhere near the number the Liberals promised during the election campaign. This is another broken Liberal promise.

In an effort to resolve this issue, the Bloc Québécois and the customs union are asking Ottawa to allow CBSA officers to patrol between border crossings. The aim is not to replace the RCMP, but rather to give federal agencies more depth and flexibility in enforcing the law. This would not require a legislative amendment, only a regulatory change, or maybe even just an administrative change. It really depends on whether the federal government is willing to implement more effective measures to secure the border, while responding to a request from current officers. This is a straightforward and practical request that is coming from the union, but we know what the Liberals are going to say: Why do things the easy way when we can do them the hard way?

The Bloc Québécois has been calling on the government to make changes for some time now. Overall, we are satisfied with the principle of Bill C‑12. We applaud the government's intention. The bill seeks to address several issues that we have been raising for months, if not years. Like all Quebeckers, the Bloc Québécois remains staunchly committed to welcoming people fleeing persecution and hardship.

The bill would mostly ensure that the system that welcomes migrants is fairer and more effective. I wish to commend my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for their tireless work on this bill. I am sure that like me, many members of the House have noticed that the important parliamentary work and committee work being done in this Parliament does not appear to be of much interest to the new Prime Minister of Canada. He seems far more interested in meeting with the leaders of what I will politely call countries with unsavoury reputations, such as China and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, parliamentarians are working diligently in committee to improve bills and to contribute to reports and recommendations on issues that are often complex and poignant. I am thinking in particular of the colleagues with whom I have the honour of serving on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, as well as my peers on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, whom I recently worked with to study Bill C-3 on lost Canadians. Our amendments to that bill received support from the majority of committee members, but they were stripped out when the bill got to the House.

Today, I must reiterate the importance of the work parliamentarians do in committee. I know that this aspect of our work requires a lot of rigour, precision and, above all, willingness to work together and improve things. Unfortunately, it is clear that this government does not seem to understand the amount of work that is involved in serving on a committee or the legislative scope of that work.

As I was saying, overall, the Bloc Québécois is satisfied with the principle of Bill C-12, and we applaud the government's intention. However, several questions remain unanswered. I am thinking about resources in particular, but also about processing times for asylum claims, which I have to say are more than problematic. After analyzing the bill, I am having a hard time understanding how those processing times will be reduced. I quickly realized what the government is really doing with Bill C-12: It is transferring the influx of claims from one place to another and it is getting away with it by saying that it has solved the problem.

The public servants who process asylum claims and those who conduct pre-removal risk assessments have different training. That was mentioned in committee. Given that the training is different, the claims will likely just be transferred from one processing centre to another, which means that the overall volume of claims will not change. The claims will just be moved from place to another. Not only will the volume of claims not change, but the processing times will skyrocket. There will likely not be enough employees with the training to deal with pre-removal risk assessments. They will not be able to deal with those claims.

Obviously, my other concern is the distribution of asylum seekers. It is not right that asylum seekers arriving in Montreal suddenly find themselves without shelter because we lack the means to properly provide for them on arrival. Meanwhile, some provinces in the rest of Canada are doing absolutely nothing. They are making no effort at all to take in their share of these asylum seekers.

I want to remind the House that, in 2024, the former immigration minister, the member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, who is currently the heritage minister and is already making unseemly remarks, announced with great fanfare that he was going to form a committee and make sure asylum seekers were distributed across the country. It was all a dog and pony show. He held a big press conference alongside provincial immigration ministers from across the country. The federal government proudly proclaimed that it had finally found the solution. Since then, all that we have heard is dead silence. The committee was never mentioned again. The Liberals never came up with any more solutions. It is a damn shame.

As I was saying, we support the basic principle of Bill C‑12. I noticed the government's attempt to respond to the Bloc Québécois's priority request to remove the 14-day rule, which was included in the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement and which has created a loophole that has been exploited by human smuggling networks at the border. However, in Bill C‑12, the 14-day rule was not dealt with in the right way. The actual impact of the alternative that has been proposed is pretty hard to pin down. Quite frankly, I think that the networks that are currently exploiting migrants will still be able to do the same thing even if Bill C‑12 passes.

Simply put, the safe third country agreement should have been reopened, as requested by the Bloc Québécois, so that this provision could be removed, because that would have put an end to the exploitation of vulnerable people at the mercy of smuggling networks. The government decided otherwise, but I do not think people understand the extent to which human smuggling networks take advantage of the 14-day rule. We talk to people on both sides of the border, in the United States and here in Quebec and Canada, who work with migrants and try to help them. These people tell us that human smugglers are using the 14-day rule.

They used to just ask migrants for money to smuggle them across the border illegally. Now, they add a clause to the contract saying that they will smuggle them across illegally and, as a bonus, they will hide them for 14 days. After hiding for 14 days, migrants can apply for asylum. The thing is that these people, who have to hide for 14 days because of this provision in the safe third country agreement, are at the mercy of human smuggling networks for 14 days and do not dare to leave their hiding place because, if they do, their asylum claim might no longer be valid.

It is frankly mind-boggling. The same legislation tells migrants that they have to break the law in order to comply with the law. If they cross the border irregularly, then they have to hide in the country for 14 days. Once they have done that, once they have broken the law, they can apply for asylum, and their application will be admissible.

What G7 government asks people to break the law in order to comply with it later?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to recognize that there has been a much higher sense of co-operation coming from all sides of the House with Bill C-12. That is encouraging because the bill would make our borders that much more secure. Even though many of us would like to see other government legislation pass, I do recognize the sense of co-operation that has taken place here.

The member made reference at the beginning of his comments to the RCMP and border control. The Prime Minister and the government, the Liberal caucus as a whole, has been very clear about 1,000 RCMP and 1,000 border control officers. That is a commitment we have made, and that will materialize. There are some hurdles that have to be overcome, and those will be overcome.

Does the member have anything else he would like to add specifically about the RCMP and border control?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two things to consider. First, the CBSA union has said that there is currently a shortage of between 2,000 and 3,000 officers. Second, according to the union, the government could grant border services officers the power to patrol outside border crossings immediately, through a simple administrative decision, without having to introduce a bill.

The union says this measure alone could help, and it would mean that not as many RCMP officers would need to be hired. Border services officers could do their job and get to the scene of a tipoff much faster than the RCMP. There are things the government can do right now, but it is not doing them. The CBSA union is asking the government to do those things. We heard from representatives of that union in committee.

CBSA officials, the minister and the deputy minister have all told us that they will not do those things. It is rather unfortunate that the government simply cannot see how quickly it could take action without even having to use Bill C-12. That would be a game-changer.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, for all the work he does on behalf of persecuted peoples from around the world with his work at the immigration committee, the public safety committee and other venues in this place. His knowledge of the bill and his effort is obviously evident from his speech.

Bill C-12 arises from an original bill, Bill C-2, which was tabled in Parliament way back when as part of a large omnibus bill.

Would the member comment on how this place could operate efficiently? We are now to a point where there is some co-operation, but the ideas of reform here were initially introduced through a large omnibus bill. Does he think that is a good idea when the government had said that it would not do that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleague whom I have had the opportunity to work with on several committees. He works tirelessly and does so for the right reasons. Even though our views sometimes differ, we are able to debate, make progress and collaborate.

Since the government took office, it seems to have forgotten one thing: It is a minority government. It behaves as though it were a majority. Just look at the bills it has introduced since coming to power. It seems to think it is all-powerful, when in fact it needs to work with the opposition parties. We are capable of that. We did so during the study of Bill C‑12. Without my Conservative Party colleagues, Bill C-12 would not be what it is today. We worked together to make changes, and we did so by keeping in mind those who will be affected by this bill.