Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, at third reading. As the critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship, I will explain why we support this legislation, particularly in terms of what it does for our immigration system.
First, let us review the situation. The number of temporary residents has increased significantly in recent years under this Liberal government. In 2018, temporary residents accounted for 3.3% of the Canadian population. By 2024, that figure had risen to 7.5%, which is more than double. Since Bill C-12 focuses primarily on asylum seekers, let us look at the situation from that perspective. In 2015, Quebec received 3,000 asylum claims. In 2020, that number had tripled to nearly 10,000. In 2024, it was 10 times higher than in 2015, at 35,000. That means that, in 10 years, the number of asylum claims jumped from 3,000 to 30,000.
Asylum claims have dropped somewhat since 2025, but 190,000 asylum seekers in Quebec are still waiting for a final decision. The backlog across Canada is close to 300,000. The increase in asylum claimants has created enormous challenges for the integrity of the process. What is the best way to ensure that only refugees within the meaning of the Geneva Convention are accepted and that claims are processed at a reasonable pace? Is there a way to detect fraudulent claims?
Recently, we learned that the Immigration and Refugee Board, or IRB, was skipping in-person hearings to speed up processing. There had been a significant increase in application volumes, and the IRB was under pressure to move faster. It therefore decided to just skip the hearings and approve the asylum claims.
Some 35,000 asylum seekers have had their claims accepted in that manner since 2019. In 2025, 15% of all claims were accepted without a hearing to test credibility. When the IRB chairperson appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, she acknowledged that holding hearings enhances the integrity of the process because hearings allow the IRB member to verify the evidence submitted as part of the claim.
The mechanism put in place by the IRB raises concerns about the integrity of the process. A list was drawn up of countries from which claims are often accepted because there are legitimate fears of persecution, and the decision was made to fast-track them on paper. Here is the issue. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, the information has spread and criminal groups in these countries may have been able to use it as a fast track to obtaining refugee status in order to be able to enter Canada. That is one recent issue.
Here is a second recent issue. On Monday, the Auditor General of Canada tabled a report on international students. Once again, we see that there are concerns about the integrity of the process. The Auditor General said that 153,000 reports relating to study permits had been sent to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada by Canadian educational institutions. The reports indicated that the students who held those study permits might have failed to comply with the conditions.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada flagged 153,000 cases in 2023 and 2024, but only 4,000 of them were investigated. This shows just how fragile our immigration system really is. Investigations were launched for each of these 4,000 cases, but 40% of them were dropped because the applicant or person with the study permit failed to respond. These investigators were not exactly over-zealous. All the person had to do was not respond and the investigators left them alone. That is no way to protect the integrity of the process or the public's trust in it.
The Auditor General also told us that there are 800 cases. This is noteworthy because even though the Auditor General used random sampling, she was able to identify 800 cases that were reported to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada not as potentially problematic, but as problematic. Some 800 study permits were shown to have been issued based on fraudulent documents or inaccurate information. There are cases where people obtained study permits by claiming that they wanted to enrol in a Canadian university with a diploma that they had earned from a college that does not exist or from a college known to be a diploma mill. How did IRCC respond to these 800 fraudulent cases? It did nothing, even though it had the discretion to take action to ensure the integrity of the process. Public confidence in our immigration system is eroding, and the IRCC still made the decision to do nothing. It decided to do nothing about those 800 cases.
Our immigration system is having difficulty adapting. That is what is going on. The government failed to adapt the system to a reality that has changed dramatically over the past 10 years. There has been a sharp increase in applications, so the process needed to be improved, especially in terms of processing times but also in terms of integrity. I gave two examples earlier that demonstrate the system's inability to adapt, namely, claimants who were accepted without a hearing and international students who obtained their permits fraudulently and who have not been dealt with. This undermines the integrity of our immigration system, and that is why we support Bill C‑12. We think that this bill provides some useful ways to strengthen our immigration system, particularly when it comes to asylum seekers.
What does Bill C-12 do in terms of immigration? First, there is part 5, which facilitates information sharing. That should enable various bodies to exchange information when fraudulent schemes are uncovered so that action can be taken.
Part 6 gives the minister more control over asylum seekers. That is not without risk, but the government thinks it has to be done. For one thing, the minister will be authorized to “specify the information and documents that are required in support of a claim for refugee protection”. The government will “authorize the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine that claims for refugee protection...have been abandoned in certain circumstances”. The minister will be provided with “the power to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred...have been withdrawn in certain circumstances”. That is important. In other words, the Minister of Immigration will have the power to consider all claims for asylum made in Canada even if they have been received by officers. This is an extraordinary measure that raises legitimate concerns because the board can make mistakes, but so can ministers.
However, under the amendments to Bill C-12, when a minister exercises this power, they must report it to the House, and use of that power must still remain exceptional. Where this power will prove useful is when Immigration Canada conducts investigations and uncovers fraud, by finding flaws or identifying large numbers of applications. Political action can then be taken to immediately withdraw certain asylum claims. If used properly, this exceptional power could clear up the system's backlog and dispose of fraudulent claims. Furthermore, Parliament would have oversight because, every time this power is used, a report must be sent to Parliament, where it can be debated. We can thus ensure that this power is being exercised properly. I still have some concerns in that regard, but I think it is the best solution to enable us to take action, given everything that is happening in relation to immigration.
In addition, if the asylum seeker is not present in Canada, then their claim will not be considered. That seems obvious to me. A refugee claimant who fears persecution cannot be anywhere other than in Canada when their claim is received. Furthermore, the whole section related to the 14-day period has changed. Under the safe third country agreement, if someone enters Canada illegally and is intercepted within 14 days, then they will be returned to the United States. If they are intercepted after 14 days, then that is where things get interesting. In that case, they will be sent back to their country of origin. We see this as a step forward.
There is one thing that the bill does not address, though, which is the distribution of asylum seekers. That is another matter, but it is important to us. Earlier, I was talking about securing public trust in and support for our immigration system. For that to happen, the public needs to feel that there is equity, the process needs to be fair, and Quebeckers also need to get their fair share. However, as Quebeckers in Canada, we often feel that we are not getting our fair share, including our share of investments. As for our share of asylum seekers, thanks to certain geographic realities, Quebec took in 37% of asylum seekers from across the country in 2025, even though we represent 22% of the population. That creates pressure. At the same time, we have international obligations, and Quebeckers are a caring and welcoming people who have had wonderful experiences with refugees.
Still, the distribution of asylum seekers is relevant to the topic of this discussion, namely public confidence in the integrity of the process. I think the public understands the importance of immigration and the importance of welcoming refugees, as long as the government does its job properly and people feel the provinces are being treated fairly. There is no fairness now. Quebec accounts for 22% of Canada's population, but it is taking in 37% of all asylum seekers. Obviously, this is putting enormous pressure on Quebec's public services. I do want to be very careful when I say that, because 127,000 of the 190,000 asylum seekers in Quebec have work permits. These are people who want to get involved. However, there are a number of concerns that come with that. Quebec is incurring additional costs. The province wants $700 million from the Government of Canada, but the federal government is refusing to give Quebec the money. It is also refusing to distribute asylum seekers fairly. This issue is still ongoing, and we will continue to press the government to address it.