Mr. Speaker, we request that it be adopted on division.
House of Commons Hansard #100 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was amendments.
House of Commons Hansard #100 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was amendments.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act First reading of Bill C-272. The bill proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to prohibit the establishment or operation of supervised drug consumption sites in close proximity to locations frequented by children, such as schools and playgrounds. 200 words.
Fairness for All Canadian Taxpayers Act First reading of Bill S-217. The bill proposes increasing Canada Revenue Agency transparency by publicly listing tax evasion convictions, mandating tax gap statistical reporting, and improving data access for the Parliamentary Budget Officer. 200 words.
Public Accounts Members debate a Bloc Québécois motion calling for an independent public inquiry into multibillion-dollar cost overruns in federal IT projects, including the Cúram benefits delivery system, ArriveCAN, and the Phoenix pay system. Critics emphasize the negative impact on seniors and government mismanagement, while Liberals argue that modernization is essential and existing oversight mechanisms remain sufficient. 12100 words, 1 hour.
Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act Members debate a Liberal motion regarding Senate amendments to Bill C-12, legislation aimed at strengthening border security and immigration system integrity. Liberals argue the bill provides essential tools for managing migration, while NDP members express strong opposition, criticizing what they describe as "draconian" measures. Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois emphasize concerns regarding system dysfunction and the need for greater accountability and fair distribution of claimants. 12300 words, 2 hours.
An Act Respecting Cyber Security Report stage of Bill C-8. The bill moves to third reading following report stage, where a proposed amendment was rejected. Liberals characterize the legislation as a vital national security measure to protect critical infrastructure from cyber-threats. Conservatives, while acknowledging the need for cybersecurity, contend the original text granted the government excessive overreach and argue their committee amendments were essential to increase accountability and protect individual privacy. 4700 words, 35 minutes.
An Act Respecting Cyber Security Third reading of Bill C-8. The bill, which establishes a cybersecurity framework and amends the Telecommunications Act, passed third reading on division. While the Bloc Québécois and Conservatives praised the collaborative, multi-party improvements made in committee, including mandatory legislative review, critics like the Green Party argue that significant loopholes remain regarding privacy protections, warrant requirements, and ministerial oversight that require further sober second thought by the Senate. 4800 words, 40 minutes.
Addressing the Continuing Victimization of Homicide Victims' Families Act Second reading of Bill C-236. The bill, known as McCann's law, aims to require courts and parole boards to consider an offender's refusal to disclose the location of a victim's remains as a significant factor in sentencing and parole decisions. While Conservative members argue the legislation provides necessary accountability for victims, Liberal and Bloc Québécois members, despite supporting further review in committee, expressed reservations regarding its current legal implementation. 6800 words, 1 hour.
Adjournment Debate - Natural Resources Helena Konanz argues that the government’s regulatory failures and taxes restrict energy production and delay projects. Caroline Desrochers defends current Liberal policies, highlighting record production and ongoing federal-provincial coordination. Konanz also calls for an all-party coalition to address softwood lumber tariffs, which Desrochers agrees requires a unified approach. 1200 words, 10 minutes.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, we request that it be adopted on division.
Motion No. 9Ways and MeansGovernment Orders
Bill C-27 Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tlegohli Got’ine ActGovernment Orders
Northwest Territories Northwest Territories
Liberal
Rebecca Alty LiberalMinister of Crown-Indigenous Relations
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-27, an act to give effect to the Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tlegohli Got’ine and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Rebecca Alty Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to 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, the House:
proposes that amendment 2 made by the Senate be amended by replacing the text of paragraph 75.1(3)(c) with the following: "the proportion of refugee protection claimants referred to in paragraph (b) who exited and re-entered Canada after the day of entry referred to in paragraph 101(1)(b.1) of that Act;";
agrees with amendment 3 made by the Senate; and
respectfully disagrees with amendment 1 because the amendment would remove Canadian citizens and permanent residents from the clear and transparent information-sharing framework established by Part 5 of the bill, because information-sharing relating to these individuals already occurs under existing statutory authorities and would continue to occur in their absence from the framework established by Bill C-12, as the purpose of Part 5 is to replace the current patchwork of authorities with a single coherent regime that establishes consistent partners, clearly defined purposes, and modern privacy safeguards, and furthermore, because excluding Canadian citizens and permanent residents from these provisions would perpetuate existing inefficiencies, undermine modernization initiatives within the immigration system, and reduce the transparency and accountability that Bill C-12 intends to strengthen.
Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to have Bill C-12 back before us. It is an important piece of legislation.
Maybe the best way to start off is to talk about how, just under a year ago, we had an election. Canadians elected a new prime minister and a new government. Over 60, maybe even 70, new Liberal MPs were elected for the very first time. Through the election, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party made a commitment to Canadians in different ways, on different platforms and issues. Two of those were to look at ways we could make our communities safer, and another was to be able to stabilize our immigration.
This is in essence what Bill C-12 does, but I would like to focus and split it into those two sections, if I may, in terms of what it is that I am going to say today. When I think of the Prime Minister's commitment to Canadians and what I campaigned on, which is making our communities safer, I can tell the House that every Liberal member of caucus understands the importance of making our communities safer. This is what we have seen here on the floor of the House is a suite of legislative initiatives that have been presented in order to support that election platform issue that the Prime Minister made to Canadians.
The Prime Minister also, for the very first time, appointed a Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, recognizing again just how important the issue of combatting crime is and having a minister ultimately responsible for facilitating legislation in its creation, doing a great deal of consulting with different stakeholders and ultimately supporting its passage through the House of Commons. I know this first-hand because I have watched her ask many questions here in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill. I have also had the opportunity to witness first-hand the consultation.
Some of that consultation was taking place when the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to visit the city of Winnipeg. We met at a local restaurant, where we talked about issues such as extortion and petty theft. We met with the police association, along with the chief of police of Winnipeg and some of his administrators, where they talked about the importance of some of the legislation that is being debated here in Ottawa. It was a very productive discussion that we had with the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime dealing with legislation.
The reason I say that is that I am sure there is a sense of disappointment with the minister. I know there is with me in regard to Bill C-2. We had to bring in Bill C-12 because the opposition party, the Conservative Party, stood in opposition to Bill C-2. The Conservatives made it very clear that they were not in any way going to be able to support the passage of Bill C-2, so Bill C-2 had to be broken up, and that is why we have Bill C-12 today.
Bill C-12 does not take into consideration everything that was in Bill C-2, but I want to emphasize the issue of lawful access, and I can tell the House that, within the Liberal caucus and the reflections of what the government members have been talking about, lawful access is absolutely essential, and law enforcement officers across the country are talking about the importance of lawful access. Even though it is not in Bill C-12, we had to carry it into another piece of legislation in an attempt to once again get that legislation passed.
I have seen members stand up and talk about the issue of extortion, for example. If they are genuinely concerned about extortion, how can they possibly not want to see lawful access pass the House? They will get another chance to do so.
I would put what Bill C-12 does in two different tiers. The first tier deals with the issue of strengthening Canada's borders, which is absolutely critical. The second tier deals with an immigration perspective that I would like to be able to share with the House in great detail.
Before I do that, I want to highlight a couple of the things in Bill C-12 with regard to securing Canada's borders that are really important for those who have followed the debate, whether it is here in the House or in the Senate chamber, to recognize. It would strengthen border security in a very real and tangible way. The bill would have an impact on things such as drug trafficking and the smuggling of weapons. Think about stolen vehicles that are exported out of Canada and the impact that has on our communities, particularly in the province of Ontario more recently.
Think about what the government has done in relation to border security, whether it is about those drugs, vehicles or other issues dealing with smuggling and weapons, in particular. It is one thing to pass legislation. It is another to provide the supports. We have a Prime Minister, a Minister of Finance and, in fact, a government that has recognized the importance of providing the supports that are necessary, such as investments of well over $1 billion to secure the Canada-U.S. borders and our coasts. There is a commitment from the Prime Minister for 1,000 new border control agents in one form or another.
Look back to the days when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government. The Conservatives talked about the importance of the border but they cut border control agents. They cut the budget going to the CBSA. That is one of the reasons why, with our new Prime Minister, we have invested not only in legislation to provide additional support, but also in budget dollars.
The legislation would enable a larger role for and enhance the role of our Canadian Coast Guard so that it could conduct security patrols, for example. When we talk about our Coast Guard services, what is really encouraging is how we are taking a more holistic approach. That is why we would see the Coast Guard now playing a larger role within DND.
The bill would enhance the RCMP's ability to share information. We often talk about registered sex offenders. The RCMP having the ability to access and share that sort of information in a limited way would be a very positive thing.
I want to get to one part of the legislation to provide a bit of history. This is the immigration portion. I understand that I have about four or five minutes to go, even though the temptation might be there to go longer, because I love talking about the issue of immigration. Immigration is an issue on which all of us should be working together to try to improve the situation.
The Prime Minister says we want to stabilize immigration. It is easy to be critical, but we have a Prime Minister and a government actually working to stabilize immigration. When the immigration critic was in government, the Conservative government back then made a commitment in 2014 to increase the number of international students and researchers to over 400,000. She might not recall that, but I do.
Looking at the situation we have today, we have to factor in what led us here. Whether it was the leader of the Conservative Party and the critic for immigration sitting around the cabinet table, saying, “Let us increase the numbers,” or the pandemic, which caused all sorts of issues with visas actually being extended, there is a reason why we are in the situation we are in today. Now we have a Prime Minister and a Minister of Immigration who have made a commitment to stabilize it so that we can once again reinforce confidence in the system. This legislation is a part of that.
If a person has been living in Canada for a year, whether it is for study or a visit, is there a need to allow someone of that nature to be able to claim refugee status, which could bottleneck the system? I believe the short answer to that is no. The legislation addresses that issue. Why does it do that? It is very important that when we talk about the commitments that came out of the last election, we look at ways to do that.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver East.
I ask members opposite to recognize that Bill C-12 is good legislation. I am glad to see that it will likely be passing. I also want to encourage members opposite to take a look at Bill C-22, which is the lawful access bill. It is part of the suite of crime legislation the government has brought forward in order to make our communities safer. Lawful access is important.
I will leave my comments at that. I look forward to any questions.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I paid close attention to my colleague's speech. He said that the opposition is sometimes too critical of the government on immigration issues and that it should maybe make more of an effort to work across party lines on some issues.
Interestingly, Radio-Canada published an article in February that included a lot of criticism of the current Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. What was surprising was that the criticism came not just from the opposition; it was across party lines. It was unanimous. Several Liberal members were quoted in the article. They said there were huge problems with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship's lack of familiarity with the portfolio.
I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with his own Liberal colleagues about the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I disagree wholeheartedly with the article the member makes reference to and the character assassination we are getting from the opposition toward the Minister of Immigration. I do not believe they are being fair with regard to the situation Canada is in, because of a number of factors.
Last year, we had an election. We now have a Prime Minister who has made a commitment to Canadians to stabilize immigration and a minister who is implementing that stabilization. Quite frankly, it has been very successful. She has done a fantastic job at stabilizing it and bringing more order.
Saying it was the former government, if members want to be fair—
Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
We have to go on to the next question.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have say to the member opposite that I am disappointed that, with all the significant changes on immigration, the immigration minister is not the one giving the speech. However, the parliamentary secretary is known for being here most of the day and for always giving a speech, so that is that.
There are so many issues with immigration in the country. We have heard especially about the issue of the 150,000 fraud cases that were not properly identified and a lot of excesses, such as the three million people who are supposed to leave and have no plans to leave.
Can the member expound on what the government is doing to address the concerns that have been raised?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the government has been aggressively pursuing this, making sure that we stabilize the immigration file, and it is having success.
The member is trying to give the impression that this might be the first time this has happened, but she should look back to when she and her colleague, the immigration critic, were in the Conservative government caucus. Do members remember some of the issues they created? They deleted literally hundreds of thousands of files that were being processed overseas. They told people they did not care about their moms and dads. They would not be able to sponsor them because the Conservatives were stopping the program. There were delays for married people so that it took three, four and five years for people to be able to sponsor a spouse.
If the member wants to talk about immigration disasters and compare them, I will be more than open to doing that if I am given leave at the appropriate time.
I can tell members that we have a Prime Minister who is committed to stabilizing immigration, and we will do just that.
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that my colleagues opposite would ask such questions and level such criticisms given that the Minister of Immigration recently made significant updates.
I would like to invite my colleague to once again explain to my colleagues opposite that we have made a lot of major changes with respect to immigration. We have reduced the number of immigrants because we want things to be even across the country.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing today is a reflection of the need because of issues that stem back to 2014.
The biggest change we have seen is an adjustment in the total number of immigrants coming into Canada. At the same time, we are looking at ways we can facilitate a reduction in the extension of temporary visas for people who are here and do not have provincial support. For example, if someone in the province of Manitoba has a visa that is going to expire, they are going to have to leave Canada.
We need to bring the numbers down, and we are doing just that.
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Speaker, at the outset of the member's speech, right at the beginning, he said this is an important piece of legislation. I could not agree more. All legislation that comes before the House is important. This particular piece touches on immigration, the IRCC, the IRB and the CBSA. There are all of those issues.
The member referred to 2014. He has conveniently and completely avoided saying the name Trudeau in this House. I do not think he has mentioned it once since the 45th Parliament started. We all know what has happened to the immigration system over the last 11 years. The Liberals have completely destroyed it.
This is an important piece of legislation. I wonder why the minister is hiding behind the member and not standing in her place, if it is such an important piece of legislation to the department, to speak to it in the House and defend it. Instead, she has asked the parliamentary secretary to the House leader to speak to it.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Immigration and the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime have both played a very important role in the creation of the legislation and they have contributed immensely, whether in caucus, on the floor of the House or in communities by meeting and working with the different stakeholders out there.
This is good, sound legislation. It could have been better if it had been incorporated into Bill C-2, but the Conservatives refused to pass Bill C-2 because it had lawful access and they do not support lawful access. As a result, we now have Bill C-12.
I am here, not only providing my personal—
Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
We have to go on to the next question.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised that my colleagues are saying they are astonished by the criticism of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. My colleagues would not be so surprised if they had read and watched Radio-Canada's reporting. This time, Radio-Canada went to the trouble of publishing the same report in English as well so that my colleagues from the rest of Canada could view it. They are not used to reading Radio-Canada's French-language website.
Liberal members are the ones complaining about the minister's work on this file, so my colleagues should stop saying that the opposition members are the only ones criticizing her. The article includes dozens of comments from Liberal members.
What does my colleague think of his Liberal colleagues' comments about the minister?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the criticism is justified to this degree, wherein Bloc members are calling for resignations and so forth. We have a very competent and able minister who has been able to deliver on what the Prime Minister said in the election platform in terms of stabilizing immigration. She is doing just that.
Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Before we go to resuming debate, I am going to do a bit of procedural housekeeping and ask for unanimous consent for the member to split his time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.
Is it agreed?
Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank members of the House for their grace in allowing me to speak to this important bill today.
I rise today with ongoing and deep concerns about Bill C-12. Behind the language of “efficiency”, “integrity” and “streamlining”, the bill would do something very real and very harmful. It would take rights away from people who are seeking protection, handing more unchecked power to the government and scapegoating newcomers. The intention in the logic behind this legislation is not just flawed, it is dangerous. That is why New Democrats cannot support Bill C-12.
Let us begin with the refugee system. Canada has long prided itself on offering people a fair hearing and an opportunity to present their case before an independent decision-maker. However, Bill C-12 would weaken that foundation. Under this legislation, people would be found ineligible for a full hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board, not because their case lacked merit but because of some arbitrary timeline. Instead, they would be pushed into a pre-removal risk assessment process. The government says that it is fine, but the process would deprive individuals of the opportunity for their case to be heard by an independent tribunal. Under the pre-removal risk assessment process, decisions are made by an immigration officer. There is no meaningful right to appeal.
Due process is not a luxury. It is a fundamental principle of justice, and the bill would erode that. This is not a concern just raised by me in the House. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has already sounded the alarm bell. It has warned that Bill C-12's new ineligibility provisions would deny refugee claimants adequate procedural safeguards, and it has called on Canada to ensure access to fair and efficient procedures in line with our international obligations, including the principle of non-refoulement. Civil society organizations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, have said the same.
There is no evidence that the legitimacy of a refugee claim is linked to how quickly someone files it. The introduction of a one-year bar is particularly troubling. Refugee claimants are expected to navigate a complex legal system, often without legal advice, often in situations of trauma. Under this legislation, they would be told that if they do not act within an arbitrary timeline, they will lose access to a full hearing. This is not fairness. This is exclusion, and this is procedural duress. Frankly, this is a system stacked against the claimant.
Who would this actually affect? It could affect a child who once visited Canada with their family, a human rights advocate who came to Canada to speak about conditions in their home country or a survivor of gender-based violence who needed time to process trauma before coming forward. All could be captured by these sweeping exclusions, and it gets worse. These provisions are retroactive. They would apply to people who entered Canada years ago, going back to 2020, who had no way of knowing these rules would one day be used against them. It undermines the very principle of legal certainty.
However, that is not all. Bill C-12 would also grant sweeping powers to the government to cancel immigration documents, potentially affecting an entire group of people. Under the broad and undefined concept of public interest, legislation needs to be precise. It must include clear limits and safeguards, but the bill does not do so. Instead, it would open the door to decisions being made without transparency, without independent oversight and without adequate recourse. This should concern all of us, because when power is concentrated without accountability, mistakes are not just possible, they are inevitable.
We do not have to look far to understand the risks. Canada has a history, one we must acknowledge, of making decisions in moments of fear that disproportionately harm marginalized communities. We have seen exclusion justified; we have seen rights denied, and in hindsight, we have recognized those decisions as wrong. The question before us is simple: Have we learned from that history or are we just repeating it, but this time under different language?
Another serious concern is the expansion of information sharing. The government argues that this is to improve coordination, but coordination must not come at the expense of rights. Under this framework, personal information, status, identity and immigration history can be shared more broadly across government systems. While the government says that safeguards will exist, many of these arrangements would depend on agreements that are not transparent.
This creates real risks, because migrants rely on public services, health care, housing and legal supports. If there is even the perception that accessing these services could expose their immigration status, people will hesitate. They will delay seeking care. They will avoid reporting exploitation. They will withdraw. That has consequences, not just for those individuals but for our communities. Public systems work best when people can access them safely and without fear. This bill risks undermining that.
The Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, after studying the bill, called for the draconian measures in part 5 to part 8 of the bill to be deleted. The Senate wanted amendments to restore some balance so that measures to block refugee hearings; the arbitrary, retroactive one-year bar; the breach of privacy to share information about applicants; and cabinet's ability to cancel or suspend documents en masse under vaguely defined public interest terms are done away with.
Unfortunately, these amendments were voted down by the Senate committee on public safety. In the end, the Senate passed amendments to limit the sharing of personal information from citizens and permanent residents and to make mandatory annual reports on asylum claim processing times, ineligibility data and statistics on post-one-year asylum claims. Even though the amendments from the Senate are significantly pared down from their original form, the Liberals want to reject the Senate amendments to respect the privacy rights of citizens and permanent residents.
The Liberals have introduced this at a time when migrants are increasingly being blamed for broader social challenges. We hear claims that migrants are responsible for housing shortages, for pressures on health care and for affordability challenges. I will be very clear: Migrants do not create these crises. These are the result of policy decisions about housing supply, public investment and economic priorities. Blaming migrants does not solve these problems. It distracts from them, and legislation like Bill C-12 risks reinforcing that narrative.
The bill is an attack on people who are already vulnerable, such as refugees fleeing violence, migrant workers facing exploitation and families trying to build a life in Canada. These individuals are not statistics. They are members of our communities; they contribute, they work, and they care for others. They deserve a system that treats them with dignity and fairness.
The consequences extend beyond individuals. Denying refugee claimants due process puts people at risk of persecution, torture or worse. It also damages Canada's credibility on the world stage. The same UN Human Rights Committee has raised broader concerns about the state of civil liberties in this country, from surveillance to systemic discrimination and barriers faced by marginalized communities.
New Democrats believe there is a better way. We can build an immigration and refugee system that is both fair and efficient, that processes claims in a timely manner, that ensures access to legal supports, that upholds due process and that recognizes the humanity of those seeking protection. These are not competing goals. They are complementary.
We must uphold the principles of fairness, accountability, human rights and due process. The legislation does not meet this standard. For those reasons, my colleagues in the NDP and I will oppose the Liberal motion and will also be opposing Bill C-12.
Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders ActGovernment Orders
Brampton North—Caledon Ontario
Liberal
Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)
Mr. Speaker, there are many other countries, such as in Europe, the U.K. and the United States, that limit asylum claims to a one-year time period. I think some of the member's speech generalized and said that Canada would no longer give due process to asylum claimants. That is untrue.
People who enter the country and wish to claim asylum would have an ample, one-year time period to put their claim in if their life is at risk. If they miss that time period and fall upon removal at some point in the future, they would also have the option of filing for a pre-removal risk assessment so that they are not removed into any risky situations.
Is that not true?
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the member cited the United States because, believe it or not, the United States actually has a slightly better system, although not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Its one-year bar actually applies to the last date of entry. Canada has chosen to apply it retroactively. This is what the government is doing. It is racing to the bottom instead of respecting international law and basic human rights.
On the issue around the pre-removal risk assessment, in my speech, I amply outlined the flaws within that system. The government is now depriving individuals who are not able to meet the arbitrary timeline. People who face trauma, who escape persecution, may not have the wherewithal to file the claim within one year for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is a lack of access to legal supports.
The member seems to think this is okay. The New Democrats take a different point of view. We do not think it is okay. We think that this is a draconian piece of legislation and it should be withdrawn.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's opposition to Bill C‑12. However, we think it is a balanced approach that is not without risks, but that addresses our legitimate concerns about the integrity of the process. In particular, the government wants to add a rule that would require asylum seekers to be on Canadian soil to have their case heard.
What does my colleague have against that specific provision?