Bill C-12

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

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

Part 1 amends the Customs Act to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with facilities free of charge for carrying out any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of that Act and other Acts of Parliament and to provide officers of that Agency with access at certain locations to goods destined for export. It also includes transitional provisions.
Part 2 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create a new temporary accelerated scheduling pathway that allows the Minister of Health to add precursor chemicals to Schedule V to that Act. It also makes related amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Police Enforcement) Regulations and the Precursor Control Regulations .
Part 3 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act to confirm that the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, make regulations exempting members of law enforcement from the application of any provision of the Criminal Code that creates drug-related inchoate offences when they are undertaking lawful investigations.
Part 4 amends the Oceans Act to provide that coast guard services include activities related to security and to authorize the responsible minister to collect, analyze and disclose information and intelligence.
Part 5 amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to disclose, for certain purposes and subject to any regulations, personal information under the control of the Department within the Department and to certain other federal and provincial government entities.
It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the making of regulations relating to the disclosure of information collected for the purposes of that Act to federal departments and agencies.
Part 6 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) eliminate the designated countries of origin regime;
(b) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to specify the information and documents that are required in support of a claim for refugee protection;
(c) authorize the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been abandoned in certain circumstances;
(d) provide the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with the power to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been withdrawn in certain circumstances;
(e) require the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division to suspend certain proceedings respecting a claim for refugee protection if the claimant is not present in Canada;
(f) clarify that decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board must be rendered, and reasons for those decisions must be given, in the manner specified by its Chairperson; and
(g) authorize regulations to be made setting out the circumstances in which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must designate, in relation to certain proceedings or applications, a representative for persons who are under 18 years of age or who are unable to appreciate the nature of the proceeding or application.
It also includes transitional provisions.
Part 7 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order specifying that certain applications made under that Act are not to be accepted for processing, or that the processing of those applications is to be suspended or terminated, when the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order to cancel, suspend or vary certain documents issued under that Act, or to impose or vary conditions, when the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
(c) for the application of an order referred to in paragraph (b), require a person to appear for an examination, answer questions truthfully and produce all relevant documents or evidence that an officer requires; and
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing circumstances in which a document issued under that Act can be cancelled, suspended or varied, and in which officers may terminate the processing of certain applications made under that Act.
Part 8 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to add two new grounds of ineligibility for claims for refugee protection as well as powers to make regulations respecting exceptions to those new grounds. It also includes a transitional provision respecting the retroactive application of those new grounds.
Part 9 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) increase the maximum administrative monetary penalties that may be imposed for certain violations and the maximum punishments that may be imposed for certain criminal offences under that Act;
(b) replace the existing optional compliance agreement regime with a new mandatory compliance agreement regime that, among other things,
(i) requires every person or entity that receives an administrative monetary penalty for a prescribed violation to enter into a compliance agreement with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (the Centre),
(ii) requires the Director of the Centre to make a compliance order if the person or entity refuses to enter into a compliance agreement or fails to comply with such an agreement, and
(iii) designates the contravention of a compliance order as a new violation under that Act;
(c) require persons or entities referred to in section 5 of that Act, other than those already required to register, to enroll with the Centre; and
(d) authorize the Centre to disclose certain information to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, subject to certain conditions.
It also makes consequential and related amendments to the Retail Payment Activities Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations and includes transitional provisions.
Part 10 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to make the Director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada a member of the committee established under subsection 18(1) of that Act. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to enable the Director to exchange information with the other members of that committee.
Part 11 amends the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to, among other things,
(a) make certain changes to a sex offender’s reporting obligations, including the circumstances in which they are required to report, the information that must be provided and the time within which it is to be provided;
(b) provide that any of a sex offender’s physical characteristics that may assist in their identification may be recorded when they report to a registration centre;
(c) clarify what may constitute a reasonable excuse for a sex offender’s non-compliance with the requirement to give at least 14 days’ notice prior to a departure from their residence for seven or more consecutive days;
(d) authorize the Canada Border Services Agency to disclose certain information relating to a sex offender’s arrival in and departure from Canada to law enforcement agencies for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of that Act;
(e) authorize, in certain circumstances, the disclosure of information collected under that Act if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will assist in the prevention or investigation of a crime of a sexual nature; and
(f) clarify that a person who discloses information under section 16 of that Act with the belief that they are acting in accordance with that section is not guilty of an offence under section 17 of that Act.
It also makes a related amendment to the Customs Act .

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I commend the member for Scarborough—Woburn for getting so many questions in. This is wonderful. We are hearing from somebody other than the member for Winnipeg North. This is just wonderful. Debate is to be encouraged in this place, and I love seeing that. I thank the member for his heckling and interventions today.

At the end of the day, the government has promised 1,000 new border officers. Pardon me. I should not have said “officers”. It is “personnel” now, though we do not know what that means. It is clear that the CBSA does not have the capacity to turn out those 1,000 members based on its training abilities.

I wonder what my learned colleague would have to say about this ostensible disparity.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the public safety committee this morning, I was asking questions of officials of the border bridges. They were telling me about the shortfall of CBSA officers across the board. The shortage is well more than 1,000 people a year. There is just no capacity to train these people.

When the Gordie Howe International Bridge opens up shortly, the draw of existing officers to that new facility is going to be an enormous burden on our resources and our personnel. The Liberals can talk the big talk and make big announcements, but 1,000 new people is a drop in the bucket of what the CBSA needs.

I urge the government to move forward with 1,000 hires annually.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's comments are consistent, at least, as are those of the Conservative Party.

As I mentioned earlier, the government has repeatedly criticized the Bloc Québécois for ideological reasons because we had proposals that were aimed at tightening the rules on temporary immigration. Now I see my Liberal friends criticizing the Conservatives for their leaders's comments on security, once again, on the basis of ideology.

The question I would like to ask my colleague is this: Would it not be better to debate this calmly, with both sides, both the Liberals and the Conservatives, setting their populist ideas aside?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actually, my speech was a calm debate. It was pointing out existing issues that need to be fixed.

If border-scanning equipment were deployed in the port of Montreal, the port of Vancouver, Halifax and across the board, it would instantaneously fix the export of stolen vehicles in Canada. That is how effective this equipment is. It is deployed across the entire U.S. southern border along Mexico. We have one coming to Canada.

That is real debate about the solutions we have. I would encourage the government to deploy this across the country and fix the car—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-12, which is what is listed today under Government Orders. We have a very strange situation at the moment in that the bill is substantially similar, with the same title and almost all the same sections, to Bill C-2, which remains on the Order Paper. I draw attention to that as I go over the rules only because this is, to me, an unprecedented experience.

I have not been in this place forever, only since 2011, but I have never seen the government introduce two bills that are substantially the same. Sometimes, there is a private member's bill and we look at the order of precedence. As I read the rules, I think the government is within its rights to have two bills that have the same title and are substantially the same, but at the moment that it chooses one to put forward for a vote, we will know that the other one is withdrawn, because we cannot vote on two bills that are the same in the same session.

As a member of Parliament, I wonder what kind of game the government is playing with this. These are both government bills. Why is Bill C-2 still in the order of precedence, and why are we getting nonsense statements from Liberal members, who have said Bill C-12 builds on Bill C-2? That is clearly not what is happening here.

Bill C-2 is an omnibus bill whose title is about stronger borders, and it references many other pieces of legislation within it. Bill C-12 does the same. As some of my hon. Conservative colleagues have already noted, the parts that have been removed are those that were the most obviously egregious. The idea that the Canada Post Corporation Act has to be changed is in Bill C-2, but not in Bill C-12. It would allow people to open our mail in case there might be controlled substances. There are also the parts that would allow information from our Internet accounts to be accessed and shared. This is a source of real concern for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Bill C-2 is an omnibus bill touching on 10 different bills. I think Bill C-12 is down to touching on eight different bills now. It would change the Customs Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Oceans Act, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. I have not read all of them into the record.

Omnibus bills are a problem, because when we deal with subjects that may be somewhat related but are sufficiently different, they should be studied separately. They should not be put together and called an omnibus bill.

In this case, omnibus Bill C-2 attracted omnibus opposition. A broad coalition of over 200 civil society organizations put together a demand to Parliament before we resumed in September, as the original Bill C-2 was tabled in the spring. It attracted concern from civil liberties organizations, refugee protection groups and migrant protection organizations. I can mention some of the groups by name.

Specifically, over 300 organizations called for Bill C-2 to be withdrawn, including the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Church of Canada, the Migrant Rights Network, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International, OpenMedia, Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, Climate Action Network Canada, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association. They all called for a full withdrawal of Bill C-2. I have not read all of the groups' names into the record.

Now we have Bill C-12. Have these groups said the government has heard their concerns and, obviously, Bill C-2 is going to be withdrawn? No. Bill C-2, as I mentioned, is still on the Order Paper. More than that, though, removing the parts that were in Bill C-2 from Bill C-12 does not make Bill C-12 acceptable.

I am going to quote Matt Hatfield, the executive director of OpenMedia, one of the many civil society organizations concerned about this bill. This is his position on privacy rights and other aspects of the way in which Bill C-12 is still offensive. He said, “The story of this legislative package is the same today as it was on day one of Bill C-2’s introduction; it’s about pleasing President Trump”.

Like the preceding speaker from Niagara, my riding is also a border riding. Saanich—Gulf Islands is on the Salish Sea, which is an ecological region shared with Washington state. The Gulf Islands referenced in the title of my riding, Saanich—Gulf Islands, are close relatives, one might say, to the San Juan Islands. They have the same ecosystem. The same endangered whales go through both waters of the Salish Sea, and whales and salmon do not carry passports.

The indigenous people of Washington state, the Lummi Nation, are relatives to the Saanich people I am honoured to represent here in this place. They are intrinsically linked, and our borders are strong in that we respect each other's nationalities. I have to say, there are certain strains when the Mariners are playing the Jays, but never mind. Let us set that aside. In my riding, we cheer for the Jays. This is clear.

On Friday last week, we had a cross-border forum and invited into Saanich—Gulf Islands representatives from local governments, indigenous governments, NGOs and civil society groups, and we all agreed that we are still neighbours and friends. We do not like Trump's tariffs and we do not want to kowtow to him, but we want to deepen the relationships that exist between us. We would really like to get our ferry service back, by the way, between Anacortes, Washington, and Sidney, British Columbia.

We can deepen relationships, but given the strong border language and the rhetoric around this, I have to agree with the comment from OpenMedia. The language in Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 is all about pleasing Donald Trump.

What gets offended in the process? I used to practise refugee law. I was a lawyer in Halifax, and in those days, the refugees I helped were mostly ship-jumpers. With nothing more than the clothes on their back, they escaped from eastern bloc and Warsaw Pact countries, like Romania, came to Halifax Harbour and found themselves a lawyer. Generally, that was me.

I was so grateful for this. It has been mentioned a few times in debates that Canadians would hate the idea that we provided hotel rooms, which we did. I will never forget the brilliant young man who called me, probably four decades later, after I got elected, and wanted me to know how he had done in Canada once I helped him get a hotel room in Halifax and start his refugee claim. He started and ran a small construction company and had a number of sons, who are still running his construction company. He was awfully glad we had immediate help for refugees and did not require that they cross at the proper border. Sometimes, a person crosses where they can, with the clothes on their back. This is why I am proud I was a practising member of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. It is also absolutely opposed to what is being proposed here in Bill C-12, and remain so.

Going back to the fact that it is an omnibus bill, this means it is not going to go to the immigration committee for proper study with enough witnesses and experts brought to bear to say, “This is what is wrong with this bill, and this is how we might fix it.” The Green Party still maintains that these issues are not fixable and that both Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 should be withdrawn immediately. In the meantime, the greater likelihood is that they will not be. The Liberals have caved to what the Conservatives demanded in this place, and I thank those on the Conservatives benches who demanded it, but they are not demanding enough. Both bills should be withdrawn immediately.

Bill C-2 had egregious sections regarding the post office and the Internet, but Bill C-12 is still unacceptable. It has provisions that invade privacy and hurt refugees, with innocent people caught in the gears of what is now an increasingly Trumpian world. We do not have to accept that. We can make laws that work for Canadians and for those who legitimately need our protection. Canadians will always want to say “elbows up”, but with arms outstretched to the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, our new Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to secure the border and take certain actions to ensure that we stabilize immigration-related issues. I see the legislation as being very positive and encouraging. Bill C-12 will hopefully garner the support necessary to ultimately get through. It is important to Canadians.

This does not mean we give up on Bill C-2. As an example, in northern Manitoba, fentanyl in the mail really has an impact. There are many rural communities in northern Manitoba that want the government to take action on it. That action is in Bill C-2. I hope the leader of the Green Party will be more sympathetic to people in northern Manitoba—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I must give time for the response.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of concerns for the residents of northern Manitoba. They face many issues, and we should certainly pay attention to the Port of Churchill.

There are many things that need to be done, but no one needs to open our mail to protect us from fentanyl. I have talked to the Minister of Justice about this. Many accommodations could be made. Mail, unlike many other objects that may contain illegal drugs, is addressed to the person who is going to receive it. As such, one could ask the post office to set it aside, contact the recipient and ask if they mind having their letter opened or if they would like to be present when their letter is opened.

The government has just said on the record that it has not given up on Bill C-2. Mark that well.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I want to pick up on what the member for Winnipeg North said. There is a resounding loyalty to the mess that is Bill C-2. I still do not think he has given up on the warrant issue and on believing that Canada Post should be able to open our mail without a warrant. This is the type of verbiage we are hearing in the House when it comes to Bill C-2.

We all agree on the overall aim of having a secure border. I wonder if my hon. colleague would agree that the government really missed the mark on that and that is how we got to Bill C-12.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Kamloops, who practises law there. Parenthetically, I think we could use more lawyers in this place. We could use people who understand how to read legislation and can say, “Ah, this seems to have something funny about it. We don't want warrantless access to our private information.”

I agree with my friend from Kamloops that it is concerning that the government has not given up on the idea of further invasions of our privacy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party, through its leader, has indicated that it will not be supporting Bill C-12.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on the Prime Minister's commitment to building on our border control and RCMP with 1,000 personnel in each area. Does she believe that is a positive thing?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we certainly support the CBSA. We have felt for some time that to the extent that our border was in any way porous, it was not because of the risk of fentanyl coming from Canada into the U.S., as Mr. Trump seems to believe, but rather the opposite. In particular, it is because of other drugs, precursors of other drugs and illegal weapons coming from the U.S. into Canada. CBSA officers need to be able to take the time they need and be fully resourced to inspect things as they come to our border.

However, I will express concern briefly about the RCMP officers we are hiring. We need to look at the Mass Casualty Commission report, which recommended that our RCMP officers need more training, because" 26 weeks is not enough. The Mass Casualty Commission recommended a three-year course to ensure that RCMP officers are adequately trained to do the very challenging job they have in front of them.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on behalf of the residents of Ponoka—Didsbury.

After a long decade of nihilistic Liberal rule, chaos and disorder reign supreme in our streets. Criminality may be only one of the many problems Canadians face, but it is a significant one.

A survey by Abacus Data released this year, in 2025, found that 46% of Canadians ranked crime and public safety among their top concerns. This can be contrasted with an Ipsos poll taken in June 2015, the year our previous Conservative government left office, which found that 15% of Canadians ranked crime and violence among the issues on the national agenda at the time. I will let Canadians ponder those two statistics to find out just who has been a better steward of peace, safety and security in this country.

Canadians understand that the situation is untenable. After all, it is they who have had to shoulder the burden of this rise in criminality in our communities. For context, since 2015, violent crime has spiked significantly, and it is up nearly 50%. That is not all; crime of almost every category has seen an increase: Sexual assaults are up nearly 75%, homicides are up 28%, gang-related homicides and organized crime have increased by 75%, violent firearms offences with illegal guns are up 116%, extortion is up 357%, auto theft is up 46%, and trafficking is up nearly 84%. Fraud, homicide and anything we can name are all going up. I could continue, but I think my colleagues get the picture.

This upswing in violence is not a coincidence; it is a result of soft-on-crime policies and a porous border. It is the realization of the law of unintended consequences brought on by a decade of bad policy, informed by a world view that cares more about optics than it concerns itself with the real-life effects of its own self-serving ideological agenda.

We now have a so-called government that is presenting bills in the House that purport to fix this collection of self-inflicted issues that Canadians face. These are the same problems that the members across the aisle from me created. In 2015, our Conservative government oversaw a Canada that had its lowest total crime rate since 1969. Unfortunately, the last 10 years has seen this progress almost completely erased.

It is the hypocrisy of the government that it has opposed and demonized those who support our hard-on-crime agenda while now implicitly acknowledging that Conservatives were right all along.

How did we get here? In 2022, Bill C-5 was passed. In this piece of legislation, the Liberal government removed the mandatory minimums on 14 different Criminal Code offences. These were common-sense penalties on dangerous offences that were instituted and put in place by our Conservative government; these were bills that I proudly passed when I sat on the other side of the House. They include using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence, which people do not have to go to jail for anymore in Canada, thanks to Liberals. Possession of a firearm or weapon, knowing that its possession is unauthorized, so illegal possession of a gun, for example, is another offence that people no longer have to go to jail for.

Possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition is an offence that people do not have to go to jail for anymore. Possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, so if someone steals a gun, they do not have to go to jail. Weapons trafficking, possession for purposes of weapons trafficking and smuggling, so someone can smuggle weapons now, in this country, and not go to jail. Importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized is another example of smuggling; someone can traffic smuggled firearms, guns, ammunition, weapons or anything we can name. Discharging a firearm with intent and discharging a firearm recklessly are offences that people no longer need to go to jail for. If someone wants to commit a robbery, they might as well do it with a gun, because they do not have to go to jail for that either in this country anymore. Did I not just say that extortion is up 357% since 2015? The mandatory minimum penalty for extortion with a firearm is gone thanks to Bill C-5 and thanks to the Liberals and the NDP, which supported them at the time.

In fact, these policies were all informed by expert opinion, yet the Liberals did not seem to care. Instead, before passing Bill C-5, they doubled down and passed Bill C-75 during their majority tenure from 2015 to 2019. The bill eased bail provisions and legislated the principle of restraint, which was codified in the Criminal Code for police and courts to ensure that criminals would be released at the earliest possible opportunity with the least amount of restrictions. Essentially, this favours release over detention; it is precisely these two bills, along with a copious number of bad decisions made, that created the revolving door in our justice system by which offenders are free to continue to terrorize communities.

While the Liberals were making life easier for criminals by passing Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, they increased their attacks on law-abiding firearms owners, who are in no way responsible for any of this crime wave. They did so with a trifecta of bills with zero public safety value. These bills include Bill C-71, which created a backdoor gun registry; the 2020 order in council, a massive list of newly restricted firearms; and Bill C-21 in 2023, which created a national freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns for law-abiding citizens and sport shooters, as well as a new prohibition on many long guns used for hunting and sport-shooting purposes. Since the passing of these bills, the government has not stopped adding firearms to the restricted list.

The Liberals have now embarked on their so-called voluntary assault-style firearms compensation program, the gun grab, which is a program to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens. It completely misses the mark by letting criminals go free and going after people who follow the law. If implemented, this costly and ineffective gun buyback is estimated to cost at least $5 billion, even though only $742 million has been allocated to it. With that kind of money, the government could easily fund such programs as acquiring modern scanning technology at our 119 ports of entry to secure our border.

I have an example to share that I also brought up during the committee hearings on Bill C-21. In the Cayman Islands, a high-efficiency scanner was bought. Someone can drive right through it in a truck, or a sea-can can go through it. It can be put at any port of entry. It will scan a container. It is safe for anyone who happens to be going through, and it will find all manner of contraband: drugs, people, firearms and illegal weapons. Those are about $3 million U.S. apiece.

The Liberal government is going to spend $750 million to take lawfully acquired property away from Canadians. That is about $500 million U.S. If we divide that by $3 million per scanner, we could easily put 150 of these scanners at our ports of entry to make sure we scan at least 10% of all containers coming in and going out. I think most Canadians would be shocked to realize that we do not scan a single container that leaves our country.

The shocking thing about all of this is that, with the change in administration to the south, the administration has claimed that fentanyl was flowing from Canada into the United States and, as a result, was killing American citizens. We would think a prime minister in Canada would have said the flow of illegal guns across the border from the United States into Canada is killing Canadian citizens, pushed back on the American administration and stood up for law-abiding firearms owners in this country.

However, the Liberals did not do that, because they did not want to admit that it was illegal guns killing Canadians on the street. They wanted to maintain the mantra of going after law-abiding citizens. We know that because the current public safety minister said as much when he thought nobody was listening.

How does all of this relate to Bill C-12? If the last decade is any indication, the government has an issue understanding that policy work is a careful game of trade-offs. When enacting policy, we have to heed the law of unintended consequences and try to understand the downward effects a piece of legislation may have. The Liberals did not do their due diligence on crime, and I do not think they have done it on the border bill.

When Conservatives forced the Liberals to back down on Bill C-2, we did so because we understand that the policies contained in Bill C-2 have unintended consequences and unforeseen ramifications. As with Bill C-2, we believe there could be provisions in Bill C-12 that violate people's freedoms and privacy, and it is our duty to ensure that Bill C-12 receives the proper scrutiny it deserves at the committee stage to ensure Canadians do not pay for another boondoggle of unintended, or not unintended, consequences.