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 .

The House resumed from October 21 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I rise today to speak about how the legislative amendments proposed in Bill C-12 would continue to uphold our humanitarian tradition and due process while focusing resources on those who need them and improving confidence in our asylum system. These amendments would strengthen and streamline Canada's asylum and immigration systems. They include new rules related not only to whose asylum claim can be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board for a decision, but also how claims are received, processed and decided.

Under the legislation, the federal government would no longer refer claims to the Immigration and Refugee Board for an asylum claim decision for claims made more than one year after someone first arrives, after June 24, 2020, or claims made 14 or more days after someone enters Canada irregularly between border crossings. The amendments are designed to help protect our system against surges in claims, as well as people who want to use the asylum system to extend their stay in Canada when other mechanisms fail.

They are not designed to turn away people with well-founded fear for their safety should they be returned to their home countries. In these instances, claims would be referred to the removal process, which includes the ability to seek a pre-removal risk assessment. Individuals can request this risk assessment when they believe they have a well-founded fear of removal to a situation where they would face persecution, torture or other grievous harm, for example. This safeguard gives us confidence that reforms to our asylum system do not undermine our commitment to protecting the world's most vulnerable people.

The risk assessment upholds Canada's obligations under international human rights and refugee conventions. It is a well-established mechanism that operates within a larger system today, providing an opportunity for those facing removal to demonstrate that they would be at risk of persecution or harm should they be removed. A risk assessment request might highlight information such as conditions in their home country or personal circumstances that make their return unsafe. These could be, for example, political and economic upheaval, armed conflict or shifting social dynamics in a country. Similarly, personal circumstances, such as visibility in activism or family dynamics, can heighten the risk of harm should they return. The risk assessment ensures that these factors are thoroughly reviewed before any removal order is carried out. It is conducted by trained officers who carefully evaluate the credibility and significance of the evidence presented. This is a rigorous process rooted in a deep understanding of risk and refugee law. The importance of having such a process cannot be overstated. Without it, we would lack a critical safety net, and there would be risk of irreversible harm to individuals.

Canada's pre-removal risk assessment process gives people a fair opportunity to submit evidence while ensuring that each case is deliberated with the seriousness that it deserves. The process is supported by a wealth of detailed data on country conditions and officers trained to evaluate risk with a high degree of expertise and sensitivity to individual circumstances. This underscores the importance of the pre-removal risk assessment process in maintaining Canada's strong history of refugee protection.

The pre-removal risk assessment process also ensures that legislative changes made to our asylum system do not inadvertently expose individuals to harm. It acts as a backstop, allowing policy-makers to modernize and strengthen various aspects of our immigration framework while knowing that there is a fail-safe in place. Whether we are streamlining initial asylum decisions, addressing backlogs or modernizing pathways to protection, the pre-removal risk assessment remains an essential safeguard that gives us the confidence to innovate responsibly.

It is important to recognize that the risk assessment is not a tool for delaying lawful removals. Instead, it is about making sure that each person's case is reviewed against the most current information and circumstances so that there is a full consideration of the risks they face and no one is sent into harm's way.

This House has the important responsibility of ensuring that Canada's immigration and asylum systems reflect our values of compassion and fairness, while also meeting the needs of an evolving global context and addressing the pressures facing Canadians today. The pre-removal risk assessment process embodies this balance. It reassures Canadians that while we are taking urgent, necessary steps to strengthen our immigration system, we do so without compromising our commitment to protecting human life and dignity.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments my colleague and friend has put on the record in regard to Bill C-12.

One of the issues I raised yesterday is the way in which the Prime Minister or the government as a whole is dealing with the issue of securing our borders; it is a lot more than just bringing forward legislation. We have witnessed the government materialize, in terms of budgetary purposes, and allocate an additional 1,000 border control agents. When we take a holistic approach in terms of what the Prime Minister said in the last election about securing Canada's borders, and we are now talking about legislation that is going to do just that, and complement it with the idea of adding 1,000 border control officers, I believe that is a very strong commitment fulfilled by the Prime Minister and the Liberal government.

Can the member provide his thoughts on why it was important that we maintain this campaign commitment?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree 100% with the thrust of the member's question. Having robust borders and robust processes around our borders ensures that our systems perform correctly, so that the people who need to be here are able to be here, the people who need to be removed are removed, and they are removed in a very effective and just manner.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about the pre-removal risk assessment process as though somehow that is a fair, due process for asylum seekers. Does the member realize that it actually lacks procedural protections, such as the right to oral hearings, the right to appeal and the right to have a decision made by an independent body? Does he not view those important measures as central for an asylum seeker and to ensure that Canada's asylum process is, indeed, independent, as opposed to one where decisions are made by the government's department?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the process is important and that we do have to make sure the appropriate checks and balances are in place and people can get their story properly before the decision-makers. I believe that is the thrust of what the advance risk assessment process is about, to make sure that we put in that additional process and put in the additional checks and balances to make sure that the decisions coming forward are in the best interest of the country and of the individuals involved.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the member should read the bill, Bill C-12. In fact, Bill C-12 takes away those procedural protections. It only relies on the pre-removal risk assessments because a host of people would be stripped of their right to go before the Immigration and Refugee Board to make their application. That is exactly the concern that I have.

If the government were to ensure that people's rights are protected and procedural rights are intact, then what the government has to do is withdraw this bill and ensure that the current system of the IRB review process for asylum seekers' applications is kept in place.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, once again, I thank the member for her concerns. They are important things to consider and to be wary of, but I would also rely on the committee to undertake a very strong study of this matter and come forward with appropriate recommendations and, of course, its deliberations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we know asylum has been an issue previously, such as in 2010 and 2011, when there were large numbers that required an adjustment to the system, and we had to make changes to the asylum system. What we have witnessed, whether it is through the pandemic or the international students issue, is that there is a need for change to be made. Bill C-12 would do just that, and I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on that, because at times we need to modernize and make changes to retain integrity in the system.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, it is indeed time to modernize. The world is a very precarious place these days; it is very volatile, and there are many people around the world who are in danger and want to come to Canada. We want to make sure we provide a safe haven, but we need to provide the appropriate checks and balances to do so.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak today in strong opposition to Bill C-12, the so-called border security and immigration act.

Let us be clear: The bill is not a new approach. It is a repackaging, a political sleight of hand. Bill C-12 is simply Bill C-2 with a fresh coat of paint. It would not fix the fundamental problems of its predecessor. It doubles down on the same anti-migrant, anti-refugee agenda that civil society, legal experts and human rights advocates have already rejected in overwhelming numbers. More than 300 civil society organizations, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to the United Church of Canada, have called for the full withdrawal of both bills.

The organizations are right, because Bill C-12 would maintain the sweeping new powers in Bill C-2 related to refugee asylum seekers, whereby the minister and cabinet, at the expense of transparency, fairness and human rights, could engage in a host of actions and would be given a host of authorities.

Let us talk about some of the most egregious elements of the bill and what it would actually do. Bill C-12 would give cabinet the authority to suspend or terminate immigration applications and cancel visas, work permits or permanent resident documents whenever it is deemed to be “in the public interest”.

However, there is no definition of “public interest”, none; there are no guidelines, no guardrails, no requirements for evidence and no judicial oversight. The government could use this clause to shut down entire classes of immigration overnight.

As reported by the CBC, for people who apply under the humanitarian compassionate stream, the processing time right now is up to 600 months. That is 50 years. For caregivers, it is nine years; for the agri-food stream, it is 19 years. For entrepreneurs, it is 35 years. This is unheard of. By the way, all this came out of the minister's transition binder.

The fear is that the government will just cancel applications en masse. That is what Bill C-12 would allow the government to do. It is stoking fear. If the government wants to say that Canada wants to shut its door to asylum seekers, then it should just say that instead of doing this under the pretense that somehow this is just and fair and respects procedural fairness.

This is not good governance. It is not just the actions that the government might take with this kind of power that we should be concerned about. It would be giving that power to future governments as well.

The bill also allows the government to block refugee hearings, to impose retroactive one-year bars on asylum claims and to strip people of their status en masse. These are powers that echo some of the most extreme anti-migrant policies we have seen south of the border.

The Prime Minister likes to claim that this is about modernization and efficiency. It is not. It is peddling a racist, discriminatory narrative with Trump leading the charge.

The bill would directly harm refugees and vulnerable migrants, people fleeing war, persecution and violence. Frankly, it is un-Canadian. Let us remember that Canada once prided itself on being a refuge for those in need. Bill C-12 sends the opposite message. It says, “If you didn’t file your paperwork within a year, we don’t want to hear your case.”

We can imagine a woman fleeing gender-based violence, arriving in Canada with nothing, struggling with trauma, with no access to legal support, just trying to survive, and then being told she is too late to seek safety. As Women’s Shelters Canada and LEAF have pointed out, arbitrary timelines such as these deny survivors the ability to seek protection when they need it most.

We should be upholding the rule of law, not concentrating power in cabinet. Bill C-12 represents a dangerous step backward. It undermines our international obligations, our charter values and our reputation as a country that welcomes those in need. The NDP stands with the hundreds of organizations across this country, civil liberties advocates, refugee lawyers, women’s groups and faith communities who are united in saying that we should withdraw Bill C-12 and Bill C-2.

How can the government put forward legislation that will knowingly endanger survivors of violence or those being persecuted for who they love? Sixty-four countries criminalize homosexuality. That is not all. Under the U.S. administration, Trump's executive orders threaten the rights, the health care and the existence of transgender people. More and more, actually, my office has heard from people who are living in fear in the United States.

Bill C-12 is also a blow to civil liberties. It authorizes unprecedented information sharing across departments without proper safeguards. It empowers border agents to access private facilities and detain goods for export. It expands the Coast Guard’s role into intelligence collection and surveillance.

Even though the government removed some of the most intrusive measures from Bill C-2, such as the warrantless access to Canadians' private data, the spirit of the bill remains the same: centralization of power and erosion of rights. The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group has warned that the bill “fast tracks...the most egregious aspects” of its predecessor. It would not fix the problems; it would accelerate them.

Let us not kid ourselves: Bill C-12 exists because Bill C-2 became too toxic to pass. Rather than listening to the hundreds of organizations demanding its withdrawal, the government chose to split the bill into two, hoping Canadians would not notice. However, we do notice. We notice that these measures come at a time when asylum claims have dropped by 34% and when the average number of daily refugee claims has plummeted from 165 to 12.

What is the crisis, exactly, that the government is responding to? This is not about border security; it is about politics. It is about appeasing a Trump-style, anti-immigrant, anti-migrant narrative that is creeping into our political discourse. There is a dangerous pattern emerging under the current government, an obsession with centralizing authority and sidestepping accountability. It is carrying out the Conservatives' agenda but with a new Liberal leader dressed in red. Bill C-12 would expand cabinet's ability to rule by order. It would give ministers unilateral power to cancel applications, suspend rights and make regulations without parliamentary oversight. This is not the Canadian way. Our immigration and refugee system should be based on clear laws, fair processes and independent decision-making, not on who happens to sit in cabinet.

Let us recognize who would bear the brunt of these policies: women fleeing violence, LGBTQ2+ refugees seeking safety, migrant workers exploited in precarious jobs and indigenous people in border communities, who already face racial profiling. Bill C-12 would deepen these inequalities instead of addressing them.

Let us make sure we do this right. When we talk about immigration, we are talking about people: families, workers and children who come here seeking safety and a better life. We should be strengthening our refugee system and not weakening it. The Liberals put women and girls at risk of being deported back into danger. The one-year bar is a copycat of the U.S. refugee determination system. Get this: In the U.S., the one-year timeline starts at their most recent entry into the United States. Canada's proposal is actually worse; it starts at the beginning, the first time they visit Canada. This means that if someone visited Canada some years ago as a child and they are now being persecuted, they will not be able to apply for asylum here in Canada, and that is wrong.

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

Madam Speaker, we see the extremes. We have the leader of the Conservative Party, who, in essence, wants everyone to leave. Then we have the NDP members. I do not think they fully understand what the situation or the reality is on the ground level. I really and truly believe that.

The New Democrats try to give a false impression that there is no need for us to modify or make changes to the system of asylum. I do not understand it. I deal with immigration virtually every day. Every Saturday, I talk with people who want to come to Canada. I do not understand where the member is getting her numbers from, to try to give the false impression that there is nothing wrong with the system.

We have a Prime Minister and a government that recognize that we have a very serious situation. We need to stabilize the whole asylum area and stabilize immigration in general. It is good for the Canadian economy for us to do that. Bill C-12 would, in good part, do that. I do not understand why the NDP does not support the legislation.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the numbers actually come from the minister's transitional binder. I would advise the member to read the bill. The bill is egregious in its violation of rights. There has been plenty wrong, with the Liberals at the helm for the last 10 years, in Canada's immigration system. I can go on for days about that. However, stripping people of their rights or putting women who face gender violence in danger is not the right way to go. Putting the lives of LGBTQ2 members in danger is not the way to go. Stripping refugees of their right to due process is not the way to go. In fact, I tabled a private member's bill calling for an immigration ombudsperson. That is what we should do to ensure that we do this fairly and properly and not just give carte blanche power to a government.

By the way, the Liberals, although dressed in red, are acting just like the Conservatives.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I guess, if we are throwing insults, she is behaving like a Communist. They are so far to the left.

Does the member understand that we have a 7% factor to a 5% factor in terms of temporary permits? Does she believe that Canada should be moving toward that 5%? The Prime Minister and the government do believe that we should be leaning toward 5% on temporary permits.

Does she support that? Does she support the government trying to address the asylum issue? There is an issue there. Does she believe we should address it, or should we just sit back, close our eyes and put our heads in the sand?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me put this on the record for all members to hear very clearly. My mother passed away on October 4. She left China, a Communist regime that attacked her and her family. They fled to Hong Kong and eventually moved to Canada, where we established ourselves. I am not a Communist. Let us be clear about that. I am actually being persecuted right now by the Chinese government under the foreign interference act. They are targeting me as an evergreen target.

Let us be clear. I am not Communist, but I stand for equality, justice and what Canada has always been in my eyes, which is standing up for people and protecting them. That is what the refugee system has been, and bit by bit, the Liberal government, under Bill C-2 and now under Bill C-12, is eroding that.

I want refugee and asylum claimants to have access to due process under the IRB. Yes, there needs to be reform, but not this way.