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

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, is the House familiar with the concept of a pyromaniac firefighter? Essentially, it is when a person starts a fire and then sits by the phone waiting for a call to come in saying that there is a fire for them to go put out. The person causes problems and then tries to pretend to fix the problems that they themselves caused.

The Liberals say that a new Prime Minister means a new approach. They say that they now realize they created some problems but that they are going to fix everything. The trouble is that it is the same government, the same actors, the same people. In fact, the Prime Minister is the same person who advised the former prime minister to make his bad decisions.

It is six of one and half a dozen of the other. The government is like a pyromaniac firefighter with a hero complex. What it is offering are superficial fixes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with many of the observations my colleague raised about the Conservatives' negligence in matters of immigration. I am sorry, I meant to say “Liberals”. I quite agree with him regarding asylum seekers, and Quebec has taken in more than its share of asylum seekers without being able to benefit from the money that should have come back to us from Ottawa.

However, I would like my colleague to elaborate on temporary foreign workers. The Leader of the Opposition made some unfortunate comments about temporary foreign workers stealing the jobs of good Canadians. I do not know about my colleague, but in my riding, that was very negatively perceived because many people in the manufacturing sector, for example, need these skilled workers, who are so much more than just cheap labour. These are people with expertise who are keeping viable businesses in the regions, thereby generating considerable economic activity.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague is still a bit confused. He mixed up the Liberals and the Conservatives, and I think his statements are still a bit muddled. As I see things, it was the Liberal government that lowered the thresholds. When they were lowered from 30 to 20 and from 20 to 10 overnight, without any warning to businesses, families or workers that this was coming, that was a Liberal decision.

I know that my colleague is eager for the Conservatives to be in power so that he can criticize them, as we saw at the start of his intervention. Right now, however, the situation we are in was caused by the Liberals' ineptitude, incompetence and negligence in matters of immigration.

I would just like to remind my colleague that he can ask the Liberals some pointed questions on this matter too. The Conservatives are not to blame for the situation we are in today.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made mention of a poorly thought-out social media post by the former prime minister, who said Canada is open, come on over, and a flood of refugees followed. I cannot help but make the comparison to another world leader who also makes poorly thought-out social media posts, shaping government policy on the fly.

I would like my colleague to comment on the negative impact that can have on our nation.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can just say one thing: Canada will always be a country that is open to refugees who are truly in need. For refugees fleeing war and hardship, Canada will be open.

However, sending a tweet inviting the whole world to come settle in Canada and then forgetting about these people is unacceptable, immoral and, dare I say, heartless.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-12. This is the fourth time I am speaking to a piece of government legislation in this Parliament.

For the first time, I think it is the story of the bill rather than its content that I find most interesting. I apologize to those following at home if it seems a little bit like inside baseball, but in every Parliament, the government introduces bills and numbers them sequentially. After the pro forma throne speech, Bill C-1, came Bill C-2. The present bill, Bill C-12, is the parts of Bill C-2 that had to be salvaged from the flaming dumpster fire of that original piece of legislation. It is as though the Liberals set their own legislative agenda on fire and the Conservatives had to comb through the charred remains to find something salvageable. What an embarrassment it is for the government.

The new Prime Minister ran on his expertise in government, having spent most of his career as a bureaucrat. He had been waiting in the wings for 10 years to plant his legislative agenda. Do members opposite remember when he was asked if he would ever become prime minister? He said, “Why don’t I become a circus clown?” Well, now he has. He has beclowned himself.

Bill C-2 is the very first piece of legislation that the Prime Minister's government introduced, and it had to be split up in this manner. What an embarrassment that is.

Why did it need to be split up? It is because the forefather of Bill C-12 contained clauses that were so howlingly bad that no one on either side of the House, nor from any coast in this country, could bring themselves to defend it.

Bill C-2 includes a provision that would allow the police to ask a doctor, without a warrant, if their services had ever been used by an individual. This is reprehensible. I am a physician; frankly, this does not just offend me as a Canadian and as a person, but it offends my whole profession. It would violate not just our Charter of Rights and Freedoms but the Hippocratic oath. If a member opposite or their child went to see a doctor who specializes in addictions, mental health, sexually transmitted diseases or reproductive medicine, on what possible planet would they think it was appropriate for the police to ask that physician to disclose them as a client?

Again, I suspect members opposite are getting ready to say that I am somehow being outlandish in my interpretation of their proposed law. Here, once again, I will read them their own darned bill.

In part 14, clause 158, it reads:

A peace officer or public officer may make a demand...to a person who provides services to the public requiring the person to provide, in the form, manner and time specified in the demand, the following information:

(a) whether the person provides or has provided services to any subscriber or client

This is bananas. This is, once again, a Chinese Communist Party level of state overreach.

Once again, if the Liberals do not trust my interpretation of their legislation, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's interpretation or the Canadian Constitution Foundation's interpretation, will they believe their own public safety minister, the one who introduced the legislation? He was quoted in The Globe and Mail in an October 9 article by Marie Woolf, entitled “Public Safety Minister says he wants to push through refined warrantless...powers to help police”. She wrote that the Minister of Public Safety acknowledged that the “provisions in Bill C-2, the original strong borders bill, [allowing police to ask a] doctor without a warrant” if their services had been used by someone, constituted “overreach”.

This is not the first time the Minister of Public Safety has had to throw the Minister of Public Safety under the bus. Who could forget that, just last month, he told his tenant that his own gun confiscation program was a bad idea that he did not support? I would love to believe that it is merely incompetence over there. It is incompetence; it is just not “merely” incompetence.

I am a physician. I do not sign prescriptions that I have not read. I do not give out prescriptions that I do not believe in, because prescriptions are important documents and I have a professional duty to read them. On the other side of the House, we have a Liberal minister who seems not to read the legislation that he tries to pass in the House. On other occasions, he executes a gun grab he does not believe in. This sort of conduct would not be tolerated from any physician in this country. I dare say it would not be tolerated from any professional under any professional body in this country. Why does the Prime Minister tolerate it from one of the highest office-holders in this land?

As I said, it is not merely incompetence over there. I take it that the public safety minister did not write the legislation, but someone did. I want to know who, because this is not a one-off oopsy doopsy in which a junior staffer wrote a law that would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a clear pattern with the government.

The last three pieces of government legislation that I have debated in the House, Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and now Bill C-12 have involved significant power grabs by the Prime Minister. I want to know why.

Bill C-8 would allow the Liberals to kick people off the Internet without a warrant. Bill C-9 would allow the Liberals to police speech on the Internet. Bill C-12, in its previous iteration as Bill C-2, would not only violate patient-physician confidentiality but also allow the government to read letter mail without a warrant.

What is going on over there? Why is the Liberals' response to every conceivable social problem to violate our charter rights? Who is writing the legislation?

I know that as soon as I am done, the member for Winnipeg North will ask why we do not fix this at committee, to which I would say, yes, we are going to have to, but every member in this House should be protecting charter rights. The committee should not be the goalie. The Conservatives should not be the goalie. The Liberals should not be trying to get charter violations past the Conservative goalies. They are the Liberals. They are supposed to believe in liberty. I am honestly starting to wonder if they even know what their party's name means anymore.

Here is the Encyclopædia Britannica entry on “liberalism”:

political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

Do the members opposite see themselves at all in this definition today? It has been six months since I was elected to this House, and not once, in between their power grabs, have I heard them make even passing reference to individual liberty or to the fact that the government itself can threaten that liberty.

Conservatives seek to conserve our liberty. Liberals are supposed to seek to expand our liberty. However, this is three times in six months they have tried to get one past us. I am asking them honestly to reflect on this. Are they even Liberals anymore, or have they become something darker? How is it that they have betrayed the Liberal tradition again and again in this House?

I would ask the Liberal backbenchers, in particular, if this is what they signed up to do when they took out a Liberal Party membership and if the Prime Minister's Office ran any of it by them before it tried to ram it through the House. Why do they not do the right thing and withdraw Bill C-2 entirely instead of trying to get it passed piecemeal?

One piece of Bill C-2, Bill C-12, is going to go to committee, but we must not forget the omnibus monstrosity from which it came. We must not forget the questions of competence that the story of Bill C-12 raises, and we must also not look away from the authoritarian tendencies of the so-called Liberals that this story reveals.

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

Mr. Speaker, those are interesting comments. When the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the Harper cabinet inside the Conservative caucus, they passed laws that did not meet the charter challenge. We had the superior courts actually rule them out of order. Now the member makes accusations about the current Liberal government or the past Liberal government. Can he cite any legislation that we have introduced that has gone against the charter, an actual bill that has been ruled as going against the charter in terms of individual rights? We are the party that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so surprised to receive that question. I think I explained it to the member during my last two speeches on government legislation.

The Liberals violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they imposed the Emergencies Act, sections 2 and 8. That is not me, but Justice Mosley of the Federal Court who found that. I would love to hear the member apologize for that violation.

Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and Bill C-2 also violate our charter. I am not going to let it get through the net.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's speech today. He questioned at one point if we signed up to support this bill.

My question for the member opposite is this. Having worked for the RCMP for 23 years as a civilian member, I have seen the hard work of the many women of the RCMP, day in and day out. I have seen them put their lives on the line. I wonder if my colleague agrees with the leader of his party when he questioned the independence of the RCMP. Also, when the Leader of the Opposition indicated—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to give the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler a chance to respond.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am heartened, I suppose, that the member opposite heard and understood the question. I am terribly disheartened that she decided not to answer the question. I take it as a tacit admission that she does not support this legislation.

As for my leader's comments, it is my job here to criticize the appointments the government makes. Criticizing their appointments is well within what we as a democratic body have to do.

The House resumed from October 22 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.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in the House on behalf of the NDP to talk about this important piece of legislation, Bill C‑12. Regrettably, while I am the third NDP member to have an opportunity to rise in the House, it is because the Liberals do not rise to talk about their own piece of legislation because they do not want to talk about it.

This is good for us because it gives me an opportunity to be able to talk about it on behalf of the constituents of Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie as well as several representatives of civil society organizations who are very concerned about the impacts of this piece of legislation on asylum seekers and refugees. I will be discussing this during my speech, but first allow me to provide some background.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister gave an important pre-budget speech at the University of Ottawa. What we saw was a Liberal Prime Minister who, in Canada, takes a very strong Canadian nationalist, protectionist, elbows up line. He talks about defending our sovereignty, our jobs and our companies. However, when the Prime Minister is in the Oval Office in Washington, he completely changes tack. He no longer demonstrates the same strength, the same character, the same determination. He seems to be kowtowing, pandering. The Prime Minister seems to be doing everything he can to appease U.S. President Donald Trump. He is doing everything he can to make him happy. As we have seen on several occasions, despite the Prime Minister's tough talk when in Canada, nothing ever happens.

The current Prime Minister was elected largely because of his platform to stand against U.S. President Donald Trump. Instead, he keeps backing down and making overtures to please the American president. Why is the Prime Minister suddenly trying to revive the Keystone XL pipeline? After promising to make web giants, GAFAM, pay their fair share, why is the Prime Minister now backtracking just because the American president does not really like the idea of taxes being imposed on these big corporations that are making billions of dollars in profits at Canadians' expense? The Prime Minister is not standing up. He does not have his elbows up, ready to lead the fight.

What we are seeing today with Bill C‑12, which is a new incarnation of Bill C‑2, is the same backpedalling and the same attempt to pander to Donald Trump's administration. That man obsesses over certain things. He is anti-migrant, anti-refugee and anti-asylum seeker, plus he is concerned about borders. He is also concerned about drug trafficking, which is entirely legitimate. Opioids and fentanyl are having devastating effects on our communities, and serious measures must be put in place at the border, particularly when it comes to the Canada Border Services Agency. However, the government is playing along with Donald Trump's game, attempting to give him guarantees so that he might eventually negotiate with us. After six months, all we are seeing is setbacks that hurt Quebeckers and Canadians and, in this case, will hurt thousands of people whose fundamental rights will be violated by the Liberal government in an attempt to pander to the American president.

There are people in this field who work for more than 300 civil society organizations and who have already spoken out against the Liberal government's Bill C‑12. I am going to quote them, and I am going to use their line of reasoning to discuss them today, because I think it is important. These are people active on the ground, who know the reality of the situation. They know exactly how this will impact the lives of certain people, including parents, families and children. In some cases, these consequences are very severe.

I am going to begin with the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, or TCRI. It has this to say:

Bill...raises major concerns for migrants, especially migrants who claim asylum. The measures that the government is proposing could prevent vulnerable individuals from obtaining important protections.

These protections existed, or still exist, but they are under threat.

Restricting the right to asylum: The bill introduces two new grounds for inadmissibility. First, a claim will be deemed inadmissible if it is filed more than one year after entering Canada, effective June 24, 2020. The one-year deadline is determined from the first entry after that date, not from the date of the last entry.

If someone came to Canada on a visitor visa as a journalist or a temporary worker, for example, after June 24, 2020, and returned two years later, the one-year period would begin from the first entry, even if the situation in their country has changed and returning to that country would now put them at risk. The government refuses to listen to any new information. Too bad if someone arrived three years ago for the first time. Starting June 24, 2020, the one-year deadline starts at that point. It is absurd.

Second, an asylum claim filed more than 14 days after an irregular entry at a land border will now be deemed inadmissible, as will claims filed less than 14 days after such entry. However, the individual will not be removed to the United States. They will only have access to the pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA).

These deadlines do not take into account the realities experienced by migrants (trauma, vulnerability, lack of access to information and legal support, etc.);

These deadlines are completely arbitrary. It seems that everything is being done to send these people home. That obviously makes Donald Trump happy.

The new rules would apply as of June 3, 2025, even before the bill is officially passed. That means that people who applied legally could have their claim determined to be ineligible retroactively;

That is also extremely serious. Retroactive measures may be implemented as soon as the bill is passed.

People whose claim is determined to be ineligible would have access only to the PRRA, a procedure that does not provide the same guarantees as the refugee determination process and whose approval rates are very low, approximately 2% to 4%.

New step in the asylum claim process: The bill introduces another review between the determination of the asylum claim's eligibility and the referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board, or IRB. [Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC] will be responsible for conducting this review. [It will gather the information and documents related to the asylum claim.] It will have the power to reverse the eligibility decision and to ask the IRB to determine whether the claim for refugee protection has been withdrawn. These new powers raise several concerns about access to a fair process, especially since many important aspects of the review will be determined by regulation.

We do not know what that will look like yet.

Increased government powers [particularly for the executive]: The bill would allow the government to suspend certain claims en masse or cancel immigration documents in the name of “public interest”, bypassing [the transparency] obligations usually associated with the adoption of government decrees.

We have no idea what “public interest” means. Massive powers will therefore be concentrated in the hands of the executive, which will be able to cancel existing claims in a global, massive, and discriminatory manner.

Confusion between migration and security issues: By conflating immigration, asylum, and the fight against organized crime, the [Liberal] bill reinforces the perception of migrants as a threat and justifies a repressive rather than humanitarian approach.

This is extremely serious in the context of rising populism, the far right, hate speech, discrimination, and racism. It is this kind of conflation that Bill C‑12 continues to fuel today.

The TCRI also calls on the federal government to respect its obligations, including the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which Canada is a signatory, and the 1967 Protocol, which enshrines the principle of non-refoulement. This principle prohibits returning a person to a country where their life or freedom is or would be threatened.

The Supreme Court's 1985 ruling in Singh also serves as a legal benchmark. The Supreme Court found that anyone present in Canada, including asylum seekers, have access to Charter protections, including the right to a full hearing.

On behalf of this organization, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and 300 other organizations, I am asking the House to think carefully and to ask the federal government to scrap Bill C‑12.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand that the New Democrats are having difficulty with the legislation, but I think we need to recognize that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party have made a commitment to Canadians to strengthen our borders, and the legislation is a very important aspect. They also made a commitment to stabilize immigration-related issues, and asylum is one of those issues. There is a holistic approach. We are also looking at budgetary measures to support it: for example, the 1,000 RCMP officers and, from my perspective, more importantly, the 1,000 Canada border control agents.

I wonder whether the member could provide his or the NDP's thoughts on the 2,000 additional RCMP and CBSA personnel in total.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, the CBSA experienced major staffing cuts under Stephen Harper's government. However, the Liberals have done nothing to remedy that situation over the past 10 years. Giving border officers back their powers and resources would help in the fight against auto theft and against the trafficking of fentanyl, drugs and illegal weapons. That is a good thing.

That said, why did it take the Liberal government 10 years to do something about this? The NDP wants to know. The other question I have today is this: Why does the Liberal plan involve attacking refugees and asylum seekers by violating their fundamental rights and taking away the recourse they may be entitled to?