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

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy for the opportunity to ask my colleague a question this morning.

I found it quite funny to hear him criticizing the speech given by the Prime Minister yesterday. From what I saw, the Prime Minister said nothing. Therefore, I do not have much to criticize, except the fact that he said nothing. Now back to the matter at hand.

We are obviously all concerned about the rights of people who apply for asylum and whose lives are threatened. However, we need to recognize that there were problems at the border. These include the fact that at one point, there were human smuggling networks, which are probably still operating. They would cross at Roxham Road and demand exorbitant sums from poor and vulnerable people. We feel that strengthening border security is important. Of course, it needs to be done right.

At this second reading stage, does my colleague not think that we should vote in favour of the bill and send it to committee to make the necessary adjustments and take the necessary precautions so that individual rights are respected?

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

Madam Speaker, criminal smugglers who exploit people trying to find a better life and a better future here must obviously be prosecuted. We need to have the tools to do that.

However, what I am saying, and what the NDP is saying, is that we must do it in a way that will not affect the remedies and procedures that protect these people's rights. As it stands now, Bill C‑12 is fundamentally flawed. There are 300 organizations that are calling on us to vote against the bill, because it would allow the executive branch to suspend the processing of certain immigration applications. This does nothing to crack down on smugglers. All it does is penalize people who are trying to come here. The executive branch will be able to cancel visas, work permits or PR documents whenever it feels this is in the public interest. However, there is no definition of what constitutes the public interest.

These are arbitrary powers that the Liberals want to give themselves so that they can tell U.S. President Donald Trump that they are strong and serious and that they too are capable of turning people away at the border or deporting them en masse.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will just pick up on the asylum issue. If we look back at 2010-2011, we see that there was a bump in the number of asylum seekers, and the government at the time recognized the need for some change.

We have gone through a pandemic; there are issues surrounding international students, led by private institutions and different levels of government; and there is a need for us to respond. The system needs to change.

Would the NDP at the very least recognize that at times we need to change the system in order to protect its integrity? That is what the Prime Minister and the government are doing today; they are looking at Bill C-12 as a way to update the system.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that Canada has obligations when it comes to taking in refugees. If there is an increase in the number of refugees around the world, it is because there is an increase in crises around the world too, caused by conflict, civil war and the climate crisis.

It is not up to us to determine how many asylum seekers show up at our border. All countries face the same requirement. That is no reason to attack refugees and asylum seekers.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures. The measures in this bill were first introduced in Bill C-2, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures.

I mention this because Bill C-2 was tabled in the House and briefly debated last June; however, it was loudly criticized by civil liberty groups and privacy groups. It included a number of provisions that were concerning not only to our Conservative caucus but to many Canadians as well.

There were provisions that would have allowed Canada Post to open any mail, including letters, without a warrant. It would have allowed the government to ban cash payments and donations over $10,000 and would have allow warrantless access to personal information. It would have allowed the government to compel electronic service providers to re-engineer their platforms to help CSIS and the police access Canadians' private information, and it would have allowed the government to supply financial institutions with personal information if that information were useful for identifying money laundering and terrorist financing.

These provisions were the reason Conservatives opposed the Liberals' attempt at gaining sweeping powers and warrantless access that would violate Canadians' civil liberties. Let us be clear: The Liberals' solution to the problems they created over the last 10 years was to grant them more powers. When the Privacy Commissioner was questioned, he confirmed that the Liberals did not even consult him when trying to grant themselves sweeping new powers to access Canadians' personal information from service providers like banks and telecom companies without a warrant.

The good news is that Conservatives have forced the Liberals to back down from Bill C-2, which clearly would have violated Canadians' individual freedoms and privacy. Conservatives believe that law-abiding Canadians should not lose their liberty to pay for the failures of the Liberals with respect to borders and immigration.

That brings us to the debate today. The Liberals introduced Bill C-12, which took out many of the parts of Bill C-2 that Conservatives fought to have removed. The parts of the bill that remain, which we are discussing today, would begin to take steps on addressing the many issues that have seen nothing but inaction from the government over the past 10 years.

Although there are provisions for the CBSA laid out, let us talk about the very real challenge the CBSA is facing that the Liberals are not addressing with the bill. The government promised to hire 1,000 new CBSA personnel, though according to the public safety minister, it is not his job to hire them, which would explain why the Liberals have waited 10 years to take measures on border security.

Ninety-nine per cent of all shipping containers are not currently scanned to see what is inside. Where is the plan to purchase and deploy the tools to crack down on the amount of smuggling that is happening through our ports?

Our brave men and women who work at the CBSA protect the front line of our nation's defence. They deserve real, meaningful action from the government to help them and to equip them with the tools they need to help keep Canadians safe. They need action from the government. Conservatives believe in the important work they do, and we will continue to offer solutions and clearly defined measures to assist them in doing the work of keeping our border secure.

Another part of the bill seeks to address fentanyl precursor chemicals that are being used to manufacture fentanyl here in Canada. Though we welcome any efforts to crack down on the drug epidemic facing our communities, it seems the Liberals are more content with simply blaming the chemicals, and not the criminals who manufacture and distribute deadly fentanyl on our streets.

Of all apparent opioid toxicity deaths from January to June 2024, 79% involved fentanyl. The number of emergency room visits for opioid-related poisonings has more than doubled since 2018. Just two milligrams of fentanyl is enough to be a lethal dose and take someone's life. Dealing fentanyl should be punished the same as murder is, because it is effectively murder. If a fentanyl kingpin trafficks just 40 milligrams, that is enough to kill 20 people. There need to be serious deterrents, not simply banning the ingredients that make the illegal drug that people are selling to vulnerable Canadians.

The Liberals continue to push for what they call safe consumption sites near schools. At the health committee, the Conservative member for Riding Mountain and shadow minister for health called on the Liberals to shut down fentanyl consumption sites next to children. However, the Liberal minister refused to rule out approving more consumption sites next to schools and day cares, despite acknowledging that the sites are repositories for rampant fentanyl usage.

The bill does not meaningfully look to defend the victims of the fentanyl crisis either. Since the Liberals took office, all violent crime is up 50% from 2015 to 2023. More money laundering and organized crime have found a home in Canada. The solution the leaders proposed in Bill C-2 was to give themselves sweeping powers to spy on individual Canadians.

Violent crime is up. Organized crime is up. Drug trafficking is up. Even if someone is caught by the Liberal justice system, house arrest is still permissible for some of the most serious offences. While the current government has allowed violent crime to rise all across this country, it allows violent offenders out on bail or house arrest so they can return to the very community they are a danger to. For years, Conservatives have been proposing measures to crack down on criminals and to put the charter rights of victims ahead of their abusers.

Part 11 of the bill would amend the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Customs Act, which would allow for greater accuracy in reporting, tracking and investigating sex offenders. These are welcome changes that the Conservatives have been advocating for years, and they are long overdue. However, the consistent theme the Liberals have presented to Canadians throughout both Bill C-2 and now Bill C-12 is that they are not willing to be held responsible for the last 10 years they have been in government. We hear it often.

While the Liberals would have Canadians believe that they are a new government, just now learning of these problems, they are not. They have been in power for 10 years and are responsible for this mess. Giving them more power to fix it is not the answer.

One thing is very clear: Only Conservatives will continue to stand up for Canadians' individual freedoms and privacy. Only Conservatives will continue to advocate on behalf of Canadians. We will examine the bill thoroughly to ensure that the Liberals do not try to sneak in measures that would breach law-abiding Canadians' privacy rights.

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

Madam Speaker, we have had a great deal of debate, first on Bill C-2, with well over 18 hours, and now with over six hours, maybe seven or eight hours of debate on the bill that is before us. I bring that up because today is a fantastic day in the sense that the minister introduced bail reform, something that has been anticipated across Canada for months now. There is a very strong desire for bail reform to take place.

I wonder whether the member could provide her thoughts in regard to the issue of bail reform, reflecting on Bill C-12 and the importance of, at the very least, recognizing that at some point in time we need to get things to committee. Would the member not agree that Bill C-12 is getting very close, hopefully, to going to committee stage? Could she also comment on the importance, from her perspective, of having bail reform, ideally before the end of the year?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I noted at the end of my speech, while the Liberals would like to have us believe that they are a new government, they have been in power for 10 years. They continue to blame others for their failures and for their delays, and they have had the ability to do something on bail reform for the last 10 years. What they tend to do is to create some sort of imperative to hurry up now that they are ready, so they say, “Let's get it done." They should have done it a long time ago.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are real concerns, but situations are sometimes exaggerated in order to stir up public opinion, and I find that questionable.

My colleague spoke about supervised injection sites, saying that the Liberals are practically deliberately setting them up near schools and early childhood centres. I found her wording a little questionable, although I agree that it is a sensitive issue.

While it is totally inappropriate for supervised injection sites to be located in close proximity to schools and early childhood centres, there are no figures that I know of that prove that fentanyl use increases when such sites are located near schools.

I would like my colleague to clarify whether she has any data showing that proximity to schools and early childhood centres has a real impact on increasing consumption of products such as fentanyl.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do not think it matters where a safe consumption site is located. I think the very fact that we have those has allowed fentanyl use to increase, regardless of where those consumption sites are located.

According to Health Canada's latest figures, there was a total of 49,105 apparent opioid toxicity deaths reported between 2014 and 2016. We know that we have a fentanyl crisis in this country. It is time that we do something about it, and this is one part of the issue that we are trying to address.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague had a blockbuster of a speech. She has been in this chamber for a long enough time that she can perhaps understand the member for Winnipeg North better than I, as a new member of Parliament, can, but it strikes me as odd that he insists on such urgency for this legislation, when the reason for the delay on Bill C-12 is that the Liberal government was trying to go after Canadian civil liberties with Bill C-2 by allowing the warrantless searches of mail, the surveillance of electronic equipment and the banning of large cash transactions.

I am hoping the member could speak to whether it is, in fact, the Liberals who have obstructed very real border security measures, on which we would have loved to co-operate with the government if it had presented them.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's interventions in this place, and I would simply say this: The Liberal government continues to introduce legislation that, at first blush, appears to just be flawed, but upon further scrutiny, the legislation seeks to violate Canadians' individual freedoms and privacy, and the member my hon. colleague speaks of stands up every chance he gets to defend it, which is despicable.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-12, the ugly stepchild of the failed Liberal omnibus bill, Bill C-2.

This is, of course, about border security. I am looking through the departmental plan, which was actually signed by the Minister of Public Safety, that covers the CBSA. It talks about human trafficking, and that is what I will be mostly talking about today.

Combatting human trafficking is mentioned five times in the departmental plans. For those opposite, departmental plans are the plans submitted by the government to justify the spending for the money it asked for. It lays out the priorities for the government for the following year. It is not a legal document, but it is a document that supports the request for spending. It was mentioned five times that the government is going to combat human trafficking. It is on page 7 and page 14, and on page 25 it is mentioned twice.

We have an issue with human trafficking in Edmonton, in Alberta and across the country in the construction world. We have illegal labourers being brought in and hired to work on federally funded government projects. A year ago, I presented evidence to the head of the Treasury Board about this practice. I told them that I would not make it political, and I would not publicize it, but I was providing the information so they could act on it. A year later, nothing has happened. Just last week, CBSA raided the LRT construction site in Edmonton, which is partially funded by the federal government. Illegal workers have been detained and taken off other projects, and the government has done nothing.

The reason I bring this up, and I will refer to the failed Liberal former minister for infrastructure and the environment, Catherine McKenna, who basically said that, if one lied loud enough in the House of Commons, people will totally believe it. That is my worry about this departmental plan. If the Liberals repeat it enough that they are going to fight human trafficking, people will totally believe it, but the evidence is that they are not. Again, I delivered documents to the government about illegal labourers and human trafficking on federally funded projects. I offered to work with the Liberals, but nothing was done. Fast-forward a year, and just last week, we decided enough was enough. We tabled a motion in the operations committee to study this issue. Can members guess what happened? The Liberals shut it down and blocked the study on human trafficking on government-funded labour sites.

I want to thank my good friend Rob, who is with Building Trades of Alberta, for championing this issue and bringing it to light. It has fought against this for years, because it is a double-edged sword, a double-sided problem. We have people being abused with human trafficking, and on the other side, we have Canadians, journeymen, ticketed trained union members, who cannot get work on government-funded projects because they are being undercut by workers who were trafficked, brought into Canada illegally, and employed illegally on these projects.

Rob and Building Trades of Alberta, as well as other trade unions, have done yeoman's work. I actually attended a site with them on the Henday, the ring road around Edmonton. We interviewed workers and, miraculously, every single worker we spoke to was a subcontractor to the main contractor who won the bid from the government. Every single worker, Latin American, was a subcontractor. They had no employees of their own, but miraculously, every single one of them just happened to have their own company, working independently and, of course, working for cash under the table.

Legitimate companies cannot win bids on these government projects. Unionized companies are getting outbid because these other construction companies will bid and then subcontract out the entire job to shadowy construction companies that fill the entire job with illegal labour. They pay cash, sometimes $10 an hour. These workers have no protection. They are not eligible for workers' compensation because they are being paid under the table. They are not eligible for unemployment insurance because they are not paying into the system. However, legitimate companies and legitimate trades people are getting shut out. It is getting to a point, as I said, where legitimate companies do not even bother bidding on government projects any more.

Here are some of the things that are happening. General contractors and major government-funded infrastructure projects are using multiple subcontractors to conceal that many of the workers are being paid cash under the table. These are contract carpenters, labourers, cement masons and other undocumented workers. They may be brought in from Facebook sites, so they will come in with visitor's visas or family visas, overstayed student visas, overstayed tourist visas or expired TFWs. They could also be on EI and working on the side. Again, there is no protection.

Anyone who has ever worked in construction, which I did as a youth, building houses, knows it is dangerous work. Injuries happen. One thing I have to say about the union movement across Canada for trades, and especially in the oil sands, is that it puts safety first. That is not happening at these work sites. There are workers without fall netting, without helmets, without proper PPE. I have provided documented evidence to the Treasury Board that companies are also faking journeyman papers and faking workers compensation papers.

What is happening, from the illegal worker's point of view, is that the employer had told them they did not need safety tickets. Counterfeit tickets are provided for a journeyman, boilermakers, etc. They are paid in cash, so there is no worker's compensation, no CPP deductions and no EI. If injured on the job, they are fired and sent home. We had a documented case where a person fell, broke his leg and was basically told to get on a plane and fly back to Colombia. That is what is happening on federally funded job sites in Alberta, B.C. and across the country. They do not do drug and alcohol testing. There is no avenue for these workers to report workplace safety issues. If they complain, they are threatened with deportation.

I am going to read from a Facebook post. It was posted in Spanish, but I have had it translated. It said, “Edmonton area cash-only projects. Five concrete finishers, six labourers, must have WHMIS, H2S certificates. If you don't have them, we'll provide them for you. Cash.” This was for a federally funded project.

I will tell a story about a gentleman who fell. He said that he did not remember falling. He lost his memory for 24 hours and woke up in the hospital. His helmet saved him. It had broken in half, but he got a cut and a bump. He fell 25 feet because he didn't have a safety harness. He broke his shoulder and could not move for two months. Who was it who visited him at the hospital? It was the safety officer from this fake company, who came to threaten that, if this were to be reported it to WCB, he would be fired and deported. He said it was terrifying. When he got back after two months, he was told, “Here's your last cheque. Get out.” This is happening every day on federally funded projects such as the LRT in Edmonton, the Henday. I had the Library of Parliament put this together. This is billions of dollars, and jobs have been taken away from Canadians, legal Canadians.

This is two-sided. We have Canadians who cannot get work, and we have the government funding illegal workers. We asked the government if we could investigate this at the operations committee, and the Liberals blocked it. A year ago, we gave this documented information to the Treasury Board with our offer saying, “We will work with you. We won't make it political. We won't make it a partisan issue. We'll work with you to fix it.” The government chose to side with human traffickers instead of Canadians.

If the government was serious about Bill C-12 helping Canadians and helping border issues, it would act on this issue now.

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

Madam Speaker, throughout the debates and discussions on Bill C-12, we have heard a lot of criticisms toward Bill C-2. The question I have for my friend across the way is this: Do the Conservatives have any amendments that they would like to see for Bill C-12? Are there aspects specific to Bill C-12 that they would like to see amended? If so, would the Conservatives be prepared to share some of those thoughts on specific amendments?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I am disappointed in my colleague across the way. I realize we joust back and forth, often good-naturedly, but this is a serious issue. Human trafficking is happening on government-funded projects. I want a commitment from the government that if Conservatives bring it up again in the operations committee, to put an end to it, his colleagues will not shut down that study.

If Conservatives were to offer an amendment, I would ask the government to amend Bill C-12 to address this flagrant oversight, which allows and encourages human trafficking on government-funded infrastructure projects.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to share his opinion on something a bit ridiculous that is happening in the House today and that goes well beyond Bill C‑12.

The government added an extra day to the orders of the day to discuss Bill C-12, which was tabled by the Liberals themselves. However, there are no additional speakers on the Liberal side. That makes me wonder. Are they embarrassed to send people out to speak? Are they afraid to say things they might regret?

Opposition party parliamentarians are being forced to speak to fill a gap of the government's own making. Yesterday, however, at a big press conference, the Prime Minister said he was concerned about the economy and the trade crisis.

The Prime Minister sent a clear message to the press, yet back in the House, during the legislative process, the government seems disorganized, lacking in vision and unsure where it is headed.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the facts I just laid out.