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

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is so typical of the Liberals that they promise and promise but do not fulfill. We have a problem at the borders. We saw what happened with Roxham Road, for instance: People poured in, and now we are facing challenges for housing, for schooling and for many things. “Overpromise and underdeliver” is the motto of the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are looking at another border security bill, and I am reflecting back on what we have seen over the past 10 years in my riding of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

There was the largest drug lab bust ever in Canadian history in the community of Falkland, which some referred to as being in the middle of nowhere. I would argue that it is actually in the middle of everywhere, only kilometres off the main highway, Highway 97, which runs north-south completely through the province of British Columbia, and only minutes away from the Trans-Canada Highway, exactly halfway from Vancouver to Calgary. It is the middle of everywhere, yet after that drug bust, we have heard little more than that one arrest was made. There was a massive drug bust, the largest in Canada, and only one arrest.

Would the member say this is an example of the Liberals' failure to address our border security and the drug problem in Canada?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I could not have said it better myself; that is exactly it. The member nailed it. We have a serious problem with fentanyl, and the Liberals are doing very, very little to address this very grave problem.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Calgary Centre and speak about the new bill that is before us.

The actual title of the bill is 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, but I say we should call Bill C-12 the short Liberal title, “We broke the immigration system, and we messed up public safety, border security and law enforcement, but do not worry; we are back to fix it because we know what we are doing.” In other words, it could be called “I break it then fix it. It is my version of job security”, or “If I did not break it first, how would anyone know how good I am at fixing it?”

It is the classic Liberal playbook: They break the system then hold a press conference to announce they are fixing it. They light the fire then show up with a watering can and call it leadership.

The issues we have to address in the bill are based on several parts of the bill. Bill C-12 has numerous parts to it, but a couple of objectives: security of Canada's borders, of course, and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system. For the sake of the public who may be following, I will break down further what is known as an omnibus bill.

The bill is composed of 11 parts that would amend various statutes, including the Customs Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Cannabis Act, the Oceans Act, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and its regulations, the Retail Payment Activities Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.

There is a lot for me to unpack. There is an option for me to spend 10 minutes talking about a plethora of sources and what we can do with the bill going forward. It started with Bill C-2, much of which was pressed on the government by the Trump administration in the United States, which forced us to look at some of the security measures that were not happening in Canada at that point in time. We were pushed to the wall to actually accomplish some things.

The bill came back to the House. The opposition, my colleagues, revisited it, and the Liberal government has taken out of the initial bill a bunch of the quite offensive parts that would really have impeded civil liberties. The government has come back with Bill C-12, which would actually address some of the issues that have long been simmering in Canadian society and have caused significant problems.

Bill C-2 was an error, a Liberal misstep, and now we need to rectify it. If the Liberal government really needs help drafting the kind of legislation that actually works, my Conservative colleagues and I are willing to write the legislation for them to make sure we get the security we need in this country, both in the immigration system, which we have seen explode in the last number of years, and in the border security realm.

There are a number of things going on in the bill for me to pick from. Let us note that it is a fix for the Liberal government's first attempt at the bill, but we must go through fixes in the House at times, and we are willing and happy to do that with this legislation.

I would like to speak to the issues of the illicit drug trade, organized crime, money laundering and human trafficking. For 10 years, the Liberal government has been duly informed of these attacks on Canada's expectations of maintaining peace, order and good government in this country. There are problems that have been evident for a long time.

Money laundering was addressed in budgets delivered by the government, but it never took any action. Dealing with organized crime and the illicit activities that go with it were always kicked down the road. It has been all talk and no action. Let me say that ignoring the avails of organized criminals is, by default, accepting the consequences of organized crime.

Opioids like fentanyl are ruining the lives of Canadians. Fifty thousand Canadians have perished over the last eight years from the use of fentanyl and opioid-related drugs. This has visited misery upon their families, upon our streets and upon our society in general.

Let me share a personal story. Last January, across the street from my office, I went to pick up my dry cleaning, and there was a young man dying on the sidewalk. I was the first person on the scene. I got on my knees and did everything I could to get that man's heart beating. One thing runs through a person's mind: their kids. I have four boys, and that is what ran through my mind at that point in time, that this could be one of my sons.

The situation is a scourge. I do not know the man's backstory but, for 20 minutes, I helped revive him, and I begged other people to help me. That experience does not leave a person. This is something we need to think about, as far as how it impacts all of society.

Imagine losing your sister, brother, or even one of your parents. Imagine losing a loved one with whom you will never again share a meal, a laugh, or a memory, a loved one whose dreams you will never see come true and who you will never get to see grow older. This is what thousands of Canadian families are experiencing every day as they are struck by the scourge of fentanyl. Things could be different, but the current government is failing in its primary mission, which is to protect the public.

Tent cities are growing in every major city in Canada. I represent a riding downtown. The Canadians who live in tent cities are not safe; they are not secure. This is not a future that we see for our kids. It is not a future for any Canadian. The scourge of addiction and homelessness should never have been ignored. This is about priorities, and the priorities for Canadians are very clear.

There seems to be comfort in ignoring the obvious. Obviously, criminals are profiting. What is the number of car thieves considered statistically normal before society pushes back? There are higher insurance costs, higher policing costs and escalating violence; the crimes are not victimless.

One of my proud moments as the member of Parliament for Calgary Centre was my opposition to a second so-called safe consumption site in downtown Calgary, at a place called the Calgary Drop-in Centre, where homeless people can go in Calgary. It is right next to Chinatown, a very important part of downtown Calgary, and to a new development called East Village.

East Village is an area that was built to bring families back downtown. There are lots of nice towers with three-bedroom condos in them. During that time, families were actually leaving because they did not want to raise families on streets that were trafficked by the drug pushers and criminals looking to profit from people's addiction. Imagine one's kids in that type of area.

Think about the homeless people themselves, who have to go through a gauntlet of death in order to get to a homeless shelter. This was never a solution. It was brought forward as a potential solution by the provincial UCP, the United Conservative Party government. The New Democrats, provincially, were all onside, and I will correct my colleague on the other side: The federal Liberals were onside.

I was the lone opposition for some time. Certain members of city council came to join me in that fight, and in the end, there was no safe consumption site opened at the drop-in centre, which serves some of the people in Calgary who need our help the most.

The solution was never a solution. We need to get back to what the real solutions are. The real solution is, of course, to win at the source, and that source is the criminals who are moving this scourge upon our population: the drug pushers, organized crime and the people who are making money at the expense of society.

I propose that we move the bill eventually to committee and actually make those changes that would make the laws more strict for the people who are actually causing the death and destruction in our society and that would make sure we make them pay. Crime should not be a risk-free, profit venture. We need to end this as quickly as possible and make sure the criminals are accountable for their actions.

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

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to deal with strengthening Canada's borders and to deal with immigration and the area of stabilization, in particular dealing with asylum seekers. Bill C-12 would do just that. It is a fulfillment, in good part, of a commitment that was made.

We are looking for co-operation from opposition members, because this is a minority government, in recognizing that this legislation is a significant move forward. I would suggest that this bill, combined with the commitment of having 1,000 new border control officers and 1,000 new RCMP personnel, would provide more security for Canadians by securing our borders and making our streets a safer place.

Would the member not agree that to get the legislation through, we need a high sense of co-operation? Are there any specific amendments the member would like to see with respect to Bill C-12?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question.

As the member across the way will understand fully, we are co-operating very clearly on getting Bill C-12 to committee. Without the offensive parts of Bill C-2 in it, we are moving this bill forward. However, a number of issues only have half measures, and we need to make sure they fully address the problems faced by Canadians, not just those visited upon us by the new U.S. administration, which is pushing the government to act. We understand that and we are willing to get this bill to committee. Can we make changes to the drug-pushing laws? Can we make changes to the half measures, as opposed to the immigration asylum system, that are part of this bill?

We would love to see this bill roundly discussed and those amendments clearly made at committee. We will be working toward that end.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is also concerned about the fight against crime. We have a few ideas on the table. We have talked about removing the religious exemption for hate speech from the Criminal Code. We have also talked about a bill to ensure that trials for intimate partner crimes are not abandoned because of the Jordan decision.

The member spoke about street gangs. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord has introduced a bill on that subject to facilitate the seizure of property belonging to individuals convicted of a gang-related offence.

Has the member looked at those bills? To what extent would he be willing to work with the Bloc Québécois on these important crime issues?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question.

Our job is to work with all other parties to improve the bills that are presented to us. That is our job. The member is talking about another bill. It is important to take a look at it and take it under consideration.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals want to talk all the time about the 1,000 RCMP officers they are going to be hiring. I submitted an Order Paper question to discover how many RCMP officers we are capable of training in one year. Currently, we are training 34 per year, and that could ramp up to 58 per year. Given that, it would take 20 years to get the 1,000 RCMP officers the Liberals claim they are hiring operational.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague has any comments about these bait-and-switch announcements the Liberal Party puts up all the time.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. I thank my colleague for arriving with the data. It is important because making announcements is something we have talked about. As I said in my speech, it is all talk and no action. It is the same with the Canadian Armed Forces and the notion of improving the Canadian Armed Forces and getting back to a base. The Liberals talk about increasing the numbers, yet recruitment does not show any increase in the numbers whatsoever. It is the same with police. The Liberals talk about having 1,000 more police and border officials at customs, yet the hiring practice does not seem to be happening at all.

The government seems to want to stack a whole bunch of bureaucrats in Ottawa at the thought level without any of the people who have to deliver the services to Canadians at the ground level. That is a mistake of the current government. We need more action and less talk.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise again in the House of Commons to represent the people of Peace River—Westlock.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-12, which sounds a lot like Bill C-2. Bill C-2 has been replaced by this bill. It was less than a month ago that I stood in this place and gave a speech on Bill C-2, during which I outlined a number of deficiencies that I saw with the bill. When I heard the Liberals would be reintroducing Bill C-2 as Bill C-12, I mentioned a number of things for consideration as possible fixes and the concerns I had with the bill. I was hopeful they had the opportunity to listen to my speech and would address a number of the concerns I had. Unfortunately, it does not look like the Liberals listened, once again.

I want to address a number of things that were asked of us. At the time, the member for Winnipeg North pointed out that Canada Post needed to be able to open people's mail without a warrant, but then he said it was with a warrant. Interestingly, that has now been dropped. I guess that was something the Liberals recognized as a problem. I talked about the banning of cash payments and donations over $10,000 and said we had concerns with that, and that piece has also been dropped. Kudos to the government on that. The pressure from Conservatives caused that to happen as well. Then we talked a lot about concerns regarding warrantless access to information. These are some of the most dangerous parts of Bill C-2 and they have been dropped, and I am pleased about that.

At the time that I gave my speech, about a month ago, I was reprimanded and chastised by the members opposite, who said that we should get out of the way and let the bill pass quickly. We saw right away that there were major concerns with Bill C-2. I remember, in particular, that I was challenged on allowing Canada Post to open people's mail, as if we needed this to fight the fentanyl being mailed out. I am interested in knowing if members opposite still hold those positions and why these things have been dropped. I can tell the minister that my constituents and those across the country thought this was a dangerous inclusion in the bill, and I am happy to see that it is gone.

We have always worked hard to fight for everyday Canadians, and one of the other areas of concern was about the $10,000 donations. We see that the government continually goes after the freedoms that Canadians enjoy in Canada, and we see its subtle and dogged attack on things like charitable organizations in this country, whether it is through the recommendations that came out of the finance committee last year about stripping religious organizations of their charitable status, the Canada summer jobs changes or the charitable attestation changes. Now we see a ban on cash donations. The Conservatives will always stand up for the charitable sector and the good work it does.

The bulk of my speech last month was about the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the changes being made to it. I had not had the time to look at it in detail. As members know, when there are amendments to a piece of legislation in the abstract, it is often difficult to see what they are, but since then, I have had a chance to put them in their place in the act and see what kind of effect they would have. I was concerned at the time about the passport markings the Conservative government had put in place and the ability to revoke the passports of folks who are registered to the sex offender registry, and there has been zero action by the government over the last 10 years on either marking passports or revoking them.

I have been digging into this a bit, and I discovered that one of the issues is that the RCMP, which holds the registry, is unable to share this information with other levels of government, other organizations and other law enforcement agencies. The bill says that we could share it with other law enforcement agencies, but the challenge is that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is not law enforcement. The folks who issue passports are not law enforcement, so the bill is unclear. I do not think it will solve the problem of passport marking and the revocation of passports based on the registered sex offender list. This continues to be a problem.

I reached out to stakeholders who work in this space, like the folks from Ratanak International, based out of Vancouver, who flag this for me regularly. Registered sex offenders, convicted sex offenders, here in Canada often go abroad, likely to perpetrate more crimes. Countries around the world are pleading with Canada to alert them that a registered sex offender is coming or to prevent them from coming in the first place by withholding their passport.

I noted last time in debate the reality that a passport has, in the opening page, an endorsement of the individual. It endorses the individual and asks those viewing the passport to give the person free passage through their country. I am not convinced that folks in the sex offender registry are necessarily entitled to a passport. The law has been changed already so we can revoke these passports, but the Liberal government has failed to do this over the last number of years.

The RCMP was able to share with me how many notifications it had of sex offenders travelling. I see there is an update to the notification process. In 2022, the RCMP was notified 1,700 times. In 2023, it was notified 2,200 times. In 2024, it was notified 3,300 times. That was for registered sex offenders travelling abroad. However, the RCMP noted that it is unable to track the number of sex offenders who leave the country, given that if a sex offender does not register to do this, the RCMP does not know. We often know when they come back, as they seem to get flagged in the system then. As they come in, border security gets notified, but we do not know how many leave. Also, the RCMP was unable to ascertain how many times a registered sex offender failed to register when they left, because it does not track this.

For most of the last decade, countries, particularly the United States, have been begging and pleading with us to share this information with them. I think the bill would cover that. The changes the bill would make would allow our law enforcement to share with American law enforcement that a registered sex offender is travelling across the border. It is a particular annoyance for the Americans, and I understand that at a time when we are trying to mend relationships with the United States, rectifying this particular annoyance is the thing to do.

I would point out that I had flagged this for a number of years prior to this situation. I noted that, proactively, the United States has been sharing this information with us. In the first half of 2022, 165 Americans convicted of child sexual offences were allowed entry into Canada. We know this because the U.S. has a whole system to notify Canada that these folks are coming. Another question is whether we can stop them or refuse them entry, but that is another question altogether.

I look forward to seeing some of the questions I have about the bill clarified in committee. I also look forward to seeing if we need an amendment to fix the passport issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am actually encouraged. The member seems to have a deep amount of respect for the RCMP. He cited statistics and so forth, and he talked very positively about the RCMP.

I want to share with him something that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press last week, on October 17. It references how the leader of the Conservative Party called the leadership of the RCMP “despicable”. This is something his leader said about the leadership of the RCMP. I agree with the member, who talked about how reliable and valuable the RCMP is in terms of providing service to Canadians. In fact, it is recognized worldwide as a wonderful organization from a legal, security and intelligence—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give the member for Peace River—Westlock a chance to respond.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is mighty rich for the member opposite to be so concerned about the reputation of the RCMP now, given that his former leader, Mr. Trudeau, said the entire operation was systemically racist. In terms of the comments that my leader made, I particularly remember the commissioner of the RCMP being pressured by Justin Trudeau to release the names of the firearms that were used in Nova Scotia.

The actions of the leadership of the RCMP, I think, are indefensible in many instances.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I just want to say that I find it rich of the Liberals to add a day of debate on Bill C-12 and then not put up any speakers for the day. When it comes time to ask questions after a speech, we can debate the ideas that were presented, but we cannot deny the fact that the Conservatives are addressing the issue on the agenda. I find it especially deplorable that the Liberals are not taking advantage of an opportunity they created to discuss the bill before us, their bill, which is highly questionable at that.

In that regard, the previous version of the bill, Bill C-2, included a part 16 on the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. It authorized the collection of personal information for individuals suspected of funding terrorist or criminal activities. I understand that this was a special circumstance, but did my colleague think it was acceptable to include such a measure in the previous version of the bill?