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

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pick up on the immigration issue because now we have had two Conservative members stand in this place and be somewhat critical of the government on immigration policy.

It was not that long ago when Russia invaded Ukraine. Canada opened its doors, and I believe the Conservative party, at that time, supported us doing that. There were approximately 300,000 people of Ukrainian heritage who came to Canada because of the war in Ukraine.

Does the member believe that the federal government, or immigration, should allow for the extension of the work permits of those people who came from Ukraine?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged that the member for Winnipeg North recognized that I was being very critical of the government, so he is listening. That is good.

With respect to the Ukrainian situation and the people who were invited to Canada from Ukraine, this is, I think, the core message. Canada said to people from Ukraine, “Come here. We will give you a safe place to stay and options”, so they came. Now, the government is saying that it does not know what to do with them. It does not know what to do, and they are going to be here, in some cases, 50 years to get the paperwork through because it did not plan this properly. Even though it knew there were going to be 300,000 people, it did not actually think there were going to be 300,000 people. That is basically what the government is saying: It does not know what to do with people. They are here, and that is great.

I think we need to be fair and compassionate with these people. We invited them to come to our country, yet the government has not made a pathway for them to process their paperwork. Now they are stuck in limbo for potentially 50 years.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the practical implementation of these measures.

We all agree on the principle of strengthening border security. We may differ on how to achieve it, but we agree that it must be done.

However, border officers who testified before House committees repeatedly told us that there are not enough staff to carry out the necessary searches. For example, at the Port of Montreal, barely one container out of every hundred is searched.

I agree with the principles of the bill, but how are we going to implement it? Would my colleague support the government in investing more to increase border services personnel at ports and airports?

I also have a follow-up question: If his party wins the next election, can we expect additional funding to be allocated to border services?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems I have seen over the years from the government is that, when there is a problem, the solution is to throw money at it. It will add $1 billion for this and $100 million for that. We hear this all the time, over and over again. If there is a problem, the solution is money.

Yes, we do need more money. To hire more border guards takes more money, this is true. I would be in support of doing what we need to get our security up to where it needs to be, but that has to also come with the ability to train and hire people. That is not just about money. There are other factors at play there.

We also have to ensure that the laws in place are actually helping to achieve the goals we are trying to achieve. Having laws is great, but if we are letting offenders out on bail all the time, that does not help.

We need to have a cohesive system. We need the money, the training ability and the laws to work together.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, over the last very short period of time, I think it is three years, the Liberals have allowed three million temporary residents to come into the country, which is over 7% of Canada's population. We are hearing about the potential abuse of the asylum system by people who are on these visas. Their visas are expiring, and they are being counselled by unscrupulous immigration consultants to abuse the asylum system and make false asylum claims.

Can the member talk about whether he thinks the measures in the bill would be adequate enough to fix the mess the Liberals have made after the disastrous #WelcomeToCanada tweet in 2017?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very right that there has been a big mess created with temporary residence. There are over three million temporary residents in our country right now.

The bill would absolutely not solve that problem. There are fundamental issues with the way the immigration system is being run in this country. There are fundamental errors that have been made by the government in not monitoring certain numbers, for example, the number of students who were permitted to come into our country.

As a result, we have the problems that we all know about, including a lack of housing, difficulty in accessing health care and problems with jobs. Our youth unemployment rate is very high. These are all things that are connected together, and these are things that the government could have managed. It could have seen the implications and the consequences of the decisions it was making and worked together to mitigate some of those things. The government has not done that. As a result, we have this problem in our country today. No, this bill will not solve that problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, probing the problem that this is an omnibus bill, most of the debate this afternoon on Bill C-12 was related to its immigration and refugee parts, but there are multiple parts on different acts. I am hoping my hon. colleague from Saskatoon West would agree with me that it would be far preferable, given the complexity of immigration and refugee issues, if the bill were to be split apart and only the committee on immigration and refugees would study the sections about immigration and refugees, not the sections on the Coast Guard, the Oceans Act, trafficking drugs, and so on. What does he think?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, I do not think Canadians really care who studies what. They want to see fixes. They want to see changes. They want to see improvements. From a technical perspective, the member is probably correct that how we deal with it in the House should be done according to who knows what about which area, but ultimately, the government needs to propose solutions that actually fix the messes it created.

While the bill would fix some of those messes, it certainly does not fix them all, so I am looking for more from the government. Canadians are looking for more. They want to see changes and improvements that would solve the problems they are seeing every day in their lives.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member sidestepped the question on Ukraine. I am a little confused as to whether or not the Conservatives actually supported Ukrainians coming from Ukraine during the war. Maybe he can provide a very succinct explanation. Did he support that number coming to Canada? I think it is a reasonable question.

The other thing is this: In the province of Manitoba, whether it be the chamber of commerce or the provincial government, many different stakeholders want to keep all the temporary workers currently in the province. I wonder if the member could provide a comment on that, if he does not know what to say about Ukraine.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of Ukraine, these are people who are fleeing war. Their houses may not even exist anymore. We invited them to come to Canada. They are here. They came here. Part of that deal, at least in their minds, was that there would be a path to permanent residency. That has not been offered by the government. I think that, yes, absolutely, those people need to be treated fairly.

With respect to temporary people in general, we need to be very careful about how we manage temporary residents in our country. We have to make sure that the policies we have in place are good for our country and for the residents we invite to our country.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we need just a few more moments to touch on the fact that, as I watched this over the years, the Liberals are very good at creating chaos and then pretending, by throwing money at it, that they are fixing what they created. We are supposed to trust them after they created the problem in the first place.

I wonder if the member could touch on the matter of trust.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said it very well. The government creates problems and then fans out money to try to solve them. Often those solutions do not happen. I think that is one of the reasons why Canadians have grown very weary of the government over the last 10 years. It is why there are such high levels of angst in our country. It is why there is a lack of trust in government in general. We all feel that. It is, I believe, because of the actions taken by the Liberal government.

It is important that we act well and make changes that are going to improve the lives of people. While the bill would do some of that, there is still much more to be done.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in this place to speak on behalf of the great people of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. I also speak as the shadow minister of national defence to reflect the concerns of the defence community, including the brave women and men who serve in uniform. I want to speak about some of the changes taking place because of the Liberals, as well as the lack of interest and investment in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I will be splitting my time with the great member for Oxford.

I want to give a big shout-out to the member of Parliament for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, the shadow minister of public safety; the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill, our shadow minister of immigration; and the member for Saskatoon West, who just spoke. They have really put a lot of work into Bill C-12 on the immigration side, on public safety issues and on border security.

It is through their good work and the amount of exposure we, as Conservatives, have been able to give that we were able to mobilize citizens and civil society on Bill C-2 and look at all the violations of civil liberties being done by the Liberals. That bill was a big power grab that would erode charter rights, including the search and seizure to be done by Canada Post employees and the invasion of privacy rights online, through telecoms and banking changes. They would all violate the civil liberties of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The Privacy Commissioner himself said that he was never consulted by the Liberals on the drafting of Bill C-2 and had a number of concerns about it. We should never bring forward bills that erode the civil liberties of law-abiding Canadians, and that is what the Liberals continue to do time and time again. They go after people, like law-abiding firearms owners, rather than going after the gun smugglers and those using guns in illicit crime. They always do the easy thing and make it sound like they are doing something, but at the end of the day, all they are doing is targeting law-abiding Canadians.

On Bill C-12, as Conservatives, we will do our homework. We will continue to look through this bill to make sure that Canadians' rights are protected, that the Liberals are not bringing forward any sneaky new laws trying to breach the rights of Canadians through this bill, especially civil liberties and privacy rights. We are concerned that there are things in here that are not going to do anything to improve immigration, improve public safety or strengthen our borders.

There is nothing in the bill on bail reform. There is nothing in the bill to give the Canada Border Services Agency the ability to police the entire border, not just ports of entry. There is an increase in sentencing provisions for those who are either smuggling in guns or trafficking fentanyl, and for other crimes that are being committed by transnational organizations. With the Liberals, house arrest is still allowed for some of the most serious crimes and offences, including for those who have breached the border.

I am going to spend the rest of my time talking about the Canadian Coast Guard, which is part 4 of the bill. We support the great people at the Canadian Coast Guard for the work they have been doing for a long time. We believe we should expand their national security and defence mandate. We do support the idea of bringing them in under national defence, but we want to make sure it is being done for the right reasons and that the Coast Guard is given the right tools to do the job that we are going to be asking of it.

We are concerned that the Liberals are only doing this for creative accounting purposes to try to increase their spending to meet the NATO 2% target, which they have to do in the next five months. Here we are in the middle of October, and we still do not have a plan or a budget from the Liberals on how they are going to get to that level. The estimates that we have to date show we are going to spend somewhere around $44 billion on national defence. In reality, to hit the 2% target, the Liberals are going to have to spend $61 billion. Where is that money coming from? What are they going to spend that money on?

We only have five months left, and we know that the Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada have always had a hell of a time trying to spend money before the end of the year, and this money cannot just be shovelled out the door. There needs to be a plan on how that is done, and we do not think that is going to happen. That is why we will see some creative accounting through bringing the Coast Guard in under national defence. We are going to get some extra spending but not necessarily any new defence capabilities for Canada.

We would like to see, on every Coast Guard vessel, new sensors and weapon systems, so not only could the personnel do the surveillance that would be asked of them under Bill C-12, but they could also defend themselves if need be. As my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford said earlier today, the only things that are currently on Coast Guard vessels that have any fire power are shotguns for personnel use to protect themselves in case they run up against any predators.

Thinking about icebreaking ships in the Arctic and polar bears, they have a few shotguns with banger shells in them to scare off the polar bears. They have another rifle that shoots beanbags so that they can throw a rope and tether to another ship or come alongside another ship for those purposes. However, there is no actual capability to defend themselves if need be. As the bill says, we would give them some security patrol capabilities, or responsibilities without any new capability. That is something we are really concerned about.

I want to make sure that Canadians and the House understand that the Canadian Coast Guard to date has no interdiction or enforcement capabilities or mandate. Right now, if the Coast Guard vessel operators encounter somebody fishing illegally, they have to contact the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to bring on one of its enforcement officers to make the arrest and levy the fines. We know that if they encountered somebody in our waters who was smuggling guns or involved in human trafficking, they would have to bring on board RCMP officers to make the arrest. They do not have any of those available at sea.

The current Coast Guard budget is about $2.4 billion to date. It has been able to include, in the defence allocation for NATO in the last fiscal year, only $560 million out of that $2.4-billion budget. Again, with a stroke of the pen, the Prime Minister is trying to take money from the Coast Guard and move it under the Department of National Defence without actually meeting the NATO requirement.

I will just read what the NATO requirement is. This is out of one of its fact sheets from June 2024, regarding the definition of NATO expenditures that has been in place since the 1950s. It states:

A major component of defence expenditure is payments for Armed Forces financed from within the Ministry of Defence budget.... They might also include parts of other forces such as Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force.

The Canadian Coast Guard is a civilian operation that has none of those capabilities or training at this point in time, and that is why we need to make some changes.

Taking aside the creative accounting in trying to find another $20 billion, and the shell game, we look at the order in council that was done by the Prime Minister on September 2. He gave the powers, under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, that the Coast Guard would be transferred from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over to the Department of National Defence. That includes the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Coast Guard support services group.

As we just heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, the Coast Guard would still maintain its responsibilities under the Oceans Act. Under the Oceans Act, “minister” means the minister of fisheries and oceans, and Coast Guard services are included. This is under paragraphs 41(1)(a) to 41(1)(e):

(a) services for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waters through the provision of

(i) aids to navigation systems and services,

(ii) marine communications and traffic management services,

(iii) ice breaking and ice management services, and

(iv) channel maintenance;

(b) the marine component of the federal search and rescue program;

(c) response to wrecks and hazardous or dilapidated ships;

(d) marine pollution response; and

(e) the support of departments, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada through the provision of ships, aircraft and other marine services.

We now know that the Coast Guard would have two masters: the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of National Defence. How is that going to work, and how do they capture all of this, with no paramilitary or border security role or mandate, out of the Oceans Act into Department of National Defence spending?

Even though, in part 4 of Bill C-12, on page 11, they would add 41(1)(f), “security, including security patrols and the collection, analysis and disclosure of information or intelligence”, the bill does not provide anything beyond that.

Conservatives support the move of the Coast Guard, but let us make sure that if the Coast Guard is under the Department of National Defence, we give it the tools, the capabilities and the training so that it can do the job that will be accounted for by the Liberals in their budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, the member was part of a government that made cutbacks to Canada border control. If we contrast that to Canada's current Prime Minister, not only are we committed to bringing forward legislation that would help in securing our borders, but the Prime Minister and the government have also made it very clear that we are going to provide financial resources. A good example of that is 1,000 new Canada border control agents, people working in CBSA.

Does the member not agree that the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals is quite extensive, with the Liberals definitely showing goodwill in getting things done in protecting our borders?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member for Winnipeg North, who has spoken the most words in the House but says the least in every intervention he makes, that it was the Conservative government that moved CBSA officers from being civilian agents to being paramilitary. We trained and armed them.

The former deputy commissioner for operations of the Coast Guard, Chris Henderson, was at the defence committee a few weeks ago. He said that “my strong recommendation is to provide new legislation—the Canadian Coast Guard act—that would enshrine its national security role” and that the Coast Guard “should be given a law enforcement mandate to protect Canada's interests any time and anywhere in our huge expanse of maritime territory.”

The Liberals can talk about the 1,000 new border agents, which need to be given control over the entire border, but let us make sure we turn Coast Guard officials and agents into actual peace officers so that they can do the job of protecting Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member for Winnipeg North, who has spoken the most words in the House but says the least in every intervention he makes, that it was the Conservative government that moved CBSA officers from being civilian agents to being paramilitary. We trained and armed them.

The former deputy commissioner for operations of the Coast Guard, Chris Henderson, was at the defence committee a few weeks ago. He said that “my strong recommendation is to provide new legislation—the Canadian Coast Guard act—that would enshrine its national security role” and that the Coast Guard “should be given a law enforcement mandate to protect Canada's interests any time and anywhere in our huge expanse of maritime territory.”

The Liberals can talk about the 1,000 new border agents, which need to be given control over the entire border, but let us make sure we turn Coast Guard officials and agents into actual peace officers so that they can do the job of protecting Canada.