Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2025

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, one report of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association for the following activity: the bilateral mission to the Republic of Senegal and the Republic of Cabo Verde, held in Dakar, Senegal, and Cabo Verde from March 16 to 21, 2025.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie—Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, entitled “First Nations, Inuit and Métis Identity and Participation in Federal Procurement”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by many Ukrainian Canadians who support fellow community members who fled Ukraine following Russia's brutal aggression in their journey to become permanent residents. Since 2023, under the watch of the Liberal government, the family reunification pathway for Ukrainians has seen an abysmal approval rate of just 1.6%. Fewer than 400 of the more than 23,000 applications have received final decisions. Thousands more cannot even access this limited program.

While Ukrainian Canadians are calling on the government to create a dedicated, one-time permanent residency pathway for those here under the CUAET agreement, the undersigned are urging the Liberal government to prioritize and expedite family reunification applications so that families can be reunited without further delay.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians with mental illness should be provided with treatment and support. Mental illness is a complex that can include suicidal thoughts as a symptom. The lives of many Canadians with mental illness are at risk when they are eligible for medical assistance in dying.

Therefore, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the House to support Bill C-218, which would reverse the law extending eligibility for MAID to those suffering from mental illness.

Charitable Organizations

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, finally, I present, on behalf of the citizens of Canada, a petition on religious charities. They play a significant role in the charitable sector and in the life of our country. More than 30,000 charities fall under the purpose “advancement of religion”, roughly 42% of the charitable sector. These religious communities foster vibrant social networks, mobilize outreach, spark local volunteerism and foster community resilience.

Therefore, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the government to reject the finance committee's recommendation to remove advancement of religion as a charitable purpose.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from October 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We do not know what that will look like yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.