Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Bill

Moved third reading of 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.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading in support of Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada’s immigration system and borders act, a bill designed to enhance the security of our country while preserving the integrity, fairness and sustainability of Canada’s immigration system.

I want to begin by thanking, on behalf of all of us here, Senator Rosemary Moodie, Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology; Senator Hassan Yussuff, the Chair of our National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee; and all members of those committees for their extensive scrutiny and thoughtful consideration of Bill C-12.

Each committee met four times, in long meetings, listening carefully to testimony from stakeholders, experts, and officials and engaged seriously with both information and the concerns addressed by external witnesses.

And I want to thank those witnesses — 35 at the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee and close to 30 at the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee — who appeared before the committee to share their comments, concerns and suggestions in relation to Bill C-12. Several of the expert witnesses, concerned about the bill’s proposals, also appeared before the House of Commons Citizenship and Immigration Committee.

Colleagues, as I briefly summarize the bill, I am going to start with those parts not dealing with immigration and asylum, which, I think it is fair to say, were not contentious in relation to the other parts. I will then move to Parts 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the bill, around which there has been a lot of discussion.

Bill C-12 supports the broader border plan launched by the government last December, which introduced meaningful operational and policy changes. Legislative authority is now required to fully implement that plan and to equip law enforcement agencies with modern tools to respond to evolving security challenges.

Part 1 of the bill proposes amendments to the Customs Act aimed at, among other things, preventing drug trafficking, weapons smuggling and auto theft. It will require certain port operators and facility owners to provide, equip and maintain infrastructure necessary for the Canada Border Services Agency to carry out its mandate, with a greater focus on the examination and seizure of contraband goods destined for export.

These changes would allow CBSA officers to conduct inspections in locations where export goods are reported, loaded, unloaded or stored, closing important enforcement gaps, which is an important step in reducing auto theft and the unlawful shipment of stolen vehicles abroad.

While the Canadian Border Service Agency, the CBSA, currently has the legal authority to examine both inbound and outbound goods, the operational framework is not aligned. For inbound shipments, ports and bridge authorities are required to provide appropriate facilities to enable CBSA inspections. No equivalent obligation exists for outbound goods leaving Canada for the U.S., which limits the capacity to conduct export examinations.

Bill C-12 would ensure that the CBSA has the necessary infrastructure to carry out both inbound and outbound inspections effectively, strengthening border enforcement in a more balanced and integrated manner. One area of concern raised was the impact of infrastructure costs on operators of international bridges and tunnels who operate on a not-for-profit basis and for whom cost increases would be directly borne by users of those facilities.

Part 2 of Bill C-12 would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to empower the Minister of Health to rapidly control precursor chemicals used in the production of illicit drugs, with a focus on fentanyl and its precursor components. This would enable law enforcement and border agencies to act quickly to prevent illegal importation while maintaining strict oversight of legitimate uses in commercial and industrial sectors. Accelerated scheduling through a revised regulatory structure would provide Health Canada, supported by Public Safety Canada, with the authority to identify and act quickly in the face of dangerous precursors, which are rapidly changing.

Colleagues, we are mindful of the devastation fentanyl has had on our communities. Over 55,000 Canadians from every community have been impacted by the fentanyl crisis. Each night, more than 20 families go to bed having lost their loved ones.

Also, in light of the increasingly complex nature of the production and movement of new classes of dangerous drugs and precursors, Part 3 of the bill would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act to allow the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, to 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, such as posing as a potential buyer of fentanyl on the dark web without fear of charges or otherwise compromising the investigation’s integrity.

Part 4 of the bill would amend the Oceans Act to add security activities to the range of services already provided by the Canadian Coast Guard, thus allowing the Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze and share information and intelligence for security purposes. In concert with this, a change would see the Coast Guard reporting directly to the Minister of Defence.

Parts 9 and 10 of the act are designed to strengthen Canada’s anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, including through stronger penalties. Criminal organizations rely on financial resources to operate. By restricting their access to funds and significantly increasing penalties and raising monetary fines by 40 times, the bill aims to deliver meaningful financial consequences for businesses that enable or ignore money laundering activities. They will no longer see it as “the cost of doing business.”

Part 10 improves regulatory coordination by adding the director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, to the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee, thus enabling the exchange of supervisory information. These measures support high standards of compliance and effective oversight.

This includes the establishment of a joint operational intelligence cell to enhance information sharing among law enforcement and security partners, improving efforts to combat organized crime, money laundering and drug trafficking.

The government has also launched an integrated money laundering intelligence partnership with major Canadian banks to better leverage financial intelligence in the fight against fentanyl trafficking and other criminal activity. The bill complements related initiatives, including appointing a fentanyl czar to coordinate efforts between Canada and the United States, designating seven transnational organized crime groups as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code. These organizations present serious threats to both Canada and its allies, and it is in the public interest to use every available tool to counter them.

Colleagues, I now move on to the sections of the bill associated with Canada’s immigration and refugee systems, which are found in Parts 6, 7 and 8 of Bill C-12. As we consider these four parts of the bill at third reading, a primary question is this: Do we have the tools to keep Canada’s immigration and asylum systems working effectively under sustained pressure while maintaining the safeguards and due process Canadians expect?

The context for this bill is not abstract.

Global displacement is persistent, pressures on asylum systems are real, and migration patterns can shift quickly. At the same time, Canadians expect an immigration and asylum system that is fair, predictable and well managed, one that protects people who face real risk, supports the public interest and maintains confidence in the rule of law.

That confidence depends on two things being true at once. First, Canada must remain a country that offers protection to those who need it consistent with our legal and international obligations.

Second, the system must be able to function under pressure — credibly and in a timely way — so that decisions are fair, and the approach is sustainable over time.

Bill C-12 is designed to support that balance. It doesn’t change Canada’s commitment to protection; it doesn’t remove due process; and it doesn’t change the fairness of decision making. It updates targeted tools to help the system keep working as pressures evolve — a system that exemplifies why these updates matter, a system with a current backlog of 300,000 asylum claims.

Canada’s asylum system relies on credibility and timeliness. When claims accumulate faster than they can be processed, delays grow and uncertainty intensifies for claimants, communities and the institutions responsible for delivering protection. When timelines stretch, decision makers spend more time managing inventories than moving forward the cases that are ready for a decision. That slows the system for everyone and makes it harder to respond when pressures shift.

Over time, a system weighed down by delay risks undermining fairness for those who genuinely need protection. It can also create incentives for misuse, and that undermines confidence in the system as a whole.

Bill C-12 is an effort to respond to these pressures with targeted integrity measures that will keep the system workable while maintaining safeguards so that protection remains available where risk exists.

A large majority of members of Parliament — 327 of them, to be exact — agreed with this. I believe that a large majority of Canadians would agree too, or I wouldn’t be standing here in front of you as the sponsor of this bill, as much as I like a challenge.

Part 5 through Part 8 of Bill C-12 were referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for detailed consideration of immigration, asylum, information sharing and processing reforms. Throughout the hearings, colleagues, there was no disagreement about the pressures on Canada’s refugee and immigration system. The differences lay in how to address them.

Government witnesses stressed the need for clarity, efficiency and fairness in processing, principles that Bill C-12 supports by modernizing how claims and documents are handled and by reinforcing procedural integrity. Critics raised concerns about aspects of proposed changes to refugee claim processing, pointing to potential negative impacts on claimants. These perspectives are important, and Bill C-12 proponents, including myself, take them seriously.

I’m going to start with information sharing in Part 5.

Bill C-12 would increase information sharing within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and with federal, provincial and territorial partners. Information is being shared right now, colleagues, although it is often resource intensive and handled on a case-by-case basis, which can delay action and increase the risk that inconsistencies, such as conflicting details across applications, go undetected. The bill would allow relevant information to be shared more efficiently across Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, programs and with federal, provincial and territorial partners who rely on accurate identity and status data to administer their own programs.

The amendments include a prohibition against onward sharing by provincial or territorial government partners to foreign entities, except with the written consent of IRCC and where this would happen in a way that complies with Canada’s international obligations in respect of mistreatment, as defined in the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act.

Strengthened information sharing would improve the integrity of IRCC and provincial, territorial and federal partner programs. It would enable greater cooperation with federal partners on border matters and set the stage for client service innovations within IRCC by reducing the need to repeatedly request the same personal information from clients across business lines in the spirit of “tell us once.” It would enhance client privacy by ensuring that there is greater transparency and consistency when personal information is shared between IRCC and domestic partners.

The proposed immigration measures would also improve how an applicant’s information is shared within government and with provinces and territories, ensuring it is done in a secure and transparent manner while strengthening privacy protections. Written agreements will clearly define what information can be shared, how it can be used and the strict time limits on its disclosure to foreign entities.

These changes, colleagues, would reduce duplication for applicants by limiting the need to resubmit information already provided, improve decision-making efficiency and strengthen program integrity by enabling earlier detection of any potential fraud.

All information sharing will be governed by clear written agreements that strictly define what may be shared, for what purpose and with whom. The amendments apply only to domestic information sharing and do not grant additional enforcement powers to other organizations.

IRCC will continue to uphold rigorous privacy and security standards, ensuring full compliance with the Privacy Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Protecting the personal information of applicants, particularly vulnerable individuals, remains a fundamental priority.

On November 20, 2025, the honourable Philippe Dufresne, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, stating that he had previously made reference to Bill C-12 and noted, “. . . it contains important positive safeguards with respect to information-sharing agreements for disclosures outside Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.”

Here is what Mr. Dufresne said:

Specifically, Bill C-12 requires written information-sharing agreements for when the Minister of Immigration discloses specified immigration-related personal information outside the department.

The bill [specifies] that such agreements must include the elements of personal information that may be disclosed, the purpose of the disclosure, [the] limits on secondary use and . . . [onward] transfer of [personal] information, as well as any other relevant details.

The bill further provides for the issuance of regulations by the government with respect to the disclosure of information, and I would expect my office to be consulted in the drafting of these regulations. . . .

Colleagues, given the ubiquity of digitization and its rapid and secure transmission, count me among those caught off guard by hearing that these key elements of client information are not being shared between departments already. It should be, where this will enhance system probity, efficiency and improved client service.

Privacy Commissioner Dufresne believes the safeguards being built into this will be sufficient to protect privacy. We should take him at his word.

Colleagues, Part 6 of Bill C-12 deals with key reforms that will modernize the asylum system and strengthen migration integrity. The changes aim to streamline processing, reduce delays and ensure that Canada continues to protect those who genuinely need support.

These reforms will simplify and standardize the online asylum application process for both port of entry claims and inland claims. They will refer only “schedule ready” files to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, or IRB, to accelerate decisions. They will ensure that claims are adjudicated by the IRB only when the claimant is physically in Canada, remove inactive cases to reduce backlog and enable same-day removal orders for withdrawn claims to speed up voluntary departures. It will support vulnerable clients, including minors, by assigning designated representatives to guide them through immigration or border processes.

Part 7 deals with document cancellation proposals. The bill introduces targeted new authorities that will allow the government to cancel, suspend, amend or pause the issuance of certain immigration documents in exceptional circumstances if deemed in the public interest, with “public interest” being defined in proposed section 87.3001 on page 30 of the bill as addressing matters such as “administrative errors, fraud, public health, public safety or national security.”

The proposed new authorities would not apply to asylum claims. Experience from the COVID-19 pandemic and other large-scale emergencies has exposed gaps in our existing legislative framework. At present, Canada lacks sufficiently agile tools to respond to urgent or unforeseen events that may compromise border security or disrupt the orderly management of migration.

The bill would address these shortcomings by equipping IRCC staff with the mechanisms needed to respond decisively when circumstances demand it.

The government is of the view that these tools are essential for responding to significant challenges and crises while maintaining fairness and due process. This includes the ability to stop accepting new applications for documents such as work or study permits where necessary to respond to urgent risks, including large-scale fraud schemes or other serious misconduct.

These measures are designed to give the government the flexibility to act swiftly in the face of emerging crises, such as pandemics, major cyberattacks or situations where a significant number of similar documents are flagged for review.

By enabling timely intervention, the bill seeks to preserve the integrity, credibility and proper functioning of Canada’s immigration system, ensuring it remains accessible to those who rely on it.

We have heard that current authorities and systems require that suspicious applications only be set aside for closer review one at a time, which can essentially stall an effective response, especially if those applications number in the thousands.

Important public accountability and review measures would attach to these new proposed authorities, which could not be exercised at the sole discretion of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Rather, any action to suspend, amend or halt immigration documents or applications would require approval by the Governor-in-Council through an order-in-council issued where it is determined that intervention is in the public interest.

Any use of these mass authorities must be supported by an explanation of why the order is in the public interest, who will be impacted and how they will be impacted.

These interventions would also have to be published in the biweekly Canada Gazette, followed by a review by a committee of either the House of Commons or the Senate, thus shining a public light on what occurred and why it occurred.

This governance structure would ensure robust oversight, alignment with broader government priorities and a level of scrutiny proportionate to the significance and potential impact of these decisions.

Finally, I turn to Part 8 of Bill C-12, which deals with proposed new ineligibilities in Canada’s asylum system.

The bill also introduces new ineligibility rules under which claims would be ineligible for referral to the IRB if they are made more than one year after an individual’s first entry into Canada after June 24, 2020, or if they are made by individuals who entered irregularly from the United States and submit a claim more than 14 days after entry, outside the Safe Third Country Agreement framework.

All claims made within the proposed 12-month eligibility period would be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board, as they are now, with applicants having access to the hearing, decision-making and appeals processes associated with that.

As you know, asylum claims are normally driven by urgency and fear of repression or danger. They are usually and historically made soon after those looking for asylum land in Canada. This has been consistent for decades, and our asylum system processes have developed around this.

Against that backdrop, a backlog of claims emerged from the pandemic and has continued through to create an unprecedented volume of claims, which now numbers around 300,000.

Separate from the existing backlog, the government has noted a shift in the past few years whereby a growing proportion of those claiming asylum have already been in Canada for two or three years on temporary work or study permits and who may now be looking to the asylum process as a means of remaining in Canada.

It is important to acknowledge that some of these claimants might have left stable and peaceful countries which might no longer be stable. This is a cohort that would, in any event, be protected by Canada’s non-refoulement policies.

Alongside this are concerns about criminal enterprises becoming involved in questionable immigration schemes of the sort identified recently by Premier Eby. There is a risk that these emerging changes are and will lower the confidence of Canadians in the efficacy of our immigration and asylum system. This is not good for our country or for those wishing to join us here.

To protect against sudden surges in claims while respecting our international obligations, the measures in Part 8 aim to preserve the integrity and efficiency of the asylum system by encouraging claimants to make their claim at the earliest possible opportunity and to discourage misuse while maintaining access for those genuinely in need. Exceptions, such as for unaccompanied minors, will be outlined in regulations to account for known risks and vulnerabilities.

Colleagues, if the bill is approved, individuals affected by the new ineligibility provisions may apply for a pre-removal risk assessment, or PRRA, a long-standing, court-supported process that prevents removal to countries where they might face persecution, torture or other serious risks.

The PRRA allows applicants to submit paper-based evidence and explanations of risks associated with a return to their home country. A successful claim would see applicants granted protected person status and thus eligible for permanent residence.

If a protection decision rests on a question of credibility, the Refugee Protection Division must generally hold an oral hearing to allow the claimant to testify and be evaluated in person.

It’s important to note that many of those seeking refugee status are not looking for an oral hearing, especially where their credibility has already been questioned. This might be particularly the case for applicants whose study or work visas are close to expiry or have expired and who are looking at refugee status as a means of remaining in Canada.

Colleagues, the government’s approach in Bill C-12 reflects the history, incorporation and impact of the Singh decision, which underline the necessity of in-person hearings when claim decisions rest on credibility. Alongside this, it sends an important message to those who wish to enter Canada’s asylum system that it is best done within the first year. Not in every possible case, I know, but it offers quite a long window.

Government representatives predict that positive outcomes for bona fide asylum claims under the PRRA will be similar to those resulting from IRB-driven processes, with similar levels of success.

The 14-day ineligibility rule does not alter the application of the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, or STCA. Claimants who enter irregularly and submit claims after 14 days are directed to the removal process, but they too remain eligible for a PRRA. The STCA continues to operate as intended.

Some have asked whether there is flexibility built into Bill C-12 with respect to the one-year and 14-day ineligibility periods. The answer is yes. Clause 74 of the bill provides clear authority to establish regulatory exceptions to these time limits, and we understand that it is the minister’s intention.

This is intentional. It ensures that the framework is fair but not rigid. It provides structure and integrity to the system, while preserving the flexibility needed to respond to unique or compelling circumstances.

In short, these regulatory authorities are one of the important safeguards built into the bill, ensuring that fairness and compassion remain central to our asylum system.

Colleagues, Bill C-12 does not take away from the ability of any refugee fearing repression, discrimination, violence or death to claim asylum in Canada. I know we all want to keep it this way and protect the best and most successful elements of the system and, in so doing, maintain the confidence of all people living here. This bill is designed to do that.

In closing, as you are all aware, the Canada-U.S. border is the longest land border in the world and one of the most secure. That being said, we can always do more to keep Canada and everyone who lives here safe from the illegal trafficking of drugs, humans and weapons.

Law enforcement and border agencies work every day to identify, neutralize and mitigate threats, and Bill C-12 builds on those operational realities. We must continue to adapt to keep up with the tactics of transnational organized crime groups as they continue to evolve at rapid speeds.

Bill C-12 emerges at a time when immigration systems around the world are strained, supply chains are stressed and criminal organizations exploit gaps in governance. Canada must be proactive rather than reactive.

The bill is a reaffirmation of our responsibility to protect Canadians, support lawful migration and ensure that our borders and our immigration processes are resilient in the face of evolving global challenges. It reflects testimony heard in committee that underscores the need for better tools, clearer frameworks and efficient systems that work for everyone, both Canadians at home and newcomers seeking a better life here.

This bill strikes that balance, enabling Canada to deter those who would misuse our generosity and to uphold the integrity of our borders, while maintaining Canada’s proud legacy as a welcoming nation for refugees and immigrants. We can be both secure and compassionate.

I ask all my Senate colleagues to support Bill C-12, to support stronger borders and to support a fair, humane and secure immigration system that Canadians can trust and rely upon.