Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Bill

Honourable senators, this is an interesting time to participate in the debate. I won’t talk about amendments, but I will speak very briefly to the main motion on Bill C-12.

This bill attempts to address a difficult issue by proposing a series of measures to speed up the processing of asylum seekers entering Canada.

As a Canadian citizen, I’m troubled by this bill. I have always believed that, as a wealthy country, it is our duty to be generous to those who come knocking because they’re not safe in their country of origin. They actually have to prove it, which can be complicated.

I have met many asylum seekers in my life, and each time, I could see conflicting emotions on their faces: hope mixed with fear, extreme fatigue, bewilderment and the desire to save their children and offer them a better life. I ask you: What would we do in their place?

This bill makes refugee claims inadmissible one year after the claimant’s first entry into the country. Tightening the rules this way is not without consequences. Gauri Sreenivasan, of the Canadian Council for Refugees, gave an example of a situation that Bill C-12 could create:

A baby who visits Canada with her parents in 2020 would be barred from seeking asylum here 20 years later, even if persecuted as a human rights activist in her country.

All because the baby had already set foot in Canada. That is absurd.

Speaking for the Canadian Bar Association, Deanna Okun‑Nachoff rightly said:

Persecution does not obey legislative timelines or stay confined within the first year after one’s entry to Canada.

There may be any number of factors keeping a claimant from filing for asylum within the first year, including precarious living conditions and the obstacles faced by women who are victims of domestic violence.

It’s true that individuals deemed inadmissible under the two new provisions in Bill C-12 could still apply for a pre-removal risk assessment, known as a PRRA. Originally, a PRRA was supposed to take place prior to the removal of someone who had exhausted all of their options in Canada, including a hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Moving forward, the PRRA can replace the IRB hearing.

We heard many witnesses explain that the PRRA is not an appropriate substitute for an in-person hearing before the IRB, especially because this bureaucratic process — carried out by public servants, not independent IRB members — offers claimants no guarantee that they’ll have the right to be heard and to try to establish their credibility in person.

This change flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling in Singh, which found that refugees have the right to be heard when decisions are being made about what will happen to them, because these cases are “. . . of such fundamental importance that procedural fairness would invariably require an oral hearing.”

It is also runs counter to the requirements of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which recommends that an in-person hearing be mandatory for asylum seekers. The legal officer for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees explained to the committee:

 . . . a claimant’s opportunity to tell their story provides details and context when decision makers doubt aspects of the case. . . . Hearings allow for closer scrutiny of evidence, reducing the risk of accepting non-genuine claims and accepting those who meet the refugee definition.

Furthermore, although making some claims inadmissible could reduce the number of decisions that need to be reviewed by the overburdened IRB, the outcome of the PRRA may be challenged in Federal Court. The government says that Bill C-12 will reduce delays, but it will overload the Federal Court, which is already reviewing a record number of refugee claims.

Another concern relates to fraudulent claims. Bill C-12 gives the government the extraordinary power to suspend or cancel asylum claims en masse with minimal oversight on the grounds of public interest. There would be no oversight, no checks and balances, no individual assessment and no possibility of appeal.

That’s not all. At the same time, the federal government also announced in the budget speech that asylum seekers will have to pay $4 per prescription drug covered by the federal government and 30% of the cost of eligible services, including dental care, vision care and counselling. Several groups, including Quebec and Canadian pediatricians, believe that these cuts could have a major impact on families seeking asylum, who often suffer from mental distress and financial insecurity. This is yet another reform that reduces supports for asylum seekers.

It’s true that several other countries have much tougher refugee policies than we do, notably the United States, which already has a maximum one-year deadline for applying for asylum, not to mention a range of inhumane deportation practices. However, that is not a good example to follow.

This is the start of another difficult debate here in the Senate. We are not the government, that much is clear. But we do have a role to play in protecting the most vulnerable minorities, and asylum seekers fall into that category.

We need to strike a balance, a difficult balance between reducing delays in the asylum process and maintaining procedural fairness and transparency. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada’s immigration system and borders act.

As Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, I would like to speak specifically to the findings and recommendations of the committee, which was authorized to examine Parts 5 to 8 of the bill.

I would like to thank the staff, committee members and the Library of Parliament analysts for the work they did in the very short timeline we had.

Meeting for over 13 hours with 35 witnesses and 36 written submissions, the committee’s study brought forward a body of troubling evidence. We heard from refugee advocates, legal experts, civil liberties organizations, practitioners in immigration, refugee lawyers and people with lived experience. We heard from Amnesty International, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the United Nations Refugee Agency in Canada, who all raised concerns that Parts 5 to 8 represent an infringement of human rights, privacy protections, procedural fairness, and is unconstitutional, is an overreach of executive powers and that these sections may disproportionately impact children, 2SLGBTQI+ persons, women and front-line service providers.

Frankly, colleagues, these concerns deserve careful consideration and robust scrutiny by this chamber to examine the legislation not only for its policy objectives but for its consequences on rights, fairness and for its consequences on democratic governance.

At its core, this bill proposes sweeping amendments. The Government of Canada has argued that this legislation is necessary to strengthen border security, combat transnational crime and improve the integrity of the immigration system. Minister Diab appeared at committee, and she emphasized that the bill is intended to improve efficiency, reduce backlogs and deter those seeking to bypass the immigration system by carefully balancing access to protection and due process. And, frankly, in these unprecedented times, colleagues, no one in this chamber would dispute the importance of protecting the safety and security of Canadians. However, our committee repeatedly heard from witnesses that the means chosen in this bill come at a significant cost to the long-standing principles that underpin Canada’s immigration and refugee protection system.

I will focus on a few things we heard. Witnesses warned the committee of privacy risks and potential harms, particularly to these vulnerable individuals, with all of these new measures. Namely, witnesses told committee members that 2SLGBTQI and gender-diverse persons would be at a higher risk of failed confidentiality, at a higher risk to their personal safety and a risk of victimization threats as a result of their private data being shared with “foreign bodies.”

Tamir Israel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association told the committee that the broad authorization to disclose sensitive personal information could lead to disproportionate hardship for those who are fleeing persecution. Mr. Israel pointed out that this new system inserts opaqueness and subjectivity as to how the government will share personal information, which is dangerous for a person’s liberty and security.

Most witnesses raised concerns about expanded disclosure of their information across provincial, federal and potentially foreign bodies, saying that this could lead to the possible denial of social benefits and services and, particularly, to reprisal or physical harm should these individuals have to return to their countries of origin.

The committee also recommended two things: first, a mandatory review by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who would be an independent third party; and second, limiting these measures so that they would not apply to permanent residents and nationalized citizens. I am one of those. I could be targeted by this law.

Part 6 of the bill amends the asylum claims process. Witnesses raised significant concerns about changes to designated representatives for minors and automatic abandonment provisions. The committee heard that removing discretion could unfairly impact vulnerable claimants and potentially increase administrative backlogs.

Joshua Eisen, the in-house counsel for the FCJ Refugee Centre, said that linguistic or technological challenges could lead to abandoned asylum claims to the Immigration an​d Refugee Board of Canada, or IRB, and so discretion among those trained to assess asylum claims is critical for refugees and asylum seekers.

Part 7 of Bill C-12 grants broad authority to the minister to make orders affecting immigration documents in “the public interest.” This broad new power was of particular concern to witnesses. They warned that this power can easily be abused and risks executive overreach as well as discriminatory application. The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, through Timothy McSorley, said that the vague notion of “the public interest” allows ministers to abuse their authority, like ordering mass cancellations of people’s visas or other immigration documents, and terminating a person’s application to enter Canada.

When committee members questioned how this new authority would be used in practice, Minister Diab emphasized a distinction between permanent resident status and the permanent resident visa, which, frankly, the committee found difficult to justify. It was pointed out in testimony that people fleeing violence cannot enter Canada without providing proper documentation, and the visa is proof of that immigration status.

Witnesses also questioned the constitutionality of Part 7.

Aaden Pearson, a staff lawyer and trans rights legal fellow with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, told the committee that allowing the courts to review an immigration decision does not fix the main problem that the government could remove someone’s lawful immigration status or separate families already landed in Canada. He said:

There is no requirement for advance notice to those impacted, no obligation to provide reasons, no opportunity to make submissions before an application . . . is cancelled and no guarantee of individualized consideration.

Responding to these concerns, an amendment to provide enhanced parliamentary oversight and review mechanisms was recommended by the committee. I’m glad to hear it was discussed today. The committee recognized that parliamentary oversight over the government’s authority is paramount in our system of government. It is, after all, the cornerstone of a responsible government, and it is the most effective way to hold the government accountable.

Part 8 introduces ineligibility measures. Witnesses expressed concerns about the loss of access to an oral hearing, with the proposed replacement with a paper-based pre-removal risk assessment.

We heard today that most people don’t want or seek an oral hearing. That is not what we heard at the Social Affairs Committee, or SOCI. We heard that it is an integral part of the process and its fairness.

Instead, witnesses argued that the resources of the Immigration and Refugee Board, an internationally recognized model of a successful asylum process, should be enhanced and that they can address the immigration backlog rather than implement the new system of the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment, or PRRA, which is seen as a weaker process, one that does not have the same level of training of officers or the same level of confidence among front-line service providers.

Many witnesses argued that the PRRA was designed as a mechanism of last resort, and, as a result, making the PRRA a primary assessment channel could undermine due process as compared to a hearing being offered by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I remind all senators to ensure that your papers do not touch the microphones.

My apologies.

Limiting access to the independent and specialized Immigration and Refugee Board, as well as limiting the right to appeal before the Refugee Appeal Division, risks removing the objectivity that is critical to our immigration system.

Witnesses highlighted the negative impact of a rigid one-year ineligibility rule, including its retroactive application, which they identified as arbitrary and potentially leading to unintended consequences. Many vulnerable populations need additional time to adjust to their new environment and to feel as if they are safe in Canada.

We heard from Latoya Nugent, the Rainbow Railroad spokesperson, about the dangers that queer individuals face when they flee from their home country, saying that, after a lifetime of distrust, queer refugees need patience and support before they are ready to make their claim.

Manon Brassard, chairperson of the IRB, made a similar point when she said that officers are trained to consider a person’s condition or the foundation of their fear of their home country when they are assessing a claim.

Senators, I trust that you will all review the SOCI report and the recommendations that came forward. There are 10 proposed amendments and an observation to increase resources to the IRB so that it can more efficiently process increased numbers of claims as a more trusted organization.

In conclusion, honourable senators, the committee did not dispute the importance of ensuring the integrity of our borders; far from it. Nor did it disagree with the government’s assertion that, in these unprecedented times, we must all do everything we can to ensure the security of Canadians. However, it did repeatedly hear that the integrity of our borders and the security of Canadians cannot be pursued at the expense of fundamental human rights, constitutional safeguards and Canada’s humanitarian obligations.

The committee also heard that the process is important. Canada’s refugee protection system is a model for the world, as it is seen as objective, fair and efficient. Witnesses continuously told the committee that they had significant confidence in the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Finally, the committee reminded us that parliamentary accountability is not optional, and that cabinet ministers have a responsibility to report and to be held to account. The broad discretionary tools framed around the vague concept of the public interest set up a foundation that future governments could misuse and future parliaments may regret.

For these reasons, I believe the committee’s report offers a principled path, and I urge senators to strongly consider, at a minimum, that as the chamber of sober second thought, we must look at adopting strong safeguards, more robust privacy oversight and a fairer approach to determine ineligibility for asylum in Canada.

The committee took its responsibility to study Parts 5 to 8 seriously and with careful deliberation. Colleagues, I urge you to give the committee’s recommendations the serious weight this bill deserves.

Thank you.

Senator McBean, would you like to ask a question?

Yes. Will the senator take a question?

I will.

Like Senator Dalphond, I was looking forward to asking Senator Dean a question, but as the chair of SOCI, Senator Moodie, maybe I can ask you.

As someone who is part of the 2SLGBTQ community, I know that coming out is rarely immediate and can be difficult every time you do it.

In the past, in this chamber, I spoke about being gay, and when I came out to you, I said then — and I’ll repeat now — that it is a hard thing to do, even in this room, which I feel is full of allies and friends.

Even in a country like Canada, where legal protections exist and there are many safe and welcoming spaces, it can take years to feel safe enough to name who you are. After I came out to my mom, it took me over a year to come out to the rest of my family.

For many 2SLGBTQ+ refugees, the stakes are higher. They were taught shame and fear and have spent their entire lives hiding their identity to avoid violence, imprisonment or death.

Bill C-12 would deny a full refugee hearing to people who make a claim more than one year after arriving in Canada. Senator Moodie —

Senator McBean, I’m sorry to interrupt.

Senator Moodie, the time allocated for your speech has expired. Are you asking for five more minutes to answer questions?

I am.

Is leave granted?

Has the government explained how it expects refugees, who might still be processing trauma and learning whether Canada is truly a safe space and how to disclose something so deeply personal, to deal with this in such a rigid timeline?

Thank you, Senator McBean, for the excellent question. This is one of the primary concerns we heard. This particular group of people about whom you spoke today was the consideration that was brought forward.

We heard it repeatedly. We heard it from Latoya Nugent from Rainbow Railroad. We heard it from others — especially with the fear that they might eventually have to return to their home situation if they are denied.

We also heard about the porous nature of the information shared; that, in fact, it doesn’t always stay where it needs to be. It is shared, and it loses containment. There was a lot of concern about that.

In answer to your question, we heard nothing from the government on this point. They did not consider it when we asked them direct questions. They gave us no explanation.

Will the senator take a supplementary question?

Yes.

Many 2SLGBT refugees arrive in Canada without community, legal advice or even language to explain their experiences of persecution. It can take time to find support organizations and build the trust needed to share something as deeply personal as one’s identity.

In developing Bill C-12, are you aware of whether the government or the House committee that looked into Bill C-12 consulted with any 2SLGBTQ+ refugee organizations about how long it can take individuals to safely disclose their identity and how this one-year rule could affect their ability to seek protection?

My recollection of the questions around consultations is that there were none.

I will.

Thank you, Senator Galvez.

I’m going to refer to my notes because I’m not a lawyer. Neonates I’m good at, but a lawyer, no. In fact, we did hear from a number of legal experts on this point. The Canadian Bar Association raised the concern that Bill C-12 was not Charter complaint and has significant areas where potentially it could have constitutional challenges. They focused particularly on the protection of refugees and the process for refugees and asylum claimants in their comments. They did emphasize that, in the legislation, it is important to ensure that decisions are applied consistently and lawfully. They also said that the shift away from the Immigration and Refugee Board to the PRRA, the paper‑based pre-removal risk assessment, would deny a refugee or asylum claimant’s right to an open, transparent and fair hearing. Those were their areas of concern.

They recommended an amendment to the bill to include parliamentary oversight and other accountability mechanisms to mitigate future litigation and to ensure that the government acts in a way that is Charter compliant.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-12, strengthening Canada’s immigration system and borders act. I would like to acknowledge the senators on the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee and the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee for their diligence and seriousness in examining this bill.

When we were each appointed to this role, we were reminded that the work of a senator rests on three responsibilities: to legislate, investigate and represent. Our colleagues at committee have investigated. Now, at third reading, we are legislating, bringing together what we have learned, heard and know from experience.

The third responsibility, representation, is what brings me to my feet today.

As a senator from British Columbia, and specifically from Surrey, I return home each week to conversations with residents and business owners who are facing something deeply troubling: the growing scourge of extortion. I and others have described it as economic terrorism. There are phone calls demanding payment, threats against businesses, threats against families and a growing sense that criminal networks are operating with increasing boldness and impunity.

When Canadian families and entrepreneurs begin to fear for their safety, not because of war or natural disaster but because organized crime has found a foothold in their own communities, we must take notice.

Over the past decade, police data shows that reported extortion incidents in Canada have increased dramatically. In 2023 alone, police recorded over 14,000 extortion incidents across Canada, which is five times higher than a decade earlier nationwide. Cities like Surrey, Brampton and Calgary have emerged as particular hotspots. In some jurisdictions, police services report multiple extortion files opening every single day.

In British Columbia, the increase has been even sharper, exceeding 600% between 2014 and 2024, with hundreds of incidents concentrated in the Lower Mainland. These are not isolated crimes; they are often connected to transnational organized criminal networks, using intimidation and violence to extract money from hardworking Canadians. The proceeds of extortion frequently fuel other criminal enterprises: drug trafficking, weapons purchasing and international organized crime.

Colleagues, the question now is: How do the provisions of Bill C-12 help address these realities on the ground?

B.C.’s Minister of Public Safety, Nina Krieger, wrote to the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee that Bill C-12 responds “to organized crime by accelerating inadmissibility determinations and removals for individuals with established links to organized criminal networks . . . .”

Allow me to offer a few examples of how these gaps appear in practice, focusing specifically on how certain measures in Parts 5 to 8 of the bill attempt to address them.

The first issue relates to information sharing in Part 5. Investigators frequently encounter difficulty confirming a suspect’s immigration status quickly. In some cases, individuals involved in extortion networks may be in Canada on temporary visas, expired permits or pending asylum claims. Yet, law enforcement agencies do not always have timely access to the immigration information that would allow them to determine whether those individuals are removable from Canada under existing law.

Part 5 improves information sharing between immigration authorities and law enforcement. This means that when police identify individuals suspected of involvement in extortion, immigration officials can more readily determine their status and assess whether immigration enforcement measures may be appropriate.

This does not replace criminal investigations, but it helps ensure that immigration enforcement tools are not operating in isolation from public safety investigations.

I recognize that this section raises legitimate privacy concerns, especially around Charter conditions of necessity and proportionality. The Privacy Commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, told the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee that Bill C-12 includes important safeguards and that he was satisfied that Part 5 provides “. . . a good example of how to do information-sharing agreements and how to provide sufficient specificity . . . .”

The second issue concerns asylum claim eligibility in Part 6. Section 100 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, governs the eligibility process for asylum claims. Currently, immigration officers alone have the authority to halt the consideration of a claim in certain circumstances. Bill C-12 expands this authority so that the minister can also intervene to suspend consideration of a claim. Why does this matter?

In practice, an officer processing a claim may not yet be aware of emerging intelligence related to extortion. Law enforcement investigations may reveal new information after the claim process has already begun. Ministerial intervention allows authorities to respond more quickly when credible information emerges linking an individual to organized criminal networks.

The eligibility determination is significant. Once a claim is deemed eligible, the claimant receives documentation allowing them to remain physically present in Canada while their claim proceeds. If you want an example of that, read yesterday’s CBC News where a person who has been here since 2020 and who was part of criminal networks and organized crime was removed just this year.

For most refugee claimants who are law-abiding and follow due process, this protection is appropriate. But when individuals connected to organized crime exploit procedural gaps, the system risks being misused.

A similar gap arises when a refugee claimant is charged with a serious offence. Under the current law, if a claimant is charged with an offence punishable by a maximum sentence of at least 10 years, an immigration officer may pause considering the claim while the criminal case proceeds. This affirms the bedrock of our criminal justice system, where an accused is innocent until proven guilty.

However, that authority currently rests only with the officer. Clause 43 of Bill C-12 would allow the minister as well to decide if the asylum process should pause while criminal proceedings are under way. This matters because investigations can reveal serious criminal conduct after a claim process has begun.

The statistics illustrate the challenge. The Canada Border Services Agency has reported that among the 281 individuals it is investigating in connection to extortion networks, 104 have filed refugee claims. Only 17 people have ultimately been deported.

Part 6 also introduces a significant structural change in how refugee claims move through the system. Currently, if an officer determines that a claim is eligible, it must be referred to the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, or IRB. Bill C-12 would allow the minister to first review that determination and either agree with the officer’s initial decision or conclude that a claim is ineligible. This means that if new evidence emerges linking the claimant to serious criminal activity, the claim could be prevented from entering the tribunal system. Concerns have been raised that this would impact the independence of the IRB. Those concerns deserve careful consideration, colleagues, and accountability will be essential.

Finally, provisions in Part 8 would limit the ability of individuals who have been in Canada for extended periods to file for claims long after arriving. This also targets suspects in extortion and organized crime cases who have temporary permits by preventing them from filing for asylum in the first place.

Taken together with Parts 1 to 4 and Parts 9 to 11 of the bill, these measures will target and close certain gaps. They strengthen coordination between immigration authorities and law enforcement, allow ministerial intervention to suspend claims when serious criminal charges arise and prevent certain ineligible claims from entering the tribunal queue.

These changes do not transform immigration law into criminal law. They simply help ensure that the two systems are not working at cross-purposes. In other words, immigration law should never become an unintended refuge for organized crime.

Colleagues, many of you may reasonably ask whether these measures are proportionate to the problems identified or whether immigration law risks becoming a blunt instrument. Those are important questions that we have all been tasked to consider carefully. Far be it from me to speak for anyone here, but from the conversations I’ve had, I believe there are several points on which many of us would agree. First, we can agree that immigration law is not intended to be punitive. Punishment is the domain of the Criminal Code. Immigration law serves a different purpose.

Second, we can agree that the majority of those who immigrate or seek asylum in Canada are law-abiding individuals pursuing safety, opportunity and dignity for their families. Many of us in this chamber and the wider Senate community who have personally experienced the system know the hope it can represent.

Third, we can agree that the safety and security of Canadians are objectives shared by both our criminal law and our immigration law. These laws are meant to reinforce each other, not operate at odds with one another.

Fourth, we can agree that protecting the integrity of Canada’s immigration system strengthens public confidence in it, which is essential if Canada is to remain welcoming to those who genuinely seek protection.

And, finally, I believe we can agree that Bill C-12 is not a silver bullet. It is not intended to solve every security, public safety or immigration problem, but one single piece of legislation rarely solves every problem. What we, as legislators, can do is address specific gaps when they become evident and improve these policies to the best of our ability.

Colleagues, those of us who have served in law enforcement are sometimes accused of seeing every problem as a nail because we happen to carry a hammer. But I believe a well-functioning immigration system must be capable of both welcoming the vulnerable and confronting those who would exploit that welcome — compassion, yes, but also responsibility to protect the system from harm.

As I continued reflecting on this bill, I was reminded of the debates in Parliament when the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was first introduced as Bill C-11. By the time it reached second reading in this chamber, the horrific attacks of 9/11 had occurred, and Parliament was grappling with an urgent question: How should Canada balance openness with public safety and security?

In those debates, former Senator Jerry Grafstein, one of the most esteemed people to have served in this chamber, offered an observation. He said, “Immigration calibrates the heart of our nation. . . .” He also expressed confidence that the Senate would help:

. . . draw the line between liberty and security, and draw the exquisite equilibrium for Canadians to live in a free and open society. . . .

That balance is precisely the work before us today.

From where I stand, as a senator from Surrey, the reality confronting many communities is stark. Local police are working tirelessly to respond to increasingly sophisticated, highly adaptive criminal networks that are exploiting other legal frameworks never designed with organized crime in mind. I have personally met with victims and families who have had to make drastic changes to their everyday lives to protect themselves, their loved ones and their interests from these criminal networks. They have moved from homes. They have bought second-hand vehicles. They are taking their kids out of school, and some have even moved out of this country.

Bill C-12 does not solve every problem. I will continue to challenge the government to introduce more reforms that address the scourge of extortion and organized crime, and I was glad to hear of some progress in Senator Dalphond’s speech on Bill C-14 yesterday. But Bill C-12 addresses real operational gaps identified by those on the front lines of law enforcement, and I look forward to hearing from my other colleagues about how it can do so without abandoning the humanitarian principles that underpin our immigration system.

Honourable senators, each of us must ultimately return to the communities we represent to explain the choices we make in this chamber. We must be able to say that we listened carefully to the evidence and acted in good faith to strengthen both the safety of Canadians and the integrity of the institutions that serve them.

While we consider the “what ifs” of this bill, I encourage you, my colleagues, to give equal, if not greater, weight to another question: What is happening to Canadians right now? From that vantage point, I believe Bill C-12 moves us in the right direction. Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Dhillon, would you take a question and ask for more time, please?

Senator Dhillon, the 15 minutes allocated to your speech has expired. Are you asking for more time to answer questions?

Yes, if my colleagues will allow it.

Is leave granted?

Thank you, Senator Dhillon. That was a terrific speech. I agree with 99% of what you said.

I think it’s a bit unfortunate that you began framing the extortion problem as an immigration problem. All of us know full well it is not an immigration problem. It is a problem that involves some immigrants and some Canadians as well.

I’m particularly fond of your speech because the three very specific areas in this bill that you believe will address the criminality problem will not be proposed for amendments in the days to come. I’m referring to clauses 37, 43 and 44. These give the minister the power to essentially accelerate the inadmissibility of people who have committed crimes. I support all of these clauses. For those who may be confused by Premier Eby’s statement that this bill, in total, deals with the extortion problem, I don’t believe you said that. Maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong.

My question to you is this: Would you agree that, apart from clauses 37, 43 and 44, which are great for dealing with this extortion problem, the other provisions in Parts 5 to 8 have little to do with the extortion issue you discussed?

Thank you for that question. I’ll let Premier Eby answer those questions on his own. You can put them to him when you’re back in the province.

With respect to the other clauses of this bill, I would say this: One of the strengths of this chamber is its ability to debate the various issues on principle and on merit. I welcome the debate. I am here listening to all the conversations. As we move through the different areas that you are suggesting, whether they reflect on issues of organized crime and extortion or are simply areas we need to turn our minds to from a human rights or civil liberties perspective, I will be listening. I know I’m not directly answering your question. What I shared in my speech is the key, if you will, to some of the issues we are experiencing in the field of law enforcement and public safety.

I have a follow-up. Thank you for that. I take it to mean that the main problems involve clauses 37, 43 and 44. If we don’t touch them, your issues are addressed.

You raised the problem of the one-year timeline for eligibility. I have already spoken briefly about it. I want to ask you about it. For somebody applying for refugee status 380 days after they arrive, wouldn’t the problem already be taken care of through clauses 37, 43 and 44? The minister would be aware of the criminality — there would be a prosecution under way — and could make this claim ineligible, regardless or whether the timeline were one year, two years or three months.

You are correct, and I’m going to speak to some of my notes here because some of this is very technical and, as someone said earlier, I’m no lawyer. Ask me how to solve a homicide and I’ll help you out, but let’s not go there today.

Bill C-12 does not fundamentally change the inadmissibility grounds under sections 33 to 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA. But if CBSA files a section 44 report and inadmissibility is established, the minister can already ensure a removal order. The challenge arises when an individual files a refugee claim. Once a claim enters the system, it must move through the eligibility determinations and procedural stages before removal can occur. Timing becomes important, and if inadmissibility is flagged before the claim enters the system, then the removal order of the minister can proceed as it currently exists in law.

However, when inadmissibility is flagged after a claim enters the system, some of the provisions in this bill would allow the minister to intervene earlier in the process, for example, by suspending consideration of a claim when serious criminal charges arise, as I shared in my speech.

So it is a narrow procedural adjustment but one that may help address some situations where criminal activity and criminal —

Senator Dhillon, your time has expired. I’m sorry to interrupt.

I’m happy that it has.

Honourable senators, I rise today on this unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation to speak about Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada’s immigration system and borders act.

Senators, I have on occasion shared the pride of being an immigrant of Jamaican heritage in this house. Simultaneously, I have shared how very proud I am of being Canadian, in the land where my family chose to settle six decades ago. Without a doubt, like countless immigrant families, we are proud Canadians.

But for the first time, after reviewing parts of Bill C-12, particularly Part 5, I am left to question whether people of immigrant background like me are truly and fully accepted as Canadians. Bill C-12 has caused me to raise this question. It is for this reason that I will be seeking your support to make an important change to Part 5 of Bill C-12.

Colleagues, I will spend the next few minutes speaking to why, based on irrefutable testimony from experts across this country, Parts 5 to 8 of Bill C-12 are not just troubling but unjust and run counter to our shared Canadian values of fairness, inclusion and compassion.

Since my appointment to this auspicious chamber just over two years ago, I have experienced deep moments of pride that convinced me this is where I belong. I have relished the opportunity to learn from each of you in your varied areas of expertise, and most of all to join several clarion calls, including to stand and support the long-overdue human rights of Indigenous women and set right what was wrong, unjust and unfair. That was my proudest moment to date in this chamber, hands down.

For me, this is another clarion call moment, when the most vulnerable people, due to no fault of their own, come knocking at our gate, and the response we choose to give them will determine the kind of people and society we are.

We are not collectively or individually blind to what we see taking place south of the border. We speak of it to each other, to our families and with friends. We warn each other to take precautions if we must travel, and it is not because we’ve done anything wrong; it is because what is taking place is inhumane, unjust and downright scary — and can be especially so depending on the bodies we occupy.

You may say that Parts 5 through 8 of Bill C-12 are a far cry from what we see occurring south of the border. You may be partially right. However, I see this as a defined step in that direction, and it begs this question: Why would we, with eyes wide open, take this step to render those who seek asylum and safe refuge more susceptible to harm?

While it is important to have parameters and guardrails in our immigration system, we should be working as well to improve this system to better detect authentic claims for refuge. In fact, our made-in-Canada Immigration and Refugee Board is recognized around the world for its second-to-none expertise, deep knowledge and fairness. Instead of embarking on a path of continuously improving the efficiency of the IRB, this bill is building in bypaths to funnel claimants who do not meet baseless tight timelines to be processed by less trained bureaucratic staff who do not possess the depth and level of expertise of the IRB. Six months of training simply doesn’t cut it.

Over the past few weeks, the overwhelming response we have heard from stakeholders and expert witnesses is that Parts 5 to 8 of Bill C-12 should be removed or, if not possible, be amended throughout to limit the harm they are sure to cause.

The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and senior officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada testified that these parts of the bill aim to simplify Canada’s immigration and refugee system while reducing backlogs. However, stakeholders from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Rainbow Railroad, the Canadian Bar Association and others expressed deep concerns about the potential and unintended consequences of Parts 5 to 8 of the bill and of the real likelihood for legal challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Honourable colleagues, I share these concerns and will focus the balance of my comments on Part 5 of the bill.

Part 5 of Bill C-12 adds an information-sharing regime to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act. Under this new policy, the minister would be authorized to disclose personal information under the control of the department with certain other federal departments, provincial and territorial governments and foreign entities. Government officials stated the aim of this measure is to streamline the immigration process for newcomers by facilitating the provision of social services and benefits.

There are critical risks associated with this proposed exchange of data. Witnesses highlighted concerns that include the possible denial of benefits and services to certain individuals and breaches of privacy related to personal identities such as gender identity and sexuality. Those representing the 2SLGBTQI+ and other marginalized communities expressed significant concerns about confidentiality, revictimization, safety and increased vulnerability.

One such front-line service provider is YWCA Toronto, a 150‑plus-year-old organization. As outlined in their recent letter to senators, YWCA Toronto sees first-hand how immigration policies affect safety, autonomy and well-being, particularly for women, gender-diverse people, survivors of violence, migrant workers in feminized sectors and those living with precarious or temporary status.

Here is what the YWCA Toronto stated about Part 5:

For many migrants, this is a safety issue. Allowing greater personal information sharing creates particular and serious safety concerns for survivors of gender-based violence and those targeted for their sexual orientation or gender identity. For these individuals, increased data sharing could:

Divulge their location to abusive partners

Put family members at risk

Deter individuals from seeking services or reporting violence

Lead to greater misuse or unintended disclosure of sensitive personal information

Senators, this information-sharing regime may also apply to naturalized citizens and permanent residents, as personal information shared upon arrival to Canada is under the control of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Bill C-12 does not explicitly or implicitly exclude the department from disclosing this information to third parties.

As a naturalized citizen, I am as Canadian as my nieces, nephews, friends and colleagues who were born here. Therefore, I find this measure deeply unsettling. My immigration process was completed over five decades ago, and I am a citizen. I am not a newcomer, and I am not in need of a streamlined provision of social services, so why this all-inclusive, sweeping measure? What is the intent here? Why not, if the intent is not to include permanent residents and naturalized citizens, simply exclude these two groups, at the very least?

Why would the department need the right to share my information, for example, with provincial, federal or even foreign entities without my knowledge or consent? Colleagues, this is not just a dangerous slippery slope; it is potentially a life-threatening cliff that places permanent residents and naturalized citizens at risk, while also creating two different strata of citizenship, with one type of citizen being afforded privacy rights and the other being denied that same right. Is that what we want in this country?

Part 5 leads us down this very dangerous path, putting at risk those of us who have given our hearts and souls to this country. As folks much younger than me would say, “Please make this make sense.”

Colleagues, I believe we are at a crossroads, and, as such, I believe it is incumbent upon us as senators to strike that critical balance that ensures asylum seekers and refugees who are fleeing oppression are not met with more oppression upon arrival to Canada.

We need a fair and just process for all migrants, one that is both principled and pragmatic and one that recognizes the real needs of our society within the broader context of a turbulent world. We can show our commitment to our fundamental values as Canadians, holding fast to our sovereignty and territorial integrity, by staying consistent with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the UN charter of human rights.

As Prime Minister Carney recently said in Davos:

The question for middle powers, like Canada, is not whether to adapt to this new reality. We must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls – or whether we can do something more ambitious.

We must not allow fear and discrimination-induced narratives about immigrants and refugees to seep into our legislative frameworks and determine our path forward. Let us be more ambitious than that and aim to improve on what we have, guided by pragmatism, fairness and what is right and just.

We need to be a shining light for Canadians and the world by treating the most vulnerable among us as if they could indeed be us. This is my clarion call to you today. Please vote to amend Part 5 of this bill with the following amendment and send it back to the House.