Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Bill

Honourable senators, I rise today to introduce a sunset clause to Bill C-12. At the outset, let me be clear: The sunset clause I’m proposing is narrowly focused on specific, highly contested changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act introduced in Bill C-12.

By targeting these specific parts, the sunset clause ensures that the most significant new executive powers regarding cabinet’s ability to freeze or cancel immigration applications and documents by emergency order, officer discretion to stop or revoke individual applications and documents, access to refugee protection and the procedural rights of asylum claimants are the ones that are subject to the mandatory parliamentary reaffirmation.

Bill C-12 is presented as a response to a changing global environment, rising geopolitical instability, increasing irregular migration, evolving security threats and mounting administrative backlogs.

Given Canada’s position in the world today, it would be irresponsible not to update our security, border and immigration systems. Reform is necessary. But the question before us is not only whether modernization should occur; the question is how we modernize and what principles must guide that modernization.

To remain effective, Canada’s immigration framework must evolve alongside the realities of the 21st century: global displacement, geopolitical instability, technological change and increasingly complex migration patterns.

Canada’s international reputation has been built not only on the strength of our immigration policies but also on how those policies are implemented. We are widely viewed as a country that balances security with fairness, enforcement with compassion and sovereignty with international responsibility. If that balance shifts too far in one direction, the consequences extend beyond immigration law.

As I noted earlier in this chamber, during committee review, neither the minister nor departmental officials were able to provide a breakdown of the roughly 300,000 cases currently in the immigration backlog, including how many involve students, asylum seekers or economic migrants.

Honourable senators, how can we be asked to make decisions of this magnitude without empirical evidence?

A similar concern arises when we examine administrative backlogs more broadly. Expert testimony cautioned that several measures in Bill C-12 may not eliminate delays. They may simply relocate them. By tightening eligibility rules, accelerating timelines and expanding abandonment provisions, we may see a significant increase in applications for judicial review before the federal court, an institution already operating under considerable strain. If we simply move the bottleneck downstream, we have not solved the problem. We have merely changed the address.

When we asked officials what impact these provisions would have on reducing the backlog and whether improvements were expected within one year, two years or five years, no modelling was provided.

When the government cannot provide the data or projections necessary to demonstrate how legislation will reduce backlogs or strengthen security, Parliament, as I said yesterday, should pause. That’s because good policy begins with good evidence.

Honourable senators, Canada has faced administrative backlogs before. When the country experienced significant delays in issuing passports, we did not change the eligibility rules for obtaining a passport. We did not narrow procedural protections. We strengthened administrative capacity. Resources were allocated. Staffing was increased. Systems were modernized.

Immigration backlogs require the same practical response: improved capacity, better systems and adequate resources — not the curtailment of safeguards that protect fairness.

This brings me to the amendment I’m placing before you.

Yesterday this chamber adopted an amendment requiring the minister, after five years, to table a report on how Bill C-12 is being applied.

That amendment strengthens transparency. Parliament should know how the laws we enact operate in practice, particularly when they affect vulnerable people and engage in serious legal and humanitarian considerations. It was a good amendment. I voted for it too.

However, honourable senators, transparency and accountability are not the same thing. Under the government’s amendment, Parliament will receive a report, but regardless of what that report reveals — whether it demonstrates success, failure, unintended consequences or harm — the law continues unchanged. That is a problem.

There is no requirement for Parliament to act, there is no obligation to decide whether the provisions should continue and there is no consequence if Parliament simply does nothing. In that framework, Parliament is informed but not empowered.

The amendment I am proposing ensures that Parliament must decide. It introduces a sunset clause under which certain new and expanded provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act will expire on the first day of the sixth year once the review is complete unless Parliament explicitly votes to extend them.

In practical terms, this changes the default. Under the bill as drafted, the default is permanence. Once enacted, the provisions remain in force indefinitely unless Parliament later chooses to revisit them. Under this amendment, the default is reconsideration — informed reconsideration.

If Parliament believes these measures are working as intended and that they are necessary, proportionate and consistent with our legal and humanitarian obligations, then Parliament can vote to extend them. But that extension must be deliberate, evidence-based and approved by both houses. The law will not continue by inertia. It will continue because of a decision.

Senator Harder has championed Senator Dean’s review of the amendment as giving parliamentarians “. . . greater tools for monitoring the effectiveness of the system . . .” and called it “. . . the one that will ensure the system’s integrity over the long haul.”

He also warned against what we might call “what-isms” — the risk of acting without evidence. But parliamentary review, by its nature, is exactly that: a structured examination of “what-isms,” “what-happened-isms,” “what-worked-isms” and “what-should-be-fixed-isms.” A review produces findings. This is invaluable, but it does not compel action on them.

The sunset clause is what gives those findings weight. It takes the monitoring that Senator Harder rightly values and adds a fair consequence. Government and Parliament must look at the evidence and vote on whether the rationale for these powers still stands. That is not a burden on the review. It’s the review’s enforcement mechanism. Surely, that serves the framework that Senator Harder cautioned us to focus on.

A review tells you what is happening; a sunset clause forces you to do something about it. Together, they are what integrity over the long haul actually looks like.

This reflects a simple principle of democratic governance. When Parliament grants significant powers or restricts important protections, it should also build in mechanisms to revisit those choices in the light of real-world experience.

A sunset clause ensures that Parliament must look again. That is not obstruction; that is responsibility. I’m going to say it again: A sunset clause is not obstruction; it is responsibility.

Honourable senators, I also want to address several arguments that I expect from the government.

First, some may argue that a sunset clause is unnecessary because Parliament can always amend or repeal the legislation. That’s absolutely true in theory. In practice, once legislation is enacted, it’s rarely revisited unless a crisis arises or a problem becomes undeniable. A sunset clause, again, transforms theoretical oversight into scheduled accountability — scheduled accountability. It absolutely must happen or those powers fall away.

I remind you of the data point I shared yesterday: Of the 51 reviews added to the legislation over the past 20 years, reviews have only taken place 17 times. With a success rate of 33%, I think the writing is on the wall. We can do better.

Second, some may suggest that a sunset clause creates instability or disrupts operational planning. The opposite is true. A five-year horizon provides governments, agencies and international partners with a predictable timeline. If the measures are working, renewal is straightforward. If they are not, Parliament can adjust. This is stability enhanced, not diminished.

Third, some may suggest that a sunset clause sends the wrong signal internationally. Canada’s reputation is strengthened when the world sees that we combine effective immigration management with democratic accountability. Temporary powers that must be justified through renewal demonstrate confidence in our institutions and respect for the rule of law.

Honourable senators, we must, therefore, ask two simple questions: Should this bill pass in its current form? And if so, what safeguards should accompany it?

A sunset clause is a classic instrument of sober second thought. It accepts the bill in principle while ensuring that Parliament retains oversight of its long-term effects. It does not delay implementation. It does not prevent the government from acting, but it ensures that Parliament — not inertia — determines whether extraordinary measures become permanent features of the law.

A lot has been said about the speed at which this bill has moved forward. It may not be ideal, but it is what it is. Sometimes circumstances require us to move with urgency. I accept that. When that happens, we must be open to how we balance that urgency. A sunset clause provides that balance.

Because laws often operate differently in practice than they do on paper, unintended consequences emerge. Policies adopted in moments of urgency can become normalized without adequate scrutiny. A sunset clause guards against that drift. It simply says that Parliament must look again when we have the benefit of time and evidence, something that is missing from the introduction of this bill.

Not every bill requires a sunset; that is true — very few, in fact, do — but this one certainly does. We must also consider the broader implications of Bill C-12. Immigration is not only about borders or humanitarian commitments. It is about Canada’s future.

Without immigration, Canada would struggle to sustain labour force growth and support essential services across this country. Immigrants already represent roughly 25% of registered nurses in Canada and more than one third of physicians, pharmacists and dentists. I’m going to run out of time, so I am not going to give you the statistics on the construction and technology industries, but those numbers are quite high as well.

Colleagues, the world is in a messy place at the moment. If we want people to choose Canada in the future, we must understand that part of choosing Canada is about trust — I think it’s the catchword of the day — trust that our systems are safe and fair, thereby offering something that other countries probably cannot.

In summary, a sunset clause recognizes that good laws are living instruments, evaluated and refined over time. It demonstrates that oversight is not symbolic but real and that powers granted in extraordinary circumstances remain subject to democratic control.

I’m the first to agree that a sunset clause should not be used lightly. It has been used before in anti-terrorism legislation and emergency legislation. Those bills provided extraordinary powers. Does that sound familiar? Bill C-12 provides for extraordinary powers.

Supporting this amendment is not about fear or undermining the bill in front of us, nor is it about casting doubt on the intentions of governments to follow. It is about foresight. It ensures that the powers we grant today remain justified tomorrow.