Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Bill

Moved:

That, in relation 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 Senate:

(a)agree to the amendment made by the House of Commons to its amendment 2; and

(b)do not insist on its amendment 1 to which the House of Commons has disagreed; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak on the message regarding Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada’s immigration system and borders act. I would like to thank the senators for their thoughtful and thorough deliberations at every stage of the proceedings, including at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, at the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, and during the debates in this chamber.

As the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology stated at third reading, the committee met for over 13 hours on Bill C-12, hearing from 35 witnesses and receiving 36 written submissions.

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs spent six hours hearing from witnesses and received 35 written briefs. It also heard additional testimony from public servants during its clause-by-clause meeting.

At third reading alone, we had over nine hours of debate. Once again, colleagues, your commitment to addressing certain difficult issues has been unwavering.

I would like to thank Senator Dean for his tireless work and the elegance with which he undertook the sponsorship of Bill C-12.

I would like to thank you for attending a great number of committee meetings, for staying on top of the often highly technical literature relating to a bill as complex as Bill C-12, and especially for your ability to understand arguments on both sides of every issue. Our colleagues have paid tribute to your thoughtfulness, openness and wholehearted engagement with the difficult questions raised by this bill. I want to echo their praise, which you fully deserve. Senator Dean, your acumen and collegiality are, without a doubt, worthy of emulation. Thank you very much.

The responsible management of Canada’s immigration and asylum system is at the heart of the bill, with the aim of preserving its fairness, credibility and sustainability as it faces significant pressures, while maintaining the safeguards and respect for procedural fairness that Canadians are entitled to expect.

Let’s now move on to the heart of our debate, namely the message from the other place, for that alone is the subject of our deliberations today. The House of Commons accepted the provisions recommended by the Senate providing for an automatic review of the bill five years after its coming into force. The minister and MPs saw these amendments as a way to strengthen accountability while keeping the bill’s main measures intact.

MPs supported the requirement that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship table a report on the implementation of the new one-year ineligibility measure, including specific information, before both houses of Parliament. This amendment will provide both the House of Commons and the Senate with structured information on how the measure is functioning in practice over time.

For the sake of greater clarity, I would like to note that the other place proposes a technical rewording of the Senate’s amendment requiring a ministerial report. The Senate’s wording referred to the proportion of refugee protection claimants impacted by “the day of entry referred to in that paragraph,” which appeared to refer to the Senate’s proposed new section 75.1(3)(b). The other place clarifies that the day of entry is the day referred to in paragraph 101(1)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

However, the other place could not support the first amendment proposed by the Senate. In the government’s view, the proposed amendment to exclude citizens and permanent residents would negatively impact Canada’s domestic information-sharing framework. It would also undermine the goal of improving how the government shares information with trusted domestic partners in Canada.

Colleagues, Senator Senior’s third reading speech raised deeply felt concerns born of her experience with the immigration process and those of her loved ones and community, an experience with which many of our colleagues are also deeply acquainted. These concerns are extremely valid and deserve the chamber’s attention. Indeed, the government cannot create a situation where we would have two different strata of citizenship, with one type of citizen being afforded privacy rights, while the other is denied that same right. The government shares this view, and this is reflected in the original drafting of Bill C-12. A Canadian is a Canadian. Period.

Information sharing already exists today for temporary residents, permanent residents and citizens under the current legislation. An example would be when a Canadian by birth requires consular services abroad in an emergency, or for the issuance of a passport, or when an officer from the Canada Border Services Agency at points of entry into Canada, or a liaison officer posted abroad, contacts the Passport Program to verify the authenticity and validity of a Canadian document.

This involves internal and national information sharing aimed at facilitating access to government services to which citizens are entitled. All of this is consistent and applies to everyone, whether they are temporary residents, naturalized Canadians or those born in Canada. The information is treated in the same way, with the same respect and the same confidentiality safeguards.

Colleagues, the bill does not weaken privacy protection. On the contrary, it establishes clearer rules, strict limits and modern privacy safeguards.

By proposing that information on citizens and permanent residents be excluded, the government views the amendment proposed by the Senate as a reintroduction of a patchwork approach, which undermines the improvements and protections these changes bring. A focus in Bill C-12 is stronger safeguards, not new powers. Excluding permanent residents and citizens would leave them with fewer protections and less transparency. The government’s position is that if stronger protections are the goal, the first amendment proposed by the Senate runs counter to that.

Furthermore, the government believes that the proposed Senate amendment would create operational challenges and lead to inconsistent service delivery. The sharing of information on permanent residents and citizens is essential to the delivery of core services by the federal government and its partners. The proposed Senate amendment would not restrict information sharing in the future; it would simply deprive permanent residents and citizens of the benefits that the bill brings to standard and essential practices. By having clear information on the entire client base, the government will be better able to ensure consistent service delivery and improved program integrity for all Canadians.

For these reasons, colleagues, the government is asking us to accept the House of Commons’ decision not to approve our first amendment. Once the following two amendments, which would establish review mechanisms, have been approved, the Senate and the House of Commons will have the authority to evaluate the processes and information-sharing provisions set out in the bill, should this be deemed necessary and appropriate.

In conclusion, colleagues, let us remember that Bill C-12 was designed to strike the right balance in honouring our commitment to maintain a secure system where risks exist, through a reliable process and fair decisions, all the while ensuring that our systems continue to operate credibly under pressures — pressures that have intensified in recent years on several fronts. Protecting Canadian sovereignty and ensuring the safety of Canadians are now more important than ever.

Honourable senators, thanks to your sustained efforts, our chamber of review has managed to improve a complex and contentious piece of legislation. While keeping the bill’s core measures intact, the Senate has strengthened the accountability mechanisms in this bill.

Now I urge you to adopt the message from the other place so that Bill C-12 may receive Royal Assent by the end of this week. Thank you.