Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Bill

Moved second 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 introduce Bill C-12, strengthening Canada’s immigration system and borders act at second reading.

Canada has long been defined by our commitment to a fair, orderly, compassionate and welcoming immigration system. However, for a system to remain welcoming and to maintain public confidence, it must also be efficient, sustainable and secure.

Colleagues, we are facing unprecedented and complex border security challenges — transnational organized crime, a devastating fentanyl crisis fuelled by illicit precursors and a long backlog of files — that are stretching the capacity of our immigration and asylum systems.

Bill C-12 is a necessary response to these modern challenges.

Border security risks and the danger they pose to our national security are evolving quickly.

Criminal groups are using increasingly sophisticated methods to carry out illegal activities, including the use of artificial intelligence, encrypted communications and crypto-currencies, making their operations more efficient, scalable and harder to detect. So we must ensure that law enforcement agencies have access to the most advanced investigative tools and adequate resources.

These are the issues the government is addressing in this bill.

Border security is a top priority for both Canada and the United States, and further strengthening our border will help to strengthen this relationship around a shared priority.

In December 2024, the Government of Canada announced a $1.3-billion border plan, for which we are already seeing results. In support of the border plan, a new intelligence directive on organized crime and illegal fentanyl was signed, and it will be backed by an additional $200-million investment.

This includes the creation of Canada’s Joint Operational Intelligence Cell, which builds on existing cooperation mechanisms between law enforcement partners and domestic security agencies. This will see more information shared to target transnational organized crime, money laundering and drug trafficking, and to improve border security.

The Integrated Money Laundering Intelligence Partnership was also established with Canada’s largest banks to enhance our capacity to develop and use financial intelligence to combat fentanyl trafficking and other organized crime.

Canada has also listed seven transnational organized crime groups as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code. This is an important tool that supports criminal investigations and strengthens the RCMP’s ability to prevent and disrupt criminal activities.

The government has also committed to providing surveillance at the border 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Nearly 10,000 front-line personnel are working on border security, and the government plans to hire 1,000 new RCMP personnel and 1,000 new Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, officers to bolster these protection efforts.

At its core, this bill is about the safety of Canadians. It would equip our law enforcement agencies — the CBSA and the RCMP — with the tools they need to respond effectively to evolving security challenges and to combat organized crime.

There are two main themes in this bill: the first is securing the border; the second is combatting transnational organized crime, illegal fentanyl and illicit financing.

Under the first theme, securing the border, the bill proposes to amend the Customs Act to better secure our borders against illicit drug trafficking, weapons smuggling and auto theft. This is Part 1 of the bill.

In the Fall Economic Statement and the border plan in December 2024, the government announced its commitment to strengthen border security, including disrupting, dismantling and prosecuting the organized crime groups behind the importation and exportation of illicit goods such as stolen vehicles, fentanyl and illegally produced cannabis.

Colleagues, although the Customs Act has broad examination authorities for goods destined for import, the obligations for the provision of access to facilities free of charge at certain customs offices do not expressly refer to the examination and detention of goods destined for export.

As you might imagine, the most effective place to perform export searches is at transportation hubs where containers are gathered, such as rail yards and warehouses, before they reach a port of exit.

Proposed legislative changes would obligate owners and operators of certain ports of exit and entry to “provide, equip and maintain” facilities for “any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of” the CBSA’s mandate. Importantly, this emphasizes a focus on examining and seizing goods leaving the country, that is, for export.

This change would expressly allow the CBSA to fully access premises under the control of transporters and warehouse operators to perform examinations in places where goods destined for export are reported, loaded, unloaded or stored, and to provide facilities to support this.

Colleagues, we have all heard stories about high-end cars and SUVs being “stolen to order,” particularly in large cities across the country, and shipped by container to Canadian ports, and from there to countries around the globe, while all the time being tracked by their owners back home. Measures in the bill are going to disrupt this practice and, in fact, are already under way.

Second, Bill C-12 would, in Part 4 of the act, amend the Oceans Act to add security-related activities to the Coast Guard’s services, ensuring our vast maritime borders are not exploited for illegal smuggling. This would empower the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze and share information and intelligence for security purposes. The Canadian Coast Guard is the most visible federal presence in Canadian waters, including the Arctic, and is equipped with capabilities not found elsewhere in the federal fleet.

Providing the Canadian Coast Guard with a security mandate would support Canada’s security and sovereignty, including in the North, and would advance the federal government’s commitment in the Speech from the Throne to invest in strengthening Canada’s presence in the North.

As a result of an amendment in the House of Commons, Bill C-12 would see the Coast Guard reporting to the Minister of Defence.

Third, the government is proposing amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, or SOIRA, to enhance the ability of the RCMP to share information collected on registered sex offenders with domestic and international law enforcement partners. That is in Part 11 of the bill.

Those changes will better support the safety of Canadians by providing domestic and international partners with the right tools to prevent and investigate crimes of a sexual nature and, therefore, to create safer communities where children are protected. Most notably, this proposal will lower the threshold in the SOIRA to enhance the ability of the RCMP to share information collected under the act with domestic and international governments and law enforcement agencies.

The SOIRA currently allows for information to be shared when registered sex offenders are travelling abroad in certain circumstances. Information sharing on sex offender travel has been an ongoing irritant for international partners and has often been raised by the United States.

Proposed amendments would provide the RCMP with greater flexibility to disclose information on registered sex offenders who have reported international travel to foreign law enforcement. This information supports international partners in making admissibility decisions and to ensure timely and effective prevention and investigation of crimes of a sexual nature.

Other proposed amendments to the SOIRA would clarify the RCMP’s authority to collect certain information by requiring registered sex offenders to report any vehicle changes and allow any record of any physical characteristics, including tattoos and distinguishing marks, as well as photographs, to be taken. These changes would help strengthen information sharing in both Canada and abroad and maximize the utility of the National Sex Offender Registry in protecting the public.

The amendments carefully respect the fundamental guiding principles of the act, which aim to balance the protection of society with the privacy interests of offenders and the public benefit of their rehabilitation.

Fourth, to improve the integrity of our immigration system, the bill introduces tools to maintain a system that Canadians and newcomers to Canada can trust. Those proposals are in Parts 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the bill.

Colleagues, we have unprecedented pressures on our asylum system. I will speak to each in turn and outline how Bill C-12 proposes to address them.

In order to respond to crises, critical events and malfeasance, such as efforts to initiate mass fraud, the bill proposes new authorities to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents and to cancel, suspend or stop accepting new applications for documents such as work or study permits. Colleagues, these authorities would not apply to asylum claims. This would enable the government to respond to potential crises, such as pandemics, cyberattacks or in the event that a large number of similar immigration documents are red-flagged for review. This is intended to protect the integrity of our system so that it is trusted and remains available for those who truly need it.

Canada is not effectively equipped to respond to certain urgent or unforeseen events that threaten the security of our border and the management of migration into our country. Gaps were identified with the existing immigration authorities, following lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and other large-scale emergencies. New legislative authorities aim to close those gaps, allowing the government to increase its control over immigration documents and the applications that it processes to ensure that we’re able to respond to any unforeseen events that could undermine the management of migration into our country and the safety of Canadians.

Proposed amendments would give Canada greater control over immigration applications and documents across the immigration continuum to allow us to better respond to exceptional events to protect the public interest and the Canadian public. They would provide Canada with the ability to act swiftly when required and, in turn, help to secure the Canadian border.

The proposed authorities to strengthen control over immigration documents will allow more flexible actions. The amendments in Bill C-12 would allow the Governor-in-Council to issue an order-in-council to mass-cancel, suspend or vary immigration documents; to cancel and suspend immigration applications for those documents; and to stop application intake for reasons determined to be in the public interest.

Authorities are not being sought with a particular set of circumstances in mind, and the legislation does not predetermine scenarios for use. Rather, the authorities would be available for use when there are threats to Canada’s national security, public health, ability to safely manage the flow of people coming into the country or other matters of public interest. An amendment was made in the House of Commons to clarify the intended scope of “public interest,” which includes scenarios such as fraud, public health, public safety and national security.

The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, the IRCC, could not exercise these powers unilaterally. The decision would rest with the Governor-in-Council, who could issue an order-in-council to intervene on immigration documents and applications when they are of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. This ensures a strong level of oversight, alignment with overall government priorities and rigour commensurate with their impacts.

Each order of this kind would also be published in the Canada Gazette, ensuring public transparency. In addition, an amendment to the bill introduced a reporting requirement for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to table a report in each house of Parliament within seven sitting days on each of the Governor-in-Council’s mass authorities. The amendment would also require the referral of that report to committee for its review and the minister’s appearance at committee to support that review.

So, if such an action is triggered, colleagues, the government will be asked very quickly to explain why.

Colleagues, this legislation does not target any specific cohort of clients for immediate action. No immigration documents would automatically be cancelled as a result of this bill becoming law. The use of visa authorities would be a separate and subsequent process. Any proposed use of these authorities will carefully consider the impacts, including on vulnerable populations, international relations as well as any other relevant considerations.

This legislative package provides for mass interventions on immigration documents and applications for these documents, not status. The use of these authorities for a person in Canada would not result in any immediate loss of status, and the mass authorities could not be used to grant permanent resident status. The use of the authorities would be limited to interventions on immigration documents and applications for those documents.

An example, colleagues, might be a massive cyberattack. It might be a massive influx or arrival of applications from another part of the world that we know very little about that makes an effort to swamp the system. I think that’s a pertinent example.

The authorities could not be used to block access to the asylum system. Claims for refugee protection before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada are not applications for documents and thus are not subject to mass intervention under these authorities. Further, all existing processes and protections relating to the removal of foreign nationals from Canada would remain unchanged, including for refugee claimants.

Colleagues, I understand that these authorities are meant to be used exceptionally when needed to protect the public interest, including for matters such as fraud, public health, public safety and national security.

I now move to information sharing. 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 limits on its disclosure to foreign entities.

Colleagues, information sharing, as in many government institutions, is currently resource-heavy, as it generally requires case-by-case analysis as to whether IRCC has the legal authority based on consistent use or another authority to undertake a desired information-sharing activity.

For example, spotting a discrepancy like conflicting details in an immigration application when processing a passport application for the same person can be a red flag for fraud. Without the ability to share that information quickly across IRCC programs, it could be missed. These changes would enable red flags and protect the integrity of the system. They would also be helpful to clients of the system.

The new authorities would also break down barriers to information sharing between IRCC programs to improve integrity, enhance the sharing of identity, status and IRCC-issued document information with provincial, territorial and federal partners who rely upon this information for the integrity of their respective programs and introduce regulation-making authority to allow the IRCC to disclose information for cooperation with federal partners in prescribed scenarios.

The proposed amendments would reduce the need for applicants to resubmit information already provided to another IRCC program, lowering the risk of discrepancies, improving decision-making efficiency and strengthening the integrity of our data and programs.

For example, while the IRCC may have collected a large amount of personal information during the permanent residence application process, the IRCC cannot use that information to process a subsequent application for citizenship. The proposed amendments are limited to information sharing with domestic partners and would not give additional enforcement or compliance power to other organizations. This would enhance program integrity by discouraging fraud while also improving client service.

The IRCC is committed to safeguarding client information by having strong privacy and security policies in place and continually reviewing its information management practices to ensure compliance with the Privacy Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The protection of personal information of clients, especially those who might be vulnerable, is a priority. It would only share personal information with partners who are legally allowed to collect it through clear written agreements or arrangements.

Bill C-12 would require that the IRCC enter into written information-sharing agreements with other federal departments or provinces and territories to define the personal information to be disclosed, the purpose of that disclosure and any limits on second reuse and the onward transfer of personal information.

The amendments further contain 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.

Colleagues, strengthening information sharing would boost 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.

As a former public servant, I have led extensive public service reforms to promote integrated service delivery. The security of clients’ information is critically important and an obvious success factor in these reforms, colleagues. It is also the case that information silos, like any other silos in government, are both inefficient and counterproductive if we are to maintain trust in government and build more responsive services.

I now turn to proposals made in Bill C-12 related to the integrity and efficiency of Canada’s asylum system.

Canada is viewed as a world leader in meeting international and domestic obligations to protect people in vulnerable circumstances, and I know that we are all proud of that, but Canada’s asylum system is under strain. Asylum claims have been rising, with over 92,000 claims received in 2022, approximately 144,000 claims in 2023 and 173,000 claims in 2024. In November 2025, the Refugee Protection Division at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada had an inventory of approximately 299,452 cases pending. The average wait time at the end of November was 16 months from the time that a claim would be ready for adjudication.

Colleagues, Bill C-12 also introduces important reforms to strengthen migration integrity and modernize the asylum system. These measures are designed to make the asylum process faster so that claims are processed more efficiently while upholding Canada’s commitment to protecting individuals in need.

These changes would simplify the online application process and make the process the same whether someone claims asylum at a port of entry or at an inland IRCC office. They would refer only schedule-ready files to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, or IRB, to speed up decisions. They would ensure that claims are only decided by the IRB when a claimant is physically present in Canada. They would remove inactive cases from the system and speed up voluntary departures by making removal orders effective the same day that a claim is withdrawn. They would also help vulnerable persons like minors or those who don’t understand the process by assigning designated representatives to support them during immigration or border enforcement proceedings.

Bill C-12 also introduces new ineligibilities to protect the asylum system against sudden increases in claims while ensuring that it respects its international obligations. New ineligibility provisions would make the following asylum claims ineligible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board: first, claims more than one year after an individual’s first entry into Canada after June 24, 2020; and second, claims from individuals who entered irregularly — that is, between ports of entry — from the United States and who makes a claim after 14 days of their entry, thus falling outside the Safe Third Country Agreement provision. I know that a number of you are already familiar with this proposal.

The intent of the ineligibility measures is to protect the integrity and efficiency of the in-Canada asylum system against sudden increases in claims. The one-year ineligibility would also discourage the use of the asylum system by individuals seeking to claim refugee protection in order to extend their temporary stay in Canada and have access to a work permit or other benefits.

Exceptions to the new ineligibility measures may be introduced in the regulations. For example, the new ineligibility provisions will not be applied to unaccompanied minors, considering their heightened vulnerabilities due to their age and lack of legal guardianship. Individuals affected by these changes may apply for a pre-removal risk assessment, or PRRA, which prevents people from being sent back to a country where they face risks like persecution or torture. Subject to certain exceptions for those inadmissible on serious grounds, a positive PRRA results in the conferral of refugee protection. The pre‑removal risk assessment process has been in place for over 20 years and has been upheld by the courts as meeting Canada’s international non-refoulement obligations.

A PRRA is a robust review process that considers several factors to ensure that Canada doesn’t remove individuals to a country where they could experience risk of persecution, danger of torture, risk to their lives or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, the same things looked at by the IRB. Subject to certain exceptions for those admissible on serious grounds, the PRRA involves consideration of the same factors as those examined by the IRB in determining a refugee claim.

As part of the application, PRRA applicants can submit detailed explanations of risks or dangers they would face, along with any documentary evidence of these risks or dangers. The application provides individuals with ample opportunity to describe their risks.

Those with positive decisions on the PRRA are provided protected person status and the ability to apply for permanent residence. In terms of success factors, an applicant whose appeal has failed in the IRB process already is highly unlikely to be successful in the pre-removal process. But the numbers would show up there anyway. So, when we look at numbers in the preapproval process, they include those who have already been to the Immigration an​d Refugee Board of Canada, or IRB.

On the other hand, those who move directly to a pre-removal assessment see a sizable degree of success. The 14-day ineligibility has no impact on the application of the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement. The ineligibility impacts those who make an asylum claim more than 14 days after crossing irregularly and, therefore, are not subject to return to the U.S. Under the Safe Third Country Agreement, these claimants are channelled towards the removal stream and offered a pre-removal assessment. Obviously, the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement remains in effect.

As for Bill C-12’s second theme, the bill will provide law enforcement with more tools to combat transnational organized crime, drug trafficking, money laundering and other financial crimes, and provide tighter and more adaptable controls on precursor chemicals associated with fentanyl through amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or CDSA.

Part 2 of the act would amend the CDSA to empower the Minister of Health to rapidly add precursor chemicals that can be used to produce illicit drugs such as fentanyl to a new schedule of the act, through a new, accelerated regulatory process, which can be completed in a matter of days. This would allow law and border enforcement agencies to take swift action to prevent the illegal importation and use of precursor chemicals. It would also ensure strict federal oversight of any legitimate use of these chemicals, which includes legal pharmaceuticals, detergents, paints and plastics.

In Canada, precursors are tightly controlled under the CDSA and its regulations, and the regulations are designed to allow legitimate use of these chemicals by industry, while also preventing them from reaching organized crime.

In addition to accelerating the prohibition of certain precursors, this new approach would be more responsive to the industries that require them for legitimate uses.

Colleagues, Canada is a leader in the robust and strict control of illegal drugs and the chemicals that can be used to produce them. Indeed, the concept of scheduling precursor chemicals began in this chamber in 2016, through a private member’s bill on precursors tabled by our former colleague Senator Vern White, a former police chief, whose work echoes in this place today.

Senator White became frustrated by the absence of government efforts to tackle precursors and took it upon himself to introduce a private member’s bill, and, as I say, this is the stuff that we’re talking about today.

Given the identification and control of new classes of illegal drugs in this bill, Part 3 of the bill extends current legal protections of police engaged in undercover operations to include these new classes of illegal precursor drugs. These provisions enable law enforcement to conduct complex covert operations targeting serious drug crimes while staying within the bounds of the law. These exemptions are tightly scoped and subject to regulatory conditions. They don’t grant blanket immunity. Oversight mechanisms, including coordination with police and judicial safeguards, ensure these powers are used responsibly and transparently with full respect for Canadians’ rights and freedoms.

So this is the provisions catching up with rapid changes in powerful and often deadly drugs.

These amendments will make our already comprehensive laws even stronger to help disrupt the importation, production and supply of illegal drugs in Canada and globally.

Finally, colleagues, Parts 9 and 10 of the bill will strengthen Canada’s anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime — including through stronger anti-money laundering penalties — by amending the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and amending the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act.

These penalties include a 40-times increase in administrative monetary penalties so that non-compliance in this area is not treated as the cost of doing business.

The measures contained in this bill would enhance the powers of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, to crack down on money laundering and illicit financing.

Money laundering supports and perpetuates economically motivated crimes by allowing criminals, such as fentanyl traffickers, to benefit from their illicit activities. Strong and effective anti-money laundering measures are, therefore, an integral component of a secure Canada-U.S. border.

These reporting entities are on the front lines of the fight against money laundering. Ensuring compliance with anti-money laundering obligations is essential to report entities’ effective detection and deterrence of money laundering.

Strong coordination between regulatory agencies is also needed to fight financial crime, which includes FINTRAC becoming a member of the Financial Institution Supervisory Committee in order to support high standards of regulatory compliance.

Your Honour, Bill C-12 represents a balanced approach. It protects our border from those who would exploit it — members of organized crime, smugglers, money launderers and traffickers — while ensuring our immigration system remains a pillar of Canadian society.

Colleagues, by approving this legislation, we would reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law, ensuring that Canadians can maintain trust in our border, and that those who seek a better life here can do so through a system that is fair, fast and secure.

The strengthening Canada’s immigration system and borders act would protect Canadian sovereignty and would keep people safe. Colleagues, I ask you to support the swift passage of Bill C-12 for the safety and prosperity of all Canadians and those who strive to join us in this great country. Thank you for your attention.

Would Senator Dean take a question?

Certainly, I would.

Thank you, Senator Dean, for the terrific speech. In introducing the powers to cancel or suspend, en masse, immigration documents of different sorts, you started by talking about the severe backlog of applications that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, is dealing with. Then you went on to explain that cancellation or suspension would be on the basis of certain criteria, such as public safety, public health, and so on.

I’m a little concerned that the government might consider the backlog itself to be a public interest issue and might choose to cancel the huge backlog — admittedly a huge backlog — simply to clear the rubble if I could put it that way.

Can you give us some assurance that there is no such intention?

Thanks for the terrific question. I have absolutely no information — having been briefed by officials on the public service side and the political side — that there is any such intention to do this under these provisions.

I think you’ll see reference — and I made reference to them — this is about responding to cases of mass fraud or potential cyber activity that might, in fact, introduce thousands of documents into our system, which you would surely then want the authorities to be able to cancel. That is, I believe, a brief and correct answer.

At committee, you and others would have the ability to ask those representing the government this question again if you so wish, of course. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Dean. I hope colleagues on the committee will ask that question.

But it begs the other question, which is that you, in fact, have identified a number of key areas in which cancellation or suspension would be warranted. You mentioned fraud, cyberattacks, public health and public safety.

Why do we then need this catch-all justification “in the public interest” in the law? Because having this catch-all definition of “in the public interest” still allows the government to clear the backlog for the sake of clearing the backlog. I accept that you have no information that the government intends to clear the backlog in the public interest, but we also have no assurance that it will not do so in the future.

My question to you, Senator Dean, is this: Can we get rid of the “in the public interest” phraseology?

I am not the right person to put that question to, Senator Woo, as you well know. I take the opportunity to affirm again that the sorts of examples provided have in common that they suggest external threats. I would take from this that this is not about then quickly flipping it and using it for internal processes within the system. But, again, that’s a question that can be asked and examined in the committee process.

Will Senator Dean take another question?

Yes.

Thank you, Senator Dean. Thank you for so clearly outlining the various aspects of this bill. Certainly, I’m a bit clearer on some of the aspects and still troubled, as you well know.

I want to ask about two things. You mentioned that vulnerable populations, particularly refugees and asylum seekers, would not be made more vulnerable with this bill. I’m paraphrasing. But then there is an aspect of this where folks who are in that vulnerable category would have to, I understand — and correct me if I am wrong — file for asylum within the first year of getting to Canada.

There are a number of things that would get in their way in terms of being able to do that. One would be that perhaps they do not speak an official language, and a year is not enough time for someone to grasp that fully. They may have inadequate access to important information, including folks who are fleeing gender-based violence or folks from the LGBTQIA+ communities who have chosen Canada and see it as a place where they can be safe. But there could also be an issue of trust in terms of trusting authorities that may take much more than a year for them to be able to tackle to make such a claim.

So I’d like for you to speak to that element in a way that gives me and others confidence that this is protected.

Thank you, senator. That’s a really important question. I think it goes back to the comments that I made about the Safe Third Country Agreement and the requirement — where you’re going with this, I think, is that certain classes of refugee applicants would now be directed to an officer as opposed to the Immigration and Refugee Board, or IRB. That is the case, I would say this. I had concerns too when I read these provisions, and I asked questions about these provisions.

First of all, this is a category of people who either waited out the Safe Third Country Agreement timelines or for other reasons delayed for a long period an application that could otherwise have been made rightfully under the act. In these cases, there would be a referral of that class of individuals to make their case before an officer at the IRB. An officer would look at exactly the same criteria as the Immigration and Refugee Board does in terms of protection from torture and persecution. They would gather information, and they would make a determination which would — I think I’m right on this — be appealable to the Federal Court.

I’ve mentioned that the criteria would be the same as at the IRB. It’s important to add something on the data, because I had taken and I’ve read all of the materials that have come in from the important organizations who protect these communities. A big issue raised was the success rates before an officer as opposed to before the board. I’ve dug into that quite deeply, and I’m still doing it.

It seems to me — and you’ll probably hear more about this at committee — that the success rates for applications before an officer are actually nothing like as bad or negative as people might suspect. My own sense is that people get a good shot at this. Not 100% of applicants are going to be approved because many of them simply walking in the door aren’t going to meet the persecution criteria, and they probably know that. They were probably told that previously if they went to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The key to this, I think, is what happens in this not alternative but parallel process. My own sense of this — I’m far from an expert; I’m a three-week expert — is that the process does work well on the whole for those seeking asylum, and I’m hopeful that you will get more evidence of that.

Senator Dean, the time allowed for debate has expired. I believe there is a supplementary question. Would you want more time to answer the question?

Yes, Your Honour.

Is leave granted, honourable colleagues?

Thank you, and thank you, Senator Dean. I noted that you are a three-week expert. I’m a couple days’ critic, so I’m trying to balance that as well.

What I have trouble with as well is this parallel process that you’ve described. I wonder why the government would go this route as opposed to shoring up the IRB. The reason I ask that is because there is incredible training that the IRB folks receive so that they understand, on a very expert level, the implications and all the intricacies of folks who would be making claims. I don’t get that sense with the pre-removal risk assessment, or PRRA, folks. They are employees of IRCC. They are administrators. They are not at arm’s length from the government, as the IRB is.

So my level of confidence is not there in terms of administrators, especially — as Senator Woo alluded to earlier — if the implication of the backlog and clearing that up may be the priority for such folks. That concerns me as well.

I hear about the success rate. I don’t have that information in terms of the success rate, and I would like to see that. I will certainly ask about that at committee, as well as what it is based on and the criteria, et cetera, but that concerns me as well. Would you be able to comment on that?

Yes, it’s another good question. I have no doubt, Senator Senior, that the government would love to reduce the backlog at the Immigration an​d Refugee Board. Likely, more funding will be needed to do that because you heard the numbers that I cited.

Second, with respect to the officers, as I understand it — because I asked this question too — they do receive training. On the matters in question, they receive the same level of information and training as those who support the Immigration an​d Refugee Board. I’ll just mention again that if that fails, there’s recourse to the Federal Court.

These challenges in the system are endemic. In some respects, there is a signal here that the government is trying to — I will use this term — wrap its arms around this and make some improvements. Those improvements will not always and would likely seldom meet the expectations of the communities that have concerns about these processes in the first place. I fully understand that. I thank you for your questions, and I look forward to continuing to work on this with you.

Would Senator Dean take a question from me?

Yes.

Thank you. As a general principle, do you believe that this piece of legislation looked at the least oppressive ways to increase militaristic and police oversight of people who typically would already be in the sights of our military police systems in this country?

I need a less conceptual and more concrete example, senator, if you wouldn’t mind.

In this legislation, in a number of places, we see an increase in the authority of officials — typically, they are officials who have more of a military police organization presence — to interfere in people’s lives more than we see today. To my mind, it is a significant amount of increased interference. I’m asking if there is a general principle here that the legislation is based on the sense that this is what is minimally necessary.

Senator Dean, you will have to ask for more time to answer.

I’m asking for 10 more seconds.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Senator McPhedran, I think you can relax. I have no sense that your concerns are resident in any parts of these proposals that I have looked at and on which I have been briefed, but thank you for the question.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.

When we read the titles of these bills, the word “respecting” isn’t used in the Aretha Franklin “R-E-S-P-E-C-T” sort of way. No, here the word “respecting” has a more archaic meaning: a sense of being related to or in regard to. The irony is bleak because Bill C-12 isn’t about respecting the integrity of Canada’s immigration system. It is about undermining it and allowing our immigration and refugee system, long admired as one of the best in the world, to be undermined in a vain effort to appease the anti-immigrant backlash within our own country and to appease a former friend and ally who is now all too keen to find excuses to trespass on our national sovereignty.

Maybe that seems melodramatic — and I would agree if you only looked at the parts of the bill that deal with matters such as money laundering, drug smuggling and stolen cars. But nestled in the middle of a bill about making Canada and Canadians safer is a section that makes us all a little less safe.

Under the terms of this proposed legislation, asylum seekers are ineligible if they make their refugee claims more than 12 months after landing in Canada. The rules are even stricter for those who cross a land border between ports of entry. They have only two weeks to file their papers. Those timelines simply aren’t reasonable for all claimants and could lead to some of the most vulnerable refugees being deported back to danger.

As the Canadian Council for Refugees puts it:

The provisions will particularly endanger survivors of gender-based violence, LGBTQIA+ individuals, unaccompanied minors, [individuals with mental health issues] and individuals whose countries are facing political unrest.

Claimants deemed ineligible because of these rules may be offered what is called a “pre-removal risk assessment” to ensure they are not sent back to situations where they could face persecution and even death. But such an “in-house” risk assessment is no substitute for an oral hearing carried out by an independent tribunal.

According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, immigration officials simply do not have the independence nor the expertise to assess the merits of a claim.

UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, has also implored our government to add a mandatory hearing process to ensure an individual’s right to be heard, as well as the right of a full appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. UNHCR is also asking for a process which would allow asylum seekers a stay of removal until their appeal is heard.

Senator Dean spoke about the Safe Third Country Agreement. What is that agreement worth when every night, on our television screens and our phones, we see evidence that the third country is no longer safe for thousands and thousands of claimants?

Senator Dean has spoken of the extreme backlogs in our refugee acceptance system. They do seem extreme and unfairly Kafkaesque, I am sure, to people caught up in that system. But is the answer to move the goalposts or to add more resources so that people with legitimate reasons to seek asylum in Canada can be properly heard?

But perhaps the most disturbing part of Bill C-12 is in Part 7 in proposed section 87.302(1)(a), which allows the Governor-in-Council to:

. . . cancel or vary documents, including permanent resident visas, permanent resident cards, temporary resident visas, electronic travel authorizations, temporary resident permits, work permits or study permits . . . .

Let it be clear: The Governor-in-Council requires no objective evidence or criteria to cancel visas en masse but need only hold the “opinion” that it is in the public interest to do so. On that wholly subjective basis, a government could simply cancel permanent resident visas and cards, suddenly turning people who are legal, settled immigrants to Canada into people without papers and without recourse since there are no grounds of appeal.

The same fate could be meted out to international students who have been granted visas and are studying in the country legally or to temporary foreign workers who have broken no rules.

We’re not talking about people having their papers cancelled on a case-by-case basis because of something they’ve done wrong, or even an allegation of something they’ve done wrong, but about whole categories and classes of people having their right to live or work or study in Canada taken away holus-bolus.

Senator Dean has assured us that just because you lose your card or your papers doesn’t necessarily mean a loss of status. I can only tell you that immigration and refugee groups with whom I have consulted and whose briefs I have read see things rather differently.

Let me tell you what Amnesty International said about section 7:

Such powers could be used in arbitrary, politically motivated and discriminatory ways. They would also create profound insecurity for people who have established their lives in Canada and for those seeking to reunite with loved ones.

The Migrant Rights Network says its:

. . . gravest concern is Part 7, which would grant sweeping authority to the Governor in Council to cancel, suspend, or modify immigration documents and applications en masse “in the public interest.”

This would deny people the right to individualized assessment and due process. . . .

Furthermore, “the public interest” is intentionally not defined to allow “maximum flexibility.” This risks Part 7 being used in politically motivated and discriminatory ways, on the bases of country of origin, language, socioeconomic status, and other grounds protected under the Charter. . . .

The network continues:

Part 7 would open the door to discrimination permanently for all future governments. For those of us living and working in Canada without citizenship, Part 7 means our lives can be upended at any moment based on who we are, not what we’ve done.

One of the sad things about this entire process, of course, is that very few of these groups were allowed to be heard in testimony in the other place.

One of the things we must ensure is that we in this chamber hear from these voices and from these experts — that they be allowed to testify and share their legal and personal expertise.

Because when we look at Part 7 and compare it to what is happening in the United States, we can see the Trump regime using a remarkably similar tactic to void the visas of Haitian refugees who had been granted temporary protected status in the United States.

When we look at the globally respected Mark Carney government, and at Minister Anandasangaree, himself an immigrant and a respected human rights lawyer, it may be hard for us to imagine that they would have any nefarious intentions.

But this legislation isn’t being drafted just for their use. It would remain on the books for years after. And it isn’t hard to imagine a different sort of government in a different sort of time weaponizing such legislation in a very similar way to what we see south of us.

Such policies are not only potentially unfair to immigrants, international students and foreign workers; they have the potential to backfire spectacularly on every Canadian.

What heart surgeon, AI engineer, nurse, entrepreneur or academic is going to want to uproot their family and start a new life in Canada knowing that their permanent residency could be revoked so arbitrarily?

What brilliant grad student is going to opt to take up a fellowship here knowing that their student visa could be ripped up if they happen to belong to the wrong group at the wrong time? What temporary foreign worker or live-in domestic caregiver is going to take that gamble?

So why do we suppose that our Canadian government is pushing through such changes at this moment in our history? Perhaps I can only answer from my perspective as an Albertan.

In my own beloved, multicultural province, which literally invented the political idea of official multiculturalism, a small group of malign but very loud political actors are weaponizing xenophobia — that’s the polite Greek term for racism — in an effort to divide the province and split our country.

For the past few years, at town halls across the province, there’s been talk, not just of drastically cutting immigration levels to Alberta, but of mass deportations and what is now called “remigration.” That’s a polite word for “Juden raus.”

Premier Danielle Smith has said publicly that if she got her wish and had more control over Alberta’s immigration policy, new immigrants and refugees would be denied access to public health care and public schools. “Until somebody becomes a permanent resident and citizen we’ll treat them like tourists,” she recently told Calgary Herald columnist Rick Bell. She continued, saying:

As a tourist you don’t go to somebody else’s country and expect to get child care and education and health care and other benefits.

As the daughter of a refugee and the granddaughter of immigrants, this kind of rhetoric hits me at a gut level. At this moment in world history, as we see the brownshirts of ICE trampling human rights in Minneapolis and forces of division sowing anti-immigrant sentiment across Canada and around the world, this country and this chamber need to stand against the darkness.

But this isn’t just a matter of human rights and human dignity. Given the demographics of our country, we need immigrants and refugees to build our future. Population growth here hasn’t just hit zero. Canada’s population is literally dropping, and the economic and social consequences will affect us all.

However much we cut immigration levels, however much harder we make it to file a refugee claim, the haters — within Canada and without — will never be satisfied. Let us stop eroding our proud, sovereign immigration system in some misguided effort to appease MAGA and “Maple MAGA.”

We need an immigration system that works for Canada’s economy, community, moral integrity and international reputation.

Let me end with an analysis of Bill C-12 from the Canadian Bar Association. They said:

The Bill contains flaws that open it to constitutional challenge, and . . . the solutions proposed run a serious risk of exacerbating rather than alleviating existing problems in the immigration field, meanwhile undermining Canada’s commitment to protecting refugees, and eroding the checks and balances that are fundamental to our Parliamentary democracy.

My friends and colleagues, it is now up to us as senators to be the check and balance this legislation requires and to be allowed to perform our fundamental role in our parliamentary democracy. Thank you and hiy hiy.

Will Senator Simons take a question?

Yes.

I am so lucky to be sitting with such distinguished colleagues and excellent orators. I want to thank Senator Simons for her impassioned speech and a reminder that this is not the chamber of the fifty-first state and that we should not be passing legislation that mimics the idea of a fifty-first state.

Senator Simons, one of the predictable consequences of this bill, which would have the power to summarily cancel or suspend applications and make potential immigrants vulnerable, is that they will go underground. They will go into hiding. I’m told that the numbers that might go into hiding run into the hundreds of thousands. I don’t know if this is true. This is something that our committee can perhaps look into.

If, in fact, hundreds of thousands of residents already here go into hiding because they fear being deported, what do you think is going to happen with CBSA, the authorities and the powers that might be given to them to ferret out people in hiding and get them out of the country? Are we looking at a scenario that, dare I say, further mimics that of the United States?

Without the capacity to prognosticate, I can only say that every time I look at the footage from Minneapolis, a city that looks so much like my Edmonton, I can’t help but imagine what it would mean to have something like that happening here.

But I think you raise a point that has other complexities. If we drive people underground, we create a shadow population like the one they have in the United States. Those are people who are not going to have access to health care or be able to send their children to school, work legally or pay taxes.

It doesn’t make any sense to drive people underground when we want to welcome them, settle them here and ensure that they are integrated into our communities and economies. It’s a waste of human capital, if I can put it in that kind of pragmatic, utilitarian sense.

As you say, it also creates this cycle of fear where, now, people are afraid of what they don’t see and don’t know. That does give licence to the potential for law enforcement overreach.

Honourable senators, I rise today as critic 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.

At the outset, I would like to say that Conservatives recognize the importance of Bill C-12 and will support the adoption of the bill as amended in the House.

Canadians are watching and expect Parliament to act when pressures on our borders, our immigration system and our public safety have reached an unprecedented level.

Bill C-12 is not a new bill. Many of its provisions were initially proposed under Bill C-2, the Liberal government’s so-called flagship legislation, which stalled after significant opposition and widespread concern.

In truth, this bill represents a second attempt to address issues that have been evident for some time. That legislative history matters, because it underscores both the urgency of the challenge we face today and the real consequences of getting policy design wrong at the outset.

Bill C-12 touches on fundamental questions of sovereignty, public confidence, individual rights and the proper limits of executive power. These are not minor considerations. They go to the heart of the Senate’s constitutional role, which is to ensure that the measures we adopt are proportionate, durable and worthy of public trust.

Honourable colleagues, this bill has arrived at a moment when Canadians can plainly see that our immigration and border systems are under significant strain. Asylum claims have reached historic highs. Processing backlogs have grown dramatically. Removals are too often delayed, incomplete or never carried out. When rules are unclear or inconsistently enforced, public confidence inevitably suffers.

The pressures this bill seeks to address certainly did not emerge overnight. They stem from Liberal policies and mismanagement over the past decade. Immigration targets were set without careful regard for system capacity. Enforcement mechanisms were weakened, transparency was limited, and discretion was exercised without clear guardrails. In fact, the numbers speak for themselves.

We’ve heard some of these numbers already.

In 2015, Canada had fewer than 10,000 pending asylum claims. Today, that number has soared to nearly 300,000 This dramatic increase over a single decade reflects not natural growth but systemic pressures and structural weaknesses in the immigration system.

It is no secret that a series of decisions led us to where we are today. Policy signals were sent internationally, suggesting that Canada’s borders and asylum systems were permissive, even as processing and enforcement capacity lagged behind. Irregular crossings surged in places like Roxham Road, a well-known unofficial entry point between New York and Quebec. Visa requirements were lifted without sufficient safeguards or contingency planning, leading to sharp increases in claims that were later found to be unfounded.

The cumulative effect has been a serious erosion of confidence in the integrity of the asylum system, not only among Canadians, but also among newcomers who follow the rules and wait their turn.

In my home province of British Columbia, these pressures are not abstract. They are experienced daily by families, communities and front-line workers. Shelters are operating at full capacity, temporary housing programs face financial strain and community organizations are stretched to their limits. Families wait months — sometimes years — for decisions, unsure whether they will be allowed to stay or eventually required to leave. Prolonged uncertainty is hard on individuals and families, but it also strains the goodwill of the communities striving to help.

These human pressures are also reflected in operational pressures across the province. British Columbia is Canada’s Pacific Gateway, home to the Port of Vancouver, the country’s largest and busiest port, and Prince Rupert, one of North America’s fastest-growing container ports, as well as key airports and land and marine entry points vital to trade, travel and national security.

When upstream systems fail, when screening is delayed or enforcement falters, the consequences are felt most sharply at the borders. Delays and backlogs at these hubs ripple through the economy, disrupt supply chains and strain local communities, illustrating how immigration and border pressures are inseparable from national security and commerce.

Yet, while we must address these practical pressures, it is equally important to remember the values that guide our debate.

Honourable senators, let me be clear about what this debate is not about. This is not about opposing immigration. It is not about closing Canada’s doors, and it is certainly not about denying protection to those who are genuinely fleeing persecution.

I speak as a Canadian of Korean descent and as the daughter of immigrants who came to this country — an immigrant myself at 7 years of age — seeking opportunity and a better future. Like countless families across Canada, my parents arrived with hope, determination and a willingness to contribute. Immigration built this country, and it continues to strengthen it.

Canada’s success as an immigration country has always rested on two inseparable principles: compassion and the rule of law. Over the past 10 years, the Liberal government has weakened that balance. By prioritizing volume over verification and flexibility over enforcement, it has allowed backlogs to grow, delays to multiply and public confidence to erode.

When the system becomes overwhelmed, unpredictable or perceived as easily circumvented, it does not serve the vulnerable people legitimately seeking a new life in Canada. It leaves people in limbo. It rewards delay rather than honesty, and it erodes public confidence, which is the very foundation on which a humane immigration system rests. Prolonged uncertainty is not compassionate. It is a failure of administration.

Bill C-12 represents a belated attempt to restore credibility to a system that has been allowed to drift out of balance, but to understand the full scope of the challenge, we must look at how we got here.

Honourable senators, over the past decade, immigration targets were set without sufficient regard for system capacity, provincial readiness or operational reality. Intake levels rose rapidly while enforcement, processing and removals failed to keep pace.

Permanent resident admissions reached historic highs, including a record 431,645 in 2022, followed by plans targeting 500,000 admissions in 2025 and beyond. At the same time, the number of non-permanent residents grew sharply from approximately 1.3 million in 2021 to 2.7 million by early 2024. This unprecedented growth contributed to population increases at rates rarely seen in Canada’s modern history, placing enormous strain on housing, health care and infrastructure.

Eventually, even the Liberal government was forced to acknowledge reality. In 2024, former prime minister Justin Trudeau publicly admitted that immigration levels in preceding years had exceeded Canada’s capacity to absorb them. This is not ideology. This is an admission of mismanagement.

Bill C-12 arrives in the context of this long-standing pressure. It won’t solve everything at once, but the bill takes steps to tackle the weaknesses and backlogs that have grown over the years.

As we know, Bill C-12 includes two broad themes: securing the border and combatting transnational organized crime, fentanyl and illicit financing. There are provisions in this bill that deserve support.

First, the bill introduces tools to address inefficiencies in the asylum system by allowing claims to be suspended, terminated earlier or deemed abandoned in defined circumstances. This helps preserve adjudicative capacity for claims that genuinely require full hearings.

Second, the bill strengthens tools to combat organized crime and fentanyl trafficking, an issue of particular importance to British Columbia. The opioid crisis continues to devastate families across the province. Criminal networks exploit weaknesses at ports and borders, and those weaknesses must be urgently addressed.

Third, modernizing the sex offender registry is necessary and long overdue. Public safety must be non-negotiable. Improving the accuracy and usability of this registry strengthens investigations and better protects Canadians.

For these reasons, Conservatives support moving this bill forward.

Our support, however, rests not only on the bill as introduced but also on the improvements secured by our colleagues in the House of Commons. Conservatives brought forward 27 amendments, several of which were accepted and improved the legislation’s clarity, accountability and oversight mechanisms. The amendments adopted in the House have strengthened the bill, added more accountability and parliamentary oversight.

A central duty of this chamber is to scrutinize the scope and limits of executive authority, ensuring that powers granted today do not undermine the rule of law tomorrow.

Part 7 of Bill C-12 grants broad “public interest” powers to suspend, cancel or amend immigration applications and documents. Flexibility can be appropriate in exceptional circumstances, and governments must be able to respond to emergencies.

There was a question to Senator Dean about examples of these circumstances. Because I was curious too, I did pull up some evidence based on what the minister had answered, so I thought it would be appropriate to share it at this time.

The criticism is that the minister can cancel permits en masse for public interest reasons without notice or appeal, which is vague and potentially discriminatory. What I found is that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has explicitly stated this power is a tool to combat organized fraud rings, which Senator Dean mentioned. For example, when hundreds of students are discovered to have been issued fraudulent acceptance letters by a common “ghost” consultant, the government needs the power to invalidate those documents collectively, rather than clogging the courts with 500 individual hearings for documents that were never valid to begin with. That’s one example of a fraudulent situation.

National emergencies are another. Public interest is intentionally flexible to allow the government to act during pandemics or immediate security threats. If a health crisis requires a pause on travel from a specific region, the Governor-in-Council must have the ability to suspend those entry documents to protect domestic public health.

Those are just two examples. There are others, but I added this to our debate, since it was a question and I had actually looked it up. I thought those were clear examples of the very specific circumstances.

Over the past decade, Canadians have seen how temporary authorities can quietly become permanent mechanisms exercised with limited oversight. That history cannot be ignored or repeated. The Conservative amendments adopted in the House appropriately narrowed these powers. They ensure that fundamental immigration statuses cannot be conferred through administrative shortcuts, outside normal parliamentary scrutiny. That balance between responsiveness and restraint is essential to maintaining public confidence.

Honourable colleagues, authority without accountability does not build trust. One of the most important Conservative contributions to Bill C-12 was strengthening reporting requirements, particularly with respect to removals.

In British Columbia, for example, delayed or unenforced removals are not abstract concerns. Municipal officials, front-line workers and law enforcement officers regularly encounter individuals subject to removal orders who remain in communities for years.

I actually knew of someone who was a parent of a student of one of my colleagues. He was in the country for a number of years, even though he was asked to return to Russia, and his family could remain in Canada. But the situation was such that he actually was able to stay for quite a number of years, so these delays happen. Imagine if we multiply that by the numbers we’re talking about. The system cannot handle that kind of strain.

Without clear and consistent reporting, Parliament cannot determine whether these policies are effective. Transparency is not a constraint; it is the cornerstone of accountable governance.

Bill C-12 also expands information-sharing authorities. Information sharing can be an effective tool against fraud and organized crime, but it must be exercised with care. Individuals navigating the immigration system often provide deeply sensitive personal information under conditions of vulnerability. Expanded sharing must be governed by clear limits, defined purposes and proportional safeguards. Public trust depends on it, particularly in provinces like British Columbia, with significant technology sectors, international students and cross-border flows.

One lesson should now be unmistakable: Legislative authority alone does not fix broken systems. New powers will not reduce backlogs without trained decision makers. Enforcement tools will not improve removals without sufficient staffing and operational resources.

In British Columbia, Canada Border Services Agency officers, Immigration and Refugee Board members and service providers have been stretched thin for years. Backlogs are not accidental. They are the result of delayed appointments and chronic under-resourcing. Whether this government will finally match authority with capacity remains an open question.

Honourable senators, it is also crucial to acknowledge what Bill C-12 does not achieve. While several Conservative amendments were adopted to improve this legislation, many other key amendments were rejected, particularly those aimed at tightening the handling of asylum claims involving serious criminality, misrepresentation and abuse of process. These proposals were not ideological in nature. They were targeted, operational and designed to address real and documented weaknesses in the system.

For example, Conservatives proposed amendments that would have ensured asylum claims could be terminated more quickly when individuals knowingly lie to Canada Border Services Agency officers or withhold material information. Under the current framework, proven misrepresentation does not automatically result in the termination of a claim. This undermines the integrity of the system and creates incentives to delay or manipulate proceedings, even as backlogs stretch into multiple years.

Similarly, amendments were advanced to strengthen the consequences for serious criminality, including closing loopholes that allow non-citizens convicted of criminal offences to avoid timely removal. Public safety should not depend on narrow technical thresholds or prolonged procedural delays. When individuals who commit crimes are permitted to remain in Canada for years while claims wind their way through an already overwhelmed system, confidence in the rule of law inevitably erodes.

We have seen how these gaps play out in practice and directly undermine public safety. Not long ago, in British Columbia, a coordinated extortion investigation led to charges against 14 criminals — individuals. All 14 subsequently made asylum claims. As a result, their criminal proceedings were effectively paused while they entered a system already facing multi-year backlogs. During that time, they remained in Canada and became eligible for public benefits.

This is not an isolated anecdote. It is a symptom of a system that lacks clear consequences, timely decision making and effective enforcement.

Conservatives also proposed amendments to impose clearer consequences when claimants fail to attend scheduled hearings without valid justification. Missed hearings waste scarce adjudicative resources, prolong uncertainty for genuine refugees and contribute directly to growing backlogs. Ending claims more promptly in such cases would improve efficiency and fairness across the system.

Finally, important amendments to improve transparency and professionalism within the Immigration and Refugee Board, including merit-based appointments and stronger accountability, were rejected. Decision making in a system of this scale and consequence must be consistent, professional and worthy of public trust.

Taken together, these rejected amendments would not have weakened Canada’s humanitarian commitments. They would have strengthened them by ensuring that compassion is paired with credibility and that the system prioritizes those who follow the rules and genuinely need protection.

Nonetheless, acknowledging the shortcomings of this legislation does not justify delay. On the contrary, it reinforces the need to act while remaining clear-eyed about what must still be improved.

Bill C-12 represents an incomplete but necessary step toward restoring order, accountability and credibility to a system that has been allowed to drift for far too long. The challenges before us are serious, and Canadians cannot afford paralysis in the face of mounting pressures.

This legislation provides tools to improve asylum processing, strengthen enforcement, combat fentanyl trafficking and organized crime and enhance public safety, while incorporating important conservative safeguards to protect accountability and constrain executive overreach. It is not the final word, but it is a step in the right direction.

Supporting timely implementation while continuing to hold the government to account is not contradictory; it is the very essence of responsible parliamentary oversight.

I believe deeply in a system that welcomes newcomers — we all do — while upholding order, fairness and integrity. That balance is not optional. It is essential to public confidence and to the sustainability of our immigration system.

Thank you, colleagues.

Would you take a question, Senator Martin?

Yes.

While I thank you for your speech and for sharing the examples of cases where applications can be cancelled or suspended en masse, they are the same ones that Senator Dean shared with us. I would add that he also mentioned cyber espionage, hacking, and so on.

In raising those examples, you seem to be implying my point, which is that we don’t need the public interest justification for the cancellation or suspension of these applications when, in fact, we have specific reasons, the ones you referred to: fraud, public safety, public health, cyberattacks, and so on.

Can I take it that you support the position that we can remove the public safety condition, since we have specific reasons, as you have articulated, for the suspension or cancellation of applications?

Thank you, senator. I did cite similar examples. I’m sure there are others as well. I didn’t say that I don’t support that provision in the bill. I know that we have to really watch the powers of a minister who will be exercising certain powers as well as the officials and whatnot. So careful scrutiny is needed, and we must ensure that the reporting is done to parliamentarians. We can definitely do various follow-ups and meet with the minister as well, going forward.

I understand what you’re saying. Why do we need this? But it is in the bill, and it is something that we are ready to support. We know those powers need to be carefully checked. That is my response.

Thank you for the response. But in the preface to the examples you gave and in the discussion on the suspension and cancellation of applications, you made a very big point about the backlog problem. You, in fact, made the implication that this suspension, this cancellation provision, was a way to deal with the backlog. So can I ask you if it’s the position of the Conservative Party that this provision to cancel or suspend applications en masse is a solution to the backlog problem?

The backlog issue has been growing over the last decade, and what we have proposed and the amendments that were adopted are to ensure that we are returning to a better system and to ensure that the integrity of the system and the confidence that Canadians have in the system can be addressed. We know what this bill will address, whether it’s the asylum system that needs to be strengthened, the border safety that we need to address, the fentanyl issue and other issues that you are fully aware of as a British Columbian. So it’s not the solution. What I’m saying is that we support the bill as is, based on the robust debate and the conversations we have had with our counterparts in the House. And that’s one advantage: We have been able to talk to Michelle Rempel Garner and others who have been on this file. We have to do our due diligence, but we support the bill, as amended, as we received it.

I didn’t receive an answer, so I’ll try again. Is this provision of cancelling or suspending en masse in the bill, which you agree to and accept, a provision that a future Conservative government would use to clear a backlog?

I look forward to a future Conservative government under the leadership of our current leader, Pierre Poilievre. The Prime Minister, the cabinet and especially the minister would take all these considerations very seriously. But as I said, this is a bill that has come from the House. We have had multiple meetings as a caucus to discuss this. So I’m not going to answer yes or no, but rather, this bill, as it stands, is something we support.

Yes.

I haven’t had those discussions, but you’re absolutely right. We don’t know what the future holds, and there are threats all around us. All the more reason for us to look at this bill seriously. There is an urgency to address the issues that we have now. So I do ask again that all honourable senators support this so that it goes to committee, and then we can look at that carefully at committee. Thank you.

Are senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.)