HANSARD: Speech and Debate Opposing Bill C-12

Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2025
House of Commons Hansard #41 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session

Bill C-12
Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act
Government Orders

October 22nd, 2025 / 3:45 p.m.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak today in strong opposition to Bill C-12 , the so-called border security and immigration act.

Let us be clear: The bill is not a new approach. It is a repackaging, a political sleight of hand. Bill C-12 is simply Bill C-2 with a fresh coat of paint. It would not fix the fundamental problems of its predecessor. It doubles down on the same anti-migrant, anti-refugee agenda that civil society, legal experts and human rights advocates have already rejected in overwhelming numbers. More than 300 civil society organizations, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to the United Church of Canada, have called for the full withdrawal of both bills.

The organizations are right, because Bill C-12 would maintain the sweeping new powers in Bill C-2 related to refugee asylum seekers, whereby the minister and cabinet, at the expense of transparency, fairness and human rights, could engage in a host of actions and would be given a host of authorities.

Let us talk about some of the most egregious elements of the bill and what it would actually do. Bill C-12 would give cabinet the authority to suspend or terminate immigration applications and cancel visas, work permits or permanent resident documents whenever it is deemed to be “in the public interest”.

However, there is no definition of “public interest”, none; there are no guidelines, no guardrails, no requirements for evidence and no judicial oversight. The government could use this clause to shut down entire classes of immigration overnight.

As reported by the CBC, for people who apply under the humanitarian compassionate stream, the processing time right now is up to 600 months. That is 50 years. For caregivers, it is nine years; for the agri-food stream, it is 19 years. For entrepreneurs, it is 35 years. This is unheard of. By the way, all this came out of the minister's transition binder.

The fear is that the government will just cancel applications en masse. That is what Bill C-12 would allow the government to do. It is stoking fear. If the government wants to say that Canada wants to shut its door to asylum seekers, then it should just say that instead of doing this under the pretense that somehow this is just and fair and respects procedural fairness.

This is not good governance. It is not just the actions that the government might take with this kind of power that we should be concerned about. It would be giving that power to future governments as well.

The bill also allows the government to block refugee hearings, to impose retroactive one-year bars on asylum claims and to strip people of their status en masse. These are powers that echo some of the most extreme anti-migrant policies we have seen south of the border.

The Prime Minister likes to claim that this is about modernization and efficiency. It is not. It is peddling a racist, discriminatory narrative with Trump leading the charge.

The bill would directly harm refugees and vulnerable migrants, people fleeing war, persecution and violence. Frankly, it is un-Canadian. Let us remember that Canada once prided itself on being a refuge for those in need. Bill C-12 sends the opposite message. It says, “If you didn’t file your paperwork within a year, we don’t want to hear your case.”

We can imagine a woman fleeing gender-based violence, arriving in Canada with nothing, struggling with trauma, with no access to legal support, just trying to survive, and then being told she is too late to seek safety. As Women’s Shelters Canada and LEAF have pointed out, arbitrary timelines such as these deny survivors the ability to seek protection when they need it most.

We should be upholding the rule of law, not concentrating power in cabinet. Bill C-12represents a dangerous step backward. It undermines our international obligations, our charter values and our reputation as a country that welcomes those in need. The NDP stands with the hundreds of organizations across this country, civil liberties advocates, refugee lawyers, women’s groups and faith communities who are united in saying that we should withdraw Bill C-12 and Bill C-2.

How can the government put forward legislation that will knowingly endanger survivors of violence or those being persecuted for who they love? Sixty-four countries criminalize homosexuality. That is not all. Under the U.S. administration, Trump's executive orders threaten the rights, the health care and the existence of transgender people. More and more, actually, my office has heard from people who are living in fear in the United States.

Bill C-12 is also a blow to civil liberties. It authorizes unprecedented information sharing across departments without proper safeguards. It empowers border agents to access private facilities and detain goods for export. It expands the Coast Guard’s role into intelligence collection and surveillance.

Even though the government removed some of the most intrusive measures from Bill C-2, such as the warrantless access to Canadians' private data, the spirit of the bill remains the same: centralization of power and erosion of rights. The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group has warned that the bill “fast tracks...the most egregious aspects” of its predecessor. It would not fix the problems; it would accelerate them.

Let us not kid ourselves: Bill C-12 exists because Bill C-2 became too toxic to pass. Rather than listening to the hundreds of organizations demanding its withdrawal, the government chose to split the bill into two, hoping Canadians would not notice. However, we do notice. We notice that these measures come at a time when asylum claims have dropped by 34% and when the average number of daily refugee claims has plummeted from 165 to 12.

What is the crisis, exactly, that the government is responding to? This is not about border security; it is about politics. It is about appeasing a Trump-style, anti-immigrant, anti-migrant narrative that is creeping into our political discourse. There is a dangerous pattern emerging under the current government, an obsession with centralizing authority and sidestepping accountability. It is carrying out the Conservatives' agenda but with a new Liberal leader dressed in red. Bill C-12 would expand cabinet's ability to rule by order. It would give ministers unilateral power to cancel applications, suspend rights and make regulations without parliamentary oversight. This is not the Canadian way. Our immigration and refugee system should be based on clear laws, fair processes and independent decision-making, not on who happens to sit in cabinet.

Let us recognize who would bear the brunt of these policies: women fleeing violence, LGBTQ2+ refugees seeking safety, migrant workers exploited in precarious jobs and indigenous people in border communities, who already face racial profiling. Bill C-12would deepen these inequalities instead of addressing them.

Let us make sure we do this right. When we talk about immigration, we are talking about people: families, workers and children who come here seeking safety and a better life. We should be strengthening our refugee system and not weakening it. The Liberals put women and girls at risk of being deported back into danger. The one-year bar is a copycat of the U.S. refugee determination system. Get this: In the U.S., the one-year timeline starts at their most recent entry into the United States. Canada's proposal is actually worse; it starts at the beginning, the first time they visit Canada. This means that if someone visited Canada some years ago as a child and they are now being persecuted, they will not be able to apply for asylum here in Canada, and that is wrong.

Kevin Lamoureux
Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, we see the extremes. We have the leader of the Conservative Party, who, in essence, wants everyone to leave. Then we have the NDP members. I do not think they fully understand what the situation or the reality is on the ground level. I really and truly believe that.

The New Democrats try to give a false impression that there is no need for us to modify or make changes to the system of asylum. I do not understand it. I deal with immigration virtually every day. Every Saturday, I talk with people who want to come to Canada. I do not understand where the member is getting her numbers from, to try to give the false impression that there is nothing wrong with the system.

We have a Prime Minister and a government that recognize that we have a very serious situation. We need to stabilize the whole asylum area and stabilize immigration in general. It is good for the Canadian economy for us to do that. Bill C-12 would, in good part, do that. I do not understand why the NDP does not support the legislation.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Madam Speaker, the numbers actually come from the minister's transitional binder. I would advise the member to read the bill. The bill is egregious in its violation of rights. There has been plenty wrong, with the Liberals at the helm for the last 10 years, in Canada's immigration system. I can go on for days about that. However, stripping people of their rights or putting women who face gender violence in danger is not the right way to go. Putting the lives of LGBTQ2 members in danger is not the way to go. Stripping refugees of their right to due process is not the way to go. In fact, I tabled a private member's bill calling for an immigration ombudsperson. That is what we should do to ensure that we do this fairly and properly and not just give carte blanche power to a government.

By the way, the Liberals, although dressed in red, are acting just like the Conservatives.

 

Kevin Lamoureux Winnipeg North, MB
Liberal

Madam Speaker, I guess, if we are throwing insults, she is behaving like a Communist. They are so far to the left.

Does the member understand that we have a 7% factor to a 5% factor in terms of temporary permits? Does she believe that Canada should be moving toward that 5%? The Prime Minister and the government do believe that we should be leaning toward 5% on temporary permits.

Does she support that? Does she support the government trying to address the asylum issue? There is an issue there. Does she believe we should address it, or should we just sit back, close our eyes and put our heads in the sand?

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Madam Speaker, let me put this on the record for all members to hear very clearly. My mother passed away on October 4. She left China, a Communist regime that attacked her and her family. They fled to Hong Kong and eventually moved to Canada, where we established ourselves. I am not a Communist. Let us be clear about that. I am actually being persecuted right now by the Chinese government under the foreign interference act. They are targeting me as an evergreen target.

Let us be clear. I am not Communist, but I stand for equality, justice and what Canada has always been in my eyes, which is standing up for people and protecting them. That is what the refugee system has been, and bit by bit, the Liberal government, under Bill C-2and now under Bill C-12, is eroding that.

I want refugee and asylum claimants to have access to due process under the IRB. Yes, there needs to be reform, but not this way.

 

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Let me first offer my condolences to the hon. member.

Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. member for Waterloo has the floor.

 

Bardish Chagger Waterloo, ON
Liberal

Madam Speaker, I also want to offer my sincere condolences on the passing of the member's mother.

I do believe it is important, when we are having debates on such important topics, that we get to hear what can make legislation better. We are at second reading. The legislation will go to committee. I think that was a little of a reaction to the comments made by the member suggesting that wearing a certain colour makes someone of a certain party and whatever the case may be.

Right now, this is an important bill. We do need to try to get it right. Canadians are asking for it. We had an election. Canadians sent us, in our respective roles, in this chamber. The NDP knows that they did not even receive party status, but they do have an important role to play here. I know that I have constituents who also recognize their important work.

I would ask the member, does she see the value in this legislation? Could it be improved at committee? Does she have some feedback that she would like the government to hear so that we can try to get it right to serve Canadians in the way we all have a desire to do?

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Madam Speaker, let me say this: Over 300 civil organizations are against the bill and are calling for the government to withdraw it.

My question is this: Why should a person's claim be ineligible simply because they visited Canada sometime in the past?

This is more of an attempt of the government to try to hollow out Canada's refugee determination system, the IRB, by pre-emptively stopping people from even applying or making an application. Perhaps that is the goal of the government, after all, to move Canada's system to where almost no one will be heard by the IRB.

Canada can do better, and we must do better. The NDP do not support the approach the government has adopted. We have lots of suggestions of how the government can do better. Let us engage in proper consultation and scrap this bill. I will be at the table with the government to work with it to bring better legislation forward to enhance and support our immigration system.

 

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2025/10/22/jenny-kwan-3/

Latest posts

Are you ready to take action?

Constituent Resources
Mobile Offices
Contact Jenny

Sign up for updates