CIMM – Legislative Summary – October 30, 2025

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 (Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act)

Overview

• On October 8, 2025, Bill C-12 was introduced in the House of Commons. This piece of legislation is similar to Bill C-2, which was introduced earlier in the Parliamentary session.
• Bill C-12 was debated at Second Reading in the House of Commons from October 20 to 23, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) on October 23, 2025. On that same day, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) passed a motion to study the subject matter of the bill.
• This document was updated following each stage of the legislative process to summarize the Bill’s progress and key interjections made by Parliamentarians.

Current Status

The Bill is being studied at SECU and CIMM. The Minister is scheduled to appear at CIMM on October 30, 2025, for two hours.

Summary Of Debate

Second Reading (October 20 to 23, 2025)

Key Takeaways:

• The Minister of Public Safety and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety stressed the importance of passing Bill C-12 to strengthen security at the border and Canada’s immigration system. They reiterated their commitment to pass Bill C-2 in due time.
• The Conservatives raised their concerns with the contentious provisions in Bill C-2, specifically focusing on the omission of mandatory sentences for fentanyl traffickers, and concerns over the overreach of Bill C-2, which failed to include consultation with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. They supported referring the bill to committee but emphasized the need for thorough scrutiny to ensure it does not infringe on civil liberties.
• The Bloc Québécois expressed support for Bill C-12 and endorsed its referral to committee, while sharply criticizing Bill C-2 and urging the Minister to withdraw it.
• New Democratic Party strongly opposes Bill C-12, arguing that it prioritizes appeasing the U.S. President over safeguarding vulnerable populations. They raised concerns with its arbitrary powers, centralization of authority, and impact on vulnerable groups.
• The Green Party voiced strong opposition to both Bills C-2 and C-12, labelled Bill C-12 an omnibus bill and called for it to be split prior to going to different committees.

Key CPC Interjections

• Ms. Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill) noted that several interest groups have questioned the constitutionality of the immigration and asylum provisions in Bill C-12, despite the Minister’s assertion that they are valid. She questioned whether the Government was deferring the issue to the courts rather than pursuing meaningful structural reform of Canada’s asylum system. She also called for swift removal of those whose asylum claims are rejected.
• MP Chak Au (Richmond Centre—Marpole) said that the bill’s improvements to asylum are overshadowed by sweeping new powers granted to the Minister that lack transparency or due process. He said the bill would allow the Minister to unilaterally cancel immigration documents based on allegations of fraud without defined criteria or independent oversight.
• MP Au stated that for the bill to be effective it needs: mandatory life sentences for fentanyl traffickers; real resources and staffing for CBSA; strong privacy protections with independent judicial oversight; and mandatory public reporting for any future orders impacting privacy or mobility rights.
• MP Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière) criticized the government’s neglect of the immigration system, including reliance on the Temporary Foreign Worker program and rising asylum claims. He also noted the bill’s lack of sentencing provisions.
• MP Diotte (Edmonton Griesbach) referenced multiple civil society organizations, including Amnesty International Canada, that oppose Bill C-12, citing concerns related to civil liberties, data privacy, and protections for refugees.

Key BQ Interjections

• Ms. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon) noted that the Government has not entirely dismissed the possibility of advancing the contentious aspects of Bill C-2. She expressed hope that Canadians would maintain pressure to ensure those provisions are never enacted. She called on the Minister to be clear and renounce these three problematic provisions (Canada Post, Lawful Access, and limits on cash transactions).
• MP Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski—La Matapédia) said instead of over legislating, the Government should apply existing laws, particularly with respect to transnational organized crime.  He criticized the Government for failing to properly screen international students and leaving it to universities to scrutinize potential candidates, without providing them funding or data.

Key NDP Interjections

• MP Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie) questioned the bill’s asylum measures and criticized the government for not treating refugees as human beings.
• MP Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre) expressed disappointment that Bill C-12 repackages the same issues as Bill C-2, despite 300 civil society organizations calling for the bill to be withdrawn. She argued it prioritizes appeasing the U.S. President over border security and unfairly targets vulnerable groups (e.g., women, racialized individuals, 2SLGBTQI+), violating international law. She indicated that she did not believe that the bill is salvageable and a new bill must be written.

Key Green Party Interjections

• Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich-Gulf Islands) affirmed her opposition to bills C-2 and  C-12 and questioned whether both bills should be on the order paper at the same time. She questioned what “game” the government was playing. She called both bills omnibus bills that should be withdrawn.