Committee summaries: Standing Committee National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs: Bill C-12 – Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act (February 9, 2026)
SECU Meeting summary from
Date: Thursday,
Report prepared by: Parliamentary Affairs, Canada Border Services Agency
Witnesses
Minister of Public Safety
Hon. Gary Anandasangaree
Canada Border Services Agency
- Erin O'Gorman, President
Department of Citizenship and Immigration
- Jean-Marc Gionet, A/Assistant Deputy Minister, Protection and Family Programs Sector
- Tara Lang, Director General, Integrity Policy and Programs
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
- Shannon Grainger, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Portfolio Affairs and Communications
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
- D/Commr Jodie Boudreau, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Policing
Key takeaways
This summary covers the second hour of the committee's meeting, when the topic was the study of Bill C-12.
Conservative members focused on enforcement capacity, fentanyl-sniffing dogs, and the government's handling of Mexican visa policy.
The BQ member focused on the 14-day irregular entry clause and concerns about information-sharing language.
Liberal members raised questions about international coordination, detector-dog capabilities, and how C-12 will streamline asylum processing and outbound inspections.
Highlights
The unedited transcript will be provided once available.
The Public Safety Minister gave opening remarks that highlighted key provisions of Bill C-12, noting that the bill builds on the previous Bill C-2 by addressing stakeholder concerns while maintaining provisions to strengthen border surveillance, combat illegal drug trafficking including fentanyl precursors, and close immigration system vulnerabilities. Key measures include amendments to the Customs Act, expanded Coast Guard security capabilities, enhanced RCMP information sharing, stronger anti-money laundering regulations, and improved asylum system processes. The Minister emphasized the urgency of equipping border services and law enforcement agencies with necessary legal authorities to adapt to evolving threats while balancing privacy concerns.
Conservative members focused heavily on enforcement capacity, particularly the number of officers actively searching for individuals with outstanding removal orders. The CBSA President noted that approximately 1,000 inland officers work on IRPA matters and roughly half are involved in removals, but committed to providing precise figures related to armed officers. Members also pressed on the agency's ability to detect fentanyl at the border, questioning whether any detector dogs had completed fentanyl-specific training. Officials described this as an emerging capability that requires careful safety protocols for dogs and handlers, and confirmed that international collaboration and training is underway. Conservatives also challenged the government's decision to lift the visa requirement for Mexican nationals, arguing it contributed to higher irregular migration and deportations. The Minister acknowledged increased pressure on the system but maintained that visa decisions must remain non-discriminatory, and argued that C-12 provides needed tools to address broader border risks. Concerns were also raised about attrition, grievances, and reports of toxic workplace culture within CBSA, particularly for women. The CBSA President acknowledged challenges in a large operational workforce and committed to ongoing efforts to strengthen labour relations and safe reporting environments. The Minister also indicated willingness to discuss further.
The Bloc Québécois member focused on the 14-day irregular entry clause, arguing that it creates a loophole exploited by smugglers and organized criminal networks. The Minister responded that the provision stems from negotiated elements of the Safe Third Country Agreement and that individuals remain subject to screening and admissibility processes. The member also questioned changes in information-sharing language related to "international obligations," expressing concern that broader wording could weaken explicit protections. Officials stated that Canada routinely shares information with trusted partners under established principles and noted that further clarity could be provided through regulation or amendment at committee.
Liberal members inquired about the development of fentanyl-sniffing dog programs, Five Eyes coordination, and whether CBSA and RCMP are adopting emerging practices. Members also asked about outbound cargo inspections. The Minister highlighted that Bill C-12 provides CBSA with clearer authorities to require port operators to provide space for inspections. Funding for new officers will be allocated based on operational need. IRCC officials explained that the bill will streamline asylum procedures by reducing duplicative applications, simplifying information-gathering, and establishing clearer inadmissibility pathways.
Follow-ups
to be verified against transcript
CPC Caputo: How many armed officers, authorized to make these arrests, do you have looking for the individuals?
BQ Brunelle-Duceppe: How long has Canada been tracking people who are leaving Canada?
Next steps
The committee is expected to continue its study of C-12, and intends to complete clause-by-clause review at the end of November.
CIMM Meeting summary from
Date: Thursday,
Report prepared by: Majid Watfa, Policy Analyst, Parliamentary Affairs, Canada Border Services Agency
Witnesses
3:30 pm to 4:30 pm
Canada Border Services Agency
- Aaron McCrorie, Vice-President, Intelligence and Enforcement
Department of Citizenship and Immigration
- Jason Hollmann, Director General, Asylum Policy
- Tara Lang, Director General, Integrity Policy and Programs
Department of Justice
- Karen Hamilton, Senior Counsel, IRCC Legal Services
- Anna Lillicrap, Senior Counsel, IRCC Legal Services
Key takeaways
CPC asked how CBSA screens asylum claimants, raising concerns about the accuracy and effectiveness of the One Touch intake process. They questioned why CBSA's description of the One Touch process differed from the Customs Immigration Union President's testimony at the CIMM meeting, especially regarding whether claimants could enter Canada with limited in-person screening/interaction. CPC members also asked about cases where claimants do not report back after entry and whether CBSA has sufficient tools to track individuals who fail to appear. Their questions reflected broader concerns about whether CBSA's screening approach adequately identifies higher-risk individuals at the border.
LPC sought clarification on CBSA's operational procedures and asked the Agency to confirm that all travellers, including asylum seekers, must interact with a Border Services Officer before entering Canada. They requested clear explanations of the steps involved in CBSA's screening process, including biometric collection, mandatory interview questions, and CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) checks. Their questions highlighted interest in understanding how CBSA determines which cases can proceed through the One Touch model and how the agency manages ongoing security reviews after the initial border assessment.
BQ focused on CBSA's enforcement role at and near the border. He asked why CBSA officers are not authorized to act on suspicious activity between ports of entry if they are closer than RCMP officers. The BQ also raised concerns about overall CBSA capacity, including whether the agency has enough resources to manage increased volumes if Bill C-12 shifts more work to inland screening and enforcement processes.
Highlights
The unedited transcript will be provided once available.
CPC members challenged the necessity and proportionality of the bill's new authorities. They repeatedly questioned why mass cancellation powers could not be handled through statute-specific legislation, why "public interest" is not defined, and why no reporting mechanism to Parliament is built into the bill. They argued that the powers represent a "devolution" from Parliament to the bureaucracy and pressed officials to justify concrete examples where such powers would be used. Witnesses cited pandemics, cyberattacks, foreign interference threats, and mass fraud scenarios but acknowledged no current plans to use the power. Members scrutinized CBSA's One Touch process, contrasting the department's description with Customs Immigration Union President's testimony at CIMM on who claimed it is a "self-declaration" system. The CBSA clarified that One Touch always begins with face-to-face eligibility interviews, biometric collection, mandatory risk questions, Canadian Police Information Centre checks, and minister's delegate review for high-risk cases. CPC members raised security concerns about individuals who fail to report within 45 days and questioned whether "low-risk" designations are reliable given known cases of criminals entering Canada and failures to track certain claimants. They also challenged IRCC on PRRA integrity, asking whether shifting ineligible claimants to PRRA would overwhelm officers, extend timelines, or reduce procedural fairness compared to IRB hearings. IRCC Officials responded that PRRA officers receive specialized training and that exceptions for vulnerable groups can be created through regulation.
LPC members focused on clarifying procedural steps and operational safeguards. They asked CBSA to confirm that no traveller, including citizen, PR, or asylum seeker, can enter Canada through Pearson Airport without interaction with a border services officer. The CBSA explained that kiosks do not permit asylum claims and that 100% of asylum claimants undergo in-person interviews, biometric collection, and police database checks. Members requested detailed explanations of multi-layered screening, including CBSA's Center for Immigration National Security Screening and subsequent IRCC and CBSA hearings officer reviews. Members also questioned the potential disproportionate impact of the one-year ineligibility rule on survivors of gender-based violence, LGBTQ+ claimants, minors, and individuals from moratorium countries. IRCC stated that Gender-Based Analysis Plus was conducted and that training and guidelines ensure sensitivity to vulnerability in PRRA decisions. Members asked whether "public interest" could be narrowed legislatively or defined using non-exhaustive examples; IRCC and DOJ officials responded that flexibility was required because triggers for such authorities are unpredictable.
The BQ member questioned whether the 14% PRRA approval rate indicates that few people would ultimately secure protection and challenged the logic of removing claims from the IRB only to have them re-evaluated under PRRA. He argued that the bill may "change nothing" in practical terms, instead transferring burdens from one system to another without reducing total volume. He also questioned CBSA's about providing officers authority to intervene at the border beyond ports of entry, noting that the CBSA may be able to respond faster than RCMP in certain regions. The CBSA responded that dividing responsibilities ensures efficient use of resources and avoids duplication, and that RCMP has not asked CBSA to take on such responsibilities. The BQ member also raised concerns that C-12 could produce court challenges and litigation backlogs. He asked DOJ whether the system is resourced for such an outcome. The DOJ replied that challenges are expected with any new amendments but parallels exist with existing judicial review processes.
Possible follow-ups
to be verified against transcript
None.
Next steps
CIMM will report their observations to SECU to inform their Clause by Clause consideration of Bill C-12. SECU clause by clause consideration will take place on .
Senate second reading debate summary by IRCC from
Date: Thursday,
Topic: 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
Report By: Katherine Valcov, Parliamentary Affairs, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Key Takeaways
- Senators signaled that further details on enforcement measures (e.g., expanded CBSA inspection/search powers) will be the focus of committee review, and seeking clarity on how new border powers will interface with existing regulatory frameworks, as well as emphasizing safeguards against operational overreach
- The Bill has been referred to two senate committees:
- Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs (SECD)
- Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (for parts 5 to 8) (SOCI)
- Part 7 of the Bill is perceived as overly broad, and were warned of its chilling effect on international students, workers, and skilled immigrants. As well as that it would have long-term reputational and economic damage
- One Senator went as far to express concern over this resembling powers to U.S. visa revocations under Trump-era policies
- Senators expressed concern of there being constitutional challenges arising from this legislation, and that it risks 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 parliamentary democracy
- The complete transcript of the debate is available in Hansard.
Summary of remarks
The Independent Senators Group
- Senator Paula Simons expressed concern over part 7 of the Bill. Suggesting 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
- Senator Paula Simons expressed the Bill undermines our immigration system. That it is allowing our immigration and refugee system 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
- Senator Simons also said that 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
- Senator Woo was concerned over the government might consider the backlog of applications at the IRB to be a public interest issue and might choose to cancel the huge backlog. He suggested removing the phraseology "in the public interest" because that allows the government to clear the backlog for the sake of clearing the backlog
Conservative Party of Canada
- Senator Yonah Martin expressed that Conservatives recognize the importance of Bill C-12 and will support the adoption of the bill as amended in the House
- She described C-12 as a belated attempt to restore credibility to a system that has been allowed to drift out of balance. She added that it won't solve everything at once, but the bill takes steps to tackle the weaknesses and backlogs that have grown over the years
- Senator Martin mentioned three points on why Conservatives support moving this Bill forward:
- The bill introduces tools to address inefficiencies in the asylum system and thus helps preserve adjudicative capacity for claims that genuinely require full hearings
- The bill strengthens tools to combat organized crime and fentanyl trafficking. Criminal networks exploit weaknesses at ports and borders, and those weaknesses must be urgently addressed
- Modernizing the sex offender registry is necessary and long overdue. Public safety must be non-negotiable
Senate second reading debate summary by PS from
Date: Thursday,
Prepared by: Parliamentary Affairs, Public Safety Canada
Overview
Senator Dean opened debate on Bill C‑12 by outlining the bill's key provisions and responding to questions from colleagues. Following the conclusion of debate, the bill was formally referred to SECD, with Parts 5 to 8 (the immigration measures) sent to SOCI for study. Below are some of the key takeaways and highlights.
General questions/ Points raised – Senators
- A year is not enough time to file for asylum claims
- Will the asylum backlog be used as a reason for mass cancellations
- Regarding cancellation powers, can we remove "in the public interest" from the bill
- Employees of IRCC that will be administering the pre-removal risk assessments are not arms-length from the Government like the IRB. Would it not be better to just shore up the IRB to deal with the backlog of claims
- Was the development of the bill guided by a principle that powers are only being broadened to the minimum extent necessary
- This bill will force immigrants to go "underground"
- Was there any discussion about a better way of articulating it rather than in terms of the public interest? I ask because if we are too prescriptive going through now, we have a bill that will be expired before it even comes into law
Senator Simons (ISG – Ontario) Speech
- 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
- Criticized the one-year ban on claims, and the mass cancellation powers under Part 7
- Criticized the STCA – "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
- 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
- The Bill contains flaws that open it to constitutional challenge
Senator Martin (Conservative – British Columbia) Speech
- 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
- While we must address these practical pressures, it is equally important to remember the values that guide our debate
- 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
- 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
Page details
- Date modified: