Parliament’s Push on Public Safety and Borders
This week, the House of Commons tackled major reforms to border security and bail laws, revealing deep partisan divides on the government’s 10-year record on crime and immigration.
The legislative agenda was dominated by the government’s new focus on public safety. The introduction of two key bills, one to strengthen border security and another to reform bail, signals a significant policy shift. However, opposition parties were quick to frame these initiatives as a belated attempt to clean up a decade of mismanagement. The debates that followed laid bare the fault lines in Canadian politics, from the integrity of the immigration system to the fundamental principles of criminal justice.
The Government’s New Border Bill
The week’s main event was the debate on Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act. So, what exactly is this bill, and why was it introduced?
Bill C-12 is a revised version of an earlier, more controversial piece of legislation, Bill C-2. The original bill drew widespread criticism for provisions that opponents, particularly the Conservatives, argued were a direct assault on the civil liberties of law-abiding Canadians. These included measures that would have allowed Canada Post to open private mail without a warrant and granted warrantless access to Canadians’ personal data from banks and telecom companies.
After facing significant pushback, the government split the bill. The new Bill C-12 retains the core security objectives while removing the most contentious privacy-related clauses. According to the government, its purpose is to combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl, crack down on money laundering, and enhance the integrity of the immigration system.
Key proposals include:
Amending the Customs Act to give the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) new authority to inspect goods destined for export in private warehouses and transportation hubs. This is a direct response to the surge in auto theft, where stolen vehicles are often shipped overseas in containers.
Expanding the Canadian Coast Guard’s mandate under the Oceans Act to include security patrols and intelligence sharing with defence partners.
Reforming the asylum system by introducing new ineligibility rules, such as a one-year time limit for filing claims after arriving in Canada.
The Opposition Response
The opposition’s reaction was mixed, but a common thread emerged: the bill is a response to Liberal failure.
The Conservatives took credit for forcing the government to back down from Bill C-2’s “egregious” privacy violations. While they support sending Bill C-12 to committee for study, they argue it remains a collection of half-measures. They point out that the bill includes no mandatory prison time for fentanyl traffickers or for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes. Furthermore, they contend it does little to fix an asylum system they describe as “broken,” with a backlog of nearly 300,000 claims.
The Bloc Québécois also agreed to send the bill to committee, viewing it as a step in the right direction. However, they raised concerns about a lack of resources, questioning the government’s recycled promise to hire 1,000 new CBSA officers when the union says 2,000 to 3,000 are needed.
The NDP, however, stood in strong opposition. Describing the bill as a repackaged version of its “toxic” predecessor, they argued it doubles down on an “anti-migrant, anti-refugee agenda.” They believe the legislation violates Canada’s international obligations, gives the cabinet sweeping and undefined powers to cancel immigration applications in the “public interest,” and is primarily designed to appease the United States.
A Harder Line on Crime
Beyond the border, the government also moved to address the heated debate over criminal justice with the introduction of Bill C-14, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act.
This legislation is the government’s long-awaited answer to intense criticism from provinces, police, and opposition parties over its “catch-and-release” bail system. That system, established by previous Liberal legislation (Bills C-5 and C-75), has been blamed for allowing repeat violent offenders back onto the streets.
The new bill proposes several key changes:
Introducing a tough reverse-onus bail provision for major violent crimes, meaning repeat violent offenders will have to prove why they are not a risk to public safety to be released.
Ending conditional sentences (house arrest) for sexual assault offenders.
Introducing consecutive sentences for multiple offences committed by repeat offenders.
This marks a significant tonal shift for a government that previously defended its bail policies and criticized Conservative calls for tougher measures. It’s a clear attempt to reclaim the public safety narrative ahead of its next budget.
Debates Beyond Security
While security dominated the week, Parliament also held significant debates on citizenship and family law, revealing both deep ideological divides and rare moments of cross-partisan unity.
The Fight Over Citizenship
Debate began on Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act. The bill is a response to an Ontario Superior Court ruling that found it unconstitutional to deny automatic citizenship to the children of Canadians born abroad (so-called “Lost Canadians”).
At committee, Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois successfully passed amendments to align the process with the requirements for naturalized citizens, including language proficiency tests and stricter residency rules. They argued this was necessary to protect the value of Canadian citizenship. However, at report stage this week, the NDP and Liberals put forward motions to strip those amendments and restore the bill to its original, less restrictive form, framing the issue as one of equal rights for all Canadians.
Compassion in the House
In a notable shift from the week’s partisan battles, two private members’ bills received emotional and widespread support.
Bill C-222, known as “Evan’s Law,” seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act so that parents who lose a child while on parental leave can continue receiving their benefits without having to reapply for sickness benefits. Members from all parties shared personal stories of loss and spoke in favour of the compassionate, common-sense reform.
Similarly, Bill C-225, or “Bailey’s Law,” sparked a powerful debate on intimate partner violence. The bill proposes creating a distinct offence for assault on an intimate partner and making the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree murder. While the Liberals did not signal their immediate support, the debate was marked by a shared sense of urgency to address what was described as an “epidemic.”
The Data Brief
This week in Parliament saw the government attempt to pivot toward a stronger public safety agenda. Bill C-12, a revised border security bill, advanced for study, though not without significant criticism from all opposition parties. The introduction of Bill C-14 signals the government is finally moving on bail reform after months of pressure. Meanwhile, debates on citizenship and private members’ bills concerning family tragedies highlighted that while partisanship defines most business in the House, moments of genuine, human-centred collaboration are still possible.
Source Documents
House of Commons Debates, Official Report (Hansard), Volume 152 No. 039, 45th Parliament, 1st Session. (2025, October 20).
House of Commons Debates, Official Report (Hansard), Volume 152 No. 040, 45th Parliament, 1st Session. (2025, October 21).
House of Commons Debates, Official Report (Hansard), Volume 152 No. 041, 45th Parliament, 1st Session. (2025, October 22).
House of Commons Debates, Official Report (Hansard), Volume 152 No. 042, 45th Parliament, 1st Session. (2025, October 23).
House of Commons Debates, Official Report (Hansard), Volume 152 No. 043, 45th Parliament, 1st Session. (2025, October 24).