Public Safety Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The motion continues:

(2) If an order is made at a time when a House of Parliament is adjourned, prorogued or dissolved, that House must be summoned to sit at the earliest opportunity after the order is made.

(3) If a House of Parliament is summoned to sit in accordance with subsection (2), the motion and explanation described in subsection (1) must be made and tabled on the first sitting day after it is summoned.

(4) If a motion is made in a House of Parliament, that House must, on the next sitting day following the sitting day on which the motion was made, take up and consider the motion.

Mr. Chair, the amendment addresses the same issues as the previous one that stemmed from the orders in the public interest. This amendment would address the complete lack of safeguards for the extraordinary power and ensure a degree of transparency, which is needed. Under the framework I'm proposing, the government must table in Parliament any such order within 30 sitting days and ensure that a designated committee study the order's intention and impacts before being able to exercise the cancellation powers proposed in this bill. It also ensures that these powers be subject to statutory review.

Mr. Chair, this is similar to the previous amendment that just passed. It's in the same spirit that I'm moving this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Shall NDP-11 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 72 as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to CPC‑27.

Ms. Rempel Garner, you have the floor.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I move that Bill C-12 be amended by adding, after line 19 on page 31, the following new clause:

72.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 87.31:

87.32(1) A designated learning institution, as defined in the regulations, commits a violation and is liable to an administrative monetary penalty in an amount prescribed by regulation if it accepts a foreign national to undertake a course or program of study at the institution knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the foreign national, in applying for a study permit, has knowingly provided false or misleading information or has, in addition to applying for a study permit, made a claim for refugee protection that is subsequently determined to be ineligible or to have been withdrawn or abandoned.

(2) If a removal order is made against the foreign national, the designated learning institution is liable for the costs incurred in removing them from Canada and any related legal expenses.

(3) If a designated learning institution has repeatedly engaged in the conduct described in subsection (1), the Minister must make an order specifying that applications for study permits that indicate that the applicant has been accepted by or intends to study at the designated learning institution are not to be accepted for processing if they are received during the period that the order is in force.

(4) The Minister may, by order, place the designated learning institution on the suspension list established and maintained under the regulations for the prescribed period.

Colleagues, at the immigration committee we heard a lot about educational institutions, particularly some colleges, that have profited from what I think is an abuse of a lot of extra foreign student permits. We're now at close to three million temporary residents in the country. There are, if you think about Conestoga College, other areas where their entire region was essentially put into a housing crisis. Hospitals started to charge non-residents for having babies out there. It was just a complete disaster, because there was no match between levels and the realities of life.

There's a specific problem that we could address here in this bill: There are a lot of people who have been admitted to Canada who were misled by the government to think that they could come to the country as a temporary resident and as a student, and then stay. Their student visas are expiring, and they will have to leave or be removed from the country, so we are starting to see some abuse of the asylum system by people who came on student visas and are now making asylum claims and should be deported, or their visas are expiring and they won't have a legal reason to be in the country, and they'll need to be removed.

I believe that educational institutions should share or have some responsibility for the problems that they had a hand in causing. I think this would be good for the government because it would force educational institutions to think about the requests they're making or their participation in the foreign student program, and perhaps they wouldn't be lobbying all of us for more permits.

We need to stop the process of international students because there's a problem of abuse of international students too. If international students are brought into an area where there isn't adequate housing, health care or jobs for them, then that's not fair to them either. It leads to an abuse of the system. This amendment would transform, in a very positive way, the responsibility on educational institutions to think about how they're issuing permits and not just to juice it for profit. If institutions knowingly participate in fraud or are knowingly juicing these numbers, let them face consequences.

The other way that this has been structured—and I want to thank my team for helping with the structuring of this—is that there are regulatory powers that would be given to the minister to determine this. It's not overly prescriptive, but there need to start being some consequences for educational institutions that have helped perpetrate fraud of the asylum system. Yes, the government issued too many permits, of course, but there was another partner in crime there.

Let's not let this situation happen again. I hope colleagues will pass this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

.

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

I would like to inform you of the following ruling.

Bill C‑12 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The amendment seeks to introduce a new provision under a clause that is not under consideration by the committee.

As stated in the third edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

The chair is of the opinion that the introduction of this new provision constitutes a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I declare this amendment out of order.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I challenge your ruling, Chair, and I request a recorded division.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now go to PV‑6.

Ms. May, the floor is yours.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

PV‑6 is another amendment to protect the rights of peoples—

It's for the most vulnerable.

I shouldn't try to speak French when I've been trying to go all day with you all. I appreciate the fortitude of committee members.

This amendment proposes that we actually add a new clause. This amendment suggests that, right before line 20 on page 31, we add this language:

72.1 Section 50 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (d), adding “and” at the end of paragraph (e) and adding the following after paragraph (e):

(f) in the case of an individual whose claim was determined to be ineligible...and whose application for protection under Division 3 of Part 2 is rejected

(i) for 15 days if no application is made to the Federal Court for leave to commence an application for judicial review concerning the rejection; or

(ii) until the Federal Court refuses their application for leave to commence an application for judicial review, or denies their application for judicial review....

I did not read the paragraph and subparagraphs in their entirety, but the purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chair and other members, as recommended by the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, is to ensure that individuals who are subject to new ineligibilities are given a statutory stay of removal. This will also, as Ms. Kwan mentioned earlier in one of her amendments, avoid a lot of backlog of Federal Court applications and allow the determination of an application for leave and judicial review to be filed. It's a matter of natural justice and constitutional rights. I also think it's required under the international convention for the protection of refugees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Unfortunately, the chair is of the opinion that the amendment is out of order, as it proposes to amend section 50 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is not amended by Bill C‑12.

(Clause 73)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to clause 73 and amendment PV‑7.

Madame May, would you like to speak to PV-7?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you. I'll speak very briefly.

This one's very straightforward. If you will, the clock should start on a claimant's most recent entry to Canada. The current version of legislation is quite broad and would apply to people who came to Canada initially, with no fear that, when they previously entered Canada and subsequently left, they would be at risk of this new reality, created by Bill C-12, that they would be ineligible to make that claim. It starts the new one-year ineligibility clock on the claimant's most recent entry into Canada rather than their first.

I hope committee members will see fit to accept at least one Green amendment, although I did appreciate Michelle Rempel Garner's mentioning that she hoped I would be pleased with her efforts. It's always good to see collaboration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Shall PV‑7 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to CPC‑28.

Ms. Rempel Garner, you have the floor.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-12, in clause 73, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 32 the following:

(b.3) the claimant is a national of Japan, of the United Kingdom, of the United States or of a country that is a member of the European Union, or is a national of another country but came directly or indirectly to Canada from one of those countries, unless the Minister determines that the claimant faces a well-founded risk of persecution based on individual circumstances;

Again, colleagues, the bill's purported intent is to, allegedly, according to the minister's speech from time to time—although that is not consistent either—fix the asylum system. Frankly, we did hear testimony at committee that it makes no sense for Canada to admit asylum claimants from what we would consider to be safe third countries, such as the EU or G7 countries, which are what I have listed in the amendment here. This overburdens our already strained....

Essentially, what we're saying is that when individuals have transited through a safe third country, that's where they should be making their refugee claims. This is consistent with refugee conventions. These individuals are not at risk, particularly if they're nationals of a safe third country, such as the EU or G7 countries.

Without this amendment, we'll still see an overburdened asylum system. I'm trying to come up with ways to lower that burden. I want to be very clear that I'm not talking about somebody who is.... Even if somebody is transiting through, let's say, the U.K., that's where they should be making their asylum claim. That's the principle we'd like to enshrine here today. I'm hoping that will take the burden off the asylum system, colleagues. I feel that it is in alignment with this bill, if the bill's stated attention is, in fact, to fix the asylum system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Shall CPC‑28 carry?

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now go to NDP‑12.

Ms. Kwan, you have the floor.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 73, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 32 with the following:

graph begins on the day after the day of their last entry.

This amendment addresses the same ineligibilities as I mentioned earlier. It targets the arbitrary and cruel one-year bar, specifically.

It was noted, during the review process for Bill C-12, that this one-year bar since first entry timeline is arbitrary and does not have a basis in international or domestic law, nor does it take into account that country circumstances frequently change and deteriorate. Someone who had no fear when they first visited Canada, after June 2020, would be barred from claiming refugee protection after one year. This is completely unreasonable. Therefore, my amendment would make this rule somewhat less draconian by making the arbitrary one-year bar relative to the individual's last entry rather than their first entry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Shall NDP‑12 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We will now go to PV‑8.

Ms. May, the floor is yours.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

PV‑8 is a bit longer than the others, but it deals with the same theme as NDP‑12, which was just moved by Ms. Kwan.

It suggests that what we want to do here is ensure that the timing around the rights of a refugee is stopped, based on the changes made in Bill C-12.

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers make it very clear in their brief that refugee protection is grounded in the obligation not to return people to places where they face persecution or danger. Regardless of how or when they arrived, restricting claims based on entry time risks sending vulnerable people back to harm.

There are many circumstances in which an individual may not have submitted a refugee claim within one year of their first entry to Canada but faces risks in their country of origin. As Madam Kwan just mentioned, situations change in countries of origin. You can find yourself in a very difficult and dangerous position that you really weren't aware of when you first came to Canada on either a visitor's visa or a work permit, and then you discover that you really are not safe to go back. These are basic rights. They're basic rights to protect people who are vulnerable.

Again, this amendment would occur in clause 73 by adding after line 8 the text that you have before you. Given the hour, I'm not going to read out the text, but please consider the importance of allowing an individual to make the claim. It doesn't mean they get to stay. It's subjected to a very tough and difficult process, even though it's been presented tonight as though it's easy. It's not easy. These people definitely need our protection. If they ask for it, they have to have a fair chance and not have an arbitrary block put in their way.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

Shall PV‑8 carry?

(Amendment negatived [ See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to CPC‑29.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 73, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 32 the following:

(1.2) If a claim is determined to be ineligible under subsection 101(1), the officer shall terminate the processing of the claim in accordance with the rules of the Board.

Colleagues, once an officer determines that a refugee claim is ineligible, they should stop processing it. They must stop processing it. The claim should not continue on to the IRB.

This amendment would bring efficiency back to the process, ensuring that the IRB is not further backlogged and delayed with applications that have already been deemed inadmissible by officers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Shall CPC‑29 carry?

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(Clause 73 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 74)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now go to clause 74 and NDP‑13.

Ms. Kwan, you have the floor.