Public Safety Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I was very disappointed with that last vote. With that being said, I move that Bill C-12, in clause 52, be amended by adding after line 42 on page 23 the following:

(5) Section 112 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) A removal order is stayed in respect of an applicant who is not described in subsection 112(3), whose application for protection is rejected and who applies for leave to commence an application for judicial review in accordance with section 72, and the stay is effective until the day on which the Federal Court refuses their application for leave or denies their application for judicial review.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would ensure that people subject to the new ineligibility...would be afforded a statutory stay of removal, pending the termination of an application for judicial review of a negative pre-removal risk assessment, if one is filed. A legislative stay of removal like this would greatly alleviate the burden on the already overstretched Federal Court, Mr. Chair, and I hope committee members will support this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Is the committee in agreement with NDP‑8?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 52 agreed to on division)

(Clause 53 agreed to on division)

(Clause 54 agreed to on division)

(On clause 55)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to clause 55 and CPC‑24.

Would you like to move that amendment, Ms. Rempel Garner?

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

Yes. I move that Bill C-12, in clause 55, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 24 the following:

(1.1) Subsection 161(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a.1):

(a.11) the manner in which a claim that is determined to be ineligible under subsection 101(1) is to be dealt with;

Colleagues, after a refugee claim is determined to be eligible, we need to more clearly define the steps that come next. The system needs predictability, and this amendment would do that. It would clarify questions like what comes after and how long it takes. These are principles that would make our system more fair and would provide due process to applicants, giving them predictability if the decision by the government is to follow through on removal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Shall CPC‑24 carry?

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(Clause 55 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 56)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to clause 56 and CPC‑25.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 56, be amended by replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 24 with the following:

56 Subsection 168(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(1) A Division must determine that a proceeding before it has been abandoned if the applicant is in default in the proceedings, including by failing to appear for a hearing, to provide information required by the Division or to communicate with the Division on being requested to do so.

This is what I'd like to call a “show up and give us information” amendment.

Colleagues, further to changes that the Conservatives presented earlier tonight, we would like to direct the IRB to determine a proceeding to be abandoned if the applicant is in default.

As is the case in a fair and transparent process, if an applicant is a no-show to a hearing, that claim should not move forward. If an applicant does not provide the required information in a hearing, that claim should not move forward. If an applicant does not communicate as directed by our immigration officials, that claim should not move forward.

There needs to be some onus on the applicant to actually move along with the process. Canada's immigration system should serve co-operative applicants, applicants who are there and are responding in a timely manner to make the system function. It shouldn't be chasing people who don't bother to show up for hearings. Those willing to come to Canada and follow our laws should take our application system seriously.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Shall CPC‑25 carry?

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

I would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to CPC‑26.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 56, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 24 with the following:

section 104.1 from considering a claim or appeal, it must

Colleagues, we would like to update instructions to the IRB to go from “may” to “must” when determining whether to abandon claims if the applicant does not meet the requirement for physical presence in Canada. We believe that applicants should remain in Canada to have their asylum application reviewed by the IRB.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Shall CPC‑26 carry?

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

I would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

(Clause 56 agreed to)

(Clause 57 agreed to)

(Clause 58 agreed to on division)

(Clause 59 agreed to on division)

(Clause 60 agreed to on division)

(Clause 61 agreed to on division)

(On clause 62)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now go to clause 62 and NDP‑9.

Madam Kwan, would you like to speak to it?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 62, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 25 to line 1 on page 26 with the following:

62 Claims for refugee protection whose eligibility to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division has not yet been determined on the day on which any of sections 43 to 45 come into force or that have been determined to be eligible for referral but have not yet been referred to that Division immediately before that day are subject to the Act as it would have read had none of those sections come into force.

Mr. Chair, in the transitional provisions of Bill C-12, the new ineligibility provisions are set to retroactively apply to refugee claims that have already been made but have not yet been referred to the refugee protection division by the date on which the bill comes into force. This amendment adjusts the transition provisions so that this section would apply only to cases made on and after the day on which the bill goes into effect. In other words, it would not apply retroactively, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Madam Kwan.

Shall NDP‑9 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 62 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now go to clauses 63 to 66. There are no amendments on those clauses.

[An hon. member]

Wait, let's do them one at a time, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

You want to do them one at a time? Okay.

(Clause 63 agreed to on division)

(Clause 64 agreed to on division)

(Clause 65 agreed to on division)

(Clause 66 agreed to on division)

(On clause 67)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now go to clause 67.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

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

Yes, thank you.

Colleagues, I move that clause 67 of Bill C-12 be amended by adding, after line 13 on page 27, the following:

(3) For greater certainty, the authority to vary under subsection (1) does not include the authority to grant permanent resident status.

Let's talk about this one.

Colleagues, I am concerned—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Let me first check, Madame Rempel Garner, that everyone has the information.

We will take a little time.

It seems that all members now have a copy of the amendment. We can move on, then.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, I am concerned. There was a lot of discussion at committee on the powers that part 7 of this bill gives to the government. The way I proceed with some other things will be very dependent on how the government members proceed with this.

When we were asking the government officials questions about how they would use these powers, they really didn't provide a lot of examples, except they did provide examples that intimated that they would use these powers, or potentially could use these powers, to alter documents to a PR status. They might say that they won't, but I would direct your attention to the word “vary” in the original clause. That is a pretty ill-defined, wide term.

Now, I want to direct your attention to something else. In the levels plan this year, there were a bunch of so-called one-time initiatives to approve another 140,000 people to PR status. This was not attributed to in the levels plan, and it did not include any detail as to who would be selected.

Given the combination of the very disappointing testimony from department officials last week in terms of being able to explain examples of how they would use this, I think we can only be left to assume that these powers—these powers that we're looking at right now—would be used to avoid all scrutiny and move these people that are in the levels plan, in this one-time initiative, to a new status with no oversight. This specifies permanent residency specifically as a category that documents cannot be varied to. Without that specifically, there's a risk that the department could find a workaround through legal back doors. We wouldn't know about it. We need a specific restriction and prohibition on this practice demarcated in the law. I'm not comfortable proceeding, frankly, unless there is.... God bless, but I don't trust the department officials.

The Liberals have made a specific commitment to reduce the numbers in the levels of temporary residents in Canada. Without this amendment, I can only assume that they mean to reduce the number of temporary residents in Canada by converting them to permanent residents using these powers. I hope that's not the case.

This is how I'm going to proceed. I think the department officials will say, oh, no, that's not really what we mean, but if that's really not what they mean, then why would we not just say, “For greater certainty, the authority to vary under subsection (1) does not include the authority to grant permanent resident status”? That seems pretty clear to me.

I would like to put this to bed, but I will close with this for my colleague from Quebec. Today a story broke in the Journal de Montréal that in 1995, Jean Chrétien gave orders to the same ministry to accelerate citizenship to increase the voter base in Quebec, in the Quebec referendum. Allowing the same party to have broadened unsupervised access—to be very clear, that's seriously what we're doing here—to change immigration status, when their past behaviour has had so little respect for Canadian citizenship, is a problem.

If the department really means to not use the “vary” provision for everything I've set out, then they and the government members should have no problem supporting this amendment. I hope we can just move on and everybody supports this. We're not going to be talking about how the government, and the department, might be trying to lower the number of temporary residents in this country through insta-PRs.

I hope this amendment is acceptable and we can move on.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to hear the view of officials on this, for clarification.