Evidence of meeting #15 for Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was section.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Okay, so we'll have a recorded vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We'll now go to CPC‑12.
Would someone like to move that amendment?
Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I move that Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 23 on page 18 the following new clause:
39.1 Section 72 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) Despite subsection (1), a claimant who knowingly provides an officer with false or misleading information is not entitled to make an application for judicial review with respect to any matter under this Act.
Colleagues, it is my opinion that in any application, there should be more serious consequences for lying to officers. Canadians are tired of fraud in our immigration system. This amendment paves the way for a common-sense consequence for those who knowingly lie to an officer. All of us have this issue in our casework as well.
Removing judicial review, meaning there would be no recourse for liars and the system would be freed up to serve the people it's intended to serve, is what this amendment proposes to do. It also should deter bogus asylum claims and reduce the abuse of our asylum system. It will also reduce court delays, which will free up dockets. This move aims to restore Canadians' and newcomers' confidence in Canada's immigration system.
Colleagues, I direct your attention today to an article in the National Post. It was actually published this morning. The title says, “Somali woman who was in a polygamous marriage and lied to get into Canada wins another chance to stay”.
It goes on to say:
A Somali woman barred from Canada for five years for giving false names and birth dates for herself...while applying for refugee status here, dodging the fact that she had entered into a polygamous marriage with a Canadian-Somali man, has won another chance at staying in this country.
I think that our asylum system—and our immigration system writ large, but especially our asylum system—should be predicated on a foundation of truth. The adjudicators in our asylum system should be making decisions based on true information. If somebody has lied, that should preclude them from receiving protection under the system.
This is a common-sense amendment. I think that if Canadians are listening to this at home, they would say that, yes, if somebody lies, they should not be eligible. I hope colleagues will support this amendment.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
In the opinion of the chair, this amendment is inadmissible, as it amends section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but it is not amended by Bill C‑12.
Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I challenge your decision and request a recorded division.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Okay, we'll have a recorded vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)
Liberal
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I move that Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 23 on page 18 the following new clause:
39.1 Section 78 of the Act is replaced by the following:
Determination
78 The judge shall determine whether the certificate is reasonable, within 30 days after the day on which it was referred in priority cases or within 60 days after the day on which it was referred in all other cases, and shall quash the certificate if they determine that it is not reasonable.
Colleagues, this section governs how a federal court judge reviews a security certificate. This is a tool that is used for non-citizens deemed inadmissible on national security or serious risk grounds.
Currently, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act lets a judge determine whether the certificate is reasonable and quash it if it's not, with no deadline. With no deadlines, our judicial review process becomes delayed and inefficient, as we have seen it become, and people who are not supposed to be in Canada get to stay in Canada for a very long time.
This delays eventual removals. It prolongs uncertainty and potentially exposes Canadians to offenders who would otherwise be deported, as set out in current law. Also, this means that our backlogs get bigger. This amendment allows priority removal cases to be dealt with within the tighter 30-day timeline and the rest within a reasonable 60-day timeline, while leaving the remaining language of the text, allowing judges—the judiciary—to quash certificates at their discretion. This is a common-sense amendment. It clears backlogs in our courts, allowing for due process to reach the families it intended to reach. It makes our courts more efficient while also ensuring that we're making the system more efficient.
Come on; we need that. It's so bad right now.
Here is a common-sense proposal for the government that would make the government function better. I hope that colleagues will support it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you very much, Ms. Rempel Garner.
The opinion of the chair is that this amendment is inadmissible, because it amends section 78 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but it is not amended by Bill C‑12.
Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Chair, I challenge your decision and request a recorded division.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
Therefore, we'll have a recorded vote.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 5; yeas 4)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I will therefore open the floor to debate on amendment CPC‑13.
Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to know the view of officials, please, of whoever wishes to take it.
Director General, Immigration and Asylum Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
I'm mindful that although the authority in IRPA belongs to the Minister of Public Safety, but the provision is enjoining justices that are not under the authority of the Minister of Public Safety. That being said, security secrets are the most complicated and complex files, because you're dealing with the management of due process for using national security information in the context of admissibility determination, and the courts, through experience, have had a challenging time dealing with that in very short order. Establishing a timeline on the court may not result in the outcome desired.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I would just say, colleagues, that it's about time we forced the government to make the system more efficient, and that's what this does. I'm sorry. Somebody should have been giving political direction to the bureaucracy to make these types of changes a long time ago, so giddy-up. Let's do it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
Is there any further discussion?
It doesn't look like it.
Is the committee in agreement with CPC‑13?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We'll now go to CPC‑14.
Would someone like to move that amendment?
Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.
November 25th, 2025 / 8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I move that Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 23 on page 18 the following new clause:
39.1 Section 81 of the Act is replaced by the following:
Ministers' warrant
81 The Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration must issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of a person who is named in a certificate if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person is a danger to national security or to the safety of any person or is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal.
Colleagues, the ministers of immigration and public safety have the powers to issue these warrants. In line with other amendments that we have discussed today, we are looking to change the language from “may” issue a warrant to “must” issue a warrant. If the conditions under our laws are met for a detention, these ministers have the responsibility to issue detention orders. Canada's safety should not be optional or discretionary. If someone named in a certificate, such as a security certificate, is deemed to be a danger to the public or a flight risk, why should ministers have the option to not detain them?
Seriously, that is actually crazy. Canadians expect our laws to be followed. Our amendment ensures that those who should be detained are actually detained.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
In the opinion of the chair, this amendment is inadmissible, as it amends section 81 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but it is not amended by Bill C‑12.
Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I challenge your decision and request a recorded division.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Therefore, we'll have a recorded vote.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 5; yeas 4)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I will now open the floor to debate on amendment CPC‑14.
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.