Public Safety Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

We'd like to hear the view of officials again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

[Brett Bush]

The only thing I would say is the same thing I said on the previous amendment on warrants, that we'd be removing the discretion of the officers. Security certificates do not happen frequently. To the best of my knowledge, we detained every last one of them until the courts ordered their release.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

Is the committee in agreement with CPC‑14?

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

I would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to CPC‑15.

Would someone like to move that amendment?

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

[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 94 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The report shall also include

(a) the number of warrants issued under section 81 and the percentage of those warrants enforced;

(b) the number of persons detained under subsection 82.2(1);

(c) the number of Social Insurance Numbers assigned under section 90;

(d) the number and category of documents varied or cancelled and the percentage of persons whose documents were varied or cancelled who subsequently departed Canada;

(e) the number of removal orders enforced within 30 days and a summary of the reasons for delays in the case of orders not enforced within 30 days

I'm going to leave it at that and leave out the final bullet that was in the component submitted to the clerk, just for the analysts' information.

Colleagues, Canada's annual report to Parliament is the keystone transparency document to provide the public with details of their immigration system. It is critical to update the government reports on these numbers. Enforcement of legally executed warrants is an important step in ensuring our laws are followed. Canadians want the government to tackle skyrocketing crime. We want to know how many of these warrants were actually enforced.

The status of the government's enforcement of removals is already authorized, and we need to know if these people are in Canada or if they aren't. That's the only way for us as parliamentarians to be able to get this information in a timely way without prying it out of the government. Again, across political stripes here, this is data that we should be using to inform our choices. We want to know if the government is cancelling documents for individuals who have departed Canada.

These are basic principles that should be in a reporting requirement, and more information is better, particularly given the state of Canada's immigration system today.

I hope you will support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

This amendment would amend section 94 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is not being amended by Bill C‑12. It is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

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

I challenge your decision and request a recorded division, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll have a recorded vote.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We will now proceed with debate on CPC‑15.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Fragiskatos, the floor is yours.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I would like to hear the view of the officials once again.

Mr. Bush.

[Brett Bush]

The number of security certificate cases is very low, so the number of warrants issued would be very low, but reporting is possible on that if Parliament would like to have that.

The agency does not issue social insurance numbers, and the documents that might be varied or cancelled would not be within CBSA's purview to speak to.

I'll turn to my colleagues.

[Tara Lang]

Certainly. Thank you.

In regard to the number of social insurance numbers assigned under section 90, IRCC does not accept the proposed amendment, as we have no purview over the issuance of social insurance numbers and, therefore, cannot report on their issuance.

This authority rests with the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which may register a person to whom the Minister of IRCC has given direction per IRPA section 9, and the Canada Employment Insurance Commission may decline to issue a SIN to any person who is not eligible.

As it pertains to the number and category of documents varied or cancelled and the percentage of persons whose documents were varied or cancelled who subsequently departed Canada, IRCC does not accept the proposed amendment. Reporting on the number of people who departed Canada after a cancellation or variance would be misaligned with the intent of the authorities, as the use of authorities does not result in a loss of status or removal from Canada.

The proposed amendment does not limit the reporting requirement to mass authorities; therefore, we would have to report on other existing cancellation authorities, such as CBSA authorities to cancel immigration documents when a removal order is made against a foreign national, and IRCC authorities to cancel immigration documents on a case-by-case basis under certain circumstances.

The proposed amendment would also exclude reporting the number of documents suspended as well as of applications that have been terminated or suspended. If the government would like to report on the use of mass authorities in the annual report to Parliament on immigration, IRCC could report on the number of documents cancelled, suspended or varied and the number of applications suspended or terminated as part of an order in council made under all the subsections.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have a few questions.

To start, just for clarification, because I've heard this come up a few times, Ms. Lang, when you say that the IRCC does not support this amendment, are you offering a political statement on the admissibility of this? I just found that wording a little weird.

[Tara Lang]

No, I'm speaking about the bureaucracy at IRCC.

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

The bureaucracy is offering a position on this amendment, saying that you don't support it. You're speaking on behalf of all of IRCC.

[Tara Lang]

I'm speaking on behalf of IRCC as it pertains to the policy expertise underneath the question.

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

Okay. My understanding is that ESDC would have the reporting requirements for the social insurance numbers. Would that be correct?

[Tara Lang]

As I understand it, it is not ESDC. It's the Canada Employment Insurance Commission.

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

Okay, the information exists. Is that correct?

[Tara Lang]

I would assume that it exists. It's just not under IRCC's purview.

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

My understanding, though, is that the report is already a multiministry production. Is that correct?

[Tara Lang]

Which report are you referring to?