Public Safety Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Okay.

Let me find the French version.

At the end of the amendment, after the words “except for emergency health care”, I would add the words “and any other care required for public health purposes”. That includes all care for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

The legislative clerks have heard your subamendment. We'll give them a few moments to take note of it.

I will therefore suspend the meeting for a few moments to give them the time they need.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I call the meeting back to order.

We've all now read the subamendment moved by Mr. Ramsay.

I'm going to ask the legislative clerk to read us the text of the subamendment.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Michelle Legault]

I'll read the entire text, as it would be amended by the subamendment:

39.1 Subsection 94(2) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (f):

(g) measures taken to ensure that persons whose claim is determined to be ineligible under section 101 do not receive federal benefits, except for emergency health care, care during pregnancy and any other care required for public health purposes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Mr. Ramsay, I see that you want to say something. The floor is yours.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

I just want to explain this subamendment.

This is about reporting measures to make sure the federal government doesn't provide any care other than emergency care.

I think maternal care is a matter of life and death. We all know Canada has been doing this in third world countries for years. No maternal care equals death, and we do not want to be responsible for death. I look at everybody here; we do not want to be responsible for death, so we should provide maternal care.

As for the other care required for public health purposes, let me explain. It's about sexually transmitted diseases and HIV. If we do not provide care, then it spreads. We get other people who are contaminated, and we do not achieve a good outcome.

Left unchecked, sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV, will spread.

We've been dealing with public health in Canada for 150 years. I don't see why we would stop. Just because an immigrant is illegal doesn't mean that they can't spread diseases that will have public health consequences. We've been dealing with it for 150 years and we won't stop doing it in 2025. We won't go back to the way things were. We won't go back to prehistoric times. People get treated for the sake of public health. This has been going on since the TB bacillus was discovered. Since we've known that water can be contaminated, we've been treating it. All these things are treated.

Therefore, I think the subamendment is necessary. Otherwise, we can't agree to an amendment like that. For a doctor or anyone who advocates for health, that is the foundation. It's the bare minimum.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Is there any further discussion?

Is the committee in agreement with the subamendment?

I believe we'll have a recorded vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us back to CPC‑17 in its original form.

Is the committee in agreement with this amendment?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

I request a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

(Clause 40 agreed to on division)

(On clause 41)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

This moves us to clause 41 and amendment CPC-18.

Is that motion going to be moved, Madam Rempel Garner?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 41, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 18 with the following:

41 (1) Section 99 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) A person who seeks to enter Canada and who wishes to make a claim for refugee protection must, on entry, provide the officer with a written or recorded oral statement that sets out the basis of the claim.

(2) Subsection 99(3.1) of the Act is repealed.

Colleagues, we have seen individuals make asylum claims after entering Canada under completely different circumstances and then make a bogus claim to remain in Canada. Our immigration system must prioritize actual asylum claimants and identify individuals who are simply overstaying their welcome as temporary residents.

This amendment would require individuals to state their intentions as they enter Canada, ensuring that those with legitimate asylum claims are inherently prioritized and that the asylum system is not further bogged down with bogus claims.

The other thing I would say, colleagues, is that there have been some stories. For example, I believe it was a lawyer in Quebec who was found to have counselled over 200 asylum claim applicants with, basically, cut-and-paste language. This is a way to deter people from making bogus asylum claims, but more importantly, it would deter people from gaming the system.

Colleagues, I would encourage you to support this amendment, because it should reduce the number of people making bogus claims. It would give our officials more tools to use to determine the veracity of asylum claims. Overall, this seems like a no-brainer to me: Upon entering the country, if you're claiming asylum, you should state your reasons for doing so to the officer, so that we have that on the record.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

This amendment is deemed inadmissible by the chair, because House of Commons Procedure and Practice states—

[Michelle Legault]

No, in this case, it's a line conflict.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry.

This amendment is in order, but I must inform you that if this amendment is adopted, the subsequent amendment, CPC‑19, cannot be moved, since it concerns the same lines of the bill.

Thank you for calling me to order, Madam Clerk.

Is the committee in agreement with CPC‑18?

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

The previous amendment was defeated, so we can go to CPC‑19.

Would someone like to move that amendment?

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

Thank you, Chair.

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 41, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 18 with the following:

41(1) Subsections 99(3) and (3.1) of the Act are replaced by the following:

Claim inside Canada

(3) A claim for refugee protection made by a person inside Canada must be made in person to an officer, must be made in a timely manner after the person's arrival in Canada or after the events giving rise to the claim, must not be made by a person who is subject to a removal order, and is governed by this Part.

Burden of proof

Colleagues, this is another very important part of this amendment:

(3.1) The burden is on the claimant to establish that they made their claim in a timely manner.

Colleagues, we're adding conditions that make a lot of sense to tackle issues with backlog and delay in our asylum system. Claimants are required, if they are in Canada, to make their claim in person and within reasonable time limits after arriving or when the claim becomes necessary. If our laws have determined that an individual has met the threshold for deportation and our immigration system has already assessed that individual and determined that they are in contravention of our laws, they should not be able to use the asylum system as a recourse to bog down our system and delay deportation.

More importantly, colleagues, when it comes time to prove that a claimant has made their claim in a timely manner, it should be up to the claimant to prove that it was done this way, not the Government of Canada.

Essentially, we're trying to change the onus. Right now, it's the Government of Canada that has to prove that the claim was made in a timely manner. We believe that onus should lie on the claimant. This is a critical portion of this amendment, which is a hallmark of a fair and judicious process and would ensure that the applicant has met the conditions to uphold the asylum system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Is the committee in agreement with CPC‑19?

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

(Clause 41 agreed to)

(Clause 42 agreed to on division)

(On clause 43)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We're moving on to clause 43.

Within this clause, we have NDP‑2, which is deemed moved, pursuant to the routine motions adopted by the committee several months ago.

Madam Kwan, would you like to speak to that amendment?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Yes, I move that Bill C-12, in clause 43, be amended by adding, after line 2 on page 19, the following:

(1.1) If the Minister does not consider the claim within the prescribed time limit, the claim is deemed to have been determined by the Minister to be eligible.

It would also add, after line 19 on page 19, the following:

(3.1) The Minister must provide reasons for a determination of ineligibility under subsection (3).

Bill C-12, Mr. Chair, introduces a new pre-screening step to the process of seeking asylum. This “Consideration of claims” step prescribes an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to the process, whereby the minister further considers a claim that has already been deemed admissible by an officer before that claim is ultimately “referred to the Refugee Protection Division”.

This was first introduced, in fact, in the last Parliament, jammed into the 2024 budget implementation act, Bill C-69. During the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-69 at the finance committee, members agreed to strike this section from the bill.

My amendment would ensure, for positive decisions that are then overturned by the minister in this new step, that reasons for the decision to overturn admissibility are given. It would also ensure that decisions to overturn are made within the prescribed time period, after which a claim that has already received a positive decision of admissibility by an officer is “referred to the Refugee Protection Division”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Madam Kwan.

Is NDP-2 adopted? We'll proceed with a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: 9 nays; 0 yeas)

Thank you. We will move, then, to NDP—

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

Wait. Did they vote in favour of that? Is that vote total correct? The clerk counted and said five nays and four yeas. I'm just checking the vote total for the record.

[Ariane Calvert, Legislative Clerk]

I apologize. It was all nays. I'm sorry about that.

[An hon. member]

It's getting late. We get it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That's very good. You're listening carefully, Madam Rempel Garner.

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

I just have a point of order, Chair.

Sometimes I appear like I'm not paying attention. Most of the time, I'm not, but sometimes I am, so there you go.