Public Safety Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[Tara Lang]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to explain.

The provisions as written under the mass authorities sections do not pertain to any kind of loss of status or change of status. The wording around “vary” pertains only to document status. The examples in that space were ones that I have given in previous testimony pertaining, for instance, to extending the length of work permits and/or shortening the length of documents such as that. The act already has a provision that speaks to loss of status for PRs or changes to status under sections 46 and 47.

This section of mass authorities in no way grants the department, the minister, the OIC or anyone the ability to change status. The “vary” is only around documents. There is no ability legally in these clauses to change the status of someone from a TR to PR. It is strictly about a document. If you have a TR document, we could vary the status of a TR document. With a PR document, there are no opportunities for a status change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

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

My problem here is that there are a lot of mysteries that we've seen. We've had department officials.... Frankly, guys, the answers you gave us on examples and reasons for wanting us to devolve our powers to you were not great. Then there's this mystery line item in the levels about changing or granting permanent resident status to a mystery group of people.

If what the official says is true, they will have no problem supporting this, because if they have no intention of using this, then we should be able to say:

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

We're just agreeing. We're violently agreeing here.

Colleagues, again, God bless, I would like, as a legislator.... The IRCC is asking us to devolve a lot of powers to them after overseeing a process that has led to 300,000 asylum claims backlogged and three million temporary residents in the country. This is serious. If there is no plan to use this, colleagues, then nobody around here should have any problem putting this insurance clause in. I'm just saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Officials have been clear, and we appreciate that. I don't think there's a need to disparage their contributions here tonight. We do trust their judgment. However, for certainty, I think it is important to clarify, so our side will be supporting this amendment.

We can go straight to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Shall CPC‑26.1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 67 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 68 agreed to on division)

(Clause 69 agreed to on division)

(Clause 70 agreed to on division)

(Clause 71 agreed to on division)

(On clause 72)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now go to clause 72 and LIB‑1.

Mr. Zuberi, you have the floor.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I respect the fact that everyone's been here a long time.

I move that Bill C‑12, in clause 72, be amended by adding, after line 26 on page 28, the following:

87.3001 For the purposes of subsections 87.301(1), 87.302(1) and 87.303(1) and (2), the making of an order is consistent with the public interest if its purpose is to address matters such as public health, public safety or national security and if the public interest clearly outweighs in importance any prejudice caused to individuals by the order.

A key term here is “public interest”. The reason this is being put forth is that in testimony, we heard how public interest was a matter questioned upon by committee members from all sides. As well, it was one that officials and the minister explained should apply to certain cases that are non-exhaustive, but certain cases that have been thought of in advance.

With respect to the fact that this is not an exhaustive list, the cases that were highlighted are spelled out here with “such as”, which is why this says, “such as public health, public safety or national security”. It's not an exhaustive list or an exclusive list. You can still have analogous classes. Having the term “such as” leaves some latitude. This does put guardrails, so that the Governor in Council has to have some guidelines, which are written over here.

The latter part of this amendment speaks about how the public interest should outweigh in importance any prejudice caused to an individual by the order. The reason that's important to spell out, although it should be implicit, is that it's a reminder to the Governor in Council that there is prejudice in taking such an action to utilize this aspect of the law. Therefore, it's just a reminder to the Governor in Council that there is prejudice caused and that the usage of this should outweigh the prejudice to the individuals in question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much, MP Zuberi.

I see that MP Fragiskatos would like to intervene.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Yes.

Thank you to our colleague for the amendment.

I want to offer a subamendment that would change it as follows:

the making of an order is consistent with the public interest if its purpose is to address matters such as administrative errors, fraud, public health, public safety or national security.

The last sentence would be struck. Therefore, it ends at “national security”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Has this amendment been circulated, MP Fragiskatos?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I'm about to send it to the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Will you send that electronically?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll suspend for a minute or so, while the subamendment is circulated to the legislative clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I call the meeting back to order, if we want to finish up.

The clerk has advised me that LIB‑1 has not been duly moved, as it has to be moved by a member of the committee. Therefore, the subamendment is moot.

Mr. Ramsay, the floor is yours.

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

I'm just going to move LIB‑1 as read by Mr. Zuberi.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Is everybody clear on that?

The motion wasn't moved appropriately, because it has to be moved by a member of the committee or a substitute, and MP Zuberi wasn't either of those two. The amendment LIB-1 needs to be moved by a member of the committee, which MP Ramsay just did.

I'll turn to MP Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I'm not sure if the request has gone in to the clerk, but you'll see that Mr. Ehsassi is not here right now. Mr. Zuberi is subbing in, so we might avoid all of this.

If he's been received.... I'm not sure, but Mr. Zuberi is here subbing in for Mr. Ehsassi now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

No, unfortunately that cannot be done a posteriori. That needed to be done beforehand.

That's well understood and noted.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

That's fine. We'll stick to that.

Mr. Ramsay just moved it as it was originally proposed. For the purposes of maintaining procedural decorum, for lack of a better word, I will move the following subamendment:

For the purposes of subsections 87.301(1), 87.302(1) and 87.303(1) and (2), the making of an order is consistent with the public interest if its purpose is to address matters such as administrative errors, fraud, public health, public safety or national security.

I would strike from the original “and if the public interest” all the way to “by the order”.

The clerk has a version in French as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

The English and French versions were emailed to you a few minutes ago.

Is the committee in agreement with the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to)

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now go to NDP‑10.

Ms. Kwan, you have the floor.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

This amendment actually relates to that last clause there. I'm moving that Bill C-12, in clause 72, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 29 the following:

(1.1) An order made under this section or section 87.302 or 87.303 is in the public interest if it addresses a serious threat to public health or any matter referred to in section 34.

Mr. Chair, this is actually another one of the major issues that is of grave concern to the NGOs that work with newcomers. They feel that the sweeping new proposed powers to cancel entire categories of immigration documents and applications in the “public interest” also allows the government to suspend the right to make new applications in a specific category and suspend and terminate the processing of applications already submitted, including applications for permanent or temporary residence, or for work or study permits, if it is deemed to be in the “public interest” to do so.

This not only affects international students and migrant workers, but reaches to every category of newcomer, and that does not—

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.