Public Safety Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

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

The one that we're amending here—the information that we'd be getting.

What I'm trying to say is that you routinely draw on information from other departments, and we talked about CBSA tonight. Would that be correct? When you're developing reports, you occasionally do that.

[Tara Lang]

Not necessarily. Normally, departments report on their own aspects of IRPA, so CBSA would report, and IRCC would report.

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

It would be in Parliament's scope to ask for a report that would draw from information from many different government sources. Is that correct?

[Tara Lang]

I guess it could be within Parliament's scope.

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

That's what I'm getting at here. What I'm saying is that we are, as parliamentarians, asking the government for information that exists, which you have said does exist. Is that correct?

[Tara Lang]

Yes.

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

Okay. Then my response would be to figure it out. Is it possible to figure this out if we passed it? If we passed this, there would be some sort of committee or something that would say, “Let's figure out how to get this information.” Is that correct?

[Tara Lang]

This is true, yes.

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

Okay. You have now said that the information exists, and that all it takes is somebody saying to figure it out. Is that basically right?

[Tara Lang]

I am saying that it's not under IRCC's purview. If we are directed to figure out a way to get the information, as public servants, we will do so.

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

Can I ask for clarification from the analysts?

Would the amendment as written allow the information, which the department officials have said exists, to be produced for Parliament?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Being the chair, I will seek—

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

I'm sorry. I mean through the chair. I apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That's all right.

This is an important question. You may want to think through it. I may suspend for a moment or two, if that is better.

Okay, so, we'll suspend for a moment to give the appropriate time to provide the appropriate answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I call the meeting back to order.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

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

Isn't it still my round?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Yes, I'm sorry. You were asking a question, and then you wanted to follow up.

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

Thank you.

The clarification I was seeking was whether or not this direction from Parliament would require the government to produce this information. The way the instructions have been drafted—and I trust the way that the drafters have drafted it—it would require that. We've been told, colleagues, that the information exists, and we are giving direction to the government to produce it to Parliament. The only missing step here is some ministerial will to say, “Find it, and put it out there.”

I think Parliament should certainly exercise its powers to get this information out. Then, hopefully, the government will find a minister who will then say, “Find it.” If it can't find one, then perhaps they should elect a different government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Fragiskatos, the floor is yours.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I think that Ms. Lang does have a point, as does Mr. Bush.

I'm not swayed, with all due respect, by what Ms. Rempel Garner has put forward. Hence, I will propose a subamendment that proposed paragraph 94(3)(c) be struck from this amendment. The rest of it holds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

The subamendment is quite simple. We'll have, obviously, a need for the legislative clerks to record this subamendment precisely, but the subamendment is to strike out proposed paragraph 94(3)(c) in the amendment we are currently discussing.

Is there debate on that subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us back to CPC‑15 as amended.

The debate can continue, if anyone wishes to speak. Otherwise, we can vote on CPC‑15 as amended.

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to CPC‑16.

Would someone like to move that amendment?

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

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

I thank you, Chair, for running an efficient meeting tonight.

I move that Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 23 on page 18 the following new clause:

39.1 Subsection 94(2) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a.1):

(a.2) all federal benefits provided during the year in question to claimants for refugee protection, including the total cost of the benefits;

Colleagues, let me explain briefly what this amendment would do. It would require the government to report to Parliament all of the federal benefits that are provided to claimants for refugee protection. Canadians have rightly been asking questions about coverage received by claimants for refugee protection. These are asylum seekers. Some of these are #WelcomeToCanada people who have been sitting in the queue for years. Particularly where the taxpayer has been covering said benefits, even in cases where Canadians do not receive these benefits, we are asking on behalf of Canadians that the federal benefits provided each year to refugee claimants be known, including the costs. We can continue to debate the viability of these benefits—this would not preclude us from doing that—but how can we do that if we don't know what the amount is?

Colleagues, I want to just say that as a parliamentarian, I've had to do Order Paper questions, ATIPs, begging, harassing and working through journalists to try to get information on this. It's shameful. I found out that the interim federal health program costs increased by 1,200% in a decade. It's said to be over $1 billion this year. The government spent over $1.2 billion on hotel costs for asylum claimants.

Look, we can agree or not on whether these benefits are good. We can have all sorts of discussions about it, but how can we do that if we don't have this information? The fact is that there are 300,000 asylum claims in the system right now. Some estimates have said it's a 25-year backlog. It would take 25 years to clear the system. There are more coming every day. We need to understand this. We need to understand the benefits that are being received. We need to understand the sustainability. Particularly when the government keeps coming to us in supplementary estimates, and I see IRCC.... They're like, “Oh, can we please have another several hundred million dollars in the supplementary estimates?” We don't even have this information.

I think this is a no-brainer. This one is near and dear to my heart. I hope colleagues will support it. It's just transparency.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.