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.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
That's an admissible motion. It's a dilatory motion.
I am wrong. It's a motion that doesn't lead to an immediate vote because amendments are possible, given the time condition there. We don't need to amend the motion, but if we want to, we can do that.
Is there any discussion on that motion, which is to suspend until 7:15 p.m.?
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Can someone explain to me why anyone would want to suspend the meeting? It's still early, and we're going to sit until a quarter after midnight. What's the valid reason for suspending the meeting?
Can Ms. Kirkland answer that question?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Do you want to comment on or clarify why you're proposing we suspend the meeting until 7:15?
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
Yes, I'm sorry. I've yet to take a break, but also there is a Private Members' Business hour that some of us would like to be part of and see. There is also a colleague who would be coming after Private Members' Business.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you for that piece of information.
Are there any other remarks?
Is the motion adopted?
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Can we have a recorded vote?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We will proceed with a recorded vote.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)
We will, therefore, suspend until 7:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Good evening, everyone. I call the meeting back to order.
Pursuant to the motion adopted earlier, we will now study clause 28 of Bill C‑12.
(On clause 28)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Only one of the amendments tabled concerns clause 28. That amendment is NDP‑1. Pursuant to the committee's routine motion adopted on June 19, 2025, this amendment is deemed moved.
Ms. Kwan, do you wish to move this amendment?
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Amendment NDP-1 would amend clause 28. The purpose of this is as follows.
Bill C-12 would introduce ministerial powers to disclose personal information that is in IRCC's possession to any department, agency or body of the federal or provincial governments, including Crown corporations. This power to share people's personal information is, in my view, unnecessarily broad.
In the review process for Bill C-12, Amnesty International said that this “could expose people to persecution, discrimination and harm, and could inhibit refugees' and migrants' ability to access critical services without fear.”
As the Canadian Council for Refugees explained, “This could negatively impact the safety of migrants and refugees in Canada or their country of origin if they are forced to return.”
To that end, Mr. Chair, my amendment limits its power by reducing this list of agencies to the Canada Border Services Agency and the Immigration and Refugee Board for the purposes of this section.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Ms. Kwan.
Is there any discussion on this?
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, the floor is yours.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the officials some questions. May I?
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Thank you.
Can you tell us what the consequences would be if the amendment were adopted? There was an intent behind this clause, so what would be the impact if we amended it and narrowed it?
Tara Lang Director General, Integrity Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
IRCC already has the legal authority to disclose to CBSA and IRB the personal information that is necessary for these entities to undertake their responsibilities under IRPA. The proposed amendments are unnecessary and actually conflict with the bill's policy intent, which is to modernize IRCC's information-sharing authorities with domestic government partners, including closing gaps in IRCC's current information-sharing framework.
More specifically, IRCC currently, under a patchwork of laws, shares information with various domestic government partners, but the process is slow and burdensome, and the legal authority does not currently exist for some desired disclosures of personal information to these domestic partners, even when these disclosures would assist in the administration or enforcement of Canadian laws. This clause in Bill C-12 was designed to close such long-standing gaps and to modernize how we use and share the information we already collect, while adding greater transparency on how it's handled.
There are privacy safeguards in place to guide the disclosure of the information—such as the requirement to develop information-sharing agreements or arrangements, as well as a prohibition against onward sharing by provincial or territorial government partners to foreign entities, except with the written consent of IRCC. Where this would happen, it would happen in a way that complies with Canada's international obligations in respect to mistreatment, as defined in the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act. By limiting which entities can receive information from IRCC, the proposed amendment would fail to resolve long-standing challenges for federal, provincial and territorial partners that rely on IRCC to confirm identity, immigration status and document authenticity. This is key to timely access to services. It supports faster integration into Canadian society, and it maintains stronger program integrity.
In addition, the CBSA has noted that this would have an impact on the immigration national security screening program. This is a trilateral program delivered by IRCC, CBSA and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This amendment could not be accepted as proposed, as the omission of CSIS would hamper the effectiveness of information sharing under the program and restrict national security information for admissibility determinations.
The bill's intent is to modernize IRCC's domestic information-sharing framework, not to re-legislate protections that already exist under the Avoiding Complicity and Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act. For instance, the CBSA is already explicitly subject to the avoiding complicity act. Further, the proposed changes in part (a) of the amendment are not supported, as they are unnecessary and in conflict with the bill's policy intent. As such, the proposed changes in part (b) of the amendment are not required, given that no changes to part (a) are being recommended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you. I hope the interpretation was able to keep up with the rapid pace.
November 25th, 2025 / 7:20 p.m.
Director General, Integrity Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Did I speak too quickly?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Yes, but that's normal. It was both technical and fast, so we really feel for the interpreters. Thank you for your detailed answer, Ms. Lang.
Are there any other comments or questions?
It doesn't look like it.
Is the committee in agreement with NDP‑1?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London Centre, ON
Chair, you said “on division”. I'm not sure what you meant by that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
No, it's not.
The amendment was simply defeated. That's pretty obvious. I should have been much clearer.
Now we have to vote on clause 28.
(Clause 28 agreed to)