Public Safety Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Shall clause 29 carry?

It looks like it, so we're moving on to clause 30.

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

Chair, just on a point of order for one minute, if I may, would you do me the courtesy of letting Brad and me catch up to the speed of this committee? We won't hold it up. We just want to make sure we're in the right clause here. Thank you for your indulgence.

Are we on clause 30?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Yes, we are now on clause 30. We just carried clause 29.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Clause 29 should be on division, Chair.

(Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I see that Ms. May has her hand up.

Do you want to speak now or very soon on your amendment?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, it's difficult for members attending virtually to follow along.

I just want to mention that when the vote on NDP-1 happened, had we been in the room as non-members of the committee but obliged to be here by the motion that committee passed, I would have known if anyone had voted for NDP-1. All I know is that it was rejected.

It has to do with cameras. If the camera is only on the speaker, I can't see the hands. I wonder if the committee or the clerk would oblige members in my position, which I guess tonight is Jenny Kwan and me. If one of our amendments is put to a vote, could it at least be stated, as the voting takes place, that the vote unanimously rejected the motion or that one member from party X voted to support it?

I don't know that we'll ever be able to catch up and find out if anyone supported our amendments when we're in the position of members of Parliament from non-recognized parties.

If it's not helpful and the scene is obstructive, forget about it. I just wanted to let you know that we can't tell from virtual participation whether our amendments have had any votes at all in favour of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

It's a point well taken. I will try to be as helpful as possible, given the virtual challenges.

(On clause 31)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Clause 31 is the subject of amendment PV‑1. Pursuant to the routine motion that we adopted, this amendment is deemed moved.

Madam May, would you like to present that amendment?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, I will.

Mr. Chair, as I warned you earlier this evening, the motion that was passed by this committee is routinely passed without an awareness of the effect it has on those of us who are members of Parliament from unrecognized parties.

It's been the custom since the previous government under then prime minister Stephen Harper to deprive members of Parliament from the smallest parties of rights that we would ordinarily have at report stage to present amendments before the whole House on both substantive amendments to bills and deletions.

It's difficult—and I just want to register this—not to object every single time because the larger powers that be, the bigger parties, didn't take the trouble to go through PROC to change the rules, but they have a motion that every committee is told to pass. I think that makes a mockery of the notion that a committee is the master of its own process and procedures.

It does oblige the parties with members of Parliament with the least resources to produce amendments within 24 hours. As the rules state, my amendments are deemed to have been moved. I'm allowed to speak to them briefly, not consider friendly amendments and so on.

It remains offensive to me, as a member of Parliament, that I don't have rights equal to other members. Particularly when we don't have equal rights—and we have a right under our rules to present amendments at report stage—we're deprived of that right through the clever use of identical motions before every committee.

I wanted to state the objection on the record. You won't hear me mention it again tonight. I'll confine myself to speaking to my amendments one at a time, but I do wish committees would consider the damage it does to our rights as members of Parliament from smaller parties. I'm sure many members say, “Oh, we're doing them a favour because we've given them an opportunity.” It's an opportunity we don't want. We want our rights.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the time. If it's all right with you, I'll just move straight into explaining why I'm hoping this committee will consider PV-1.

For new members, the letters “PV” in our amendments refer to “Parti vert”. If we used the letter “G” for “Green”, it would be the same as the letter used for government amendments. Unfortunately, we are not in government right now. That's why it's PV‑1.

I will continue just to say that these amendments come from the excellent work of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. I'm very distressed that Bill C-12 did not receive enough witnesses or enough time for witnesses so that the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers could testify before amendments were due.

In any case, as a former member of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, I can say that what they're arguing here and the reason I brought forward this amendment is, of course, changing clause 31 to replace line 25 on page 15. When we're talking about refugee claimants who are in a position of requiring a designated representative, that would be children or people who do not have the capacity to represent their own concerns.

The amendment is to make clear the responsibilities of a representative. Their primary role is to support an individual's decision-making, not to supplant their own views for the individual. Again, the responsibilities of a representative, in particular their primary role, is to support an individual's decision-making.

I submit this amendment and hope the committee will see fit to accept it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Is there any discussion on this amendment?

It doesn't look like it.

Is the committee in agreement with PV‑1?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Will it pass on division?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Were there any votes for it at all? I wouldn't be able to tell from here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

There seems to have been no request for on division, which means there would seem to be unanimity for rejecting it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to amendment PV-2, which is deemed to be moved according to the House committee business rules that we adopted last June.

Madam May, would you like to speak to it?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can make this submission much briefer, because this is, again, recommendations from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers around the same point, that when you have someone as a designated representative, they are appointed for the purpose of providing support. Again, in this case, it's more explicit that they are not to make decisions on behalf of the person they represent. That is in PV-2, and that's why we propose to delete lines 28 and 29.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Is there any discussion?

It doesn't look like it.

Shall PV‑2 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to PV‑3.

Ms. May, would you like to speak to it?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is, again, to the same point that the designated representative may not make decisions on behalf of the person they represent specifically relating to services or waivers under section 160 of the immigration and refugee protection regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Is there any discussion?

It doesn't look like it.

Is the committee in agreement with PV‑3?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 31 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

There are no amendments for clauses 32 to 35.

Is there unanimous consent to group clauses 32 to 35 for the purpose of voting?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

We have an amendment that would be moved after section 35. We want to be clear that you're still going to allow us to move that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Yes.