Public Safety Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We have unanimous consent to group these four clauses for the purpose of voting.

(Clauses 32 to 35 inclusive agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to amendment CPC‑4.

Would someone like to move that amendment?

Ms. Rempel Garner, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I move that Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 34 on page 16 the following new clause:

35.1 (1) Paragraphs 36(1)(a) to (c) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment;

or

(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment.

(2) Subsection 36(2) of the Act is repealed.

Chair, briefly, my rationale for this amendment is as follows.

The stated intent and purpose of Bill C-12 is ostensibly to protect Canada's borders as well as to reform the immigration process. However, it lacks substance around the definition of serious criminality in IRPA, where we've seen many non-citizens who have been convicted of serious crimes issued sentences that are essentially lower than what is stated in IRPA in order to avoid inadmissibility or deportation consequences.

We feel that if this were accepted, it would reduce the incentives for people to abuse the immigration system. It would also restore some of the value of Canadian citizenship. I think it's something that a lot of Canadians across the political divide would like to see. There are many instances in news stories over the last year in particular of non-citizens convicted of serious crimes avoiding deportation due to some of the wording in IRPA.

We feel an indictable offence or a hybrid offence where an indictable charge is proceeded with by the Crown constitutes a serious crime. The six-month provision in IRPA is being gamed, if you will, by the judicial system in order to avoid the spirit of the law.

An indictable offence, as my colleagues know, covers a lot of very serious crimes, and I think the spirit of IRPA in this clause and the inadmissibility provisions are designed essentially to ensure that people who come to Canada as non-citizens understand that there are responsibilities as well as rights that are associated with being in Canada. A bare minimum of that is upholding the law.

We want some clarity. We feel this would improve the bill, strengthen Canada's immigration system and, hopefully, also restore some of the lost consensus in Canada's immigration system.

It's a common-sense amendment, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

According to the notices received from the clerk's office, I see that the amendment proposes to amend section 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Since section 36 of that act is not being amended by Bill C‑12, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

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

I challenge your ruling, and I would like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

There's a challenge to the chair.

We'll have a recorded vote on this.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to amendment CPC‑5.

Would someone like to move that amendment?

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

Yes, Chair.

I move that Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 34 on page 16 the following new clause:

35.1 Section 25.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) The Minister must, on or before April 1 of each year or, if a House of Parliament is not then sitting, within the next 30 days on which that House is sitting after that date, table in each House of Parliament a report on the number of foreign nationals who, in the preceding calendar year, were granted permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act under subsection (1).

(1.2) The Minister must publish the report on the Department of Citizenship and Immigration’s Internet site within 10 days after the day on which it is tabled in a House of Parliament.

Colleagues, this is a common-sense reporting requirement that adds transparency and reports back to Parliament on how many PR cards were granted in the previous year and how many exemptions were granted. Additionally, of course, the minister must publish this on the website.

The rationale for this is to allow parliamentarians to better scrutinize decisions that are made—for example, comparing decisions with the immigration levels report. There are colleagues who have a difficult time obtaining information from the department and the minister on immigration levels. It makes it difficult to assess the department's function, the department's performance and the adequacy of the levels plan.

I encourage colleagues to support parliamentary transparency on these crucial items and to support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

My ruling on the admissibility of this amendment is similar to the one I expressed a few moments ago. Amendment CPC‑5 proposes to amend section 25.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but that section is not amended by Bill C‑12. Therefore, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I respectfully challenge your decision, and I would like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll have a recorded vote on that.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Moving on to clause 36.

Is there any discussion? If not, we'll go directly to a vote.

(Clause 36 agreed to on division)

(Clause 37 agreed to on division)

(On clause 38)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to clause 38.

An amendment to this clause has been submitted. This is amendment CPC‑6.

Would someone like to move that amendment?

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

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

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 17 with the following:

44.1 The Immigration Division must terminate all proceedings in respect of an admissibility hearing if the permanent resident or foreign national who is the subject of the proceedings is not physically

Colleagues, the reason I'm presenting this amendment is that I believe that we have a duty as parliamentarians to address some of the abuse that we've seen of Canada's asylum system over the last several years.

The point of the asylum system is to provide refuge and safe harbour—this is well established under different conventions—to people who are in genuine need of protection.

In recent years, we've seen the number of asylum claims spike, particularly after an ill-fated #WelcomeToCanada tweet in 2017 and a decision to lift the visa requirement on Mexican nationals without a plan to prevent bogus asylum claims. I now feel that we need to ensure that we are clearing the backlog of 300,000 applications in a judicious way, as well as ensuring that we are disincentivizing people from continuing to abuse the asylum system.

I know that if somebody has made an asylum claim in Canada and is claiming that they can't go back to their home country out of fear of persecution and therefore want to stay in Canada, it is somewhat questionable if they would go back to the country from which they are trying to claim that they need protection while their claim is pending.

People might say somebody needs to go for a birthday party or whatever, but here's the reality. If you are seeking asylum in Canada from your home country, you probably shouldn't go back to your home country while your asylum claim is pending. I think that constitutes an obvious abuse of the asylum system, and I hope that my colleagues accept this common-sense amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to go to officials to get their view on the implications of it, so that can go on the record.

[Brett Bush, Director General, Immigration and Asylum Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency]

That would be me. Thank you.

In clause 38, the amendment to section 44.1 is dealing with the immigration division, not the refugee protection division. This is dealing with admissibility determinations, not refugee determinations. There is a clause in the in bill that deals with refugee determinations, so we wanted to make sure there was concurrence between both sections to make sure that there would be no hearings outside of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

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

Yes. Forgive me, Chair. It's been quite a day.

Look, I think that the principle still stays the same.

We've seen a massive abuse of the immigration system writ large. These amendments are designed to protect from that abuse on the principles that I've already outlined above. We need to start making some changes to the system so that it just can't be gamed by people who aren't taking the process seriously.

I understand there are other amendments that will be similar in the future here, but the principle is the same, and I urge colleagues to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Is the committee in agreement with amendment CPC‑6?

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

I'd like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Okay, we'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

(Clause 38 agreed to on division)

(On clause 39)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

On clause 39, we have amendment CPC‑7.

Is amendment CPC-7 to be moved?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 39, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 18 the following:

(4) Section 49 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The Minister must prepare a report in respect of each month of the year that sets out the number of removal orders that were enforced in that month, the number of removal orders that were not enforced in accordance with subsection (3) and the reasons for the delays.

(4) The report must also include countries of origin, age and gender breakdowns and criminal backgrounds of persons removed.

(5) The report must be tabled in each House of Parliament within 10 days after the last day of the month to which the report relates or, if a House is not then sitting, on any of the first 10 days on which that House is sitting after that day.

Colleagues, this reporting requirement will ensure that we are updated on the number of removals by the government and, more importantly, that we are updated on the removal orders that were not enforced, including the reasons.

There have been many stories of the fact that there are, I think, at least 600 non-citizens who have been convicted of serious crimes and are set to be removed from the country, and the government has lost track of them. Canadians want to know these results. This is very serious. It undermines trust, essentially, in the immigration system. They want to know if people who are here unlawfully or who have no legal reason to be here are being removed or not.

It's also a matter of simple transparency. I think all parliamentarians would want to know these numbers. It allows us to adjudicate whether or not the government and officials are actually doing their jobs. It also allows us to adjudicate whether or not Parliament needs further oversight, or other types of interventions, to ensure that these principles are upheld.

I'm not confident that they're being upheld right now, but I would like to have the data to argue otherwise. Members of the governing party would want to have that data public as well, on an ongoing basis and on a more timely basis.

I think that's the other point. We need to have this information on a timely basis given the state of the immigration system right now. This would allow Parliament to improve processes and to exercise our rights in that regard.

I hope that my colleagues will vote in favour of more transparency being established in this reporting mechanism.

Thank you.