Public Safety Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Congratulations. That means that you're always paying attention. That's wonderful.

This brings us to NDP-3, which is considered to be moved according to our business rules.

Madam Kwan, would you like to speak to it?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 43, be amended by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 19 with the following:

limits and in the manner provided for in the regulations, provide the Minister with the

and by replacing line 31 on page 19 with the following:

(6) Subsection 100(4.1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(4.1) The documents and information specified by the Minister must not include any evidence relating to the claim other than evidence—photographic, fingerprint or otherwise—that may be used to establish the identity of the claimant.

Mr. Chair, this amendment relates to the section about new documents and information that applicants must provide at the request of the minister. Bill C-12 is unclear on what sorts of documents the minister would request beyond what is normally required. In the review process for Bill C-12, the Canadian Bar Association said that the documents and information the minister could request should not be left to regulation.

My amendment specifies what documents would be provided to the minister and ensures that this excludes the presentation of evidence. Also, it prescribes that the manner in which the minister would receive the documents is determined by regulations rather than at the discretion of the minister, to improve the clarity, predictability and fair application of the law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Madam Kwan.

Is amendment NDP-3 adopted?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 43 agreed to on division)

(Clause 44 agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to CPC‑20.

Would someone like to move that amendment?

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

Thank you, Chair.

I move that Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 20 the following new clause:

44.1 Subsection 101(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (e), by adding “or” [at] the end of paragraph (f) and by adding the following after that paragraph:

(g) the claimant has been found guilty of an offence that constitutes grounds of serious criminality under subsection 36(1).

Colleagues, we would like to add a new provision that makes a reasonable change by streamlining the process to make a refugee claim ineligible if the claimant has been found guilty of serious criminality. A claimant would not have their claim referred to the IRB if they are guilty of serious criminality.

This is clear, this is necessary and it would be fair. Serious criminality cannot be rewarded with refugee protection in Canada. Canadians should expect us to protect them and uphold the sanctity of the asylum system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you.

To the officials, does the act already cover this?

[Brett Bush]

I guess I'm answering that question.

Yes, there's an ineligibility for the serious inadmissibility provisions that are currently found in IRPA. This is adding additional language into section 101 that is already covered there.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

What other concerns do you have?

[Tara Lang]

This amendment is related to CPC-4, which would change the definition of criminal inadmissibility in IRPA. It would add an ineligibility ground to section 101(1) of IRPA, so that claimants who have been found guilty of an offence that is grounds for serious crime under 36.1 would be ineligible to have their claim referred to the IRB.

This is redundant, because IRPA already establishes that a claim is ineligible to be referred to the IRB if the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious.... I'm sorry; I'm going too fast. Let me go back. This is a redundant amendment. The act already establishes that a claim is ineligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board if the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality per paragraph 101(1)(f).

I would also add that, as a result of the proposed changes to the definition of serious criminality in CPC-4, this proposed ineligibility would potentially deny protected person status to vulnerable individuals by preventing claims from being referred to the IRB due to relatively minor crimes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Lang.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

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

Colleagues, what I think happened here was that we had a series of amendments that, if one passed, we would be moving another one.

That said, I want to take issue with one comment that the official made. I think that, if somebody commits a serious crime in Canada—and some of the changes that we were suggesting to make under serious criminality clarified some pretty serious crimes—I'm not sure that they would be considered a vulnerable person anymore.

If somebody's seeking refugee protection in Canada, maybe they shouldn't commit a serious crime. It disheartens me to hear public officials dismissing a principle like that, and perhaps they should be a little more judicious in how they describe these circumstances.

I'll leave it at that. I think that they would give more confidence to the public if they tried to balance some of their words with regard to common-sense principles, which we haven't heard a lot of out of the Immigration and Refugee Department in some time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Shall CPC‑20 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

(On clause 45)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Clause 45 comes with an amendment deemed moved, NDP-4 found on page 32.

Because NDP‑4 has been moved, PV‑4 cannot be moved, since the two amendments are identical.

Ms. Kwan, would you like to introduce NDP‑4?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I don't mean to interrupt our colleague, Ms. Kwan, but just for clarification, can we be assured that CPC-20 was, in fact, defeated? Rejecting on division is something that I haven't seen in previous meetings or in other committees.

I just want to be sure of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Well, I was perhaps listening too closely to—

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

The Conservative members of the caucus understand that's what the division was.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I was listening too closely to advice that I shouldn't be listening to in some cases—not in most cases.

Yes, CPC-20 was rejected, and we are therefore moving to NDP-4.

NDP-4, as I said, is deemed to be moved, and Madam Kwan, do you want to speak to it?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 45, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 20 with the following:

quested to do so, the Minister may transmit the claim to

Bill C-12 introduces provisions that will result in claims being declared abandoned before they have been referred to the IRB if a claimant does not provide information and documents in a timely manner. As the Canadian Council for Refugees raised in their brief on Bill C-12, “The automatic nature of the provision will generate a new backlog of abandonment hearings for the IRB.”

This would waste significant, already-scarce IRB resources by mandating referrals for claims that do not need to be referred for abandonment, for example, in cases where a claimant just needs a few more days to provide documents or misses an interview due to illness. The provisions will also disproportionately impact more vulnerable claimants who may face communications or technological barriers. Once a claim is declared abandoned, a person cannot make another refugee claim.

To avoid this, my amendment would remove the mandatory nature of this clause by changing “must transmit” to “may transmit”.

I hope committee members will support this amendment. From what I'm seeing so far, the Liberals and the Conservatives are sure as heck working hand in hand. I hope this will break that trend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Shall NDP‑4 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We will now go to PV‑5, which is moved by default.

Ms. May, would you like to speak to PV-5?

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

Yes. As it is one of the few rights I have in the motion that took away my rights to present amendments at report stage, I'll speak briefly to this.

I'll thank Jenny Kwan for her amendment that was just defeated, as she set out the rationale for that. My amendment wasn't read out and that's all right, because it was identical to that of the member for Vancouver East.

Moving on to PV-5, this is an attempt to create an opportunity for some fairness for an applicant who has missed providing the documentation for reasons that the minister may not be aware of. It actually requires the minister not to transmit a claim to the division until 45 days have expired after a person has failed to provide documentation or to appear for an examination.

It is on advice from refugee rights organizations and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. It's simply a matter of fairness in circumstances in which refugees of all people are facing critical challenges. If they fail to provide the paperwork, a 45-day grace period isn't too much to ask to make sure that their rights are protected in a country that prides itself—or at least we used to pride ourselves—on respect for human rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Is there agreement to adopt PV‑5?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

(Clause 45 agreed to on division)

(Clause 46 agreed to on division)

(On clause 47)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now go to clause 47.

Would someone like to move CPC‑21?

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

Yes. Thank you, Chair.

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 47, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 21 to line 6 on page 22 with the following:

104.1(1) For the purposes of subsection 107(1), if a person making a claim for refugee protection is not physically present in Canada, the Refugee Protection Division

(a) in the case of a new claim, must not commence consideration of the claim; or

(b) in the case of an ongoing claim where the person returns to their country of origin, must deem the claim to have been abandoned.

(2) If a person who is the subject of an appeal is not physically present in Canada, the Refugee Appeal Division

(a) in the case of a new appeal, must not commence consideration of the appeal, other than an appeal by the Minister; or

(b) in the case of an ongoing appeal where the person returns to their country of origin, must deem the claim to have been abandoned.

Again, I'm making some of the arguments I made earlier tonight. If somebody comes to Canada and if they say that they need refugee status—that they are seeking asylum in Canada because they are going to face persecution in their home country—then I can't think of a circumstance, and I don't think a lot of Canadians could either, in which someone would say that they can go back to their home country and let the claim proceed.

It seems like a loophole you could drive a truck through. I think it also encourages the abuse of the asylum system. Colleagues, we need to find ways to reduce the abuse of the asylum system and also find disincentives for people making essentially bogus claims.

If somebody is persecuted enough that they have to stay in Canada to make their claim, then I get that. However, if they make an argument that they can go back for any manner of issues, then I would argue that it's probably not a legitimate asylum claimant. That is something that Parliament has the purview to decide.

I think we need to start setting some clear boundaries on the abuse of the asylum system. I hope that colleagues will support this common-sense amendment. If somebody claims refugee status and returns to the country that they are claiming refugee status from, then perhaps we should determine that they do not need Canadian asylum status.

Thank you.