Public Safety Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Shall CPC‑21 carry?

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

I would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(Clause 47 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 48 agreed to on division)

( On clause 49)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Clause 49 comes with a notice of motion, CPC-22. Is someone moving that motion?

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

Yes. Thank you, Chair.

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 49, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 22 with the following:

49 (1) Subsection 110(2) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b):

(b.1) a decision of the Refugee Protection Division rejecting a claim for refugee protection that states that the foreign national who made the claim knowingly made a false or misleading statement or withheld material facts on a relevant matter;

(1.1) Paragraph 110(2)(d.1) of the Act is re‐

Colleagues, I made arguments earlier for the act writ large. This amends the rules for the refugee protection division specifically. I believe that if somebody lies to us, or lies to an officer, their refugee process should face the consequences of having the claim rejected.

For example, again, I direct your attention to one story of many, but this is timely. In the National Post this morning, a Somali woman in a polyamorous marriage lied to get into Canada. I believe she had many different names. She's being allowed to stay in the country. Well, if you lie to an officer, the whole system should be predicated on determining the eligibility of a refugee claim based on truthfulness. If we allow the system to be gamed by people who lie and change their story, or who outright lie over a period of time, then we're encouraging the abuse of the asylum system. We are.

I also think that people who lie about their circumstances to the officers make the system less compassionate for people who have legitimate claims and aren't lying. There should be no lying to officers if you are claiming refugee protection—or, frankly, in any circumstance.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Shall CPC‑22 carry?

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

I would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to motion NDP-5, which is deemed to have been moved.

Madam Kwan, would you like to speak to it?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The purpose of this amendment, NDP-5, is to prevent paragraph 111.1(1)(e) of IRPA, which ensures that regulations provide for time limits on refugee appeal division decisions. These regulations are crucial so that appeals cases are not lost in endless limbo. In our offices, we've seen many, many cases come forward where someone's waiting for their application to go through, and somehow they just don't know what the timeline is.

This will actually prevent that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Madam Kwan.

Shall NDP‑5 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 49 agreed to on division)

(Clause 50 agreed to on division)

(On clause 51)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We're moving on to clause 51 and NDP‑6, which is deemed moved by Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, do you wish to introduce this amendment?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment actually is tied to the last amendment that I just made. It was interesting to note that it was defeated by committee members even though I hear committee members all too often bellyaching about the backlog. When it comes to issues related to refugees with their process and appeal decisions, the backlog seems not to matter to committee members, and it is noted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Is the committee in agreement with NDP‑6?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 51 agreed to on division)

(On clause 52)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to clause 52 and CPC‑23.

Would someone like to move that amendment?

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

Yes. Thank you, Chair.

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 52, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 23 with the following:

(c) subject to subsections (2.01) and (2.1), less than 12 months

and by adding after line 37 on page 23 the following:

(3.1) Section 112 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.01) A person whose application for protection is rejected or determined to be withdrawn or abandoned by the Minister may make a subsequent application only if they present new evidence that

(a) arose after the rejection or determination or was not reasonably available, or that the applicant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection or determination; and

(b) in the Minister's opinion, indicates that conditions in the country to which the person would be removed have changed since they made their previous application.

Colleagues, after our asylum system rejects a claim, there should be a reasonable expectation that the claim could be re-evaluated for applicants whose conditions have changed or if they face new circumstances that make them ineligible. What the system cannot allow is for rejected claimants to make indefinite new applications, delay their departure and remain in Canada when they have been determined to be ineligible. We have to fix issues that create backlogs, bog down our courts and allow individuals who have been rejected to stay in Canada as claimants.

Also, this would reduce the burden on benefits that are provided to people with rejected claims, and it would also restore trust in the Canadian immigration system and the asylum system.

Finally, it would just make it more fair. People shouldn't be allowed to game the system in perpetuity in order to stay in Canada, when they have no legal reason to be here. People who are trying to come to the country as economic migrants should be trying to come to the country as economic migrants and not using the asylum system as a back door into the country.

Again, this would help us reduce the propensity for people to make bogus asylum claims, because there would be precedent and law saying that if you have a rejected claim, we are not going to allow you to make indefinite new applications.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Shall CPC‑23 carry?

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll go to NDP‑7.

Ms. Kwan, would you like to introduce it?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-12, in clause 52, be amended by adding after line 42 on page 23 the following:

(5) Section 112 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) Unless the application is allowed without a hearing, a hearing must, despite paragraph 113(b), be held in the case of an applicant for protection whose claim for refugee protection has been determined to be ineligible solely under paragraph 101(1)(b.1) or (b.2).

Mr. Chair, section 73 of Bill C-12 introduces new ineligibility provisions that prevent people from making a refugee claim more than a year after arriving in Canada for the first time, retroactive to June 24, 2020. This section also expands the safe third country agreement with the United States by making ineligible individuals who make a refugee claim 14 days or more after entering a land border between ports of entry. These individuals are prevented under Bill C-12 from accessing an oral hearing before the IRB. This is one of the major concerns that has been raised by many NGOs who worked with migrants and refugees during the review process for Bill C-12.

Many stakeholders have acknowledged that this arbitrary one-year restriction violates international law, specifically the principle of non-refoulement, whereby people should not be sent back somewhere where it is believed they would be at risk of harm. This provision results in Canada sending people to countries where they face danger or persecution. This amendment would ensure that those no longer eligible to make a refugee claim through the IRB due to this arbitrary one-year bar and the government's extension of the safe third country agreement with the United States have access to a mandatory hearing to increase procedural fairness; it would also avoid having individuals sent back to persecution.

Adopting this amendment would align with legislative changes made to IRPA in 2019, when an ineligibility provision for asylum seekers from Five Eyes countries was invoked. Section 113.01 was added to the IRPA to ensure that those who were denied the ability to make a claim through this provision would have access to an enhanced process that includes an oral interview.

Mr. Chair, if you can indulge me for just one more moment, I'd like to give an example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

It would be better if you could sum up rapidly, Madam Kwan, because it's already been a couple of minutes. Please come to the conclusion.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I will just conclude by saying that, with this one-year bar, an individual who came to Canada many years ago as a child and later on, as an adult, became a human rights journalist and was being persecuted, would not be allowed under this provision to try to seek an asylum claim here in Canada. Those are the kinds of ways people would be impacted, because the one-year bar would apply when they first arrive in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Madam Kwan.

Is—

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

May I just ask one quick question to the officials?

My understanding is that there are provisions in the bill that would allow the minister to make exceptions. Is that correct?

[Jason Hollmann]

That is correct. The bill offers exceptions to be made in regulations.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan and Ms. Rempel Garner.

Is it agreed to adopt NDP‑7?

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now go to NDP‑8.

Ms. Kwan, you have the floor.