SECU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
Brian Kingston and Liam McGuinty made statements and answered questions.
Rhonda Kirkland moved, — That the committee undertake a study, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), on the systemic discrimination and toxic workplace culture within the Canada Border Services Agency; that the study include a minimum of five meetings; that the committee invite the Minister of Public Safety, the President of the Canada Border Services Agency, the President and additional representatives of the Customs and Immigration Union, former and current CBSA employees with lived experience, experts in workplace culture and harassment, and any other witnesses the committee deems appropriate to appear before it; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled that Marianne Dandurand was next on the speaking list.
Whereupon, Frank Caputo appealed the decision of the Chair.
At 12:52 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 12:54 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
Marianne Dandurand moved, — That the committee proceed immediately to clause‑by‑clause consideration of the Bill C‑12.
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5;
NAYS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 4.
At 12:56 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 1:09 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The witness answered questions.
The committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 (short title) was postponed.
The Chair called Clause 2.
Debate arose thereon.
At 1:16 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 1:20 p.m., the meeting resumed.
Clause 2 carried on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Rhonda Kirkland, Helena Konanz, Jacques Ramsay — 9;
NAYS: — 0.
Clause 3 carried on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Rhonda Kirkland, Helena Konanz, Jacques Ramsay — 9;
NAYS: — 0.
On Clause 4,
Claude DeBellefeuille moved, — That Bill C-12, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 2 the following:“(2) If any premises or place referred to in subsection (1) is a dwelling-house, an officer may not enter that dwelling-house without the consent of the occupant except under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (3).
(3) On ex parte application by the Minister, a judge may issue a warrant authorizing an officer to enter a dwelling-house, subject to the conditions that may be specified in the warrant, if the judge is satisfied by information on oath that
(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the dwelling-house is a premises or place referred to in subsection (1);
(b) entry into the dwelling-house is necessary for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act; and
(c) entry into the dwelling-house has been, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that entry into the dwelling-house will be, refused.
(4) In this section, dwelling-house has the same meaning as in subsection 42(1).”
Debate arose thereon.
At 1:59 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 3:31 p.m., the meeting resumed.
At 4:15 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 4:26 p.m., the meeting resumed.
At 5:22 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 5:39 p.m., the meeting resumed.
“(2) If any premises or place referred to in subsection (1) is a dwelling-house, an officer may not enter that dwelling-house without the consent of the occupant except under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (3).
(3) On ex parte application by the Minister, a judge may issue a warrant authorizing an officer to enter a dwelling-house, subject to the conditions that may be specified in the warrant, if the judge is satisfied by information on oath that
(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the dwelling-house is a premises or place referred to in subsection (1);
(b) entry into the dwelling-house is necessary for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act; and
(c) entry into the dwelling-house has been, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that entry into the dwelling-house will be, refused.
(4) In this section, dwelling-house has the same meaning as in subsection 42(1).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Grant Jackson, Andrew Lawton, Jacques Ramsay — 8;
NAYS: — 0.
Clause 4, as amended, carried on division.
Clauses 5 to 21 inclusive carried on division severally.
Clause 22 carried on division.
Clause 23 carried on division.
Clause 24 carried on division.
On new Clause 24.1,
Frank Caputo moved, — That Bill C-12 be amended by adding before line 12 on page 11 the following new clause:“24.1 Subsection 40(2) of the Oceans Act is replaced by the following:
Encouragement of activities
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the Minister shall encourage activities necessary to foster understanding, management and sustainable development of oceans and marine resources and the provision of hydrographic services to ensure the facilitation of marine trade, commerce and safety in collaboration with other ministers of the Government of Canada.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Frank Caputo appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4;
NAYS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Andrew Lawton — 5.
The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Andrew Lawton — 5;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4.
On Clause 25,
Frank Caputo moved, — That Bill C-12, in Clause 25, be amended(a) by replacing lines 15 to 17 on page 11 with the following:
“41 (1) The Minister of National Defence is responsible for”
(b) by replacing lines 1 to 3 on page 12 with the following:
“(2) The Minister of National Defence shall ensure that the services referred to in subpara‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Rhonda Kirkland, Andrew Lawton, Jacques Ramsay — 9;
NAYS: — 0.
Clause 25, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 26 carried on division.
Clause 27 carried on division.
Frank Caputo moved, — That Clauses 28 to 75 be allowed to stand.
Debate arose thereon.
Clauses 28 to 34 inclusive, 35.1, 35 to 38 inclusive, 39.1, 39 to 43 inclusive, 44.1, 44 to 71 inclusive, 72.1, 72, 73, 74.1, 74 and 75 were stood severally on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Rhonda Kirkland, Andrew Lawton, Jacques Ramsay — 8;
NAYS: Claude DeBellefeuille — 1.
Clauses 76 to 110 inclusive, 111.1 and 111 to 137 inclusive carried on division severally.
Schedule 1 carried on division.
Rhonda Kirkland moved, — That the meeting be suspended until 7:15 p.m.
After debate, the question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Rhonda Kirkland, Andrew Lawton, Jacques Ramsay — 8;
NAYS: Claude DeBellefeuille — 1.
At 5:53 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 7:16 p.m., the meeting resumed.
By unanimous consent, the committee reverted to Clause 28 previously stood.
On Clause 28,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Thursday, June 19, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Jenny Kwan for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved: That Bill C-12, in Clause 28, be amended(a) by replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 13 with the following:
“disclose to the Canada Border Services Agency or the Immigration and Refugee Board”
(b) by replacing lines 31 to 33 on page 13 with the following:
“(2) It is prohibited for the Canada Border Services Agency or the Immigration and Refugee Board to disclose personal information that”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.
Clause 28 carried.
Clause 29 carried on division.
Clause 30 carried on division.
On Clause 31,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Thursday, June 19, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved: That Bill C-12, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 15 with the following:“(a) the responsibilities of a representative, in particular their primary role to support an individual’s decision-making, and the re‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived.
That Bill C-12, in Clause 31, be amended by deleting lines 28 and 29 on page 15.
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived.
That Bill C-12, in Clause 31, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 15 the following:
“(4) A designated representative may not make decisions on behalf of the person they represent relating to service or waivers under section 160 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived.
Clause 31 carried on division.
Clauses 32 to 35 inclusive carried on division severally.
On new Clause 35.1,
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — 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;
(b) having been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute 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.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5;
NAYS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 4.
“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.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5;
NAYS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 4.
Clause 36 carried on division.
Clause 37 carried on division.
On Clause 38,
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — 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”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Rhonda Kirkland, Andrew Lawton, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5.
Clause 38 carried on division.
On Clause 39,
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — 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.”
Debate arose thereon.
Jacques Ramsay moved, — That the amendment be amended
(a) by replacing the words “in respect of each month of the year” with the word “quarterly”
(b) in subsection (3), by replacing the word “month” with the word “period”
(c) in subsection (5), by replacing the word “month” with the word “period”.
At 7:58 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 8:12 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The question was put on the subamendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4;
NAYS : Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Andrew Lawton, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, carried on division.
On new Clause 39.1,
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 23 on page 18 the following new clause:“39.1 Subsection 55(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
55 (1) An officer must issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of a permanent resident or a foreign national who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe is inadmissible and is a danger to the public or is unlikely to appear for examination, for an admissibility hearing, for removal from Canada or at a proceeding that could lead to the making of a removal order by the Minister under subsection 44(2).”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4;
NAYS: Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Andrew Lawton, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Andrew Lawton, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4.
“39.1 Paragraph 55(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) has reasonable grounds to suspect that the permanent resident or the foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, sanctions, serious criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5;
NAYS: Chak Au, Rhonda Kirkland, Andrew Lawton, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4.
“39.1 Paragraph 58(1)(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(c) the Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that they are inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, sanctions, serious criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality;”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5;
NAYS: Chak Au, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4.
“39.1 Subsection 68(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(4) If the Immigration Appeal Division has stayed a removal order against a permanent resident or a foreign national who was found inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality or transborder criminality, and they are convicted of another offence referred to in subsection 36(1), the stay is cancelled by operation of law and the appeal is terminated.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5;
NAYS: Chak Au, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4.
“39.1 Section 72 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) Despite subsection (1), a claimant who knowingly provides an officer with false or misleading information is not entitled to make an application for judicial review with respect to any matter under this Act.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5;
NAYS: Chak Au, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4.
“39.1 Section 78 of the Act is replaced by the following:
Determination
78 The judge shall determine whether the certificate is reasonable, within 30 days after the day on which it was referred in priority cases or within 60 days after the day on which it was referred in all other cases, and shall quash the certificate if they determine that it is not reasonable.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4;
NAYS: Chak Au, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4.
“39.1 Section 81 of the Act is replaced by the following:
Ministers’ warrant
81 The Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration must issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of a person who is named in a certificate if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person is a danger to national security or to the safety of any person or is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4;
NAYS: Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4.
“39.1 Section 94 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(3) The report shall also include
(a) the number of warrants issued under section 81 and the percentage of those warrants enforced;
(b) the number of persons detained under subsection 82.2(1);
(c) the number of Social Insurance Numbers assigned under section 90;
(d) the number and category of documents varied or cancelled and the percentage of persons whose documents were varied or cancelled who subsequently departed Canada; and
(e) the number of removal orders enforced within 30 days and a summary of the reasons for delays in the case of orders not enforced within 30 days.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4;
NAYS: Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5.
At 8:52 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 8:56 p.m., the meeting resumed.
Peter Fragiskatos moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting paragraph (c).
The question was put on the subamendment of Peter Fragiskatos and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5;
NAYS: Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4.
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner, as amended, and it was agreed to.
“39.1 Subsection 94(2) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a.1):
(a.2) all federal benefits provided during the year in question to claimants for refugee protection, including the total cost of the benefits;”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4;
NAYS: Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Frank Caputo, Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Rhonda Kirkland, Jacques Ramsay, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 9;
NAYS: — 0.
“39.1 Subsection 94(2) of the act is amended by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph (e.1), adding "and" at the end of paragraph (f) and adding the following after paragraph (f):
(g) measures taken to ensure that persons whose claim is determined to be ineligible under section 101 do not receive federal benefits, except for emergency health care.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4;
NAYS: Chak Au, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5.
At 9:15 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 9:35 p.m., the meeting resumed.
“39.1 Subsection 94(2) of the act is amended by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph (e.1), adding "and" at the end of paragraph (f) and adding the following after paragraph (f):
(g) measures taken to ensure that persons whose claim is determined to be ineligible under section 101 do not receive federal benefits, except for emergency health care.”
The debate continued.
Jacques Ramsay moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “health care” the following: “, care during pregnancy and any other care required for public health purposes.”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4;
NAYS: Mel Arnold, Claude DeBellefeuille, Grant Jackson, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5.
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Mel Arnold, Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Grant Jackson, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 8;
NAYS: Jacques Ramsay — 1.
Clause 40, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 41,
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — That Bill C-12, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 18 with the following:“41 (1) Section 99 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) A person who seeks to enter Canada and who wishes to make a claim for refugee protection must, on entry, provide the officer with a written or recorded oral statement that sets out the basis of the claim.
(2) Subsection 99(3.1) of the Act is repealed.”
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Mel Arnold, Grant Jackson, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5.
“41(1) Subsections 99(3) and (3.1) of the Act are replaced by the following:
Claim inside Canada
(3) A claim for refugee protection made by a person inside Canada must be made in person to an officer, must be made in a timely manner after the person's arrival in Canada or after the events giving rise to the claim, must not be made by a person who is subject to a removal order, and is governed by this Part.
Burden of proof
(3.1) The burden is on the claimant to establish that they made their claim in a timely manner.”
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Frank Caputo, Grant Jackson, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5.
Clause 41 carried.
Clause 42 carried on division.
On Clause 43,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Thursday, June 19, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Jenny Kwan for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved: That Bill C-12, in Clause 43, be amended(a) by adding after line 2 on page 19 the following:
“(1.1) If the Minister does not consider the claim within the prescribed time limit, the claim is deemed to have been determined by the Minister to be eligible.”
(b) by adding after line 19 on page 19 the following:
“(3.1) The Minister must provide reasons for a determination of ineligibility under subsection (3).”
The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: — 0;
NAYS: Frank Caputo, Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Rhonda Kirkland, Jacques Ramsay, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 9.
That Bill C-12, in Clause 43, be amended
(a) 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”
(b) 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.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.
Clause 43 carried on division.
Clause 44 carried.
On new Clause 44.1,
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — 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” and 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).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was negatived on division.
On Clause 45,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Thursday, December 4, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by [mover] for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved: 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”
The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.
That Bill C-12, in Clause 45, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 20 the following:
“(1.1) The Minister must not transmit a claim to the Division until 45 days after the person’s failure to provide documents or information or to appear for an examination.”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived.
Clause 45 carried on division.
Clause 46 carried on division.
On Clause 47,
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — 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.”
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4.
Clause 47, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 48 carried on division.
On Clause 49,
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — 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‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5.
That Bill C-12, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 22 with the following:
“(2) Subsection 110(3) of the Act is re‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.
Clause 49 carried on division.
Clause 50 carried on division.
On Clause 51,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Thursday, June 19, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Jenny Kwan for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved: That Bill C-12, in Clause 51, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 4 on page 23.The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.
Clause 51 carried on division.
On Clause 52,
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — That Bill C-12, in Clause 52, be amended(a) by replacing line 36 on page 23 with the following:
“(c) subject to subsections (2.01) and (2.1), less than 12 months”
(b) 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.”
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5.
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).”
The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Claude DeBellefeuille — 1;
NAYS: Frank Caputo, Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Rhonda Kirkland, Jacques Ramsay, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 8.
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) A removal order is stayed in respect of an applicant who is not described in subsection 112(3), whose application for protection is rejected and who applies for leave to commence an application for judicial review in accordance with section 72, and the stay is effective until the day on which the Federal Court refuses their application for leave or denies their application for judicial review.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.
Clause 52 carried on division.
Clause 53 carried on division.
Clause 54 carried on division.
On Clause 55,
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — That Bill C-12, in Clause 55, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 24 the following:“(1.1) Subsection 161(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a.1):
(a.11) the manner in which a claim that is determined to be ineligible under subsection 101(1) is to be dealt with;”
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4.
Clause 55, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 56,
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — That Bill C-12, in Clause 56, be amended by replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 24 with the following:“56 Subsection 168(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(1) A Division must determine that a proceeding before it has been abandoned if the applicant is in default in the proceedings, including by failing to appear for a hearing, to provide information required by the Division or to communicate with the Division on being requested to do so.”
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5.
“section 104.1 from considering a claim or appeal, it must”
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5.
Clause 56 carried.
Clause 57 carried.
Clause 58 carried on division.
Clause 59 carried on division.
Clause 60 carried on division.
Clause 61 carried on division.
On Clause 62,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Thursday, June 19, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Jenny Kwan for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved: That Bill C-12, in Clause 62, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 25 to line 1 on page 26 with the following:“62 Claims for refugee protection whose eligibility to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division has not yet been determined on the day on which any of sections 43 to 45 come into force or that have been determined to be eligible for referral but have not yet been referred to that Division immediately before that day are subject to the Act as it would have read had none of those sections come into force.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.
Clause 62 carried on division.
Clause 63 carried on division.
Clause 64 carried on division.
Clause 65 carried on division.
Clause 66 carried on division.
On Clause 67,
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — That Bill C-12, in Clause 67, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 27 the following:“(3) For greater certainty, the authority to vary under subsection (1) does not include the authority to grant permanent resident status.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 68 carried on division.
Clause 69 carried on division.
Clause 70 carried on division.
Clause 71 carried on division.
On Clause 72,
Sameer Zuberi moved, — That Bill C-12, in Clause 72, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 28 the following:
“87.3001 For the purposes of subsections 87.301(1), 87.302(1) and 87.303(1) and (2), the making of an order is consistent with the public interest if its purpose is to address matters such as public health, public safety or national security and if the public interest clearly outweighs in importance any prejudice caused to individuals by the order.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 10:51 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 11:00 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The Chair ruled that the amendment was not duly proposed as the member was not designated as a substitute for a permanent member.
“87.3001 For the purposes of subsections 87.301(1), 87.302(1) and 87.303(1) and (2), the making of an order is consistent with the public interest if its purpose is to address matters such as public health, public safety or national security and if the public interest clearly outweighs in importance any prejudice caused to individuals by the order.”
Peter Fragiskatos moved, — That the amendment be amended
(a) by adding the words “administrative errors, fraud,” after the words “matters such as”
(b) by deleting the words “and if the public interest clearly outweights in importance any prejudice caused to individuals by the order”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Peter Fragiskatos and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Jacques Ramsay, as amended, and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-12, in Clause 72, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 29 the following:
“(1.1) An order made under this section or section 87.302 or 87.303 is in the public interest if it addresses a serious threat to public health or any matter referred to in section 34.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.
“(1.1) For greater certainty, the authority to vary under subsection (1) does not include the authority to grant permanent resident status.”
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was agreed to.
“87.3031(1) If an order is made under subsection 87.301(1), 87.302(1) or 87.303(1) or (2), the Minister must cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament, within the next seven sitting days of the House after the day on which the order is made, a report setting out
(a) the reasons that the order was made;
(b) the number of applications or documents affected; and
(c) a description of the persons or groups affected by the order.
(2) The report stands referred to the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the report.
(3) At the request of the committee, the Minister must appear before it to explain the reasons for making the order and plans to prevent systemic fraud in the future.”
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was agreed to on division.
At 11:17 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 11:20 p.m., the meeting resumed.
That Bill C-12, in Clause 72, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 31 the following:
“87.306 An order made under subsection 87.301(1), 87.302(1) or 87.303(1) or (2) is effective on the date on which it is made, but a motion for confirmation of the order must be made in each House of Parliament and be considered in accordance with section 87.307.
87.307 (1) Subject to subsection (3), a motion for confirmation of an order made under subsection 87.301(1), 87.302(1) or 87.303(1) or (2), signed by a minister of the Crown, together with an explanation of the reasons for issuing the order, must be made in each House of Parliament within 30 sitting days after the order is made.
(2) If an order is made at a time when a House of Parliament is adjourned, prorogued or dissolved, that House must be summoned to sit at the earliest opportunity after the order is made.
(3) If a House of Parliament is summoned to sit in accordance with subsection (2), the motion and explanation described in subsection (1) must be made and tabled on the first sitting day after it is summoned.
(4) If a motion is made in a House of Parliament, that House must, on the next sitting day following the sitting day on which the motion was made, take up and consider the motion.
(5) A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (4) must be debated without interruption and, when the House is ready for the question, the Speaker must, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion.
(6) If a motion for confirmation is defeated by either House of Parliament, the order, to the extent that it has not previously expired or been revoked, is revoked effective on the day of the negative vote and no further action under this section need be taken in the other House with respect to the motion.
87.308 The report tabled under section 94 must include a review of the operation of sections 87.301 to 87.307.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.
Clause 72, as amended, carried.
On new Clause 72.1,
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 31 the following new clause:“72.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 87.31:
87.32 (1) A designated learning institution, as defined in the regulations, commits a violation and is liable to an administrative monetary penalty in an amount prescribed by regulation if it accepts a foreign national to undertake a course or program of study at the institution knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the foreign national, in applying for a study permit, has knowingly provided false or misleading information or has, in addition to applying for a study permit, made a claim for refugee protection that is subsequently determined to be ineligible or to have been withdrawn or abandoned.
(2) If a removal order is made against the foreign national, the designated learning institution is liable for the costs incurred in removing them from Canada and any related legal expenses.
(3) If a designated learning institution has repeatedly engaged in the conduct described in subsection (1), the Minister must make an order specifying that applications for study permits that indicate that the applicant has been accepted by or intends to study at the designated learning institution are not to be accepted for processing if they are received during the period that the order is in force.
(4) The Minister may, by order, place the designated learning institution on the suspension list established and maintained under the regulations for the prescribed period.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5;
NAYS: Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4.
That Bill C-12 be amended by adding before line 20 on page 31 the following new clause:
“72.1 Section 50 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is amended by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph (d), adding "and" at the end of paragraph (e) and adding the following after paragraph (e):
(f) in the case of an individual whose claim was determined to be ineligible under paragraph 101(1)(b.1) and whose application for protection under Division 3 of Part 2 is rejected
(i) for 15 days if no application is made to the Federal Court for leave to commence an application for judicial review concerning the rejection; or
(ii) until the Federal Court refuses their application for leave to commence an application for judicial review, or denies their application for judicial review, in respect of the rejection. ”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
On Clause 73,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Thursday, June 19, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved: That Bill C-12, in Clause 73, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 31 with the following:“of their most recent entry;”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived.
“(b.3) the claimant is a national of Japan, of the United Kingdom, of the United States or of a country that is a member of the European Union, or is a national of another country but came directly or indirectly to Canada from one of those countries, unless the Minister determines that the claimant faces a well-founded risk of persecution based on individual circumstances;”
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5.
That Bill C-12, in Clause 73, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 32 with the following:
“graph begins on the day after the day of their last entry.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.
That Bill C-12, in Clause 73, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 32 the following:
“(1.2) The Minister may exempt from the application of paragraph (1)(b.1)
(a) the nationals – or, in the case of persons who do not have a country of nationality, the former habitual residents – of a country;
(b) the nationals or former habitual residents of a country who, before they left the country, lived in a given part of that country; and
(c) a class of nationals or former habitual residents of a country.
(1.3) For the purposes of making an exemption, the Minister must consider any event having arisen in a country that could place any of its nationals or former habitual residents in a situation similar to those referred to in section 96 or 97.
(1.4) The regulations may govern any matter relating to the application of subsection (1.2) and may include provisions establishing the criteria to be considered when an exemption is made.”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived.
“(1.2) If a claim is determined to be ineligible under subsection 101(1), the officer shall terminate the processing of the claim.”
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5;
NAYS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4.
Clause 73, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 74,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Thursday, June 19, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Jenny Kwan for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved: That Bill C-12, in Clause 74, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 32 the following:“(2) Section 111.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) Regulations made under paragraph (1)(b.1) or (b.2) may provide for exceptions in respect of claimants who are unaccompanied minor children or who would be removed from Canada to a country in which
(a) general conditions, including armed conflict or an environmental disaster, pose a serious danger to the lives or safety of the civilian population;
(b) they would be at risk of persecution for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression; or
(c) they were victims of domestic violence or gender-based violence.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.
Clause 74 carried.
On Clause 74.1,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Thursday, June 19, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved: That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 32 the following new clause:“74.1 Section 113.01 of the Act is replaced by the following:
113.01 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), (b.2) or (c.1).”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Clause 75 carried on division.
On new Clause 75.1,
Michelle Rempel Garner moved, — That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 30 on page 32 the following new clause:“PART 8.1
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Human Trafficking Penalties for Corporations)
75.1 Section 120 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:
120 (1) A person, other than a corporation, who contravenes section 118 or 119 is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction by way of indictment to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to life imprisonment, or to both.
(2) A corporation that contravenes section 118 or 119 is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction by way of indictment to a fine of not more than $25,000,000.”
Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4;
NAYS: Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5.
At 11:51 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 11:58 p.m., the meeting resumed.
Brad Redekopp moved, — That the amendment be amended
(a) in paragraph (1), by replacing the words “a corporation” with the words “an organization, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code”
(b) in paragraph (2), by replacing the words “A corporation” with the words “An organization, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code” .
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Brad Redekopp and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner, as amended, and it was agreed to.
“PART 8.1
Immigration and Refugee Board
75.1 (1) Paragraph 153(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:
(a) are appointed to the Board by the Governor in Council, to hold office at pleasure for a term not exceeding four years, to serve in a regional or district office of the Board;
(2) Subsection 153(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) One Deputy Chairperson for each Division referred to in subsection (1), as well as 13 Assistant Deputy Chairpersons each residing in a different province, are to be designated by the Governor in Council from among the full-time members of those Divisions.
(3) Subsection 153(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(4) The Deputy Chairperson of the Immigration Appeal Division and a majority of the Assistant Deputy Chairpersons of that Division and at least 10 per cent of the members of the Divisions referred to in subsection (1) must be members of at least five years standing at the bar of a province or notaries of at least five years standing at the Chambre des notaires du Québec, or must be former or present law enforcement officers.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5;
NAYS: Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4.
“PART 8.1
Immigration and Refugee Board
75.1 (1) Paragraph 153(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:
(a) are appointed to the Board by the Governor in Council following a merit-based and open competitive process, to hold office at pleasure for a term not exceeding four years, to serve in a regional or district office of the Board;
(2) Section 153 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) The Minister must publish, once a year, the selection criteria used to make appointments under paragraph (1)(a) and a summary of the results of any appointment processes.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 5;
NAYS: Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 4.
“75.1 Subsection 157(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) The Chairperson must live in Canada.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel Garner appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marianne Dandurand, Ali Ehsassi, Peter Fragiskatos, Jacques Ramsay — 4;
NAYS: Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Brad Redekopp, Michelle Rempel Garner — 5.
The question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel Garner and it was agreed to on division.
Clause 1, Short Title, carried on division.
The Title carried on division.
The Bill, as amended, was adopted on division.
ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House on division.
ORDERED, — That Bill C-12, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House of Commons at report stage, on division.
At 12:10 a.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.