THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, February 23, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met this day at 3:05 p.m. [ET] to conduct clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.
Senator Hassan Yussuff (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, senators and guests.
Before I begin, I would like to ask all senators and other participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Thank you for your cooperation.
Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I am Hassan Yussuff. I am a senator from Ontario and chair of this committee.
I am joined today by my fellow committee members, whom I will welcome to introduce themselves, beginning on my right. Our deputy chair is not here.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ince: Tony Ince, Nova Scotia.
Senator White: Judy White, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, Manitoba.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, Ontario.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Dean: Tony Dean representing Ontario. I’m the sponsor of the bill.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Pierre Moreau, government representative in the Senate, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
The Chair: There are other senators in the room who are also here tonight to partake in our proceedings. I will ask them to introduce themselves.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator Senior: Paulette Senior, Ontario.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
The Chair: Our deputy chair is here. I will give him a quick second to introduce himself.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak, Ontario.
The Chair: Today, we proceed to clause-by‑clause consideration of Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.
Today we have officials from Public Safety Canada; Canada Border Services Agency; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; Health Canada; the Department of Finance Canada; and, of course, the Canadian Coast Guard. Thank you for joining us in the room today to assist us with any technical questions that may arise in the process of our deliberations on this bill.
Before I proceed, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. If, at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in this bill, please ask for clarification.
When more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I remind you that in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
If a senator wishes to revisit a clause that has already been dealt with, they must seek leave to revert to the clause in question.
I would also remind senators that some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. Should this be the case, it would be useful if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in the bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision-making.
Staff will endeavour to keep track of the places where subsequent amendments need to be moved and will draw our attention to them.
If committee members have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the boundaries established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
As chair, I will do my best to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so. For this, however, I will depend on your cooperation and ask you all to consider other senators by keeping your remarks as concise as possible.
Finally, if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which, obviously, provides unambiguous results, and senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions about what I have said so far? Good.
Senator D. M. Wells: I know there are a number of senators around the table who are not part of the committee. If they could be identified before any such votes take place, that would be helpful.
The Chair: By all means. Thank you.
Senator Dean: Chair, I have a letter that I have just received from Ministers Diab and Anandasangaree, who have asked that I read the content to the committee members today.
The Chair: We are checking if it has been shared with the clerk. We are supposed to be getting it.
We don’t have a copy of it. I think committee members would like to have a copy. If you can get it to us, we will gladly circulate it.
Would you like to see it before or after it is read?
Senator Carignan: If we could have, at the same time, the French version.
The Chair: If you give us a minute, we will print them out.
In the meantime, I will ask Senator Dalphond to introduce himself. He is a member of the committee.
Senator Dalphond: As the chair said, I am here as a substitute for Senator Kutcher.
The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, we will take a moment to get the French copy of the letter that has been submitted so that we can circulate it to our colleagues who are French-speaking.
Senator Dean, you requested the floor to read the letter into the record.
Senator Dean: Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues, for your patience and indulgence. This is a letter to Mr. Hassan Yussuff, Senator and Chair of the Committee.
Mr. Chair, Senators,
We write to thank you for the considerable time and effort you have devoted to the examination of Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act. Following your committee work and deliberations closely, it is obvious that Senators have been diligent in their work to understand, examine, and improve this critical piece of legislation. With your support, and through your collaboration, we remain confident that the bill will move quickly toward Royal Assent, helping Canada strengthen the efficiency and integrity of our immigration and asylum systems.
As you begin clause-by-clause consideration, we wish to once again address the importance of Bill C-12, the challenges it seeks to address, and some of the concerns and questions that Senators have rightly raised.
The context in which Bill C-12 was introduced
As we all are aware, this is a challenging moment for Canada and Canadians. Although new asylum claims fell by one third in 2025, claim volumes remain high. Work must continue to disincentivize misuse of the system — particularly in a moment where planned reductions in temporary resident volumes and other developments could produce future surges in new asylum claims. Canada’s asylum system relies on credibility and timeliness. When claims accumulate faster than they can be processed, delays grow, and uncertainty intensifies — serving no one. In this context, our government has a duty to manage migration responsibly and to adapt as the world changes. This is precisely what C-12 will equip us to do.
Changes as significant as those in Bill C-12 deserve close scrutiny to be effective. Following consultation with all parties after the introduction of Bill C-2 in the House of Commons, our government introduced Bill C-12. The level of collaboration that went into the legislation should not be overlooked. Every recognized party in the House of Commons worked to amend and improve the bill and voted to send it to you for consideration. We would highlight that only a handful of Members of Parliament voted against C-12, and 91% of 2025 voters supported the parties that worked on and supported this bill. Indeed, in recent days, and in the context of alleged extortionists illegitimately claiming asylum en masse in British Columbia, an NDP Premier came out publicly and urged Parliamentarians to adopt C-12 without delay. This level of cross-partisan support is notable, and it speaks to the wide acknowledgment that the status quo is not serving Canada’s interests.
Addressing concerns raised by Senators
As you know, proposals in Parts 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Bill C-12 strengthen Canada’s ability to control immigration documents and applications, facilitate the sharing of information between domestic partners, improve the efficiency of the asylum system, and protect against the risk of future surges in asylum claims. The bill will achieve these objectives without changing our commitment to protection, due process or the fairness of decision‑making — all deeply held values that we share as Canadians. Like you, we want the legitimately vulnerable to come forward to seek protection, and to receive it, in a timely manner, and we want our systems to inspire confidence in Canadians.
With this said, we recognize the valid concerns and questions that Senators have raised with specific sections of the bill. Following committee appearances at National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs (SECD) and Social Affairs, Science and Technology (SOCI), returns were compiled to clarify information and address issues ranging from the bill’s ability to affect immigration status, the robustness and appropriateness of the pre-removal risk assessment, the data underlying the design and impact of the proposed asylum ineligibility measures, and exceptions to those ineligibilities. We trust that these returns will address many of the questions Senators may still have, and we will endeavour to provide them to all Senators who may not yet have received them.
With this in mind, we want to provide additional information on a number of key points that have been raised and merit further clarification.
On the use of the mass document and application control authorities
As we have noted, the mass authorities included in Bill C-12 would not immediately cancel anyone’s status in Canada and have not been designed with specific communities or programs in mind. They would have no impact on the ability to claim asylum in Canada. They are forward-looking and intended for exceptional and unforeseen circumstances that arise and require a large-scale response to protect the integrity of our immigration system. The examples of exceptional circumstances where use of the mass authorities would be warranted to protect the public interest are clear indications of where they would be most likely to be used. Those impacted by the use of the mass authorities will still have access to the courts.
On the limitations of current document and application control authorities under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
In January 2025, the Government of Canada made regulatory amendments to strengthen immigration and border officers’ authority to cancel temporary resident visas and electronic travel authorizations, and, in more limited circumstances, study and work permits on a case-by-case basis. This change complements the new mass authorities in Bill C-12, but they are no substitute for them. These existing individual cancellation authorities are limited in nature, as they can only be carried out in prescribed circumstances.
Currently, the Government of Canada has no authority to mass cancel, suspend, or vary immigration documents or applications; to individually suspend documents pending investigation; or individually cancel an application. If IRCC needed to cancel a large group of documents, delegated IRCC officers would have to review each individual file, write a procedural fairness letter outlining the reasons for cancelling the visa, allow the client to respond, and then manually proceed with cancellation. This process is lengthy, resource intensive, and not an effective response to large‑scale fraud. Similarly troubling in a post-COVID world, we do not currently have legal authority in Canadian law to suspend all valid visas or eTAs for clients overseas to manage travel to Canada.
On the information sharing authorities
The provisions in Bill C-12 deal with the sharing of information for distinct purposes — they do not create any new authority for IRCC to collect information. By sharing information readily and consistently across departments and jurisdictions, we can improve service planning, program management, and fraud detection. The bill modernizes information sharing within the federal government and with provinces and territories for clearly defined purposes. These authorities embed strong privacy safeguards, including mandatory written agreements that tightly control use and impose strict limits on the disclosure of information to foreign entities. Ultimately, the measures allow for better coordination within Canada.
It should be noted that the IRCC information sharing provisions in Bill C-12 have already undergone extensive, independent scrutiny — including Senate review of former Bill S-6 (An Act respecting regulatory modernization) — which added a key privacy safeguard of mandatory information sharing agreements. This framework has been strengthened further in the bill through the inclusion of a ban on provinces and territories disclosing information received from IRCC to foreign entities without specific protections.
Furthermore, with regards to the application of these new authorities to information concerning permanent residents and Canadian citizens, it should be noted that citizens and permanent residents also stand to benefit from systematic information sharing. Scoping them out risks limiting Canada’s ability to effectively administer consular services — which can be critical during a crisis. Regardless of status, IRCC applies its privacy and information handling rules equally to everyone. That will not change under Bill C-12.
On the Pre-removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)
While we encourage all Senators to consult the returns related to the Pre-removal risk assessment process, a few critical points are worth [considering]. First, the PRRA is an established process that Canada has used for decades to provide protection and uphold our international obligation[s] regarding non-refoulement. Our courts have confirmed its appropriateness, and rightly so, as PRRA decisions are made based on the same criteria that the Immigration and Refugee Board uses in their claim determinations. Claimants who access a PRRA have the opportunity to present substantial evidence to support their claim, and highly trained PRRA officers are empowered to convene hearings when needed to reach a fair decision. While Senators may have received information regarding lower approval rates under the PRRA, it is essential to understand that the significant number of claimants with never-before-tested claims who would be accessing the PRRA under C-12 would be expected to significantly change overall PRRA approval rates.
Finally, it should be noted that some claimants newly ineligible to have their claims referred to the IRB under C-12 are not facing an immediate risk of removal from Canada. As Senators know, there are several countries to which Canada does not remove people, based on humanitarian circumstances. For example, for those who would be returned to a country covered by an active Administrative Deferral of Removal (ADR), they would not be subject to an enforceable removal order. These individuals would only go on to access the PRRA process after the ADR has been lifted. They could remain in Canada, be able to access an out-of-status work permit and continue benefitting from health coverage through the Interim Federal Health Program. This is one of many safeguards that already exists in our system, and although it is in no way equivalent to protected person status, it does help mitigate risks to individuals.
On exceptions to the new asylum ineligibilities
Under C-12, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (IRCC) will have authority to make exceptions to the new ineligibilities by regulation. This is actively being considered, and you should expect to see exceptions implemented alongside the coming into force of the bill. If we observe unexpected and unfortunate instances following the adoption of Bill C-12 that suggest that additional exceptions are merited, the government will be able to make them. As stated, one of the plan’s exemptions will apply to unaccompanied minors. Given their lack of legal guardianship upon entry or during the first year after their first entry to Canada, these individuals should not be subject to the new ineligibilities. We can also share that, for the one-year ineligibility, an exception will be created for those who register their claim under the new asylum reform intake model and submit documents and information in view of making a claim within one year of their first entry after June 24, 2020. This would align with the intent of the legislation, which is to incentivize individuals to make a claim at their earliest opportunity and avoid waiting until their status expires to do so. As senators can appreciate, implementation is a process, not a moment. If C-12 is adopted, the minister will continually assess the impact of the legislation with careful attention to where additional exceptions could ensure the alignment of Canada’s asylum system with our humanitarian obligations and values.
On the safe third country agreement and removals, as we have shared with you, Bill C-12 has absolutely no impact on the terms of the Safe Third Country agreement, which is an agreement negotiated between two independent nations to effectively manage asylum claims for those who arrive in our respective countries. Similarly, the bill has no impact on CBSA’s removal process or removal enforcement capacity. Removals from Canada are prioritized based on safety risks to Canadians, and that will not change under Bill C-12.
On reporting and review requirements, during House consideration, amendments clarify how these authorities may be used and introduce reporting requirements to Parliament when they are exercised. These are critical measures that ensure parliamentary and public scrutiny of each use of the proposed mass document control for authorities.
With these points in mind, it is our sincere hope that senators can see the careful consideration with which this critical piece of legislation was designed. We want to again reiterate our openness to addressing your questions regarding the bill, and we urge you to work with us to get C-12 adopted quickly. Canadians and Canada will be better for our collaboration and timely action. Thank you, senators, for your wisdom, diligence and expediency.
The Right Honourable Gary Anandasangaree and the Honourable Lena Metlege Diab.
Thank you, senators, for your patience and indulgence.
The Chair: All right.
Senator Woo: I wonder if Senator Dean will take questions, presumably not because he didn’t write the letter. But this is a long explanation of items that were discussed at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, or SOCI, and not at this committee. Is there an opportunity to interrogate because this is not what I was expecting clause-by-clause to be about? Alternatively, is there an opportunity to hear the SOCI report in total as a way of putting for the record what was heard there? Because this seems to be a rebuttal to the SOCI report.
Senator Dean: I will leave the latter parts of your question for the chair. I’m always struck by the use of “interrogate.” I will simply say this, that I saw this letter shortly before you did. The reading that I just provided was my first read-through of the complete letter. So I’m simply not in a position to help with that.
Senator Hay: Chair, would it be appropriate for me to read the SOCI report?
The Chair: No, we have received the SOCI report as part of work they have been asked to do on behalf of the Senate. They have publicly reported that the report has been made available to all senators participating in today’s meeting. As we go through clause-by-clause of the immigration section of the bill, any comments a senator wants to make and any references they want to make to the SOCI report, they are free to do so.
Senator McPhedran: I wonder if I could just ask for clarification on that. The chair of SOCI is here with us, and I think we had a communication — at least I had understood — that there would be an opportunity to summarize the report here at committee. Are you ruling that out of order?
The Chair: First of all, I don’t know what you’re talking about, to be very candid. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, based on the motion, was adopted by the chamber. I have a copy here I could read for everybody, but I’ll just remind you, this committee:
be authorized to take into account any report from the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to the Senate on the subject matter of Parts 5, 6, 7 and 8, during its consideration of the bill;
This is what we are doing right now. So when we get to the immigration section, any sections of the SOCI report that you wish to comment on, you can do so.
The Senate will have that at the third reading when we get into the third reading of the bill. The full report of SOCI will be available for all senators to reflect on, and I’m sure the chair will be speaking directly to her report. Thank you, colleagues.
Let me say this, because if I say it now, it might help a bit. I think it would be wrong of me not to assume there is some degree of tension in the room. I acknowledge it. There is a lot of good work that has gone on both at this committee in regard to the security section of this piece of legislation, and my colleague associates have done tremendous work in regard to what they have been asked to do in a very short time frame. They heard many witnesses and have produced, I think, an extensive report that we’ll get a chance to delve into, both in the chamber in totality, but also today in a specific section on the bill.
I want to thank our colleagues. I didn’t craft the motion that determined the process that we’re in. That was crafted and was put before us in the Senate, and for all members to remind themselves, no one amended the motion, no one challenged the motion. We accepted the motion for what it is.
I do recognize that we all have a lot of emotions in regard to the subject matter of immigration. As your chair, I’m a former immigrant. So it would not be for me to appreciate the context in which we are discussing this piece of legislation.
But put that aside, I’m going to try and be as objective and allow as we get into the immigration section of the bill, which I think is where the majority of the debate will happen, allow for full discussion by all colleagues in the room, and then we’ll proceed to any amendments or observations at the table and make accordingly a decision as is deemed necessary.
So thank you, colleagues. I know that there is much we will get into when we get back into the chamber on this bill, because our report will be tabled back into the Senate. If we conclude our work here today, we will be done much sooner than Friday, and we may get a discussion on C-12 much earlier. It depends on the leader’s decision at the end of the day. I want to thank you for your cooperation, and I will do my best to work with everybody to ensure you have an opportunity to speak in regard to amendments or observations that might come as a result of our discussion here today.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause of Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postpone?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause one, which contains a short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed with leave that the clause be grouped according to 11 parts of the bill as described in the table provision of Bill C-12 when appropriate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall Part 1, entitled Custom Act, which contains clauses 2 to 5, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall Part 2, entitled Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which contains clauses 6 to 21, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall Part 3, entitled Police Enforcement of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act, which contains clauses 22 to 24, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall Part 4, entitled Oceans Act, which contains clauses 24 to 27, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall Part 5, entitled Information Sharing — Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, which contains clauses 28 and 29, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Al Zaibak: If you’ll indulge me, I have some comments and remarks to make if you don’t mind.
Honourable colleagues, I intend to move and support amendments to Bill C-12 with particular concern to clause 28 of Part 5, clause 72 of Part 7 and clause 73 of Part 8, among other amendments to this legislation. Before I address the substance of those amendments, I ask your indulgence for a moment of personal reflection because this bill touches something that is, to me, deeply personal.
It touches the lives of many racialized communities in our country, including the Canadian Arab and the Canadian Muslim communities, as well as the lives of millions of naturalized Canadians who arrived in this country from elsewhere and who have made Canada their home.
I was not born in Canada. I chose Canada. I came seeking opportunity and stability, a society governed by the rule of law, animated by the principles of inclusiveness, fairness and equity. Those who were not idle words to me. They were a promise, and Canada kept that promise. I am profoundly proud of that choice. Here, I was able to raise a family, build successful enterprises and help forge unprecedented public-private partnerships.
I had the privilege of helping to modernize Ontario’s land registration system and helping to computerize and commercialize our national marine information for safe navigation by commercial shipping and fishing fleets and recreational boaters alike.
The business success in family, made possible by Canada, allowed my family and me to give something back. We have supported the arts and creativity, higher education, health care, scientific research, mental health initiatives and the building of cultural bridges of understanding among diverse communities. I have served on the governing boards of several public institutions. Most meaningful to me was helping sponsor the settlements of thousands of newcomers and refugees, human beings who came, as many of us once did, in search of the safety, security and fairness that this country offers. None of that would have been possible without trust in the system.
I turn, first, to clause 28 of Part 5, which enables broad disclosure of personal information. As currently drafted, this clause would result in naturalized citizens being treated differently from Canadian-born citizens. It places newcomers and migrants at particular risk, a risk that Canadian-born citizens do not face. Like many Canadians, my wife, our children and I were not born in Canada. Nearly half of the residents of my beloved City of Toronto were not born in this country. You will appreciate, therefore, why I regard the prospect of moving from equality toward a framework that creates two classes of citizens with the gravest concern.
Part 7 of this bill would confer upon the Governor-in-Council the authority to suspend or cancel immigration documents, including work permits, study permits and permanent resident cards whenever deemed to be in the public interest. This is a sweeping and, I would submit, deeply troubling expansion of executive power.
This past Friday, our committee received the sixth report with strong recommendations from the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, which heard and received submissions from numerous civil society organizations, including the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and many other organizations.
Their message was consistent and unambiguous: These are not minor technical adjustments. They represent a fundamental shift, one that extracts authority from a rule-based system and deposits it in the hands of cabinet ministers. And this shift would be permanent.
I believe that when civil society is speaking with one voice, as here, we need to pause and re-evaluate the law that we are trying to pass.
Colleagues, I trust this government today, but I cannot know the government five or ten years hence and who will hold the minister’s office then. That is precisely why we have the rule of law. The rule of law creates trust, it creates certainty and it endures beyond the tenure of any individual minister. When we replace it with discretionary executive power, however well intended, we erode the very foundation upon which newcomers, investors and businesses choose Canada.
Let us consider, for a moment, the broader implications —
The Chair: Senator, could I ask you to wrap up your remarks?
Senator Al Zaibak: I need your indulgence. Just two minutes, please.
Let’s consider, for a moment, the broader implications. Foreign temporary workers are essential to our agriculture, hospitality, construction and technology sectors. The possibility of the mass cancellation of their work permits does not merely create hardship for individuals, but it also creates systemic uncertainty that is corrosive to our economy.
Canada competes globally for international students, and several of my colleagues at this table arrived in Canada in that very capacity. Those students chose Canada because it was stable, fair and governed by law. We should not squander that reputation. Permanent resident cards are not bureaucratic artifacts. They are proof of belonging. I carried one for some years. They are necessary for international travel, for commercial transactions and to exercise basic civil rights. Granting any future government the power to suspend them en masse is a power that no responsible legislature should confer.
Having had extensive experience with national and international businesses, I can say with confidence uncertainty is expensive. It is priced into investment decisions. It drives talent away. A crisis of confidence, once created, is far harder to resolve than the administrative backlogs this legislation proposes to address.
In conclusion, I understand that we are legislating under pressure, and I understand the impulse to act decisively, but I submit that the remedy before us risks creating a far graver crisis than the one it s and as to cure, a crisis of confidence in Canada’s fundamental commitments to fairness, equality and the rule of law.
Rather than burdening immigrants, newcomers and refugees with the consequences of administrative inefficiencies, applications, processing backlogs and cumbersome institutional procedures — problems not of their own making — we should invest in modern technology and proven best practices to modernize our departments’ workflows, increase system productivity, streamline processes and procedures, and eliminate those internal backlogs. Canada’s immigration framework may not be perfect, but its foundation, the rule of law, must remain inviolable.
For these reasons, I urge my honourable colleagues to support amending the legislation before us today or, in the alternative, adopt SOCI’s report and recommendations, in particular to vote down the clause 28 of Part 5, clause 72 of Part 7 and clause 73 of Part 8, entirely, if possible.
Colleagues, I thank you for your attention and for the honour of your indulgence.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to do this.
The Chair: Senator, could you now move your amendments?
Senator Al Zaibak: With pleasure.
The Chair: If you look at the top, it is entitled MAZ-212-28-14-29. Start with the first one.
Senator Al Zaibak: Shall I move one at a time?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Al Zaibak: I move:
That Bill C-12 be amended in clause 28, on page 14, by replacing lines 29 to 35 with the following:
“it receives under subsection (1) to a foreign entity.”.
The Chair: Do you want to speak to the amendment?
Senator Al Zaibak: Yes, I would, very briefly, just say that the purpose of the motion that amends clause 28 is to remove the ministerial discretion for section 5.5.
The Chair: Are there any other comments on this before we take a vote? Is it clear what we’re voting on?
Senator Woo: In case it is not clear, this removes the power to share information with a foreign entity. Currently, it says that it may be shared with the written consent of the minister and in a manner that respects Canada’s international obligations, et cetera. Those conditions are taken out so that there’s no provision for sharing information with foreign entities. That is just to make it clear what Senator Al Zaibak is trying to achieve.
Senator Al Zaibak: That’s right.
The Chair: Does anyone else wish to speak in support of the amendment?
Senator Dean: I briefly make the point that, as I understand it, these situations are relatively rare. They are occurring already in terms of information sharing; I would be surprised if they aren’t. This proposal builds on information sharing between departments that already happens to some extent.
Indeed, information sharing can sometimes provide the opportunity to identify and deal with fraud. But it also provides upsides for clients of these services to ensure their documents are accessible to various officials and immigration departments as they move through their immigration journey.
There is a “tell us once” aspect to this. I am of the view that this would not be supported by the government and that sharing with foreign governments would occur exceptionally and would be scrutinized carefully. It’s an amendment that I would not support.
Senator Woo: I thank Senator Dean for his explanation, but this amendment does not touch the question of sharing information within and among Canadian departments. That is intact. That is in the clauses prior to lines 29 to 35. All this does is to take away the power to share information with foreign entities. All of the efficiencies and administrative necessities of sharing information among Canadian departments are protected.
I support that but not the possibility of sharing data with foreign entities. In this day and age, you only have to spend 10 minutes reading the newspapers to think about how dangerous that can be, even when we’re talking about countries which we believe to be allies.
Senator Moodie: The comments that I will make reflect what we heard in testimony in SOCI. Individuals from the 2SLGBTQI+ community, from gender-diverse organizations and women and front-line service providers all express concerns about confidentiality, victimization, safety and increased vulnerability if personal information is disclosed. This regime may also be applied, as we learned from the officials, to permanent residents and naturalized citizens.
We, in SOCI, did not receive any justification for the inclusion of these groups, permanent residents and naturalized citizens within the proposed information-sharing regime.
Senator McPhedran: Would Senator Dean take a question on his previous statement?
Could you help us understand this: If indeed the use of this clause, should it become law, would be exceptional, why doesn’t the clause specify that? Why is it so broad?
Senator Dean: I make the assumption that this is what is required to make the system operate effectively.
Senator McPhedran: What is the basis of your assumption that that would be the case?
Senator Dean: Because I have confidence in public servants that they would act with efficacy and care in the sharing of information and would not compromise the interests of the people affected by that.
Senator McPhedran: And why do you have that confidence?
Senator Dean: I have that confidence because that is what we expect of our public servants in this country. I have been one. I understand the rigour. I understand the professionalism. I understand the care that public servants have for their clients. And I have confidence in them.
Senator McPhedran: Do you think this has any relevance to previous cases in this country where information has been shared with foreign governments resulting in the terrible treatment of Canadians?
Senator Dean: I don’t. Look, I will say that we should probably see if one of our officials who is present would want to comment on this, since you have such a degree of interest in it.
Senator McPhedran: That would be appreciated.
Tara Lang, Director General, Integrity Policy and Programs, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Specifically about this clause, this is actually a safeguard clause.
As it stands, any act of Parliament and information sharing with foreign entities already have to comply with the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act.
This was added specially as a safeguard and added the part that says with written consent — which is not a requirement of the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act, or ACA, as it stands — to make it stronger. Any sharing of information by any Canadian entity has to follow the ACA. We added this specifically. It is a redundant clause with the exception of the written consent, which adds an extra layer of safeguard.
If we remove that, anybody who has information from the immigration department would still have to comply with the ACA, but we wouldn’t know if they were going to share it. This way they would have to tell us if they were going to share it. It is an extra safeguard.
The Chair: May I ask if you object to the sharing?
Ms. Lang: I do not, but I would object to the sharing unless it complies with the mistreatment and the analysis that is required to be done under the act, absolutely.
Senator McPhedran: Can you help us understand the process that would be occurring leading up to a decision whether or not to provide written consent? Who would provide that consent if it were decided?
Ms. Lang: There is a senior committee of officials at IRCC at the DG level who receives and reviews case information about sharing with foreign entities. If there were to be information that somebody wanted to share with somebody, it would first go to a case analyst. They would do some reviews about that case. They would find out the information. They could, at that point, deny the request or require it to be moved up the chain.
The vast majority of requests are, as I understand it, denied. It only would get to a senior level of approval if we were going to share the information, and that would be a DG-level committee that would be convened. It is denied at a case analyst or a director level. It would only be in specific circumstances that it would be approved. That would be a DG-level committee.
You are absolutely right. This has happened in the past, where information was shared with foreign entities that caused horrific things to happen.
We are governed by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, who reviews all of these situations and reports. We report to NSIRA on the use of this kind of information sharing as well. At IRCC, we are trying to do a better job. I know my colleagues in Public Safety Canada, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and CBSA are also following this new procedure to be more careful with this.
Yes, this clause is actually a safeguard.
Senator McPhedran: Who would actually sign the written consent?
Ms. Lang: I am not sure who would sign. We would have to see in operationalization what that would look like.
Senator McPhedran: But everything you have described is within IRCC?
Ms. Lang: Right.
Senator McPhedran: It is a completely internal process.
Ms. Lang: Yes.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: My question is for Ms. Lang. It was actually to ask for an official to come and explain. When you say DG level, would it involve DGs from any other departments?
Ms. Lang: It would depend on the case.
Senator Cardozo: Other security departments or agencies?
Ms. Lang: It could depend on the case, if CBSA was involved, the service, or Public Safety Canada. Each case stands on its own merit. It depends on the case and the information that needs to be shared.
Senator Cardozo: Will there be a process outlined somewhere as to how that would happen? What you have told us is of interest. It is not in the act.
Ms. Lang: Right. It is not in the act. The process is tied to the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act. It would not be under Bill C-12 because it is governed under the ACA. I would have to get back to you about the process because it exists under that piece of legislation. We are adding an extra safeguard, but it exists even if it is not in here.
Senator Cardozo: I’m trying to understand how exceptionality is guaranteed.
Ms. Lang: The avoiding complicity act says, exactly, that the information can only be shared if there are guarantees that no harm will be done to the individual. Similarly, that is governed. All legislation and information sharing, you have to follow those rules. We added it into here. As I said, it is a redundant clause because it exists whether it is written down or not.
The only additional piece is the written consent of the minister pertaining to IRCC information, as described here, is the additional safeguard. But the process that exists with the DG committee, et cetera, that is under the avoiding complicity act piece.
Senator Cardozo: The processes are explained or documented under that act?
Ms. Lang: Each department would have their own processes. I am only able to speak to the IRCC internal processes.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Is it enough to refer to section 2 of the act here? You said that this procedure is already included in the avoiding complicity act. Does this mean that section 2 of this act includes all the security provisions needed to avoid complicity situations?
[English]
Ms. Lang: It is a reiteration of the law that is set out separately in the avoiding complicity act. We embedded it into Bill C-2 to be clear that that law, that act, also pertains here very specifically and wrote it out.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Does the reference to section 2 of the act provide enough protection for the implementation of protective measures?
Ms. Lang: Absolutely.
Senator Moreau: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Hay: Perhaps it is a question, but I’ll start with a commentary.
One of my good friend’s husband came to Canada with the Rainbow Railroad from Syria. He is obviously 2SLGBTQ+. I was thinking about him. I am unclear about the guardrails in place for this data and this information — the governance of this data is a word I might use. What is the foreign government that might have this data going to do with it? Because that would be a worry. The other side of that is — and we should be worried about this — the added concern of cyberrisk, leaks, risk to not only the individual but the individual’s family and whatnot.
I’m not sure that’s a question as much as a commentary of what we need to be worried about when we release data to foreign entities.
Do you have any idea if there are guardrails around the foreign entity’s use of the data?
Ms. Lang: Our intention is that no foreign entity receives any of this information. That is why it specifically says if there is anybody, any provincial government or other federal government, who is going to want to share that with a foreign entity, before that happens, they need to inform IRCC and then have to follow the avoiding complicity act to ensure they have their authorization and reasons why it would be shared, and the foreign entity would have to say, “This is why I want it,” et cetera.
Then not only would they have to do that undertaking on their side, but then we, at IRCC, would have to do that undertaking as well, agree and get the approval — the signature of the minister is what it says — to share that back. All of that would be covered under that.
The intention is never to share anything with foreign entities. This act is completely domestic. It has nothing to do with crossing borders. This is, again, a safeguard to prevent that even more, deter if you will.
Senator Al Zaibak: This brings back very traumatizing memories, let me say.
I would like to remind my honourable colleagues about what happened a few years ago. I would refer to an excerpt of a submission made to SOCI by a respected lawyers’ organization. It says, “Once information is shared with a foreign entity, its use and scope of further disclosure cannot be controlled.”
In the infamous case of Maher Arar, for example, information was shared by Canada with American authorities who acted on that information to deport Mr. Arar to Syria. They further shared that information with Syrian authorities.
While the initial disclosure of information to a trusted ally may not have been perceived as inherently risky, what was done with that information caused grave harm.
Mr. Arar’s family was traumatized, the whole community was traumatized, and the broader Canadian communities were concerned. It was a struggle that we don’t need to repeat.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I think that I attended all the meetings and heard all the testimony on this topic, in particular Minister Diab’s testimony on February 9. This question was asked by one of my colleagues. Minister Diab stated as follows, and I quote:
Bill C-12 also addresses how information is shared with federal, provincial and territorial partners. Here, I want to stress this is only domestic sharing. There is no international component to this bill at all.
You spoke a bit earlier about intention, Ms. Lang. How do you define this in terms of the rights that this clause would give to the ministers?
[English]
Ms. Lang: This goes exactly to the point that this is not an international information-sharing agreement. This is all internal; it’s all domestic. The purpose of information sharing is primarily to help with services. Concerns were raised about differences between naturalized Canadians and Canadian-born Canadians. There is no difference in the sharing. For instance, we now share Canadian passport information with Elections Canada to confirm Canadian citizenship. We gave the example of natural-born Canadians needing consular services abroad for emergencies but also passport issuance. This is all internal, domestic information sharing to help with services and rights. Yes, we can catch fraud because if there is a resident who claims to be a permanent resident but is actually a temporary resident, we would share that status with the provinces.
We have a number of information-sharing agreements already with provinces and territories. Those are more on a case-by-case basis. This would be an opportunity to set up information sharing that is more proactive. So if a permanent resident becomes a citizen, for instance, we would let Elections Canada know that this person is now a citizen. It is all consistent, whether you are a temporary resident, permanent resident or actualized Canadian, the information is treated the same — with the same respect and the same privacy safeguards. The Charter and the Privacy Act trump this act. There is no untoward sharing in this space. It is really just closing gaps and allowing us to be more effective and efficient with information sharing. There is no part of this bill that speaks to international information sharing. As I said, we added this clause to specifically safeguard against further sharing to foreign entities.
Senator McPhedran: Could you tell us a bit more about your understanding of the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act? Is it correct that the threshold that is established in that act is related to torture or cruel and unusual punishment? We’ve agreed on that.
Ms. Lang: Senator, I cannot. If you are reading the act, then it might be true, but I can’t speak to that. I’m sorry.
Senator McPhedran: We heard you repeatedly refer to the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act. Many of the concerns that we have regarding the sharing of information and the resulting effects on the individual whose information has been shared don’t necessarily reach the threshold of cruel and unusual punishment, but they are very serious and very damaging.
For example, in terms of someone’s gender diversity or sexual orientation, it may have an impact on a job they are seeking. I’m feeling less than convinced in the way you have used the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act.
Ms. Lang: We will be setting up information-sharing agreements with all the domestic partners. Obviously, a person’s gender or preferences are not something that we share. It would be about status: the type of document they hold. It is not to the level of specificity, but all of our information-sharing agreements would have regular safeguards that would say:
This is for the intents and purposes of administering these acts under the province or territory, et cetera, and not for further passing on.
I understand what you are saying, but the type of information that we are sharing is necessary to access goods and services to allow a free flow of information between lines of business. The intention is not to pass it on in those information-sharing agreements that we will have to establish before sending any of this would cover all of that forward information sharing with other areas.
Senator McPhedran: I would like one point of clarification. That is your reference to passports. Of course, in Canada, a nonbinary person can be identified as a nonbinary person in their passport. So the sharing of information in passports is problematic.
Ms. Lang: It could be, but the status is what would be shared. The status would be that you are Canadian and that you hold a passport. It would itemize that type of thing. It would not be sharing copies of people’s passports. That is not the intention. There is no need for someone to see a copy of someone’s passport. It is purely about status.
Senator McPhedran: Is there anything actually in this bill that has that protection?
Ms. Lang: No, because it would be in the information-sharing agreements.
Senator McPhedran: There is nothing in this bill that specifies that this must be in the information-sharing agreements?
Ms. Lang: No.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Woo: Ms. Lang, you have portrayed these clauses as safeguards, which is to say that they actually make it more difficult for information sharing from this department, IRCC, to foreign entities. Nobody is debating internal sharing, so we can put that aside. Everybody is on board with that. But the way you framed it — calling it a safeguard — reveals that we already have the ability to share information with foreign entities, which is the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act.
My question is this: In Senator Al Zaibak’s amendment, where he deletes the lines from 29 to 35, starting with the word “unless,” wouldn’t that be an even stronger safeguard so that no information whatsoever can be shared with foreign entities? If you want safeguards, isn’t this the best safeguard?
Ms. Lang: I have no comment on that. I think Senator Dean mentioned that the government opposes the amendment. I don’t know which act trumps the others. From a legal perspective, I have no comment on that.
Senator Woo: Is there someone from the Department of Justice who can help us?
Ms. Lang: There is. Just one moment, and we will switch out. My colleague will join us.
The Chair: I can see your name, but I’ll ask you to introduce yourself.
Youri Tessier-Stall, Acting Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: I am Youri Tessier-Stall with the Department of Justice. Could I ask you to repeat your question?
Senator Woo: We have learned now that these clauses were put in the bill as an additional protection against the unwarranted sharing of information with foreign entities. The additional protections are the two subclauses A and B, with the written consent of the minister, and so on. I get the impression that these may be redundant. That was the tone of the presentation from Ms. Lang. But if, in fact, these are the safeguards for preventing information from being shared with foreign entities, wouldn’t a better safeguard be the very amendment that Senator Al Zaibak is proposing, which stops the sentence — it changes the intent, I understand — at “foreign entity,” period.
Mr. Tessier-Stall: I cannot necessarily speak to the policy intent behind it, but if you end the sentence and remove those two specific clauses, you are removing the specific provisions that aim to limit disclosure because this provision does not authorize disclosure, as Ms. Lang indicated. This is simply a statement that says if ever a province or territory is considering disclosure, these are the conditions that must be met. I think removing those two clauses would nullify the safeguard that is meant to be in place.
Senator Woo: What the clause would, then, say is that it is prohibited for a department, ministry body, et cetera to disclose personal information to a foreign entity.
Mr. Tessier-Stall: Yes. If you were to delete those two paragraphs, that is what the clause would say.
Senator Woo: Would that not have a more powerful effect, in terms of the safeguard, to prevent information from being shared with a foreign entity?
Mr. Tessier-Stall: I’m not able to opine on whether that would be the desired intent, but from a legal perspective, I agree that would be the effect of removing those provisions.
Senator Woo: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: I have a question for Ms. Lang. Sorry to bring you back to the hot seat.
I assume that this provision covers provincial agencies and provincial governments. For example, I assume that some provincial laws require the board of directors to be Canadian citizens. So I assume that the Quebec securities commission, Autorité des marchés financiers, may, from time to time, ask you questions like, “Is X a Canadian citizen or not?” or is that something that does not happen?
Ms. Lang: That could be something that happens under our current safeguards and through case-by-case information sharing. If that entity approached us and said they would like to engage in an information-sharing agreement to get regular information about citizens or be able to ask questions to validate citizenship, we would consider doing an information-sharing agreement.
Senator Dalphond: I understand that the securities commission works together with the American Securities and Exchange Commission or the French Autorité des marchés financiers. They would sometimes be asked to share information because they conduct joint inquiries, so would that provision require l’Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec to ask for permission from the ministers to do the exchange?
Ms. Lang: Only if there is a risk that something bad could happen to that person.
Senator Dalphond: Assuming that the second paragraph about the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act.
Ms. Lang: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: So this is still there. If there is any kind of risk of that nature, they have to ask permission from the federal minister before they can share with another equivalent authority in another country. Is this correct?
Ms. Lang: That’s right. Our information-sharing agreements would normally state something like, “The information shared is only for the purposes of this action” — so, for example, to validate the citizenship — “and is not authorized for any other transmission to any other agency or entity.” That would be in our regular information sharing.
If there was a risk —
Senator Dalphond: In the current system, there is no such prohibition. It will be based on the contractual agreement.
Ms. Lang: Right.
Senator Dalphond: So it is stronger here because it becomes an offence?
Ms. Lang: That’s right.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Ms. Lang. Do we have reciprocal agreements —
Sorry, Ms. Lang. I didn’t see you try to escape.
The Chair: You might get your thousand steps in tonight.
Senator D. M. Wells: Am I right in assuming we have reciprocal agreements with other countries on the same security level?
Ms. Lang: Reciprocal. They have the same kinds of things. Countries would say they cannot share with us unless et cetera, et cetera. Presumably. I don’t know any off the top of my head.
Senator D. M. Wells: So they may not be reciprocal?
Ms. Lang: They may not be.
Senator D. M. Wells: If we were to put in an additional level of security for Canada, do you think that would have an effect on whatever agreements we might have with other countries where we might benefit from information that they have that we would like?
Ms. Lang: Yes.
Senator D. M. Wells: Do you see anything negative in that?
Ms. Lang: No, I think it’s a good practice. I think the Privacy Commissioner came and said these sections of the bill are exemplary as to how information sharing should be conducted by the federal government. It is a good example for other government departments to take on.
The Chair: I think we are exhausted on this one. I remind colleagues where we are at.
It is moved by Honourable Senator Al Zaibak that Bill C-12 be amended in clause 28 on page 14 by replacing line 29 to 35 with the following:
That Bill C-12 be amended in clause 28, on page 14, by replacing lines 29 to 35 with the following:
“it receives under subsection (1) to a foreign entity.”.
Are senators ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators to adopt the amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Honourable senators, there has been a request for a recorded vote. I will ask the clerk to name all senators present who are entitled to vote on this item.
Ericka Paajanen, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Yussuff, the Honourable Senator Al Zaibak, the Honourable Senator Cardozo, the Honourable Senator Carignan, the Honourable Senator Dalphond, the Honourable Senator Marty Deacon, the Honourable Senator Dean, the Honourable Senator Hay, the Honourable Senator Ince, the Honourable Senator Moreau, the Honourable Senator David Wells, the Honourable Senator White, the Honourable Senator Woo and the Honourable Senator Suze Youance.
The Chair: If any members present do not wish to vote, you may withdraw from the table now. We will begin with the chair and follow in alphabetical order.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Yussuff?
Senator Yussuff: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Al Zaibak?
Senator Al Zaibak: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Cardozo?
Senator Cardozo: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Deacon?
Senator M. Deacon: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Hay?
Senator Hay: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Ince?
Senator Ince: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Moreau?
Senator Moreau: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Wells?
Senator D. M. Wells: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Youance?
Senator Youance: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: Yeas, 5; nays 9.
The Chair: I declare the motion has been defeated.
Shall clause 28 as is currently in the legislation be carried?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is defeated. The clause carries.
Are we clear? All right.
Senator Al Zaibak: This may be a procedural item. I believe when a motion is defeated, there may be opportunities for other motions. Other motions have already been shared with the committee.
The Chair: We’re dealing with the motion in the order of the legislation. We will come to other motions, as they are in the context of the legislation. Just for the record.
We have dealt with all the amendments to clause 28. The amendment was defeated. Shall clause 28 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Thank you. The next amendment is from Senator Al Zaibak and, for the record, is MAZ-C12-29.1-15-19. If you are reading the amendment, you will know which one to reference.
Senator Al Zaibak: I move:
That Bill C-12 be amended on page 15 by adding the following after line 19:
“29.1 Section 5.5 of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act is repealed.”.
I have a related motion as well.
The Chair: The motion is introduced. Senator Al Zaibak, do you wish to speak to the motion?
Senator Al Zaibak: This motion adds a new clause, clause 29.1, which is part of sunsetting section 5.5 toward Amendment 150476. The intention here is to add a new clause, which is part of sunsetting section 5.5. There will be another motion to complement that.
Senator Woo: Just, if it’s helpful, the next amendment specifically talks about the sunset clause happening after the third anniversary. I don’t know if it’s helpful to deal with them together or in what way, but senators should be aware that this has no meaning apart from clause 29.2.
The Chair: Just to indulge the collaboration here, do senators want to have the other motion also put forward so we can understand the two motions in tandem with each other and so that, when we end up voting and deliberating, we can understand what we’re dealing with?
Senator D. M. Wells: That’s a good idea, especially if this is a consequential clause related to the one that comes after. We should go ahead and do both at the same time.
The Chair: Senator Al Zaibak, you did send out a corrected version. I want to make sure that, when you introduce it, you follow the corrected version. I am just trying to guide you a little bit here, not trying to tell you what to do.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you, colleagues.
I move:
That Bill C-12 be amended on page 15 by adding the following after line 19:
“29.2 Section 29.1 comes into force on the third anniversary of the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”.
The Chair: There are the two amendments, and you have them in tandem with each other.
Do you wish to speak to the amendments, Senator Al Zaibak?
Senator Al Zaibak: I stated my case before. I’m willing to hear my colleagues as well.
Senator Dalphond: Does that mean that the whole provision of section 5.5 will cease to apply, including the exchange of cooperation between departments and the prohibition of exchange of information with foreign entities?
Senator Dean: It looks that way.
Senator Al Zaibak: The amendments come into force and are sunsetted five years after receiving Royal Assent. That’s it.
Senator Dalphond: So, in five years from now, these provisions will no longer exist?
Senator Al Zaibak: Exactly.
Senator Dalphond: So the protections will no longer be there, and the opportunity to exchange with other departments will disappear? That is what is proposed? Thank you.
Senator D. M. Wells: I’m trying to get to the purpose of this being on the third anniversary of the date on which this act —
The Chair: The corrected version says the fifth anniversary.
Senator D. M. Wells: Even more so then, is the intent of this to delay this bill from being enacted in a practicable way, or is there some other motivation?
Senator Al Zaibak: No, it is not. If the bill passes, then it will sunset at five years.
Senator D. M. Wells: So is this a coming-into-force amendment and not a sunset amendment?
Senator Al Zaibak: It is sunset. It is complicated. [Technical difficulties] — it sunsets the previous or the first amendment.
Senator D. M. Wells: I’m still asking: What is your intent of this? Is it strengthen this or to give it some other purpose? Because it seems that it doesn’t strengthen it.
Senator Al Zaibak: It is to strengthen and to give time to see the consequences of this legislation if passed.
Senator D. M. Wells: May I ask Ms. Lang to come back to the table?
The Chair: Ms. Lang, you may choose to remain in that seat for the duration of this section of our deliberations. By all means, please, keep the seat.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Ms. Lang. What would be the effective result if these two amendments pass?
Ms. Lang: The coming into force impacts more my colleagues on the asylum side, but for us in the information-sharing space, this modernization section makes us have a clear, regulated framework with mandatory privacy safeguards. A sunset clause would undermine the stable, long-term authorities needed for digital transformation — which we haven’t talked a lot about right now, but the Telus One service delivery.
The other part that I would speak to is Part 7 and the sunset, which are the reporting requirements to come back. Again, a sunset would be duplicative, and monitoring can occur through regular legislative reporting.
I’ll speak to sunsetting in Parts 6 and 8, which are part of the asylum system. Asylum reform involves new procedures, and system changes are not easily reversed. A sunset clause would create complexity for cases at different stages and disrupt implementation. Monitoring and evaluation can also be done without a sunset clause.
In Part 8, a sunset may respond to future-impact concerns, but it risks undermining the forward-looking intent of ineligibilities given unpredictable migration pressures. Again, monitoring and evaluation can be done without a sunset clause.
It would really effectively pull away all the benefits that we would be getting out of the legislation and would have us start from scratch. It would potentially also interrupt clients and systems and the inner workings of not only the department but also the IRB, for instance.
Senator D. M. Wells: I hadn’t thought about that question of cases that would straddle the sunsetting of the clause that would make it perhaps even challengeable in court. That would delay the process as well
All right. Thank you very much. I have everything I need.
Senator Cardozo: I wonder if Senator Al Zaibak or Senator Woo would answer my question. Can you say a little bit more about the purpose of these two amendments? What is it we’re trying to do here? Is it to stall the implementation of the act, which is perfectly legitimate, if that’s the intent?
Senator Al Zaibak: As I stated earlier, the whole clause seems to represent a problem that leads into what I believe to be an erosion of our democracy and our rule of law.
This is an amendment to reduce the risk and constrain movement in that direction.
Senator McPhedran: One of the concerns that many of us have — and certainly many experts in this field have — is parliamentary oversight or a lack thereof. Is it not correct that a sunset clause like this, where the end point is clearly known, allows for a process where, if Parliament decides that, indeed, the concerns that many of us have raised have not come to be, they can be ready to extend so that there doesn’t need to be a disruption in the process? But it does bring it forward to Parliament so that if there is additional information that was not available at this point in time, it makes it possible for parliamentarians to continue to take responsibility for this legislation, either continuing it prior to the sunset clause or being ready at the point of the sunset clause. Isn’t that so?
Ms. Lang: Part 7 has a parliamentary oversight piece specifically added to it for Parts 5, 6 and 7. As I understand it, the government’s position is that they don’t agree that a sunset clause would help in this manner, and I believe that it is an opposed amendment.
Senator McPhedran: However, it doesn’t preclude Parliament deciding that, as the sunset approaches, it is possible to extend the legislation.
Ms. Lang: I understand that that might be correct, yes.
Senator Woo: I support the domestic information sharing provision, so I don’t support this amendment. But it is important that we don’t confuse one sunset with another. Ms. Lang talked about sunsets in general, including applying to other parts of the bill. We’re not talking about those parts of the bill now; this is only a sunset for Part 5 of the bill.
Senator Al Zaibak: Yes.
Senator Woo: When we get to another potential sunset amendment, the case is very different. It is not about trying to sunset a change in the bureaucratic process, which may well be very good for the system, as Senator Dean has expertly informed us. That later part of the bill, since we’re talking about it now, has to do with what might be called “emergency powers” that the government gives itself. This is the public interest argument to cancel or suspend applications or status of a variety of immigration situations. In that situation, a case perhaps can be made that a sunset is helpful because an emergency has passed, and we hear all the time in this country that there is an emergency now due to perhaps uncontrolled immigration and a huge backlog and so on and so forth.
So I hope you don’t confuse this sunset, which is very specific to information sharing, which I support, and a sunset for so‑called emergency powers in a subsequent section.
The Chair: Does any other senator wish to speak to this section or debate? Okay. All right. The following amendment has been moved by Senator Al Zaibak:
That Bill C-12 be amended on page 15 by adding the following after line 19:
“29.1 Section 5.5 of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act is repealed.”.
Are senators ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division. Okay. Satisfactory.
Now, we do have the other amount amendment, which was related. We have to finish the proceedings on the second motion. The following amendment was moved by the Honourable Senator Al Zaibak:
That Bill C-12 be amended on page 15 by adding the following after line 19:
“29.2 Section 29.1 comes into force on the third anniversary of the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”.
Shall the new clause 29.2, as amended, carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division, thank you.
Shall Part 5, entitled Information Sharing — Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, which contains clauses 28 to 29 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, kindly.
Next we will move to Part 6, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (In-Canada Asylum System), clauses 30 to 64.
Shall Part 6, entitled Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (In-Canada Asylum System), which contains clauses 30 to 64 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Al Zaibak: I have a motion here.
The Chair: You may introduce your motion.
Senator Al Zaibak: I move the following:
That Bill C-12 be amended in clause 72, on page 30, by replacing lines 15 and 16 with the following:
“dress administrative errors.”.
The Chair: I think you are in the wrong section here unless I am missing something. Your amendment is for Part 7. We’re on Part 6.
Senator Al Zaibak: I don’t have a Part 6 amendment, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I thought I missed something there for a minute. All right. So let me come back to the question I first posed a minute ago.
Shall Part 6, entitled Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (In-Canada Asylum System), which contains clauses 30 to 64 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you kindly, colleagues.
Now we are going to move to part 7.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contains measures in respect of applicants and documents, clause 65, page 28 to 72.
Shall part 7 entitled, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Certain Measures in Respect of Applications and Documents), which contain clauses 65 to 72” be carried? No. Senator Al Zaibak, you have some amendments. You want to start with MAZ-C12-72-30-15.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mr. Chair, my apologies. I was ahead of myself, apparently, by skipping part 6. Let me say, I confused the two.
Part 7, I move:
That Bill C-12 be amended in clause 72, on page 30, by replacing lines 15 and 16 with the following:
“dress administrative errors.”.
I will read it:
For the purpose 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 the purpose is to address matters such as administrative errors, fraud, public health, public safety or national security.
The intended effect of the amendment is to address things such as administrative errors, fraud, public health, public safety or national security, which are broad terms and may be subject to interpretation. They are subjective, in my view.
Senator Dalphond: So I understand the purpose of the amendment is to limit public interest to administrative errors. Am I correct to understand that this provision, 87.301, was added by MPs because they were concerned about what was definition of “public interest” was and they had proposed this limited definition of “public interest”?
What you are proposing is that we should limit it even further. As a matter of fact, they wanted to limit the discretion of the government. For you, it will not be applicable in cases of public safety issues or public health issues.
In the letter from the minister, they referred to the fact that during the pandemic it would have been good if the government had the power to suspend all visas to visit Canada for health issues in order to protect these people and Canadians. Do you propose to remove that?
Senator Al Zaibak: Would you repeat the last part of your question, Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: You propose to remove the authority of the government to revoke, for public health issues, all visas for visitors because there is a pandemic in Canada? You say this won’t be possible anymore. It would be possible only if there were an administrative error. So I guess that the Public Health Agency of Canada was wrong to say there was a pandemic?
Senator Al Zaibak: Yes, I believe that fraud is not specifically defined, nor are public health, public safety and national security. These are broadly used terms without any specific interpretation.
As I suggested and stated earlier, I trust this government. Many of us know the minister. It is impossible to predict what governments we are going to have in five or ten years’ time. This, I think, is the reason for this amendment.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator Dean: I point out that when this clause was first noticed, the provision itself was in a separate part of the bill from the definition of public safety. In that sense, we had a large outcry from many sectors worried that the public interest was not defined.
Once they were pointed toward this definition, which, in fact, talks about public health and fraud, there was a relatively positive reaction to that. The definition is important. This is a very significant public policy intervention. It’s important that it be defined, circumscribed and people understand what the government is doing here. For that reason, I would not support this motion. That is the point of view of the government also.
Senator Moodie: Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Senator Dean, I would say that, based on what we heard in SOCI, that is not the case. In fact, the outcry continues. The committee heard from multiple witnesses that part 7 should be removed in its entirety.
In particular, witnesses argued that giving the Governor-in-Council the power to make an order to cancel, suspend, vary or oppose new conditions on immigration documents in the public interest, including permanent resident visas and permanent resident cards, as unjustified leading to the potential overreach of executive powers.
The committee also heard about a potential heightened risk of discriminatory mass cancellations emanating from the proposed order-in-council powers, with witnesses recalling orders used against labour organizers, Jewish people fleeing Nazi Germany, Japanese immigrants and Japanese Canadians during the first half of the 20th century.
Finally, the committee heard testimony that raised concerns about the highly discretionary definition for “public interest” proposed in the bill. This definition lists extremely broad categories, capturing a myriad of situations which could increase the risk of discriminatory, group-based decisions by future governments and weaken rule-of-law safeguards.
I’m reading into the record.
The Chair: Senator Dean, we are happy to put you on the list if you want to respond to Senator Moodie.
Senator Cardozo: My question is for Senator Al Zaibak, but perhaps Ms. Lang can comment on it too.
Senator Al Zaibak, is it your concern that a future government could, for example, decide that a certain group of people from a certain country, religion or socio-economic status or whatever would be prevented from entering?
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you for the question.
We’ve seen other countries using the same kind of broad wording or phrases to prevent groups of people, certain ethnicities, certain groups and countries, let me say, associated with certain religions using the same.
Senator Cardozo: And you don’t feel that the words that would come after “administrative errors, public health, safety, national security” would circumscribe the objectives enough?
Senator Al Zaibak: Again, they are subjective. It depends on who is in power at the time. This is something that has some elasticity and flexibility.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you. I wonder if Ms. Lang could comment on that.
Ms. Lang: With the additions that the House made, it really narrowed, I think, some of the examples or potential uses. I want to talk a little more about the documents versus the status piece. So a situation which is never envisioned — and I cannot see Canada doing it, but we have seen strange things happening in the world absolutely — is somehow only Jewish people would be all of a sudden subjected to some kind of mass cancellation of a certain type of document. In my opinion, any Government of Canada would never recommend it, nor would it get passed by the Governor-in-Council, but it would be pertaining to documents only. That means it would restrict travel. It would not affect status in Canada.
Again, I kind of talk about the examples that I gave before, for instance, say a cyberattack or evidence that we are working with our partners at CBSA and Public Safety Canada about a wide‑scale fraud situation. We could pause the processing of say, those visitor applications. We could work up and find out if there are bases on which this fraud is genuine, working with our partners and using the information-sharing provisions around that. If we found that the fraud was founded, we could then cancel those visitor visas and prevent those people from travelling to Canada before they arrive. If those people were in Canada already, even if we cancelled those visitor visas, they would still have status and would still have to have their status removed — which is handled by another section of the act — before they could be dealt with in a regular removal streamed by CBSA. I know there is a lot of fear about misuse, and maybe I’m naive, but I think that the safeguards in the bill, the reporting requirement to Parliament, the order-in-council, the publication in the Canada Gazette — even the communication with the clients to say, “This is what’s happening. We believe you fit into these parameters, and your document is going to be cancelled, paused.” They can then come back to us and say, “No, no, no, that’s not me.” It’s not like a punitive measure. It is purely to try to protect the system and do this en masse.
Senator Cardozo: When the government all of a sudden — and it does this frequently — requires visas for one country and then takes that visa requirement off and then puts it back on, how is that different from this?
Ms. Lang: I think it is different because that’s just a visa requirement to travel to Canada, whether you’re visa enacted or not, so whether you have an electronic travel authorization or you can travel visa free, that has nothing to with en masse. It is a country-based focus, whereas this isn’t about a country. This could be individuals from anywhere across Canada, anywhere in the world, with any kind of a Canadian document. It’s not targeted to a country or one particular group. It came out of the lessons learned in the pandemic, where we had no capabilities to pause processing en masse, and that caused huge backlogs in the system. It was super difficult for us to dig out from under that. When we started thinking about this from a policy perspective, we thought there are emerging threats in the world tied to increased use of AI, et cetera. Maybe we need this in other circumstances: emergencies, fraud, and cybersecurity. The intent here is to protect Canada from public safety, health, and all of those things that are listed there. Yes, administrative errors happen sometimes too, so it is a good reason to be able to cancel or do things en masse rather than case by case.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I think my question is not so much to Ms. Lang, but I am wondering if the sponsor of the bill would accept a question?
I’m going to place this in the context of what we are seeing not only south of the border, but in many countries now with a very clear shift toward more open discriminatory measures by governments, and more open discriminatory behaviour generally in populations, perhaps inspired by those governments. We came to this meeting, a number of us, right after meeting with about 25 Black sports specialists in this country, and heard that there was unquestionably a very significant rise in the experience for children and youth in terms of extreme and discriminatory racist behaviour toward them. So my context is that the Canada that many of us grew up in, the Canada where the rules-based process that is in the legislation, already would see a tremendous shift from rules-based decision-making in cases like this to a small group of people in private, in cabinet, deciding what is in the public interest. And this is a severe decline in accountability, and this is a departure from rules-based consideration, as we see it now.
If this is primarily about public health or primarily about security, why is such a broad term as public interest used, which is so open to discriminatory interpretations, as we have seen in Canada many times in the past? Why would we have the arrogance to think it wouldn’t happen again?
Senator Dean: I start with why does the government propose to change something? They propose to change something because there is an opportunity or there is a threat or there is a dividend or because of public demand. We have heard very clearly that the government is proposing to do this because it is fearful that, in a context of burgeoning cyberattacks, organized fraud, that can be related or reinforced by cyberthieves, public health emergencies and other national security threats, which could involve the importation of gang members, for example, from certain countries, in certain cases, that the government doesn’t have the ability to respond to those. Canadians have every reason to worry about those things. These provisions are responsive to that. When the government tells us that they do not have the capacity to respond to the sorts of external threats that are evident today, every day, 24-7, and that they need the ability to respond to that, and in a way that is public, we have to listen to that. So what happens when one of these orders is instituted? It has to be reported in a very short time frame, and it has to be gazetted. There is a quick review by a committee of either the Senate or the House of Commons to take a look at that.
At the other side of this, there are safeguards to take a look at that, see how it was used, why it was used and its impact. That is the safeguard that will shine light and explain to us what the drivers were of a particular response and the nature of responses taken.
That’s my understanding of it. It makes sense to me, and I think it will make sense to Canadians who are worried about these forms of threats.
Senator McPhedran: I have a question for Ms. Lang, if I may.
Ms. Lang, are you telling us that all of the examples that we’ve been given here today are impossible for IRCC to respond to at this point in time under the existing legislation?
Ms. Lang: Yes, it is impossible en masse. Everything has to be done on a case-by-case basis.
Senator McPhedran: How will the boundaries of “en masse” be determined?
Ms. Lang: It would depend on the situation. Take my example of fraud. A number of applications would be identified. Say there were 500 applications. We would take a look at them and put them into our processing system, and we would be able to pause the processing of those. We would then be able to dig into them, examine them, investigate and communicate with our partners.
The parameters in which we would set that up are tied exactly to an application number, and it is systemic. The mechanism is now in our Global Case Management System, known as the GCMS system, to group those applications and then pause them or cancel them en masse.
Senator McPhedran: The determination of those who will be subject to the mass cancellation could actually be racially or geographically based?
Ms. Lang: I don’t know about “based.” It would be determined by the situation at hand. In a fraud situation, it is not a racially based situation. It is a number of applications that could be from a variety of races. It is not tied to race. Our system is not based on race. Our application data has nothing about race. It is tied to application data.
Senator McPhedran: How much of this process do you anticipate being conducted through AI?
Ms. Lang: None.
Senator McPhedran: That’s the case today, case by case? Nothing is done by AI for denials?
Ms. Lang: No.
Senator McPhedran: I will state for the record that my experience is different from that.
Ms. Lang: No, there are definitely no refusals by AI. That is 100% sure. We use AI to triage cases into certain groupings for review by officers, but no decisions are ever made by AI.
Senator McPhedran: Do officers adopt the decision and then take on the —
Ms. Lang: No.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
The Chair: We are trying to move along. At this pace, we will be here until midnight or later. Not to rush you with your questions, but I’m trying to be as patient as I can.
Senator Dean: In terms of the response to the concerns raised, relating to clause 87.3031(1) states that is an order is made under any of these provisions:
. . . 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 person or groups affected by the order.
There is transparency. It would then be referred to a committee of the Senate or the House of Commons or of both houses of Parliament that may be designated to look at the purpose of the report, and the appearance of the appropriate minister would be mandatory.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: My question is for Senator Dalphond.
If legislation is in place for public health reasons, is it necessary or useful, with Bill C-12, to duplicate this legislation? For example, during the pandemic, we could close the borders without Bill C-12. Given this background, what does Bill C-12 add to the picture?
[English]
The Chair: Senator Youance, I understand what you are getting at. Could you direct your question to Ms. Lang, please?
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Yes. I stand corrected. My question is for Ms. Lang.
[English]
Ms. Lang: Thank you. With Bill C-12, we could have quickly identified all of the applications within our system that were currently in process across the portfolio. Some are for temporary resident visas, some ETAs, any kind of application minus asylum, citizenship, some family classes and Canada classes and agency classes. We could have paused the processing of those.
That would have allowed us to divert resources more appropriately to the emergency cases we needed to process. We could have prevented people from waiting in a backlog by allowing those applications to come in, to grow, which then became subject to further ideas around how to process more quickly and get through those backlogs. We could have prevented people who might have been travelling with illness from coming into the country. Because we didn’t have those provisions, we weren’t able to pause any entering of clients at our border, and we weren’t able to pause the processing, which means applications in our backlogs grew.
That weighed heavily on public servants as we returned to the office and adjusted to a hybrid workplace and all of those things. Bill C-12 would have helped us in the pandemic situation from the multitude of areas to prevent travel, as well as the backlogs and the potential pandemic health impacts. We could have put a pause on all of those documents.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: I don’t know whether the question is for you or for your colleague at the Department of Justice. You can decide.
In addition to the obligations imposed on the minister when the minister adopts an order-in-council under section 87.3001, meaning to report to the House and to have the matter reviewed by a House or Senate committee, I gather that this type of order‑in-council would also fall under the authority of the courts. In other words, it would be subject to possible judicial review. Is that right?
Ms. Lang: I don’t know whether this applies in the same way. I don’t think so. It isn’t a court decision. It’s just Parliament.
[English]
We don’t have to report. I think it’s only the report to Parliament.
Senator Moreau: Yes, but the order that is under provision 87, so it would be submitted for judicial review?
Ms. Lang: Yes. Absolutely.
Senator Moreau: Okay. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I would like to thank Ms. Lang for answering the question put to me in a better way than I could have done.
[English]
My question is really about this. I certainly agree that judicial review with the Governor-in-Council makes an order which is in clear breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that anybody could challenge it before the Federal Court or the Supreme Court. We saw the government and its Emergencies Act were challenged before the courts.
I understand this is about process. It is either the reception of applicants or it is the processing of the applications, but there may be two situations: The applicant is outside Canada or inside Canada. For the applicants who are outside Canada, it says that the gate is closed. For those in Canada, what will happen?
Ms. Lang: It depends on the order-in-council and exactly what the concern is. In the fraud situation, say we had an example of a number of visitors who are currently in Canada, and we had evidence that they had committed fraud. We would make an order-in-council, and if everybody agrees, their visitor document would be cancelled, which effectively means if they leave Canada, they cannot re-enter. Their status as a visitor would remain. They could be subject to a removal order by CBSA if the fraud is founded and they are written up et cetera. Otherwise, their status in Canada would remain. Depending on what the order says, it may say they are entitled to apply again within Canada, or they might have to leave before they can apply. It depends on the situation. For permanent residents, similarly, if they have an application overseas, they cannot travel. For permanent residents in Canada, there is no applicability to applications from within Canada because those are agency and ones that are not — they affect status.
The one we discussed before was about a permanent resident, or PR, card. A PR card could be invalidated within Canada because of fraud or administrative errors, et cetera. The person would remain a permanent resident, and again, the order would specify how they go about getting a corrected PR card. It really depends on the type of document and the situation, but the order would clarify all of that.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mr. Chair, we have received calls to vote down Bill C-12. I have no doubt that Bill C-12 and many clauses in it have been advanced and developed in good faith. I am not trained as a lawyer like my colleagues have been. I’m an engineer. It is a great privilege to be among honourable colleagues who have been trained as lawyers to articulate all consequences, but there are sometimes unintended consequences of things we do regardless of good faith.
I have been trying to exercise our mandate to improve legislation through amendments, and that’s where I’m proposing such kinds of amendments. There are legitimate concerns within various communities that these terms here, like “public safety” and “national security,” can be abused unless they are narrowly defined. The United States government, for example, relied on vague immigration laws to revoke the legal status of international students whose pro-Palestinian activities were deemed to be contrary to the country’s interests or national security. This is just one example.
Terms like “such as” do not restrict the interpretation of what is in the public interest. They are merely illustrative, which means there may be some other effects as well, and that’s the essence of what I have tried to do here through this amendment, to provide more clarity and more certainty.
I will stop at that.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Moodie: I wanted to further pursue Senator McPhedran’s question about the process by which applicants would reach particular agents, the concern being about AI. I have been doing a lot of work in AI recently, and I have learned that AI programming builds bias into a number of things based on skewed training data, flawed algorithmic design and human subjectivity. In fact, AI trained on past decisions tends to replicate the bias within those decisions.
Based on what you have said, the AI that is used by your department is used on a triage basis at an earlier stage, “sorting applications.” You notice my air quotes. Because all of this suggests that, somehow, there is objectivity about this sorting. Does IRCC clearly understand that bias is built into the triaging, and that the agents that receive the subgroups that come their way are clearly filled with individuals of a certain kind who carry certain characteristics such that they must vote a certain way? The person making the decision at the final step is the agent, but he has already been given a predetermined package of people he is to understand he’s supposed to rule in a certain way with a bias that is clear. I’m just asking you if IRCC has made sure that this is, in fact, not what is happening? Based on what I understand about AI, it is almost impossible to take that bias out of the system as it exists today.
Ms. Lang: Ironically enough, just today, our AI strategy was published externally. I encourage everyone to take a look at it. AI definitely has bias. We will never live in a world where AI doesn’t have bias. We have a number of trainings and, even this year, in our performance management agreements as executives, we had to not only take AI training but also encourage our staff to take it as part of our requirements.
I understand the concerns around AI, but whether you are triaging manually or using AI, those biases still exist, and a decision maker has the authority and training to make decisions for him or herself.
As this pertains to Bill C-12 en masse, I don’t see a link. There is not AI identifying cases that would be used for this. There are parameters that we would see based on intelligence, on the situation and the emergency to pull applications from the system. When I got into my little exchange about AI with the other senator, it was in a processing space. I don’t disagree there are many challenges with AI, but IRCC has been working diligently to tackle those challenges and become informed. I think we are one of the first departments that has a comprehensive AI strategy and is actively working to do the best we can to make sure that decisions are correct. Again, at this time and for the foreseeable future, AI is not making decisions for officers.
Senator Moodie: Just to complete the questioning, are you saying that your agents are getting specific training on how to resist the inherent bias in the AI that they get?
Ms. Lang: Yes, there is training offered. I don’t know that it is mandatory at this point, but we do have bias in decision‑making training. Whether it’s AI or other triage rules, Excel sheets or best practices, bias can exist in decision making. We all have our own biases, and that is something that all decision makers need to be cognizant of and that we have training to address that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: I want to take us back to August 2021 when Kabul fell to the Taliban. We were in the midst of COVID. This applies to the public health angle on this. Does Bill C-12 give the cabinet the authority to not accept mass applications on the part of potential refugees from a situation like Afghanistan?
Ms. Lang: The refugee process is not included in the en masse authorities.
Senator Woo: We’re discussing a very specific amendment here about narrowing the definition of “public interest.” I would just remind everyone that the SOCI report recommends getting rid of this section altogether. So what Senator Al Zaibak is recommending is very targeted. It may or may not be the best amendment, but it’s in the context of what many people feel is a fundamentally flawed measure that’s being given to the government.
That’s because it gives the government extraordinary powers to cancel or suspend, en masse, a variety of applications and documents, including — and maybe we haven’t said this enough — permanent resident cards, resident vivas, travel authorizations, and so on and so forth. The department has been steadfast in saying it doesn’t affect the status of these individuals even if they have lost their PR cards. I understand this is a technical, legal point that can be made.
However, I want to ask the department whether deportation measures would kick in under a bulk cancellation of work or study permits, and if not, how long would that take to kick in?
Ms. Lang: No, deportation would not kick in, and the removal process has not changed with this bill, pertaining to mass cancellation.
In a work and study permit situation, the person who is otherwise a visitor in Canada would no longer be able to work or study. They would still be authorized to be here as a visitor and could continue to extend their status as a visitor.
Senator Woo: If they were unable to do that, then they would have to leave within 30 days — is that correct? Is that how it works?
Ms. Lang: Not necessarily. Again, you’re authorized when you enter as a visitor, and that gives you your status. If you apply for a work or study permit, that gives you the ability to work or study. So if that is cancelled, you then become a visitor. If your status needs to be renewed, you apply for a visitor record. If you are refused a visitor record, it would state in it the time frame in which you would have to be removed, and then, technically, you would be in Canada illegally.
Senator Woo: Your status would very quickly change if you were not able to renew the status.
If the PR cards are cancelled, the IRCC website states very clearly, this is your are proof of being a PR. So how would you go about accessing services, benefits or other things that PRs need to access using their card?
Ms. Lang: A PR card could be cancelled. Your PR card does show your proof of status. Similarly, our Canadian passport also is a proof of identity. Many people do not carry Canadian passports, but you are still a Canadian.
Similarly, with PR cards, there are many PRs who choose not to have a PR card, but they are still a permanent resident. Confirmation of your permanent resident document is actually your proof of status, and your PR card allows you to travel.
When an order is made to cancel a permanent resident card, it would stipulate within what the reason was. I would say that, in the vast majority of cases, there would be a situation of fraud.
I can’t think of a large number of instances where we would otherwise want to cancel.
If you were here using a fraudulent permanent resident card, then there are obviously other situations that might arise. For example, you might be subject to a removal order, but again, that is a separate process that is tied to your status. If it were an administrative error, and we issued a card in error in your wrong name, then your card would be cancelled. The order would specify that you will receive your accurate PR card in X many days, et cetera, et cetera.
Senator Woo: That is to say that you already have the powers to deal with fraudulent or administrative errors in cards.
Ms. Lang: On a case-by-case basis.
Senator Woo: Precisely. So let me get to the case of extortion because it was brought up as the raison d’être for the mass cancellation suspension powers. This is the case of alleged extortionists in B.C. applying en masse — I think that is the term you used — for refugee status. We’re talking about 15 people.
What is the procedure, currently, in the absence of Bill C-12, to make these individuals inadmissible — because you have these powers — on the basis of criminality and so on and so forth, so that they cannot proceed with their refugee applications?
Ms. Lang: Inadmissibility finding is pursued by IRCC or CBSA. The situation in that instance was about students who are here applying for refugee status.
Senator Woo: I am taking about the extortion case.
Ms. Lang: I understand, but the refugee process is not part of that situation. So en masse can only be used in the finding of removing their work or study permit. Otherwise, if they are found to be inadmissible by CBSA, they would follow the removal stream; mass cancellation would have no impact on their status. It would only impact their documents.
Senator Woo: So Bill C-12 is not relevant to the extortion case then.
Ms. Lang: Not in so much as we want people to be removed. But if we found that there are cases that are still abroad, we can cancel or suspend those visas before the people travel here.
Senator Woo: That is very helpful in terms of the debate and not using this as the cause célèbre for Bill C-12 to be enacted. Thank you.
The Chair: Would you like to introduce your amendment?
Senator Simons: I was listening, Ms. Lang, with great interest to your back and forth with Senator Woo, and I confess I am still a little bit confused about the subtle difference between cancelling your documents and cancelling your status.
Imagine I’m a permanent resident and travelling outside the country on a family holiday or on a business trip, which is absolutely my legal right as a permanent resident, and I’m caught up in the class of people who had their documentation cancelled en masse. What is my recourse if I wish to return to my work and family in Canada if I am caught outside the country in this moment?
Ms. Lang: You can apply for a permanent resident travel document and return to the country using that.
Senator Woo: It was just cancelled.
Ms. Lang: A travel document is different from a PR card.
Senator Simons: What is the time lag?
Ms. Lang: It is very quick. Every mission abroad processes them. It does happen that people’s PR cards are lost or stolen, and it is very quick.
Senator Simons: Like one might lose a passport.
Ms. Lang: Exactly.
Senator Simons: One has nightmares about it.
Ms. Lang: It would take 24 to 48 hours.
Senator Simons: In this case, when you cancel a mass class, that is different than leaving your card in a restaurant. Because presumably there might be a red flag that says that all these kinds of people had their documents cancelled.
Ms. Lang: It’s not people; it’s documents. As I was saying, the biggest thing with the PR card is oftentimes around errors that are made administratively, such as typos in a name or address. At other times, however, we have identified situations where people are telling us that they have maintained their permanent residency status; yet, every card we send to their home is sent back as “return to sender,” and they are actually living abroad.
Senator Simons: Are these individual cases that can be addressed already with the legal powers that you have?
Ms. Lang: Right.
Senator Simons: Many of us are concerned about cancelling people as a class rather than because it is a typo on the card or a name mistake, because those mistakes happen, and you have the capacity to fix those mistakes individually.
Ms. Lang: Absolutely.
Senator Simons: I’m still struggling to understand on what basis a class of people would suddenly have their documentation cancelled without reference to their individual circumstances?
Ms. Lang: Again, normally when we give the example of a cyberattack, these situations do happen en masse, and we know that there are tens if not hundreds of people who could be affected, and administrative errors similarly. Sometimes it is a matter of duplicate cards, but there are definitely en masse situations.
A PR card, as I mentioned, does happen from time to time, and I think an administrative error situation is one that can happen to more than one person, and the same with fraud. Fraud is often more than one client being victimized; it is a large-scale situation.
And that applies equally to study and work permits and visitor visas.
The Chair: I think our last intervention is Senator Al Zaibak.
Senator Al Zaibak: Ms. Lang, I have some questions to get more clarity on clause 72 of Bill C-12, which introduces Section 87.301(1) into the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Does it or does it not grant the Governor-in-Council and the minister extraordinary authority to refuse to accept immigrants, immigration applications for processing, suspend or terminate applications already in progress, cancel, vary or impose conditions on immigration documents, and exercise these powers by class, category or nationality outside the ordinary parliamentary process?
Ms. Lang: So the first part of what you read is the authorities, the class, et cetera, is not part of the act, no.
Senator Al Zaibak: What is it part of?
Ms. Lang: The intention is not about class or race or group. It is to respond to emergency situations and extraordinary circumstances; it does give that power to the Governor-in-Council. Again in a very defined and prescribed circumstance, down again to the application number, the details and the remedies and the impacts.
But the latter part that you mentioned about class, et cetera, that is not part of the bill and it is not the intent.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you,
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I think we’ve heard everybody who wanted to speak. Moved by Senator Al Zaibak that Bill C-12 be amended in clause 72 on page 30 by replacing lines 15 and 16 with the following: “Address administrative error.” Is it your pleasure, honourable senators to adopt the motion in the amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I’m not sure how to read that, so we’ll do a recorded vote so we can be accurate, and you don’t accuse me of just hearing one side here. I should identify Senator Martin as joining the group. She is designated as an ex officio on behalf of our group, and she is replacing Senator Housakos.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Yussuff?
Senator Yussuff: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Al Zaibak?
Senator Al Zaibak: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Cardozo?
Senator Cardozo: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Deacon?
Senator M. Deacon: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Hay?
Senator Hay: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Ince?
Senator Ince: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Youance?
Senator Youance: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Moreau?
Senator Moreau: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: No.
Ms. Paajanen: Yeas, 4; nays, 11.
The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.
Shall clause 72, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Senator Al Zaibak, if I could clarify something. I understand MZ-C12-72-30-17a is being redrawn? There is a shared amendment that is similar, so I think Senator Al Zaibak is withdrawing his, and it was going to be dealt with separately.
Senator Al Zaibak: Would you repeat that question, Mr. Chair? Amendment 15-04-77.
The Chair: Yes. MZ-C12-72-30-17a, are you moving that amendment.
Senator Al Zaibak: Yes, I am. So I move:
That Bill C-12 be amended in clause 72,
(a) on page 30, by replacing line 17 with the following:
“87.301 (1) The Governor in Council may, subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament, make an order”;
(b) on page 31, by replacing line 23 with the following:
“Council may, by order and subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament,”;
(c) on page 32,
(i) by replacing line 19 with the following:
“Council may, by order and subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament, amend or repeal any order made”,
(ii) by replacing line 23 with the following:
“may, by order and subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament, authorize the Minister, by order, to amend”.
Colleagues, this adds the notion of an affirmative resolution of Parliament to all the relevant sections added in clause 72. I think the concern is that a lot of extraordinary power has been given without parliamentary oversight. This provides the ability to do it with parliamentary oversight.
The Chair: We’ll now move to hear those who wish to speak.
Senator Dalphond: If I understand properly, no such order that is to be made in the public interest, mostly in the case of emergency, will not be possible until they have been confirmed by Parliament. So that would be contrary to the Emergencies Act, which says that the orders are effective, but Parliament can end these orders by voting on a motion, either the House or the Senate. So you are asking for something that would prevent — if Parliament is not sitting, or it is summer or there is a recess or election, does it mean that the Governor-in-Council could not adopt such policies? I think maybe it’s a bit too stringent. Maybe it would have been better to look at the Emergencies Act, maybe?
Senator Al Zaibak: Senator Dalphond, that is something that we need to look at more thoroughly, let me say. So to avoid conflict and synchronize with other existing laws. I appreciate the point you raised, thank you.
Senator Woo: Just to build on Senator Dalphond’s point, the Emergencies Act is actually a good example because we know how that turned out. In this case, we already have powers to deal with individual cases of fraud, criminality and other problems with applications. The power to cancel or suspend documents and applications is a very sweeping power. I don’t think you can equate it with the Emergencies Act in terms of the urgency that is needed. If Parliament is in recess, it can be recalled. We have been recalled for lesser things.
This simply does what parliamentarians often call for: the ability to provide some oversight and to have a voice in representing the people of the country to see if, in fact, what the government is proposing should be carried out.
I expect that most of, or maybe all of the time, the decision will be in the affirmative, but it just provides that one extra step of oversight to this section, a section that so many stakeholders have proposed we get rid of all together. So this seems to me to be kind of a minimalist proposal to provide some caution and control.
Senator Simons: It’s my understanding that although this power has not been used in Canada recently, it is a power that Parliament used to use more liberally, and it is still something that is very commonplace in sister parliaments, like in Westminster, Australia and New Zealand. So it’s not something that, perhaps, that Canadian parliamentarians have used as much as they ought to. In a case where people’s fundamental rights are put in jeopardy because of their membership in a group that has possible Charter implications, it requires the consent of Parliament and both houses to make sure that, before we suspend people’s rights holus-bolus, there is some degree to which the powers of Governor-in-Council are corralled by giving us a chance to weigh in.
The Emergencies Act situation is interesting because, of course, the Senate didn’t get a chance to vote. I believe Senator Wells was on the floor at the very moment that we learned the Senate wasn’t going to get the chance to vote. However, it is arguable that the debate that we had in the Senate helped to influence that decision and the timing thereof. Certainly, at the time, we will recall that Senator Plett believed the Senate debate was determinative in the decision to lift the Emergencies Act. Whether we believe we’re that powerful or not, I think there was public perception that the debate we had in the Senate was a really important one that touched on issues that had not properly been rehearsed, and we don’t know if the court decisions were also influenced by some of the arguments that we made. I have no vote. I am here as a guest and have trespassed on your courtesy, but were I to vote, I would vote in favour.
Senator Dean: That’s a very good question, Senator Simons. I think we have heard, and most of us assume, that in some cases, this provision will be used and needs to be used rapidly in the context of a signal or warning that an artificial intelligence‑oriented cyberattack is being enacted to disrupt government systems, to say the least. To put up our hands and send a message back through our own cybersecurity agency to say, “Would you mind holding off for a week or so while we get parliamentary consent?” is probably not going to work.
There will be circumstances, and they may well be related to mass fraud, cyberattacks or other security matters, that require a rapid response, and this is what’s being asked for.
I absolutely understand the importance of parliamentary scrutiny in this particular circumstance. It is inferred that, in some cases, significant ones, it could affect the rights and interests of everyone in Canada, and some outside it, and that we don’t have to time to go and ask for parliamentary approval. That is why the very rigid and transparent mechanisms that kick in immediately after that order has been issued are so important.
They’re fast, and there is parliamentary scrutiny, but the threat has been dealt with.
The Chair: Thank you all for your involvement. Let me read the motion again and anyone we’ll get to the process of a vote.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Al Zaibak:
That Bill C-12 be amended in clause 72,
(a) on page 30, by replacing line 17 with the following:
“87.301 (1) The Governor in Council may, subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament, make an order”;
(b) on page 31, by replacing line 23 with the following:
“Council may, by order and subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament,”;
(c) on page 32,
(i) by replacing line 19 with the following:
“Council may, by order and subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament, amend or repeal any order made”,
(ii) by replacing line 23 with the following:
“may, by order and subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament, authorize the Minister, by order, to amend”.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We will move to a recorded vote.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Yussuff?
Senator Yussuff: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Al Zaibak?
Senator Al Zaibak: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Cardozo?
Senator Cardozo: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator M. Deacon?
Senator M. Deacon: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Hay?
Senator Hay: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Ince?
Senator Ince: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Moreau?
Senator Moreau: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator D. M. Wells?
Senator D. M. Wells: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Yuance?
Senator Youance: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: Yeas, 5; nays 10.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated, colleagues.
Shall Part 7, entitled Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Certain Measures in Respect of Applications and Documents), containing clauses 65 to 72, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We will now start with Part 8 of the bill, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Ineligibility), clauses 73, page 34 to 75, page 35.
Shall Part 8 entitled Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Ineligibility), which contains clauses 73 to 75 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Al Zaibak, you have an amendment.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you.
Mr. Chair, colleagues, I move:
That Bill C-12 be amended in clause 73, on page 34,
(a) by replacing lines 5 and 6 with the following:
“and made the claim more than three years after the day of their most recent entry;”;
(b) by deleting lines 15 to 18.
Mr. Chair, this motion changes 1 to 3 and date of entry to date of most recent entry in (1.01)(1)(b.1) added in clause 73 and deletes a now redundant 1.1.
The Chair: Is there anything else you wish to add before we move to other speakers?
Senator Al Zaibak: Mr. Chair, this is a minor amendment that makes it more logical and fair to people in situations where maybe they have not been taken into account in drafting the bill.
Here is a situation where you have, for example, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees who came here under specific circumstances with hopes they would come back and would go back home. When their circumstances changed, if we count — if we are prohibiting a group of them, or any one of them from coming back because of the restriction cited here — one year from the first entry bar, the one-year bar, then I think there are some unintended situations that were not taken care of in this provision. What I propose here provides a fair treatment for consideration in the future.
Senator Woo: I support this amendment. It could have been done in a number of different ways, as you all can imagine, but the underlying issue it addresses is what seems to be an unfair and arbitrary designation of June 2020 as the starting point for the clock and using the one-year period beginning on the day of the first entry.
Obviously, Senator Al Zaibak has chosen to use three years. Another senator could well have proposed one year but also the most recent entry. That could be another way to make it less unfair. But his proposal fundamentally deals with a situation that the government is proposing that just seem unfair.
All of us can imagine examples where the circumstances of potential applicants have changed after one year further to their first entry. They could be legitimate or worthy applicants for refugee status but would be seen to be ineligible because of this provision.
The Chair: Does anyone else wish to speak to the amendment?
Senator Simons: My thanks for your indulgence, as I am not a voting member of the committee tonight.
We’ve heard, specifically from LGBTQ communities, that his amendment addresses a concern that you could have a situation in which you don’t realize that you will need to make a refugee claim until after you’ve been in the country for a year or two.
You may have come from a country where homosexuality is criminalized or strongly socially sanctioned. You come here and experience the liberty of Canada and realize who you actually are. You shouldn’t be penalized for the fact you didn’t know that when you first arrived, say, on a student visa. You may now realize that if you go back to your home country as a queer person, that you may suffer prosecution or persecution simply for being who you are.
There is a concern for people who left a country at a time of relative peace, and while they are here, either as students or temporary foreign workers, the country that they left has fallen into war or a state of violence that would imperil them if they were to go home.
I understand that the legislation allows for a pre-removal review, which is not the same as a hearing.
As Senator Woo has mentioned, there is no perfect way to solve this problem. I am alive to the concern of the department that if you make it the last entry, that I can just jump over the border and jump back and restart the clock. I understand that the government doesn’t want that to happen.
But I do think, given the evidence heard by SOCI, and given the correspondence we’ve all received from civil society groups, that there needs to be recognition that a one-year deadline will create circumstances that are desperately unfair for individuals and that this one-size-fits-all clock of 12 months is inevitably going to lead to circumstances where people are sent back to harm’s way.
Senator Cardozo: My question would be for an official about the purpose [Technical difficulties] that my colleagues have raised in terms of the downside of this clause. Can you explain why it’s necessary? I was asking the officials, but feel free to add if you want.
Senator Al Zaibak: This is in direct response to the reports and the recommendations that came from SOCI. A blanket one‑year bar from first entry to Canada captures even individuals who entered and left Canada at a very young age and who are, years later, forced to seek protection due to a change in circumstances in their country of origin.
As a practical example, an individual from Ukraine may have entered a decade ago as a visitor and returned to their country of origin. If they were able to escape to Canada today, they would be barred from making a refugee claim on the basis that it has been more than one year since their initial entry to Canada, even though that entry was in completely different circumstances. The proposed amendment provides a measure of fairness and accommodation in such cases.
Jason Hollmann, Director General, Asylum, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you for the question. If I understand it, the intent of choosing the one-year marker is largely because we need to pick a fixed duration of time. That time seemed to be reasonable. The majority of claimants have submitted asylum claims within that period.
We have been seeing an adjustment in some of the profiles of people who are submitting asylum claims. In the last year, about 39% of in-land claims were made after one year. That contrasts with 14% the year before. We tabled that information in the material that we submitted to the previous committee study.
We’re seeing that type of adjustment. It’s not to say that it signals significant fraud, but it is a change in behaviour that is worth capturing. Part of the measure is designed to protect the asylum system from surges and increases in claims and to deter potential misuse by people who may be looking at the system and using it as a way to potentially extend their time in Canada, especially given the long time frames for decision making with the inventories that are currently there.
The challenge with the “most recent entry” versus the way that it’s scripted in the legislation is exactly as Senator Simons mentioned and as we commented previously. Part of the issue with “most recent entry” is that it could be easily overridden by people who simply cross the border or leave Canada and come back. That would undermine the intent of the measure itself and would also lead to unintended consequences of border pressures both on the Canadian side and on the U.S. side.
We do point to the significant safeguard of the pre-removal risk assessment. This is how we are fulfilling the protection obligations that we want to have. That risk assessment will look at the individual circumstances for each person who applies. It looks at the country’s conditions at the time of application.
It would deal with, for example, someone who then is submitting their situation after a certain period of time and whether the country’s situation has changed since they arrived in Canada. It would account for those things when looking at that assessment of risk.
The end result of the pre-removal risk assessment, if it’s positive, does give the exact same protected-person status for someone as a positive decision at the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Senator Cardozo: Currently, there is no time frame in the legislation?
Mr. Hollmann: That is right. Currently, that is not one of the grounds for people being ineligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Senator Cardozo: In terms of numbers, do you see a significant difference between one year versus three years?
Mr. Hollmann: I don’t have the information on that today.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Dean: Just very briefly, chair, a clear signal coming out of this proposed legislation is that the government expects, as do Canadians, that, faced with the choice of regular expected processes, as opposed to irregular ones, is the right way to go. Those who choose the irregular route will get due process, and many will be accepted as refugees.
There is a clear preference on the part of Canadians who like their system of immigration and asylum. Many of us have benefitted from it — a large majority, if not all Canadians, in some respects, historically. We expect that people will follow the rules. This is a signal that it’s important to follow the rules with a very significant safety net. That net gets you, in many cases, as good as you’re going to get from the IRB. Those numbers are expected to grow over time.
This is not abandoning claimants. It gives them due process. Many of them will be successful, despite having entered irregularly.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Mr. Hollmann, you know the system much better than I do. I gather that, in the United States, the period is one year. That’s our proposal here too. There would be a type of reciprocity or system adjustment. I understand that the United States has a clause, a safety valve, apart from in exceptional circumstances, which we may not have here?
Mr. Hollmann: Yes. Obviously, the systems are different and the exceptions are different. The mechanism following an inadmissibility finding is different as well.
Our pre-removal risk assessment for individuals who will be inadmissible or whose claims will be inadmissible is different from the United States’ system. We believe that this approach really does give clients the opportunity to pursue their claim and to have their situation studied by professionals who consider the same factors and the same country conditions. These people are well trained to make these decisions in order to provide good access to protections for these individuals. This is backed up by legal rulings on the long-standing process.
Senator Dalphond: According to the statistics that you provided, last year, in 2025, 39% applied to obtain refugee status after 12 months, so 61% applied within 12 months?
Mr. Hollmann: Yes. That’s right.
Senator Dalphond: And the year before, it was 85%? Go on.
Mr. Hollmann: These are claims from people who are already in the country.
Senator Dalphond: Already?
Mr. Hollmann: People who are already in the country, so they have been here for over a year.
Senator Dalphond: I’m not sure that I understand. The 39% rate refers to people who have been in Canada for over a year, especially students, and who apply for refugee status, and 61% apply for refugee status during the year. Is this really the case?
Mr. Hollmann: Who do so in the first year.
Senator Dalphond: You’re saying that most people are already following the one-year rule?
Mr. Hollmann: That’s right.
Senator Dalphond: I understand. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Simons: I have a quick question following on Senator Dalphond’s. Of the 39%, how many of them were 5 years, 10 years, as opposed to being one month past one year?
I have a second question: We have a system for people who make refugee claims. They go to the IRB and have hearings. The same decision determined that those hearings were constitutionally required. It begs the question: If you’re saying that a pre-removal risk assessment is just as good, how confident are you that that would survive a challenge using Singh, as the case?
Also, what is the point? Why do we have all these other systems? If a pre-removal risk assessment is all we need, presumably we can do that for everybody.
Mr. Hollmann: I don’t have the breakdown of how many of the 39% of people were here for certain periods of time. That said, a normal temporary resident may not be in Canada for 10 years. It wouldn’t be quite that long. Whether it is one year plus one month or three years, I can’t answer that.
Senator Simons: Would that be a crisis if people are applying 14 months later? What problem are we trying to solve? I don’t understand. You’re right; looked at in isolation, 14% to 39% sounds like a big increase, but I’m curious to know what it was like five years ago. I am curious to know, of that 39%, how many are absurdly over the limit versus only a little bit?
Mr. Hollmann: Historically, it has been fairly low. Again, I don’t have the statistics for that. We were seeing most people who required protection claiming protection pretty quickly after arriving in Canada. The concern is, with the asylum system already under significant pressure with high volumes and long timelines, we do need to look at how to protect that system from other large volumes of claims.
If we are looking at a situation where other immigration decisions may also be tightening up the number of temporary residents and the number of permanent pathways in Canada, there are some concerns about whether that may direct people to the asylum system as a way to extend their time frame in Canada. This is part of the reason that we speak about these measures as both deterring misuse but also protecting the system from those higher volumes.
In terms of the Singh decision — and my Justice colleagues may want to comment if you want some of the details — effectively, the analysis and the record of the Singh decision are such that an oral hearing is required only in significant cases where concerns around credibility determine the decision for the refugee claim. That’s the approach that is taken under the pre‑removal risk assessment.
As for the Immigration and Refugee Board, I can’t speak to their full business processes, but they also use more simplified decisions for some of their cases that are likely to yield positive decisions.
Senator Woo: The insinuation is that the jump in the numbers from 14% to 39% is reflected in some kind of fraudulent or irregular or non-legitimate applications. I think that’s what the government is trying to imply, and they want to crack down on it. That is, in a sense, a legitimate governmental goal, but it is not a way of sorting for true refugees.
You sort for true refugees by examining the cases that are presented before you. If you make ineligible someone who wants to submit a claim after one year, you’re applying a criterion that is not based on refugee criteria. It’s a criterion based on expediency. Again, governments have the right to do that.
It is important to underscore the point that Senator Simons has made and which SOCI heard over and over again. Justice will dispute this, but there are many experts who believe this law is unconstitutional. We heard it in no uncertain terms from the Canadian Bar Association. If I can generalize, I think this is the single biggest concern that they have with the bill. It’s almost certain that the bill will be challenged in the courts. That well may be, but it will take years, of course, for some kind of resolution to be reached.
But as senators, we always ask ourselves the question — it’s almost a mantra — is it constitutional?
Of course, we don’t have the power to make that judgment. The courts do that. The government hasn’t actually made that judgment. They’ve given us a Charter statement, but I haven’t seen a Charter statement that says it is unconstitutional.
We need to use our judgment. The judgment that I’m reaching, based on substantial expert testimony, is that this is likely unconstitutional.
However, there is another point that was only indirectly raised in SOCI, which I would like to bring to your attention, that is germane to Senator Al Zaibak’s amendment. The two ineligibilities — the one-year ban and the 14-day rule — have been flagged by UNHCR and human rights organizations as falling out of compliance with international human rights standards.
It’s important, especially because, when the Canadian government introduced ineligibilities for people who had made prior refugee claims in a Five Eyes country — this was just six years ago, in 2019, when some of us were here — Parliament insisted on amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to guarantee that these individuals would have at least a guaranteed hearing, maybe with pre-removal risk assessment, but a guaranteed hearing was insisted on by Parliament and promised by the government.
So it would seem to me that this legislation takes away what we secured from government in 2019 and makes it even more in violation of our obligations under international human rights and refugee conventions.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mr. Hollmann, the comparative statistics jumping from 14% to 39% in one year is quite alarming.
What do you attribute the jump in these numbers to? I don’t know if you have the details or reasons for such a jump in the stats.
I’m wondering — I’m not answering for you — whether one of the reasons is en masse fraud by students who come here or misleading practices by consulting firms or consultants who advise asylum seekers and refugees.
While I look forward to your answer, I recall that, a few years ago, we gave incentives to international students to stay here and apply for permanent residency. I don’t know if it’s still valid or not, but I recall that some years of their studies were being counted toward obtaining Canadian citizenship. What has changed since that time?
Those are two sets of questions.
Mr. Hollmann: There could be many reasons why somebody might decide to apply for international protection or protection in Canada.
I can’t presuppose any individual claim. Obviously, global dynamics play into that, as do the individual circumstances of the people who are claiming.
That can account for some of the circumstances. But to your example on students or people who may be misled by consultants, we also know that there may be people who look to the asylum system — especially when you have a long decision time frame for cases before the IRB — as a potential opportunity to stay in Canada longer and see how things might go. That is some of the behaviour that we would like to try to discourage people from pursuing.
Senator Al Zaibak: What happens to that incentive we have been providing to attract and convince international students to stay here? We seem to be going in the opposite direction unless there is some serious evidence-based fraud that you can point to.
I recall hearing the minister indicating that 35% of international students are applying. I don’t know if the 39% is related to what the minister stated in this committee before.
Mr. Hollmann: She corrected the number, saying that 17% of last year’s claimants were students. With any immigration program, we expect people to comply with the conditions of that program, and temporary programs are set up to be just that unless something changes. A student admitted on a student visa is expected to come to Canada and study on their student visa. The time they are here may count and support other application for other types of permanent immigration programs. But, unless they have received that type of confirmation that they are accepted to another program, they are expected to leave Canada at the end of their studies.
We have seen the government make changes to those programs, as well as to the number of temporary residents and permanent residents for other reasons, and that means that people who have their visa coming to an end would be expected to depart.
Senator Dean: I just want to pick up on the reference to the Singh decision. Those of us who sat through the Social Committee hearings for three or four days and benefitted from those hearings heard repeated references to the Singh decision as a constitutional anchor for a situation of this kind.
A government lawyer subsequently was asked and did offer an opinion on the Singh decision. I have subsequently read the Singh decision, which shows that we should probably not take these things lightly.
That decision reaches back to a now-defunct immigration tribunal. The finding in the Singh decision was that a hearing wasn’t required in every case, but one could be relevant in cases where the credibility of a witness is in doubt.
I want to make sure that we all have a full appreciation of the Singh decision because I certainly was convinced, but apparently, the decision says something quite different.
Senator Dalphond: My question is for the sponsor, Senator Al Zaibak. I felt that what has been proposed is to extend the delay from one year to three years, and the last date of entry and not the first time of entry. Now we are talking about the Singh decision and the right to a hearing. I wonder if we’re not confusing two things.
My question for the sponsor is this: If we adopted the proposed amendments after three years, since the last entry, that person will find themselves out of this track and will have to go to another track. So either the Singh decision will apply or not for those over three years.
Are we proposing here to have the net more open or less open? Whatever perspective you have. But in the end, it’s the same result. Some people will be on the Singh argument, and that may be some contribution, and some others, which I read back in 1985 — it goes back a long time ago. It’s a divided opinion. It’s three versus three. It is full of nuances, and I certainly know that Justice Beetz was a man full of nuances.
To come back to the amendment, why do we take three years and have people out, and one year is not okay? I want to understand, because whatever the proposal, there would be people out.
I’m trying to understand exactly what you are trying to achieve here.
Senator Al Zaibak: The three years here is from the most recent entry rather than from the first entry. It could be argued one year or five years. I wish Senator Moodie were here because she listened to all of those arguments at SOCI. If I may, maybe a member of SOCI can answer that.
To me, one year from the date of first entry is quite restrictive and does not take into consideration so many factors, including what I cited about the changes of situation in Ukraine and other areas.
The key point here is the date of the last entry, because that provides more fairness, let me say, for children or infants who come here. Counting the date from first entry is what is bothersome at this point.
If we count the date from the most recent entry, then it provides more fairness, and it does not disadvantage people who have been here out of their control, such as infants and children. It also accommodates the situations I have described.
Is there anyone from SOCI here?
Senator Dalphond: But I think your answer is separate to mine; what you are proposing is a different policy. The government’s policy is to have a cutoff date after one year — on another track, that might be subject to challenges. You are proposing that we keep that type of reasoning but that it be three years instead of one year and the last date of entry instead of the first date of entry. So, I understand.
I, myself, would be more comfortable if we were keeping the current proposal from the government and adding an escape clause or safety valve that says, “except in exceptional circumstances.” I don’t think addressing the date — whatever the date would be — one year, two years or three years — would deal with people outside of that date who would then find themselves in a different system.
Anyway, I understand what you are trying to achieve, but I am not sure it is the proper way. I’ll leave it there.
Senator Cardozo: This particular discussion really goes to the core. Certainly, it’s a really good example of what we are debating here with this bill and what it is about.
If you look at the larger context, there is a world in which we have the largest number of people ever moving around the globe. Whether it is in Africa, South America, Europe or in North America, there are countries that have maintained open borders and others that have closed their borders. One of the interesting things that I have been observing for a while is that, with open borders, you have had country after country go from moderate to hard-right governments. Some of us were at a NATO meeting last week, and I spoke with a few of our colleagues from other countries. They felt the open borders in Europe that have caused various countries to move, not just to the right, which is fine, but to the hard right. So, the moderate governments that try to maintain a system of moderate openness ended up with hard‑right governments such that the result is that those governments have the furthest thing from the objectives the moderate governments were trying to do.
What the Government of Canada is now trying to do is create a balance on that question. We are called upon to think about what that balance is. You might think it is one year or three. To me, this is a key example of what this whole bill and the debate are on it are about. In talking to some of our colleagues in Europe, they were saying that they should have been tougher 5 and 10 years ago; that Germany was the one that led Europe in terms of open borders, and now there are massive changes taking place — not just political but societal changes. These hard-right governments have wiped out an array of other human rights policies.
I’m not saying we have to go hard, but we are tasked to think about how we come to that balance. Good arguments can be made for one and three years, but that is part of what the government has put forward in terms of it trying to wrestle with this very core dynamic that is happening the world over.
The Chair: Excuse me, Senator Al Zaibak, with all due respect, I’m watching the clock because a number of amendments still have to be dealt with. As much as I want to hear you out, repeating your points doesn’t really help at this time.
Thank you for your intervention.
Senator Muggli: I’m a member of SOCI, and I was there for the hearings. The primary argument from witnesses, Senator Dalphond, around the one-year cutoff was regarding a potential disproportionate impact on survivors of gender-based violence and people coming from trauma-related experiences. It was felt that one year is a very challenging situation for people who have experienced such trauma to be able to come to a country, settle, get their kids in school, figure out how they will eat and find a job, et cetera.
I would say the primary concern from all the witnesses that we heard from was that it would negatively impact people who have experienced trauma, in particular. I wanted to add that is what we heard at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Senator Osler: To follow up on Senator Muggli’s comments, I am also a member of SOCI. With your permission, Mr. Chair, I can read you two short paragraphs to follow-up on the question and on Senator Al Zaibak’s suggestion.
This is from the SOCI report:
Your committee also learned that the proposed one-year ineligibility rule, which in cases of multiple entries would start on the day after the day of the claimant’s first entry, should be removed from the bill given its high likelihood of negatively impacting the most vulnerable – including 2SLGBTQI+ individuals, minors, people fleeing gender-based violence, and persons from moratorium countries that benefit from a suspension on removals.
Indeed, while the purpose of the one-year ineligibility rule is to address potential misuse of the system, the proposed measure would not reflect extenuating circumstances, including the situation of a child who is brought to Canada as a baby for one day and later returns at age 10. Your committee also heard that basing the one-year ineligibility rule on the last date of entry would increase fairness. Your committee also heard that making a claim in a timely manner is irrelevant to whether or not a person needs protection.
Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Hollmann, may I ask you a question? How could you deal with extenuating circumstances such as those that the senator just outlined?
Mr. Hollmann: What we have explained is that the pre‑removal risk assessment process takes into account many of the concerns and conditions that people have given as examples. The officers who are conducting those assessments are trained in dealing with different types of individuals and different types of circumstances, including gender considerations and considerations around vulnerability. There is specific guidance involving cases of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics. Our instructions involve specific information on those cases, and our officers are also instructed to refer to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s guidelines on how to deal with those cases.
When we talk about changing country conditions, as I said before, the pre-removal risk assessment does look at the country’s conditions at the exact time that the person is facing removal to really get a sense of whether they are facing a risk exactly at the time they are there, regardless of when they may have come to Canada or come to Canada for the first time.
As the minister’s letter that was read at the opening commented, we also have the provisions in the legislation that allow for exceptions to be made in the regulations should those be determined to be required.
The Chair: Thank you kindly. I have heard everybody who wanted to speak on the amendment. Colleagues, we will now proceed. It is moved by Senator Al Zaibak:
That Bill C-12 be amended in clause 73, on page 34,
(a) by replacing lines 5 and 6 with the following:
“and made the claim more than three years after the day of their most recent entry;”;
(b) by deleting lines 15 to 18.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: We will have to do a roll call vote.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Yussuff?
Senator Yussuff: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Al Zaibak?
Senator Al Zaibak: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Cardozo?
Senator Cardozo: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: Abstain.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Deacon?
Senator M. Deacon: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Hay?
Senator Hay: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Ince?
Senator Ince: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Moreau?
Senator Moreau: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Youance?
Senator Youance: Abstain.
Ms. Paajanen: Yeas 3; nays, 8; abstentions, 2.
The Chair: The motion on the amendment has been defeated, colleagues.
The next one we have is Senator Youance’s amendment, SY‑C12-73-34-14.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I move:
That Bill C-12 be amended in clause 73, on page 34, by adding the following after line 14:
“(1.01) Despite paragraphs (1)(b.1) and (b.2), a claim is not ineligible if the claimant was under 18 years of age on the day of their entry.”.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for the amendment.
Senator Youance, would you like to speak to the amendment?
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Yes. I won’t speak for too long.
This amendment comes from a number of organizations, including the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnistie internationale Canada francophone and the Welcome Collective. The idea is to make an exception for minors.
[English]
The Chair: Does anybody wish to speak to the amendment?
Senator Woo: In support of the amendment, again, Senator Dalphond may say it doesn’t change the PRRA two-check process for everyone else. It doesn’t.
This simply tries to mitigate a great number of problems in the bill. Don’t forget the SOCI report recommended deleting the whole section. We are now down to finding spots where maybe we can improve it ever so slightly. This one has to do with people under the age of 18 who may have first come to the country, almost certainly would have first come to the country by being dragged by their parents, and they should not be held responsible for that if they came again years after; the clock shouldn’t have started on their first visit.
The Chair: Does anyone else wish to be heard?
Senator Dalphond: A question again. Sorry, it is technical, but that is what I was trained to be.
The Chair: It is okay. You are a lawyer.
Senator Dalphond: It is too late. I will not change.
What does it mean? Does it mean that I can apply 40 years after I came to Canada the first time when I was six months old, then when I am 40 years old, I can apply? Okay. So I don’t have to apply when I turn adult at 18, within a year, two or three years? I can wait until 50 years to make the application? It is a safe conduit? Is it a carte blanche?
[Translation]
Senator Youance: No. The one-year period is tied to the first entry. If children who entered Canada with their parents at the age of one come back to Canada at the age of 20 to apply for asylum, the one-year period means that 19 years have passed, so they can’t apply. They can’t apply for asylum.
The idea is to give children who came to Canada for the first time with their parents the opportunity to apply a few years later when they become adults, if the situation changes or if the situation in their country evolves.
Senator Dalphond: It isn’t related to the age considered as the time when they become adults? Could it be 50 years later?
Senator Youance: Yes. Exactly.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Dean: Yes. Colleagues, I note in the letter I read earlier today from the ministers under the heading on exceptions to the new asylum ineligibilities, that the letter stated that under Bill C-12 the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship will have the authority to make exceptions to the new ineligibilities by regulation. This is actively being considered. You should expect to see exceptions implemented alongside the coming into force of this bill. I’m inferring that this speaks directly to the issue of minors, those under 18.
I simply put this on the record for the consideration of members of the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I have a question for Senator Dean.
Doesn’t this exception apply only to unaccompanied children? The letter refers to unaccompanied children only.
[English]
Senator Dean: It is not clear in that sense. I did hear, as you did, the minister at SOCI, I think, refer to unaccompanied minors.
The Chair: Could you shed some light on the point Senator Woo was making in regard to the minister?
Mr. Hollmann: Yes. In fact, it relates to a comment I, myself, made at the committee, which we have since clarified in writing to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
The intent of the government is, in that regard, to look at an exception for unaccompanied minors, not minors in general. The challenge with minors in general is normally they are under the responsibility of their parents when they arrive and are making a claim for refugee protection.
Eligibility decisions, however, are rendered on an individual basis. Therefore, depending on when somebody comes and so on, you might end up with an issue of family separation where a minor might have their claim found eligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board under one track and one timeline, and the parents’ claim found ineligible and then pursued under the other track.
The Chair: Thank you. Anything else, Senator Youance?
[Translation]
Senator Youance: By limiting this to unaccompanied children, aren’t we running the risk of having children arriving at the border without parents?
[English]
Mr. Hollmann: We aren’t seeing that situation today. Generally, people are arriving as a family group at the port of entry. Those who are ineligible that are treated under the legislation are those who are looking to evade the Safe Third Country Agreement and the 14-day requirement.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I would like you to carry out an in-depth analysis of this exception. In cases where people apply for asylum, the system will no longer make sense.
We currently have a number of examples at the border. Parents know that they can be accepted here in Canada under the exceptions set out in the Safe Third Country Agreement. They arrive at the border with their families, knowing that some people will be sent back to the United States.
When it comes to asylum seekers, we need to look at all the possibilities. People may think that they simply want to save their children. They may send the children without coming themselves.
That’s why I’m moving this amendment. It ensures that all children are protected.
Mr. Hollmann: There are already four exceptions under the Safe Third Country Agreement, including one exception for unaccompanied minors. That’s why these people can already enter. We don’t see a large number of unaccompanied minors, who fall under the exceptions to the agreement, crossing the border now.
[English]
Senator Woo: Quickly, I don’t think this letter addresses the specific amendment that Senator Youance is offering. Her amendment deals with minors who arrive in the country, whether they are accompanied or not, and making the point that the first entry below the age of 18 shouldn’t start the clock. The clock should start after they are 18. This is probably very worthy, but I’m not sure it addresses the specific issues the amendment is trying to solve.
The Chair: Anyone else wishes to comment on this first section? Colleagues, I will read you the motion again.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Youance:
That Bill C-12 be amended in clause 73, on page 34, by adding the following after line 14:
“(1.01) Despite paragraphs (1)(b.1) and (b.2), a claim is not ineligible if the claimant was under 18 years of age on the day of their entry.”.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I heard “yes” and “no.” We will move to a recorded vote.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Yussuf?
Senator Yussuff: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Al Zaibak?
Senator Al Zaibak: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Cardozo?
Senator Cardozo: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Deacon?
Senator M. Deacon: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Hay?
Senator Hay: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Ince?
Senator Ince: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Moreau?
Senator Moreau: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Youance?
Senator Youance: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: Yeas 6, nays 7.
The Chair: I declare the amendment has been defeated.
The next amendment was submitted by Senator Dean. Senator Dean is not moving the amendment at this time.
The next one is Senator Youance, SY-C12-75-1-35.16
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I move:
That Bill C-12 be amended on page 35 by adding the following after line 16:
“PART 8.1
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Sunset Clause)
Amendments to the Act
75.1 The following provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are repealed:
(a) section 11.3;
(b) paragraph 14(2)(b.1);
(c) section 20.01;
(d) paragraph 26(1)(b.01);
(e) sections 87.3001 to 87.305;
(f) paragraphs 101(1)(b.1) and (b.2);
(g) subsections 101(1.1) and (1.2); and
(h) paragraphs 111.1(1)(b.1) and (b.2).”.
This amendment proposes a sunset clause on the timing for the coming into force of Part 8 of Bill C-12.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, if you’re following, it’s YPW‑C12-75.1-35-16. That’s the amendment you should be looking at.
Senator Woo: Because my name was originally attached to it, I will speak up, but only to advise that this is a piece with the next two amendments. I wonder if colleagues would want to consider them as a package because the sun hasn’t actually set yet. It comes in the third one. This is the prelude to the sunset; it’s still dusk. It’s not sunset yet.
The Chair: I certainly can recognize you are not Senator Youance, and that Senator Youance is not you for all due purposes, so I’m not confused, but I think your suggestion is a wise one. We will now look at the next amendment, which is YPW-C12-75.1-35-16a.
Senator Youance, if you could introduce the amendment, please.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I move:
That Bill C-12 be amended on page 35 by adding the following after line 16:
“75.2 Paragraph 47(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(c) on cancellation of their temporary resident permit.”.
[English]
The Chair: And number 3 is YPW-C12-75.1-35-16b.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I move:
That Bill C-12 be amended on page 35 by adding the following after line 16:
“Coming into Force
75.3 Sections 75.1 and 75.2 come into force on the fifth anniversary of the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. You have all three amendments. Obviously, there are logic and reasoning to having all three of them reviewed and debated together. We will start with Senator Youance.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: The sunset clause regarding Part 8 makes sense. Part 8 creates a structural restriction on access to the asylum process. When it comes to actual access to the procedure, typically an ex post review covering the real effects, procedural fairness, the impact on vulnerable groups and consistency with the Charter and international obligations is vital.
We’ve also received a great deal of support for moving this amendment. Since no amendments have been proposed on the various sections dealing with immigration, it makes sense to add more robust parliamentary oversight and a sunset clause.
Let me start again. Part 8 creates a structural restriction on access to the asylum process. The official summary of the bill states that Part 8 adds two new grounds of ineligibility as well as powers to make regulations. It also includes a transitional provision. When it comes to actual access to the procedure, typically an ex post review covering the assessment of the real effects, procedural fairness, the impact on vulnerable groups and consistency with the Charter and international obligations is vital.
With this sunset clause, we’re telling the government that we understand the logic behind the urgency to act and to clear the backlog, but we don’t want this urgency to last forever. We’re acknowledging the exceptional circumstances and maintaining legislative flexibility, but we’re preventing the powers from lasting forever.
[English]
Senator Osler: In the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, there was a recommendation for a sunset clause, and if I may read it in the record, it was recommendation number 11:
Your committee recommends that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act (Part 5) and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Parts 6 to 8) be amended to include a sunset clause that would mandate an obligatory parliamentary review to assess the efficiency, fairness, and overall balance of the proposed policy shifts.
Thank you.
Senator Woo: I support the amendment. We’ve referred, a number of times, to this provision, the extraordinary powers to cancel, suspend and so on in the public interest. We’ve said it is akin to the Emergencies Act. That clearly has a sunsetting provision. The notwithstanding clause has a sunsetting provision of exactly five years as well. I think it makes a lot of sense to not have this power given to government indefinitely.
While I accept the explanations of the department of good intentions and how it will be used, it can be used in ways that are more nefarious and more harmful to this country. It’s happened before, and there is no guarantee that it won’t happen again, so I strongly support this amendment, recognizing that the first position of most witnesses at SOCI was to not have this section altogether.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I understand that your proposal seeks to require a review in five years. I also understand that Senator Dean’s proposal would have the same effect. The act would include a requirement for a review in five years.
Senator Youance: I’m proposing a sunset clause. It isn’t the same thing. In a way, we’re saying the same thing. However, the review isn’t mandatory. In this respect, many bills are pending review. Yet one researcher estimated that less than 10% of bills with a review clause have actually been reviewed.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: I just want clarification from Senator Osler based on the comments you just made. They were from a group of recommendations from SOCI? Thank you.
Senator Osler: The SOCI report had 11 recommendations, and I read the eleventh.
The Chair: Does anyone wish to speak to the amendment?
Senator Dean: I have a question, senator. Could you remind us of the scope of this? What sections will be reviewed? Are we talking about the asylum changes? Are we talking about mass cancellation? En masse cancellation.
In that respect, I would go back to my earlier comment, which is this is kind of unique in the sense that it will be reviewed as we go. Every single time there is an order, there will be a review. We normally have reviews when we say we’ll check it again in five years, but actually, a very bright light is going to be shone on this publicly and in Parliament every time it’s deployed. I am not persuaded by the need for a five-year look.
The Chair: Thank you. Does any other senator wish to speak before we take a vote on the motion? All right. Okay. The question is being raised.
Colleagues, I will remind you, just in case you’re getting tired, the new clause 75 on page 1, page 35, moved by the Honourable Senator Woo — in this case, Senator Youance —
That Bill C-12 be amended on page 35 by adding the following after line 16:
“PART 8.1
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Sunset Clause)
Amendments to the Act
75.1 The following provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are repealed:
(a) section 11.3 —
Some Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Dispense? Okay. It’s on the record.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: All right. Wonderful clarity. We’ll now move to a recorded vote.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Yussuff?
Senator Yussuff: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Al Zaibak?
Senator Al Zaibak: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Cardozo?
Senator Cardozo: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Deacon?
Senator M. Deacon: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Hay?
Senator Hay: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Ince?
Senator Ince: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Moreau?
Senator Moreau: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Youance?
Senator Youance: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: Yeas, 4; nays 9.
The Chair: The motion has been defeated on the amendment. We have two other motions. I will just check for the record. YPW-C12-75.1-35-16a. These are not being moved, Senator Youance? Are the two consequential motions not being moved, or are they being moved?
Senator Youance: They are connected, yes.
The Chair: Okay. I just wanted to confirm.
Senator Youance: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Al Zaibak, if I may, if you might indulge me, the three remaining motions — MAZ-C12-75.1-35-16, MAZ-C12-75.2-35-16 and MAZ-C12-75.3-35-16 — are not being moved?
Senator Al Zaibak: Judging by the results, I did not do well earlier, so I will not move those amendments. Thank you.
The Chair: I applaud your bravery. Thank you very much.
Colleagues, I want to thank you again for your cooperation. We might just get there before the clock runs out.
Next is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Ineligibility) clauses 73 on page 34 to 75 on page 35. Shall Part 8, entitled Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Ineligibility), which contains clauses 73 to 75, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Thank you kindly, colleagues.
Shall part 9, entitled Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, which contains clauses 76 to 124, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Legislation Related to Financial Institutions (Supervisory Committee), clauses 125 on page 56 to 126 on page 57.
Shall Part 10, entitled Legislation Related to Financial Institutions (Supervisory Committee), which contains clauses 125 to 126, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Part 11, Sex Offender Information Registration Act, clauses 127 to 137, on pages 57 to 62.
Shall Part 11, entitled Sex Offender Information Registration Act, which contains clauses 127 to 137, carry?
Senator Woo: I would like to move Senator Dean’s amendment. We haven’t got anything through. His amendment seems very reasonable. It is down right to the bottom of the barrel where all it asks for is a review at the end of five years, I think it is. I’m happy for Senator Dean to take it back, but if he doesn’t want to, I’m happy to move it.
The Chair: I think there might be an explanation. Could I allow Senator Dean to speak to his decision first?
Senator Dean: It was my intention to move my two motions at third reading.
Senator Woo: In that case, why don’t I move it now, and then you can have it at third reading?
Senator Dean: My preference would be to move it myself at third reading.
Senator Woo: I defer to Senator Dean.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Woo, and thank you, Senator Dean.
Shall Part 11, as I just read, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall the schedule on page 63 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observation to the report?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’ve been waiting almost four hours to make this key observation. I think that my colleagues have received it.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, they have received. Before you do, I don’t want to neglect my responsibility here and cause a commotion later. Do colleagues have a problem with us doing this in public? Otherwise, we would go in camera. Everybody is fine?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. Proceed, Senator Carignan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I sent in my observations beforehand. I think that people have read them.
The idea is to send a message to the government that the committee heard concerns from expert witnesses about the urgent need to speed up the hydrographic charting of the Arctic. There have even been proposals to amend clause 4 in order to force the government to carry out the charting. I think that it’s a bit much to require charting. You can do 1% and then say you fulfilled the obligation. I felt that it was important to make an observation.
The reason for this observation is that, particularly in the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, we often discuss the significance of the Arctic, the opening of the passage in the North, the increase in traffic, security issues, submarines and icebreakers. In my opinion, we need to chart the Arctic’s underwater environment fairly quickly. The experts have pointed this out, and now it’s time to get the message across to the government. Of course, this would all be done with national security in mind.
Senator Dalphond: I support Senator Carignan’s proposal. However, when he says “quickly”, I think that the witness said that 15% of the Arctic’s area had been charted. This means that 85% remains after a number of years of work.
Senator Carignan: Given the technology as well, we agree. We’re used to aerial drones, but underwater drones are also being increasingly used. The technology is greatly improving.
[English]
The Chair: For the colleagues who were not at the last SECD meeting, a week ago Thursday, we heard an eloquent presentation in regard to the importance of this observation that Senator Carignan is discussing — the necessity, given the speed at which the Arctic is changing, for our country to deal with that reality. We need to know what the surface is like under the Arctic. It’s about our national security, but it’s also about the security of the nation going forward. I was honoured to hear the presentation, and it makes sense in that context.
Does anyone have anything to add in regard to Senator Carignan’s observation?
Senator Al Zaibak: I am fully in support of this. We have, in Canada, very advanced technology that has been deployed in the past to provide accurate information. It’s called multibeam sonar technology. It provides accurate topography of the sea floor.
It is very impressive, very informative and very important for our national security, especially when it comes to the Arctic. I am in favour of deploying such technology and investing in it. It’s a bit costly, but it’s worth it.
Senator M. Deacon: I am supportive. We had witnesses here at this table who actually met in Yellowknife last week. They gave a great explanation on the exponential urgency, so thank you.
The Chair: Is it agreed to include the observation in the report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: There are two observations by Senator Al Zaibak. Everyone has copies.
Senator Al Zaibak, I ask you to read your observations, and then we’ll get into a discussion.
Senator Al Zaibak: The first observation is acknowledging the importance of a well-functioning immigration system. The committee urges is the Government of Canada to adopt best practices and provide necessary technologies and resources to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to streamline application processes, eliminate inefficiencies, improve productivity and eliminate backlog.
That is the first one. Shall I proceed with the second one?
The Chair: Yes. We’ll debate both at the same time.
Senator Al Zaibak: Second, the committee expresses concerns about fraudulent immigration consultant practices and calls on the Government of Canada to address those practices through regulating the training, testing, certification and accreditation of these consultants, as well as through penalties such as disqualifying, banning and prosecuting those who break the law when representing or advising applicants.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. Do you wish to provide an explanation to the committee?
Senator Al Zaibak: Colleagues, I feel there is a conflation between the inefficiencies in our departmental workflows due to antiquated forms and antiquated processes and procedures. They seem to be conflated, resulting in the significant backlogs about which everyone is complaining. It’s being conflated, as well, with the need to change our very solid rule-based laws.
I’m afraid that, instead of tackling our productivity and modernizing our workload, we are shifting the problem or the issue to the legislative process, requiring changes that may have unexpected consequences. That is the reason for my first one.
The Chair: I will indulge you with fast responses. Does anybody have any issues regarding the first observation? No? It is generally agreed?
All right. It seems we have agreement.
Senator Al Zaibak, do you wish to add any comment on the second one?
Senator Al Zaibak: Over the past several decades, we have been witnessing unqualified, self-appointed or self-declared immigration lawyers who are not lawyers. They are advising applicants who are most often in crises, and they are extracting significant sums of money. They continue to practise.
Some of them may represent part of the problem we’re addressing with respect to the increase in fraudulent applications or something like that.
That triggers this observation. It is so important, I believe, before anyone practises or wears the hat of an immigration lawyer or immigration consultant or adviser, that they are well trained in our system. They should be tested, certified and accredited before they are allowed to make such claims.
Over the past 10 years, I’ve heard stories of refugees who fled trauma after trauma to then be exploited or forced to pay significant amounts of money up front without even getting results. I believe, and I hope the government can regulate such practices and prosecute the violators and abusers of our laws. That is what motivates this observation.
Senator Cardozo: I agree with your sentiments very much, Senator Al Zaibak. I wonder if we should be focusing more on the consultants in the sense that I have a feeling that lawyers are regulated by law societies and perhaps don’t stray that far from the — but it is the consultants. The government has tried to take steps — they have trained certain institutions — but they don’t seem to be working well, because, as you point out — so it is more the practice as opposed to who is doing it.
Senator Al Zaibak: I know the law societies are quite self‑regulated and very strong, but I’m referring to consultants who claim to be immigration lawyers. They carry the title “immigration lawyer” without having any law degree, and that is a great abuse —
Senator Cardozo: Yes, and around the world their signs look like they are government. They have the Canadian flag and all that kind of stuff to look like a government operation.
Senator Al Zaibak: Yes, to look very credible and legitimate.
The Chair: Just for the record, what the observation says is, “The committee expresses concern about the fraudulent immigration consultant practices.” There is no reference to lawyers. It is very specific. So we don’t need to clarify that. I think it is clarified in the observation.
Does anybody else wish to identify any other matters in regard to this?
Senator Cardozo: I am just wondering, with the success you are having, you might want to go back to the three recommendations you had after all.
The Chair: Colleagues, is there support for this observation?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Since nobody has any issues with it, this will be part of our report.
Is there any other observation that we missed or someone wishes to make? I know we are anxious to go, but you don’t get to go yet.
Are members in agreement with the observations agreed to — the three observations that have been tabled? Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Colleagues, is it agreed that I report this bill, with observations, to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Colleagues, we are at the end of the day, and before I drop the gavel, first of all, when we started this evening, I did not know where we were going to end up, but here we are, a little bit after the time that we have allotted for our discussion. I cannot thank you enough for your leadership, your indulgence and respect for one another, but equally, how this place works, but more importantly, this committee. This committee has always conducted itself with the highest regard and respect for each other. We don’t do it lightly. We do it with a sense of collegiality and a commitment for what we are trying to do here on behalf of Canadians.
I want to thank the officials who came from the government. You have been very patient. Some of you were not called or asked to testify tonight, but thank you for being here tonight. I think you advance our work in a very significant way. Thank you for what you do on behalf of this great nation and for us every single day.
To all my colleagues, I want to say our report will be tabled in the chamber. I know we will still have vigorous debate in the chamber, as we should, in regard to this important matter. This bill is not about us. It is about our country and our own values and how we can preserve them and mostly enhance them and to ensure that those values never change.
For those of us who have been fortunate to come from other lands to settle in this country, we appreciate its greatness, and we can still make it an even greater place. We should never take it for granted, and we should scrutinize the things we are asked to do as parliamentarians in the greater interest of our nation. We may not always get it right, but I’m hopeful that Senator Woo and others will indulge and engage in the parliamentary process when we get to third reading. I hope the same spirit of solidarity that was shown here today will be in the chamber.
Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)