Points of Order concerning amendments adopted in committee to 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

[ Table of Contents ] The Speaker : I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 28, 2025, by the deputy leader of the government in the House of Commons regarding amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during 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. The committee's report was presented to the House earlier the same day. In raising the point of order, the deputy House leader of the government asked the Speaker to review the content of the report, arguing that nine of the amendments included therein were inadmissible on the grounds that they violated the parent act rule and should not have been considered by the committee. [ Translation ] The amendments in question propose changes to the Oceans Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. They include one amendment adding new clause 24.1 (CPC-2), six amendments adding new clauses 39.1 to 39.4 (CPC-8, CPC-13, CPC-14, CPC-15, CPC-16 and CPC-17) and two amendments adding clauses 75.1 and 75.2 (CPC-30 and CPC-33). All nine amendments had been ruled inadmissible by the Chair of the committee, since they seek to amend sections of either the Oceans Act or the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are not amended by Bill C-12 . As House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, states on page 771: …an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill. The committee chair's rulings on these amendments were challenged and overturned. The committee then debated the amendments and adopted them. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière , in his intervention on the matter, argued that each amendment relates directly to Bill C-12 's objectives, which he described as including strengthening public safety, reinforcing the integrity of the immigration system and improving its efficiency, transparency and accountability. He contended that the amendments are admissible on that basis and that the committee was acting within its authority when it decided to adopt them. In his remarks, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière noted a decision by Speaker Regan that sets out key considerations related to the Parent Act rule. In a ruling on October 24, 2018, at page 22797 of the Debates, Speaker Regan stated: The Parent Act rule, the idea that an amendment should not amend an act or a section not already amended by a bill, rests on a presumption that such an amendment would not be relevant to the bill. This can be true. Often, such amendments attempt to deal with matters not referenced in the bill, and this is improper. However, there are also occasions when an amendment is relevant to the subject matter of a bill and in keeping with its scope but can only be accomplished by modifying a section of the parent act not originally touched by the bill or even an entirely different act not originally touched by the bill. This is especially so when the amendments are consequential to other decisions taken by a committee or by the House. (1020) The Chair must therefore consider the scope of the bill and review the relevance of each amendment. In doing so, the Chair is bound by the House’s decision to adopt the bill at second reading, which fixes the scope of the bill and establishes certain limits on the amendments that may be proposed in committee. The Chair has therefore carefully reviewed Bill C‑12 as adopted by the House at second reading, the amendments in question and their relationship to the relevant parent acts. The Chair will first address the amendments that concern the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, before examining the amendment relating to the Oceans Act. [ English ] The Chair notes that Bill C-12 proposes a wide range of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act across parts 5 through 8 of the bill. In the opinion of the Chair, a close reading of the text of the bill reveals five main legislative objectives in relation to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These are as follows. The first is expanding immigration-related information sharing across federal departments and agencies. The second is eliminating the designated countries of origin regime by repealing provisions in the act which authorize the minister to designate certain countries whose claimants would be subject to a different review process. The third is modifying the powers and obligations of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Immigration and Refugee Board in determining how refugee protection claims are received, processed and decided upon. The fourth is expanding the Governor in Council's ability to make orders related to suspending or terminating applications and related to cancelling, suspending or varying documents issued under the act. The fifth is creating new ineligibility rules for refugee protection claimants. The Chair has reviewed each of the amendments in question with a view to determining whether they are within the scope of Bill C-12 's legislative objectives. CPC-8 and CPC-14 together require officers and ministers to issue warrants for the arrest or detention of a person in certain circumstances; however, Bill C-12 does not include amendments to the detention and release process and the issuance of warrants among its legislative objectives. CPC-13 seeks to limit the time within which a judge must determine the reasonability of a certificate; however, Bill C-12 does not amend division 9 of part 1 of the act, which provides for, among other things, the issuance of certificates of inadmissibility. CPC-15, CPC-16 and CPC-17 establish additional reporting requirements for the minister in the context of the minister's annual report to Parliament. The Chair notes that CPC-15 includes several reporting requirements, among which is a requirement related to the number and category of documents varied or cancelled. While this aspect of the amendment appears to the Chair as potentially related to Bill C-12 's legislative objectives, the Chair has been unable to identify a similar relationship between the other provisions in the amendment and Bill C-12. CPC-16 and 17 would add reporting requirements related to federal benefits received by refugee claimants; however, the bill does not amend provisions related to such benefits. CPC-30 amends the section imposing penalties related to human trafficking; however, the bill does not amend the act with respect to the enforcement of human smuggling and trafficking, nor with respect to penalties more generally. Finally, CPC-33 amends the residency requirement for the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board. While the bill does propose certain amendments to the board's exercise of its powers, it does not amend the act with respect to the composition, office and staff of the board. In the Chair's view, while there may be certain connections between the substance of these amendments and the objectives for the reform of the refugee and immigration system debated by members at second reading and at committee, these amendments are not relevant to the bill's legislative objectives and were correctly ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee as being beyond the bill's scope. While members may find it tempting to add additional objectives when considering a piece of legislation, these must be in keeping with the scope and the principle of the bill as approved at second reading. (1025) The Chair will now consider the provisions of the bill related to the Oceans Act. Bill C-12 proposes to amend section 41 of the act, with the objective of expanding Coast Guard services to include activities related to security and also to allow the Governor in Council to designate any minister as the minister responsible for Coast Guard services. During its clause-by-clause study of the bill, the committee adopted an admissible amendment to section 41 of the act, CPC-3, to assign responsibility for Coast Guard services specifically to the Minister of National Defence. No one has contested the admissibility of this amendment. The committee also adopted CPC-2, an amendment adding new clause 24.1 that amends section 40 of the act, a section which is not amended by the bill. CPC-2 removes the responsibility for Coast Guard services from a list of responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries set out in section 40 of the act. In making this amendment, the committee was resolving an inconsistency between section 40 of the act and section 41 of the act, as amended by CPC-3, where each section would identify a different minister as responsible for Coast Guard services. After careful review, the amendment to section 40 of the act appears to the Chair to be consequential to the committee's decision to assign responsibility for Coast Guard services to the Minister of National Defence. As a result, my conclusion is that this amendment is within the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. [ Translation ] Consequently, I order that the amendment adding new clause 24.1 be maintained and that the eight other amendments adding new clauses 39.1 to 39.4, 75.1 and 75.2 be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. In addition, I am ordering a reprint of Bill C-12 with the removal of the inadmissible amendments. This reprinted version will stand as the official version of the bill for consideration at report stage. I thank members for their attention