THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 10, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of Parts 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the 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; and, in camera, for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Rosemary Moodie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. My name is Rosemary Moodie. I’m a senator from Ontario and the chair of this committee. Before we begin, I would have senators introduce themselves, starting with Senator Burey.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
Senator Senior: Paulette Senior, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: I am Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Mohamed: Farah Mohamed from Ontario.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I am Chantal Peticlerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, representing Ontario, and I am the sponsor of this bill.
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold from New Brunswick.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, Ontario.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Today, we are continuing the study of the subject matter of Parts 5, 6, 7 and 8 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.
As our study examines the subject matter of these elements, the report of this committee will be made to the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence and Veterans Affairs. The final report on Bill C-12 will be made by the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence and Veterans Affairs.
Joining us today, we welcome from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Timothy McSorley, National Coordinator; and from the International Center for Human Rights, Ardeshir Zarezadeh, Lawyer and Human Rights Activist; from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Azadeh Tamjeedi, Senior Legal Officer, UN Refugee Agency, in Canada; and from Amnesty International Canada, Julia Sande, Strategic Litigation, Refugee and Migrant Rights Campaigner. Thank you for joining us today.
For your opening statements, you will have five minutes followed by questions from committee members. We will start with Mr. McSorley. The floor is yours.
Timothy McSorley, National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group: Good morning and thank you for this opportunity to share concerns and feedback regarding Bill C-12 on behalf of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, a coalition of 44 Canadian civil society organizations that works to defend civil liberties in the context of national security and antiterrorism measures.
Since the introduction of Bill C-12, and of Bill C-2 before that, we have expressed our urgent concern that this legislation poses a danger to the rights and livelihoods of migrants and refugees in Canada, as well as the privacy rights of nearly all people across the country.
As a coalition focused on national security and civil liberties, it may not be apparent why we would speak out over legislation relating to changes in the immigration and refugee system. In our work, though, we have seen time and again how migrants and refugees are used as scapegoats for challenges we face in society, and how quickly and easily they are unjustly framed as national security or public safety threats. We cannot forget that the root of this legislation is the follow-up to $1.3 billion announced in December 2024 to increase surveillance, law enforcement and other security measures at our border as a response to accusations from the United States that Canada poses a severe security threat to our southern neighbour, despite clear evidence that this simply is not true.
It is unacceptable that Canada would erode fundamental rights or dismantle systems meant to welcome newcomers and protect those fleeing injustice because of trumped-up pressure and manufactured emergencies.
Given all of this, we believe Bill C-12 is fundamentally flawed and must be withdrawn. Barring that, there are specific areas of the bill that we believe deserve specific attention.
I’m glad to be on this panel with so many esteemed colleagues who will be able to speak to various aspects of Bill C-12. For my part, I will speak to two crucial areas.
First, we are opposed to the changes in Part 7 of Bill C-12 that would grant the cabinet the extraordinary ability to issue orders to, among other things, suspend or terminate applications for various forms of visas or other immigration documents, as well as to cancel, vary or suspend existing immigration documents, including temporary visas and permanent residency cards, based on the vague notion of the “public interest.”
Such broad powers, with no safeguards apart from public reporting, are ripe for abuse, particularly given the lack of a specific definition of “public interest.” Instead, the bill puts forward a non-exhaustive list of areas that fall under the “public interest,” including administrative errors, fraud, public health, public safety and national security.
Even if we were to believe that the government would limit itself to acting in these areas, they are so broad as to be able to capture nearly any situation. “Public safety” and “national security” alone can and have been used by governments to excuse policies that target populations from specific countries, or of specific cultural or ethnic background, or that espouse particular political or religious beliefs.
Being able to mass cancel the documents of individuals already in the country raises horrendous possibilities of masses of individuals losing status or facing possible deportation based on tenuous allegations of “public safety,” all under the guise of protecting the “public interest.”
We may be told that the current government would not use these powers in this manner; that may well be true, but this cannot guarantee that future governments will not.
It is difficult to see how such powers can be saved through amendments. We would recommend that Part 7 be struck from Bill C-12.
Second, we are critical of provisions in Part 5 that would expand the ability of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to share private information across federal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as with foreign entities. These changes would have a significant impact on the privacy of all people in Canada, regardless of status. For migrants and refugees, the powers could inhibit their ability to access critical services without fear or harm, as well as pose serious risks for those fleeing persecution by foreign states. Permanent residents and Canadian citizens could also see their privacy impacted, including the sharing of personal details collected in residency and passport applications.
While the categories of what information can be shared may appear narrow, it could, in fact, be quite revealing and could also be used in ways that would significantly impact an individual’s well-being and security far beyond the immigration and refugee system. This becomes especially true if information about changes to status, identity, or the refusal, termination or revocation of documents are shared with law enforcement or other provincial or municipal authorities, or foreign entities.
Moreover, once information is shared widely, it becomes nearly impossible to control its flow. While Canadian laws may impose restrictions domestically, this is not the case once information is shared internationally.
Given all of this, and the fact that information disclosure powers already exist at the federal level, we would also argue that Part 5 should simply be removed.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McSorley. Mr. Zarezadeh, you have the floor.
Ardeshir Zarezadeh, Lawyer and Human Rights Activist, International Center for Human Rights: Good morning. Thank you for having me today. As an Iranian-Canadian, I appear before this committee today with a broken heart and deep sorrow. Dozens of Iranians have been killed in districts of Iran simply for protesting, while, at the same time, individuals affiliated with the Iranian regime are able to live comfortably in Canada and benefit from Canadian values. This reality raises serious concerns. It points to weaknesses in our security screening and background check systems, as well as gaps that allow regime agents and affiliated individuals to abuse the Canadian immigration system. These gaps must be identified, understood and urgently addressed. For that reason, I will begin with the security matter in respect to Bill C-12, and it is something that all Canadians care about.
Canada faces real security risks. Foreign governments try to influence our politics. Agents of foreign governments operate here. Some people misuse our immigration and visa programs, and background checks do not always catch the right people at the right time.
There are serious problems, and Parliament is right to take them seriously, but Bill C-12 focuses its strongest measure on the refugee system instead of on the places where security failures actually happen before people enter Canada.
First, putting strict deadlines on refugee claims does not make Canada safer. Bill C-12 gives people only one year, or, in some cases, for people coming from the United States, 14 days to ask for protection, but people do not always know they are at risk right away. A person may become politically active later. A child may grow up and face danger because of their identity. A woman may escape abuse months or years after arrival.
People who are real security threats do not miss deadlines. They use fake documents and weak screening before entry. Canada already has a system to deal with false claims. The Immigration and Refugee Board, or IRB, can look at delays and decide what is reasonable. Replacing judgment with rigorous timelines does not stop abuse. It creates mistakes and court cases.
Second, giving very broad power to the government without clear limits is very risky. Bill C-12 allows the government to cancel the whole immigration program in the public interest without clear rules or reviews.
This creates uncertainty. People do not know what roles apply. Officials do not know how to apply them consistently. An unclear system leads to confusion, legal challenges and delays that are not good for our security.
Third, weakening independent decision making hurts trust in the system. Canada’s refugee system works because it is independent and transparent. People can tell their stories in person at the hearings, and decision makers can assess credibility. Moving cases to paper-only reviews removes fairness. When people feel the system is unfair, they will challenge it, and that will slow down everything. A system that looks fast on paper but falls apart in court is not a secure system.
Fourth, expanded authority of border officials to search phones and laptops without strong limits is a serious concern. Phones are not just devices. They hold medical information, family photos, private messages and legal advice. Given border officers’ broad powers to search them without clear limits or oversight will lead to legal challenges and a loss of public trust. Security works best when people trust the system.
In closing, Canada can protect its borders without damaging the refugee and immigration system. The real solutions are stronger background checks, either inside or outside the country, better resource screening, more trained officers and modern technology. Security and fairness go together. When a system is fair, clear and lawful, it works better.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Zarezadeh.
Ms. Tamjeedi, the floor is yours.
Azadeh Tamjeedi, Senior Legal Officer, UN Refugee Agency in Canada, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today regarding Bill C-12. As the UN agency serving refugees and asylum seekers in 134 countries and territories, providing technical advice on building a strong asylum system is an integral part of our advisory role.
Canada is not unique when it comes to seeing an increase in asylum claims. By the end of June 2025, 117.3 million people worldwide were forced to flee from their homes due to persecution, conflict, violence and human rights violations.
Given this context, UNHCR recognizes that governments, like Canada, must strike a balance between managing migration flows, ensuring border security, and maintaining public confidence in asylum systems. In doing so, they must abide by their international obligation to grant refuge to those fleeing persecution.
Regarding Bill C-12, UNHCR notes that the proposed changes are dependent on amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, and we cannot provide a fulsome analysis without seeing the drafted regulations. We welcome elements that reflect past UNHCR recommendations, and we look forward to further consultations on how the bill will be implemented and on draft regulations.
Today, UNHCR would like to focus our recommendations on the new ineligibility provisions.
In Bill C-12, individuals found ineligible under two new provisions would receive a pre-removal risk assessment, or PRRA. Like the Immigration and Refugee Board, or IRB, the PRRA could grant refugee or protected-person status. It was originally designed to be used prior to removal after someone has exhausted all their options in Canada, including a hearing at the IRB. However, if the PRRA is used to conduct a first assessment of someone’s refugee application, as this legislation proposes, it should incorporate safeguards to comply with international and domestic law.
First, UNHCR recommends that a mandatory oral hearing be added to ensure an individual’s right to be heard unless there is overwhelming evidence to accept their case based on the written documents provided.
Having sat through many first-instance refugee hearings, I can tell you that a claimant’s opportunity to tell their story provides details and context when decision makers doubt aspects of the case. Through direct questioning, decision makers can test the plausibility of claims, clarify inconsistencies, and better assess credibility in real time in cases where evidence is lacking. Hearings allow for closer scrutiny of evidence, reducing the risk of accepting non-genuine claims and accepting those who meet the refugee definition.
Second, we would recommend that those deemed ineligible under these new provisions have the right to a full appeal at the Refugee Appeal Division of the IRB. This would minimize the risk of returning a person to a place where their life is in danger if there was an error in the PRRA decision. Important decisions such as these are subject to human error, and there should be a safety net that utilizes the strong tools Canada already has at its disposal. This would also increase overall system efficiency by reducing the reliance on the overburdened Federal Court for judicial reviews.
The final amendment we would recommend is that those from countries that benefit from a suspension on removals be granted exceptions to these new ineligibilities so that they could have their claims assessed in a timely manner. Currently, if an individual from a country such as Sudan or Afghanistan is deemed ineligible under one of these new provisions, they will not have their case heard. Individuals from these countries typically have a strong case for asylum given the countries’ conditions, and they should not have to live their lives in limbo.
We hope that Canada continues to be a champion for fast, fair and efficient asylum systems and to lead in an environment when other countries are closing the door on the principle of asylum. We have seen first-hand how the Refugee Convention has saved millions of lives in the last 75 years. Its relevance is proven every day when we meet the woman subject to gender-based violence in Haiti, the human rights activist from Afghanistan, or the child escaping violence in Sudan. Their stories illustrate why this legislation should be carefully considered and serve as a reminder that these proposed changes have a very real impact on human lives.
For this important reason, UNHCR remains committed to working with the Canadian government and civil society to ensure that the new measures are implemented in a manner that is consistent with best practices, provides protection to those who need it and builds a stronger system that is able to respond to the challenges of the future.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Tamjeedi.
Ms. Sande, you have the floor.
Julia Sande, Refugee and Migrant Rights Campaigner, Strategic Litigation, Amnesty International Canada: I am here today on behalf of Amnesty International to oppose Bill C-12. Around the world, we have been seeing the escalation of authoritarian practices by governments to consolidate their powers. These practices are often introduced under the guise of restoring order or protecting the nation, but we know that this is how the erosion of human rights so often begins.
Senators, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak before you today, as you have a critical role to play in stopping the erosion of rights here in Canada.
After conducting a thorough review of Bill C-12, Amnesty International is of the view that it could lead to breaches of Canada’s international legal obligations.
Part 8 of this bill would put refugees at risk of being deported to face torture or persecution, simply because their claim for refugee protection was not fairly assessed.
Canada has an effective system for determining refugee claims. This bill would take people out of that system and force them into a lesser system with fewer procedural safeguards, based on when or how a person came to Canada, factors that have nothing to do with whether they are in need of protection.
It would target people who make a claim more than one year after their first entry to Canada. This means that if you came to Canada for one day as a baby and returned 10 or 20 years later, your claim could not be fairly assessed. It wouldn’t matter if your circumstances had changed, if war broke out in your home country, if the government had changed and started targeting you, none of that would be considered. You wouldn’t get your claim fairly assessed. You would be forced into the lesser system.
Now, the United States has a similar one-year bar, but it is less draconian. It has exceptions for changed or extraordinary circumstances, and it only applies to your most recent entry into the United States. Despite this, we know that people who have been in genuine need of protection have been denied it in the United States because of a one-year bar.
We know, in particular, that people fleeing gender-based violence and those making claims based on their sexual orientation and gender identity are disproportionately impacted.
Some people might delay making a claim, despite being in need of protection because they have other immigration options available to them, and they wish to avoid the trauma of reliving what they’ve been through by making a claim when there might be another option available to them: something like a work permit. The fact that someone hasn’t made a claim immediately is not relevant to whether they are in need of protection or not.
This bill also targets people who cross between ports of entry from the United States and make a claim for protection after 14 days. It’s really important when we talk about this provision to understand that people are forced to cross and to claim in such a manner because of the Safe Third Country Agreement. If people were to make a claim before that 14-day period was up, then Canada would slam the door on them and send them back to the United States, where they would face detention and the risk of deportation. They have no ability to have a claim heard here in Canada if they claim before 14 days.
This provision, in particular, is inconsistent with Canada’s obligations under the Refugee Convention, which clearly prohibits the penalization of asylum seekers based on their manner of entry into Canada.
The people who are targeted under this bill, those caught by the one-year bar or those targeted because of their manner of entry to Canada, would be taken out of the IRB system. I keep saying put into a lesser system: the pre-removal risk assessment. This is not an adequate alternative. The Supreme Court of Canada has been clear that an oral hearing is required for refugees, and the pre-removal risk assessment does not guarantee a right to an oral hearing.
Unlike the IRB process, there is also no right of appeal. If the pre-removal risk assessment officer gets it wrong, as can happen, as humans do, you would have no right of appeal. Your only recourse would be to go to the Federal Court. Unlike the IRB process, when you’re seeking judicial review before the Federal Court, there is no automatic stay of removal, which means you could be deported while you’re trying to challenge the very decision that was made about whether you are in need of protection.
Now, it’s important to note that the Federal Courts are already extremely backlogged, so the idea that this will improve or increase efficiency is really called into question by the fact that people will be forced to go to the Federal Court to challenge decisions and forced to seek a stay of removal from the Federal Court to avoid being deported while that decision is being taken or heard.
Part 7 of the bill would grant the government sweeping powers to cancel immigration documents — including permanent resident visas, work and study permits — without due process or any individualized assessment, simply by asserting it’s in the public interest to take such measures. Public interest is extremely broad and can be exercised in politically motivated in discriminatory ways. Through these powers, the government can uproot lives and separate families. The government has not explained why they need these powers and why they cannot rely on existing powers to address their concerns.
Finally, part 5 would allow for information sharing, which could expose people to discrimination and inhibit their ability to access services without fear. For these reasons, Amnesty International opposes Bill C-12. Significant amendments and deletions are needed to address the various human rights concerns that it creates. Thank you.
The Chair: We will now proceed to questions from committee members.
Senator Burey: I want to thank you all for coming today and for sharing your expertise with us. These are weighty matters we have to deal with. Thank you for putting the balance, security and public confidence in the international system.
We heard from Manon Brassard, the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, yesterday, which was excellent testimony. I wanted to get an international perspective from you, especially Ms. Tamjeedi. As you know, in the EU, there is a new migration pact, and I’m wondering how Bill C-12 compares with that new migration pact. What are the similarities and the differences? How did this civil society in Europe respond to it? I’ll start there.
Ms. Tamjeedi: I could take a whole thesis on that question. I’m not going to go clause by clause into every little piece of the EU pact. But I will say, globally around the world, we are seeing a further tightening of laws related to asylum when governments are struggling to respond to the number of claims that are happening. This is why we are constantly advising that the minimum requirement when assessing an asylum application is to have an oral hearing and a right to a full appeal. That’s why we are recommending these amendments be made to this bill.
I will also say, when 71% of the world’s refugees are in developing countries and when we’re seeing countries surrounding Sudan, for example, receive more than a million or so refugees and asylum seekers, I think Canada has the tools and the capacity to deal with the number that we receive without major changes to our legislation.
The legislation that is being proposed here could work in a way, if you provide tweaks to it and do amendments that would ensure that minimum level of the international standard that we’re asking for, which includes the oral hearing and the full right to appeal.
I’m also concerned about people from moratorium countries. There was a similar change that was done in 2019. We see people from moratorium countries that would fall under that ineligibility that was done in 2019 not having access to any asylum assessment, which is problematic because those countries do have a high acceptance rate. Often they have been sitting in Canada for years doing humanitarian compassion applications for permanent residence. They should have an assessment of their full claim. Arguably, usually these cases and countries go to a fast-track system through the Immigration and Refugee Board, which is able to deal with them quite effectively.
Senator Burey: Did you answer the part where it was similar or different? I know you could go clause by clause, but broadly, is it similar or different? You emphasized the opportunity to have oral arguments.
Ms. Tamjeedi: I will say in the EU their system is very different than the Canadian system, and it’s a common EU system. What they do have in the EU is that public servants do oral hearings, not an independent tribunal. The majority of EU countries have public servants doing the assessment, but there is an oral hearing requirement, yes.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Senator Hay: Thank you all for being here. I just want to acknowledge your comments about the situation in Iran and the attack on human rights and lives, so thank you for sharing that.
We had a witness yesterday from the Canadian Bar Association using the phrase that, with refugees and claimants, fear and flight come into play, but so does being frozen. I would also add fear, which adds to a delay in disclosure of trauma. In my experience with youth and mental health, trauma manifests not necessarily immediately and lasts a lifetime sometimes.
Particularly, in this case for survivors of torture, 2SLGBTQ+ claimants and political dissidents. You used the word draconian, in comparison to even the U.S. approach to filing deadlines and allowing exceptions for changes in extraordinary circumstances. What are your recommendations on the principles that should guide the design of any time-based eligibility rules in Canada so that they are administratively workable, predictable with humanity at the core and responsive to well-documented disclosure delays?
Ms. Sande: Thank you for the question, senator. I would start by really stressing that the amount of time it takes someone to come forward with a claim really has no bearing on whether they are in need of protection. That’s the only question that really matters when someone makes a claim for refugee protection. Are they in need of protection? Do they have a fear of torture or persecution if they’re returned home? I think it would be impossible to capture everyone who might be caught by this one-year bar and might be harmed by this one-year bar because it’s not looking at whether people are in need of protection, but as a way to reduce harm to those groups of people, not to capture everyone. I think, at a minimum, we would need to see that this law applies to your most recent entry to Canada, not your first entry. We would need to see certain groups exempted from its application, so people fleeing gender-based violence who we know are impacted, people who make claims based on their sexual orientation and their gender identity, children who just might not have the ability to put forward a claim. We would also want to see, as my colleague said, people from moratorium countries be exempted because they will never have an assessment. Not only does that impact their lives, but it impacts their ability to reunite with families. We would want to see, as exists in the United States, an exception for change or extraordinary circumstances because, of course, things can change. As I said, war can break out. Governments change. We would also want to see an end to the retroactive application of this law. The government tabled Bill C-2, and from the day it was tabled, said if this law passes, that any claim made on or after that date would become ineligible so people had no notice. If it was from the moment they had any notice that the government was even thinking about doing this, their claims would have become ineligible. So we would suggest the retroactive application of this law needs to end. There are a few ways in which it works retroactively. It also applies to entries to Canada from June 2020, so that would need to end as well. It should only be forward-looking.
These are a few ways that this could reduce harm and capture some of the groups that would most obviously be impacted.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Sande. I’m going to offer the floor to Senator Arnold.
Senator Arnold: I have three questions that I’m going to put out there. You will probably not be able to answer them right now, but maybe they can inform the discussion. Mr. McSorley, you obliquely referred to what could go wrong with private information sharing. I would like some details on that if you can provide it. Something I still don’t really totally understand, to Ms. Tamjeedi, is that third recommendation. I don’t understand the Sudan and Afghanistan limbo situation. The third question is to anybody. I recently read about Spain granting 500,000 newcomers a path to citizenship. If anyone has any insight into that — it was just declared, I think, in January — I’m curious how that is being done in Spain. Thank you.
Mr. McSorley: Thank you very much for that question around the concerns around information sharing, senator. I didn’t go into detail because of the limited amount of time, but there are certainly — and I believe other colleagues will be able to speak to this clearly, too — instances where information shared for one purpose could be used for others. Also concerns around what the impact beyond whether or not we believe that private information should be shared and how it can be used. For example, yesterday I followed the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, or SECD. There was an example given that if police pull a car over on the side of the road, they do not have access to an individual’s status. I believe that is the exact kind of situation that we don’t want to see happening. We don’t believe law enforcement, on a local level, who are pulling someone over for a red light infraction, should be able to then determine somebody’s status and then be engaging in immigration enforcement. That was a very troubling example that was given yesterday. Our concern is exactly that this is the kind of situation that might be envisioned and that we should be concerned about, that there may be circumstances where it is in the individual’s benefit that that information is shared across departments, and the government has raised that. Perhaps individuals could have a system where they could provide consent so that if the information is used in ways they want it to be used, that could simplify their lives in terms of applying for services. But that it could be shared in ways that are unexpected to those who are providing information for their immigration and residency raises a lot of significant concerns.
It goes beyond police to other kinds of services and having a fear of impacts on status, of seeing access to food banks that are run by the government. If status is shared with them, would that somehow impact individuals being able to access it? We see Alberta saying that it would like to have people’s status on their driver’s licences, which is very, very troubling.
I’d also want to mention that there has been a lot of discussion around whether or not this legislation allows for information sharing with foreign entities. We believe it does. I know the government has said it does not. If there was an intention that provincial and territorial governments could not share information forward with foreign entities, the legislation could say that it cannot be shared, and it would be up to the federal government to decide whether or not that information can be shared. Once information leaves Canada, we have no control over how it can be used. It could be shared with a foreign government for a purpose that seems benign at first, but then we don’t have control over whether or not their national security laws would then allow their agencies to have access to this kind of information. Or that there may be a leak or some kind of abuse in the system. We think it will allow for that information potentially to be shared further. There are already powers for the federal government to enter into agreements with foreign entities and with national security agencies domestically if that is necessary. We have a hard time seeing why these information-sharing powers are needed, as they are currently laid out.
Senator Muggli: Thank you for coming. Thank you, Mr. Zarezadeh, for talking about the situation in Iran. I completely respect and appreciate your comments.
To carry on with Mr. McSorley, do you see that information sharing could actually trickle down into people not accessing settlement services, and what consequences might this have in the bigger picture when people are not accessing settlement services? By the way, I think settlement agencies would be very opposed to sharing information that could be harmful because I know many of them have very high values about respect for the people they are supporting. Could you speak to that a little?
Mr. McSorley: Thank you. I want to preface that by saying we are not a front-line organization working with settlement agencies. I will answer briefly and leave it open to others to comment. I believe others who appear later today will be answered more fully as well. But that is a concern. We realize the information is flowing one way. Although that is a question that we have, the information-sharing agreements are that the federal government could share information with the provinces and territories. We do have a question about whether or not that will be a two-way street once those information-sharing agreements are put in place. We recognize that settlement agencies and others will have their own ethics and morals around how they share that information. We recognize that there is nothing in this that would force settlement agencies or others to share any information that they collect or have from their clients or from the public with the federal government or vice versa. If an agency has, as their mission, a mandate that they will not share that information forward, that would still be protected, but the system that is being suggested could allow for that to happen. We would be worried that there aren’t more specifics in the legislation that would clarify that back-and-forth of information sharing or under what circumstances the information could be shared.
Ms. Tamjeedi: I would like to go back to Senator Arnold’s question on the moratorium countries. The pre-removal risk assessment was designed to be applied at the end of someone’s process in Canada. It wasn’t originally designed to be a first-instance refugee determination system. So the only way someone could be served with a pre-removal risk assessment is when they are removal-ready. Individuals who have a temporary suspension on removals to their country of origin will not be removal-ready until Canada lifts the conditions on removals to those countries. They will come and claim asylum, and they will sit in Canada. They will have access to work permits and health care and things like that, but they won’t get an assessment of their case until Canada is ready to revise that suspension on removals.
Technically, you are getting people staying here for years, for example, from Haiti or Afghanistan, because that temporary suspension on removal has been there for a while. So they won’t get an assessment of their case, which leads to further complications, such as not being able to reunify their family. They cannot regularize their status. They cannot travel outside of the country. That’s why this has an impact on those individuals.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. My timing is impeccable because my question was actually about Part 8; ineligibility and moratorium countries. Canada, as we’ve just heard, has a moratorium on the removal of individuals from certain countries — for example, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, just to name a few — due to insecurity in their country of origin.
I invite any of the witnesses to speak to this. What could happen to claimants from moratorium countries who are deemed ineligible but cannot be issued a removal order to trigger a PRRA? I think we have just heard a little about the legal limbo they would be in. Potentially, what could happen to those individuals if the bill, as written, is enacted?
Ms. Sande: I will add to what was just said. Exactly. While you’re not facing removal to Afghanistan, you’re just stuck in legal limbo. You have no pathway to regularize your status. The only remaining pathway is applying for permanent residence on humanitarian or compassionate grounds. The processing times now are 10 or more years. That’s 10 or more years that you are here, but you can’t leave; Canada can’t remove you. Canada doesn’t want to remove you, but you can’t regularize your status. You cannot reunite with family.
The point about not being able to leave and return to the country is a really important one because when there’s conflict, when there’s a crisis, oftentimes people end up in different countries from their family members and loved ones. You can’t even go visit one another. You can’t leave the country; you can’t return. You certainly can’t have your family members come over for the 14-day rule of the United States. The top country for people crossing in that manner and are making claims after 14 days is Afghanistan. We know these people will not, right now, or in the foreseeable future, get a pre-removal risk assessment. That means they can’t be an anchor relative for other relatives. They’re just stuck in limbo.
Mr. Zarezadeh: I would add to that. We have a humanitarian and compassionate application stream and the pre-removal risk assessment application stream. Many say that if people are ineligible, they can apply for one of those applications and be qualified. But the reality is that the acceptance rate is very low, the processes are very long and no one gets qualified. That’s a big problem. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is harming those families. I have seen that in my experience over the past 15 years of dealing with refugees. I see that many get separated or divorced, and kids get hurt. This is really a serious concern.
Ms. Tamjeedi: I will add that the right to family unity is a right recognized in international law. When you’re designing legislation that will impact that right, it is important to consider that. If this is impacting people from these countries and their right to family unity, there would need to be an exception for individuals from those countries to be able to access the IRB system and get a determination on their case. So if they qualify for refugee status, they could apply for their family members to join them.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all the witnesses.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you to our witnesses for being here. This is very helpful. I do want to ask again about the exceptions or the possibility of exceptions.
I’m reading that, in the U.S., and you have mentioned it before, they have the 12 months. But they have a number of exceptions — changes of circumstances, political changes, new evidence, new laws and extraordinary family and personal trauma. It is quite extensive, the number of exceptions.
My question is a simple one, but in three parts: How important is it, if we go with the 12-month limit or deadline, that there are some exemptions? Also, are you aware of any intention to have those exceptions or exemptions in the regulations? Last, is it a good idea to have them in the regulations, or should they be in the law? I’m not sure who wants to tackle this three-part question.
Ms. Sande: Thank you very much, senator. I find myself in an odd position, and I certainly don’t want to be suggesting that the United States is an example that we should follow; I think you take my point. At the very least, we don’t want to be worse than them when it comes to refugee law. It’s critically important to have these exceptions to avoid harming people and to avoid the risk of sending people back to face torture or persecution.
We have not heard from the government of any intention to have exceptions in the regulations. Amnesty International and many other organizations have been involved in a coalition of dozens of organizations that work on gender justice, human rights, and refugee and migrant rights. We’ve been trying to engage with the government since Bill C-2 was tabled. After the tabling of Bill C-12, we’ve not heard of any intention to do this. They certainly have not made that intention public.
Your third question is really critical. Even if they were to put that in the regulations, that can be changed easily. To the extent that there is an intention to move forward with this law, these exemptions must also be contained in the law, and I’m really grateful you’ve raised that point.
Mr. Zarezadeh: I just spoke to a refugee claimant two weeks ago. He fled the U.S. and came to Canada. He was already a refugee in the U.S., but he feared he may be deported back to Iran because of the things happening in the U.S., and we are all aware of that. We have a problem here. He can’t be taken seriously as a refugee. We don’t know what is going to happen or how the system will deal with him.
At the same time, we have to deal with the Safe Third Country Agreement. The government has a problem with the United States. We still don’t know if the Safe Third Country Agreement will be in place or not.
The other thing is that the 12-month bar is against Refugee Convention and the evolving risk. If we approve this, we are basically acting against the Refugee Convention, which we already adopted.
Senator Senior: Thank you for your compelling testimony.
Mr. Zarezadeh, you made a couple of points on which I want you to further elaborate. You said that a strict deadline does not make Canada safe.
You also said that people who are real security threats do not miss deadlines. Could you expand on those two points, please?
Mr. Zarezadeh: There are people in Canada, many of them are agents of foreign governments. They have status here. How did they get status? That is a question for me. We have to ask the government how those people got their status. That’s what I’m saying.
The other thing is we already have the Immigration and Refugee Board, or IRB. I have appeared regularly before the board for the last ten years. I have dealt with many decision members. They are very fair and are aware of the situation. They study countries and conditions. They are well trained.
Those members already take into consideration the law, facts and evidence. We have the guidelines posted on the IRB website, the up-to-date guides from the chairperson and IRB instructions from Immigration. We have tools, regulations and the law in place.
The decision making members already have those resources, delays and other issues to consider. We don’t need to introduce a new law. We are acting against the refugee system, the efficient system we already have in place.
I met a UN representative in Ankara in 2016. He said Canada’s system is number one in the world. We are wondering why other governments are not following that. The IRB system in Canada is number one, the top refugee system in the world, and we don’t want to destroy that.
Senator Senior: It seems odd then that the reason that we are applying this deadline and putting these changes in place is for safety and security. It seems odd that this flies in the face of that.
Mr. Zarezadeh: The system works precisely because the security and the right are reinforcing. The system is not going to be secure if they are going to put rigid deadlines. How is the government justifying that? It’s a question for me. I don’t understand how the government is going to justify it. We are securing borders by limiting refugee deadlines. It doesn’t make sense. I don’t know how to answer or elaborate on that. If you can, please do.
Senator Senior: Thank you.
Senator Mohamed: A lot of what we have heard about this bill is it is about ensuring there is a balance between security and fairness, that it is efficient. We have heard about the backlog.
It seems to me with this bill, it doesn’t scream we will be more efficient. In fact, there are areas where, if you involve the minister more — in my mind — it might slow things down. I wonder if all or any of you have reflections on the efficiency part of the reasoning around why we are doing this bill?
Ms. Tamjeedi: Backlogs will always exist in every asylum system. The question is how you manage those backlogs. The best way to manage backlogs, or one of the main ways we advocate for, is greater triaging of cases.
There are certain cases that are more ready to be heard more quickly. There is stronger evidence ready. This is work that the Immigration and Refugee Board does. You could do that work as well at the civil servant level, at the pre-removal risk assessment level as well.
What this bill is doing is taking some cases out of the pipeline of the Immigration and Refugee Board and directing them to IRCC to be handled there. You could argue that is a form of triaging. If you are doing that, then you must ensure the standards applied at the pre-removal risk assessment level are the minimum international standards required for asylum adjudication. That is what we are advocating for.
Canada is part of a global asylum system. We receive less than 2% of asylum claims globally. I think given the number of claims we receive, our borders, and any increases in asylum claims, we could design a system or some changes to our system to manage that small increase that we see in Canada.
Ms. Sande: From the efficiency piece, in addition to sending something to the minister, the idea that the IRB has a built-in appeal mechanism. It is automatic you have a stay of removal, something to stop your deportation while you are challenging the decision.
The idea you will push people into the Federal Court, which is already extremely backlogged, not only do you have to apply to seek leave for judicial review, you also need another application to prevent your deportation. I don’t see how this could possibly lead to increased efficiency, knowing how backlogged the Federal Courts are already and this will make that worse.
Mr. Zarezadeh: The threshold when considering a case, an application for pre-removal risk assessment, is very high. I had a decision from an officer saying that I recognize that you are a political activist. I know that you are doing things against the government. But you are not a high-profile political activist. Because you are not high profile, I don’t think you will be at risk. This is how the officer justified it.
But the same case, if it goes to IRB, it will have a different outcome. If you recognize somebody has significant political activity against a government who will detain you if you go back, why are you saying you are not a high-profile activist and not at risk? This is how pre-removal risk assessment officers treat cases.
Senator McPhedran: Picking up on the last two comments, I wanted to raise with you a favourite anecdotal support for this bill we are hearing, and that is essentially that criminal elements who have come to Canada are gaming the system. They are staying longer in Canada, much longer than they should, because they use our appeal system to do so. I’m getting nods, so obviously this is not the first time you have heard this. This is a favourite anecdote we hear from some of our colleagues. I would appreciate you addressing it.
Mr. McSorley: I can start by saying, as Mr. Zarezadeh said, it is incongruous now how some of the provisions of this bill respond to security concerns.
What we do see in Canada’s immigration and refugee system is there are already specific powers to declare individuals inadmissible if they engage in criminality and enter Canada on fraudulent terms on an individual basis. We have heard colleagues already say today that an important part of the system is that decisions are made on an individual, case-by-case basis.
The idea we need mass cancellation or revocation powers, or even that a one-year bar will somehow help to address those issues, does not match with what we see in the system currently.
To add to the concerns around inefficiency, if anything, the confusion around a system of having to backlog the Federal Court, there should be a question about whether or not that would undermine real actions taken to protect the national security of Canadians, or whether or not that will actually have a negative impact. I will leave it to other colleagues to speak to it further.
Ms. Tamjeedi: I have been to the border and airports. I have talked to CBSA. I have no concerns about their ability to screen for security concerns. They do a thorough job. Refugees and asylum seekers are among the most vetted populations in the world.
The way you address security concerns is by processing their cases, by going through the system, interviewing them, and Canada has a system to do that.
Less than 1% of foreign nationals are deemed inadmissible due to criminality in Canada. Refugees and asylum seekers make up an even smaller proportion of that. I would challenge the concerns about security based on what we are seeing currently in terms of these populations coming to claim asylum.
Asylum seekers and refugees are not agents of persecution. They are running from the agents of persecution.
Senator McPhedran: The question was different. It was about people who are already inside Canada, have passed that initial check and are, to quote a colleague, “gaming the system” by them declaring their status and getting into a whole appeal process.
The example used recently in our chamber was that that lasts for years and protects the criminal.
Ms. Tamjeedi: Again, process through the system. We have an inadmissibility procedure in Canada, so as soon as they claim asylum, if they are in Canada, they are screened. Once they are screened, if they have a concern about security, they will put them through an admissibility process before they even look at the refugee claim. It’s a bit of a bifurcated system.
That is the way they would address those security concerns in Canada, and that’s how they are currently doing them.
The way that they are gaming the system is addressed right away at the front end, so I don’t have concerns about those. Also, I think we do have a system in place in Canada to address those issues.
Senator McPhedran: So the anecdote is not based on fact?
Ms. Tamjeedi: I would say it’s a misunderstanding of how the system works.
Ms. Sande: It’s important to note that the criminal justice system always takes precedence. There is nothing preventing the criminal justice system from carrying out criminal charges and convictions. I agree that there are already existing provisions to address criminality and fraudulent claims, and we heard the minister yesterday acknowledge that we have many of these powers, but this makes it easier for us.
To Senator Mohamed’s question, when we talk about efficiency, I don’t doubt that it would make it easier for them, but it does so by stripping people of due process and of their rights, and that just cannot be the cost for the government to ease. I would go back to the idea of justifications of restoring order and protecting the nation being used to strip away rights, and we really need to stand against this.
The Chair: I’m afraid we have run out of time. In fact, I have already passed the deadline of our meeting.
Thank you very much, Mr. McSorley, Mr. Zarezadeh, Ms. Tamjeedi and Ms. Sande, for your testimony today.
Joining us for our second panel, we welcome, from the Canadian Council for Refugees, Gauri Sreenivasan, Co-Executive Director; and Mr. Basel Abou Hamrah. From the FCJ Refugee Centre, via video conference, Joshua Eisen, In-house Counsel. From the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Adam Bercovitch Sadinsky, Vice President. From the Refugee Centre, Alina Murad, Director of Federal Government Relations; and Jessica Ranger, Legal Administrator.
For your opening statement, you will have five minutes, followed by questions from committee members.
Ms. Gauri Sreenivasan, the floor is yours.
Gauri Sreenivasan, Co-Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees: Thank you, senators, for the opportunity to be here today.
[Translation]
The Canadian Council for Refugees is the national voice for more than 200 member organizations working with and for refugee and immigrant communities across the country.
[English]
Your commitment to hearing directly from organizations representing and working with refugees and migrants is deeply appreciated, especially as meaningful consultation on this controversial and fast-tracked legislation has been blocked so far.
At this crucial moment, the Senate’s role is vital. We urge you not to simply advance Bill C-12 but to scrutinize and challenge it. The Canadian Council for Refugees, or CCR, believes this bill is dangerous and should be scrapped. Failing that, we recommend significant deletions or amendments to limit its harms.
History will judge how we act at these crossroads. Bill C-12 seeks to transform literally who we are as a country. It moves Canada out of compliance with international human rights standards and Charter-protected rights. It undermines a refugee determination system admired the world over, and it discards Canada’s leadership in protecting women’s and LGBTQIA+ refugee rights. It creates new inefficiencies and backlogs merely in other parts of the system.
Instead of improving access to fair asylum, Bill C-12 redirects resources to an enforcement and deportation regime that will fuel fear, distrust and stereotypes of our neighbours. Let’s be clear, and as you heard from the previous panel, how or when a person arrived has no bearing on their need for protection. Suggestions before committees that certain claimants are likely to be fraudulent because they are students or because they have been here more than a year are as unfounded as they are offensive.
Consider the consequences: A baby who visits Canada with her parents in 2020 would be barred from seeking asylum here 20 years later, even if persecuted as a human rights activist in her country. A returning scholar fleeing a new regime would be ineligible for protection despite facing danger at home because they came before.
The CCR urges you to delete provisions denying asylum access to those who apply more than one year after arrival or 14 days after crossing from the U.S. between ports of entry. As my colleague Mr. Abou Hamrah will explain, these blunt measures disproportionately harm the most vulnerable: women fleeing violence, LGBTQIA+ individuals, minors, those with mental health challenges or people from unstable regions.
Combining these measures with the Safe Third Country Agreement, the proposed new 14-day rule effectively closes Canada’s doors, despite now well-documented dangers in the U.S. asylum and immigration system for refugees, migrants and increasingly, frankly, its own citizens.
The UN convention puts no timelines on your right to asylum. At a minimum, senators, you can ensure that the one-year eligibility clock starts from a person’s most recent arrival, which even the U.S. does, rather than imposing a lifetime ban and ensure there are clear exemptions, particularly for gender-based claims, people from moratorium countries and children.
The CCR, like my colleagues, rejects the claim that the current pre-removal risk assessment process meets Canada’s obligations against refoulement. At a minimum, it must include an interview, a right to appeal and a stay of removal during review, which my colleague from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers will expand on further.
The bill will create a large group of people left in limbo with no status — individuals who are barred from accessing the Immigration and Refugee Board but also cannot apply for the PRRA because they come from countries under Canada’s removal moratorium, such as Haiti, Afghanistan and Venezuela. We have asked officials, and they have provided no answer for this predictable new morass.
Finally, the bill’s automatic abandonment provisions for missed deadlines remove discretion and will only deepen the backlogs of the IRB. A simple amendment restoring reasonable flexibility for officials would prevent unnecessary hardship and inefficiency.
We are urging the Senate to stand for Canada’s values of fairness, dignity and protection for all. We ask you to reject Bill C-12 or amend it deeply to uphold our basic commitments to human rights under international law and the Charter.
Basel Abou Hamrah, Vice President, Canadian Council for Refugees: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I want to address Bill C-12 through the lived realities of LGBTQ and trans refugees, students and workers.
Many LGBTQ and trans people do not arrive in Canada planning to claim asylum right away. Some arrive as students or workers, and many hope they can simply be safe for a while. I have worked with people who stayed quiet for months, sometimes years, not because they were not at risk, but because coming out once before had already led to arrest, violence, rejection or threats. So when they arrive in Canada, they don’t immediately trust systems, officials or timelines. They wait until they feel safe enough to tell the truth.
Bill C-12 turns that survival instinct into a liability. Under this bill, waiting too long to make a refugee claim can mean losing access to a full and independent hearing, even when the danger is real, even when returning home could put someone’s life at risk. This is especially harmful for LGBTQ and trans students and workers. Many only realize that return is unsafe after conditions worsen back home.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hamrah. I’m afraid we do have to ask you to answer questions and get your points across during the Question Period.
We do have to move on to Mr. Eisen. Mr. Eisen, you have the floor.
Joshua Eisen, In-house Counsel, FCJ Refugee Centre: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Joshua Eisen, and I am in-house counsel at FCJ Refugee Centre, a Toronto-based community organization working with refugee claimants and precarious or non-status migrants. In my role, I regularly work with the kinds of cases that will be negatively impacted if Bill C-12 comes into law in its current form.
Bill C-12 represents a serious rollback of many of the substantive and procedural rights that have formed the bedrock of Canada’s refugee system for more than 40 years. The bill would arbitrarily restrict access to the refugee determination process and expand executive discretion without oversight, all while creating more inefficiencies and increasing pressure on Canada’s already overburdened refugee system. The bill is also contrary to Canada’s humanitarian and international human rights commitments, as codified in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Of particular concern to the FCJ Refugee Centre is part 8 of the bill, which introduces new ineligibility provisions that would prohibit many individuals from making a claim for refugee protection to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Instead, these individuals would be redirected to pre-removal risk assessment, a process with fewer procedural protections, including no guarantee of an oral hearing and no right of appeal.
Crucially, PRRA decision makers are employed by IRCC, meaning they are not independent decision makers with special training and expertise in adjudicating the merits of claims for refugee protection. It is telling that, even when an oral hearing is held, the approval rate for pre-removal risk assessments is about half what it is for claims heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board, which is an independent tribunal.
It should also be noted that, while proponents of Bill C-12 tout the PRRA process as more efficient, the bill will likely create more inefficiency because PRRA decisions are more likely than IRB decisions to face serious challenges on judicial review, increasing the burden on an already overloaded Federal Court.
Among the new ineligibility provisions in Bill C-12 is section 73(1)(b.1), which would bar individuals who have been in Canada for more than one year from making a claim for refugee protection. Bizarrely, the one-year clock starts running from the date of an individual’s first entry into Canada. This means that, as my colleagues have stated, if an infant were to come to Canada with her family for a week-long vacation today, she would lose forever her right to make a refugee claim in Canada, regardless of any future changes in her own situation or her own country. This cannot be the right outcome, and it goes far beyond the one-year-from-most-recent-entry filing deadline enacted in the United States, which itself has been subject to extensive criticism for disproportionately restricting access to asylum for some of the most vulnerable asylum seekers.
As a lawyer working directly with refugees, I regularly meet with individuals who, under Bill C-12’s one-year bar, would lose the right to make a refugee claim in Canada. A closeted youth from a country where same-sex relationships are criminalized who has only been able to open up about his sexuality after connecting with Toronto’s vibrant LGBT community and learning that, in Canada, he is safe to express his true self without fear of persecution; a survivor of domestic violence who has been cowed into silence by years of abuse and is only able to open up about her past after learning to trust that in Canada, unlike in her own country, her story will be listened to and believed; individuals with disturbing stories of persecution who have been unable to submit a claim because of some combination of language barriers, fear of authorities, lack of knowledge and the predations of unscrupulous ghost consultants who take advantage of vulnerable claimants. All these people — and I see cases like this every day — will lose their right to make a refugee claim in Canada under Bill C-12.
These are only some of the negative impacts Bill C-12 will have on our refugee system. Part 8 further restricts access to the refugee determination process by extending a pre-existing bar to all individuals who enter Canada from the United States between ports of entry. Meanwhile, part 6 introduces a new provision which allows a claim to be declared abandoned before it is referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board, which will predictably result in vulnerable claimants having their claim abandoned after missing a deadline because of linguistic or technological barriers. And part 7 of Bill C-12 vests the Minister of Immigration with sweeping discretionary powers that can be enacted when it is in the public interest, a vague concept that creates a significant possibility of overreach and raises the risk that the rights of migrants, some of the most vulnerable members of our society, will be sacrificed for political expediency.
In closing, I just want to stress that every day we hear painful and heartbreaking stories of persecution and violence from individuals whose right to seek refugee protection — a right enshrined in international law — will be undermined by Bill C-12. Contrary to what the bill’s proponents would have us believe, Bill C-12 will result in a refugee system that is more inefficient, more arbitrary, less fair and less humane. The bill should not be allowed to pass into law in its current form.
Thanks for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Eisen.
I now pass the floor over to Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky.
Adam Bercovitch Sadinsky, Vice President, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers: Madam Chair and honourable senators, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee this morning. I would like to acknowledge that we meet here on the historic, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishnaabeg people, something we must hold in mind as we discuss proposed changes to how Canada determines who may remain within the borders of this land.
I am here on behalf of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers to urge the committee to amend the massive changes to Canada’s refugee determination system set out in this bill. The amendments set out in our brief reflect the deep concern that numerous organizations have expressed about the proposed changes to our refugee determination system — changes that leave it less fair for individuals fleeing persecution and will not result in greater efficiency.
My focus this morning, like many of my colleagues, will be on part 8, which creates two new categories of ineligibility for individuals whose refugee claims would be ineligible to be heard by the IRB.
Having listened to debate on second reading as well as yesterday’s committee hearing, let me assure you of what this bill is not: It is not simply an alternative system where refugee claimants will receive the same treatment they would at the IRB. This bill is not tinkering with the process. Claimants lose fundamental rights. They lose a full hearing before an independent decision maker. They lose access to an appeal on the merits, and they have no protection from removal, as they seek review of a decision in Federal Court.
There’s a reason why the PRRA is a weaker substitute for the IRB’s determination. It is meant for a last chance after the board has already made a decision. However, for the individuals captured by these new ineligibilities, this will be the first time their risk is ever assessed. It is the wrong tool. At the very minimum, these new ineligible claimants must be given a right to an oral hearing, and the bill must be amended to reflect that.
In fact, that is exactly how other recent ineligibility categories have been implemented. In 2019, the Budget Implementation Act created a new ineligibility category encompassing individuals who previously made a claim in a Five Eyes country. The original bill did not entitle newly ineligible claimants to a hearing, but testimony from numerous civil society organizations, including CARL, led to amendments in committee that added a right to a hearing. We ask that you do the same here.
This is not a “fringe position.” The UNHCR itself has been clear that refugee determination decisions must include access to an oral hearing. Yesterday, Minister Anandasangaree attempted to reassure your colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, saying, “We are Canada.” Deporting individuals to risks in their home countries without a hearing is not Canada.
The daily news shows us the dire consequences south of the border, where the government has abandoned all pretense of protecting refugees. We urge Canada not to join in this race to the bottom. Yet, in at least one sense, the one-year eligibility bar proposed in Part 8 is more restrictive than what the United States has because it is based on a claimant’s first entry to Canada, even if that visit was brief and years ago.
Arguments that these changes will streamline our system ring hollow. A backlog of claims at the IRB will only shift to IRCC. The Federal Court, overburdened already, will struggle to keep up with the applications for judicial review of negative PRRA decisions and motions for stays of removal while they are pending. Recent empirical analysis reveals that moving more cases from the IRB to PRRA would likely decrease efficiency for the refugee adjudication system as a whole. There are other ways the government can address the real issue of the IRB’s backlog.
Yesterday, Minister Diab testified that over the past few years there has been an explosion in fraudulent claims. However, the IRB’s data does not bear that out. Last year, 78% of claims decided on the merits were accepted. It’s not clear what evidence the minister was referring to because the data does not suggest a flood of fraudulent claims.
Senators, this bill cannot be rubber stamped. We ask you to do what you can to ensure that the final version of this bill is well thought out, in line with Canada’s international obligations and obligations under the Charter, and ensures that our refugee determination system works well and remains a shining example of what Canada stands for in the world.
I look forward to answering your questions, including any related to the harmful impacts this bill will have on particularly vulnerable populations and the minimum exceptions required if new ineligibility categories are maintained. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky. Ms. Murad and Ms. Ranger, you will share the next five minutes.
Alina Murad, Director of Federal Government Relations, The Refugee Centre: Thank you, honourable senators, for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Alina Murad. I am here with my colleague Jessica Ranger, on behalf of the Refugee Centre, a non-profit organization supporting refugee claimants through wrap-around services, including legal aid. We appear today to raise concerns about Bill C-12 and the expansion of ministerial powers it introduces.
Bill C-12 does not merely reform procedures; it virtually guarantees that backlogs will continue to plague our immigration and asylum systems, and that numbers of individuals living in precarious status will grow. In doing so, it weakens the safeguards that protect fairness, independence and due process.
At its core, Bill C-12 represents a significant transfer of authority away from independent, bipartisan institutions and into the hands of the executive.
Clauses 5 through 8 dramatically expand ministerial responsibility, requiring the minister to conduct additional examinations of refugee claims after an officer has already assessed eligibility. This directly undermines the role of the IRCC itself and the Immigration and Refugee Board, an independent body deliberately designed to operate at arm’s length from political influence.
This is not a neutral administrative change. This is a centralization of decision-making power, placing life-altering determinations increasingly under ministerial control, despite the fact that IRCC is facing staffing cuts and a backlog of over 2.18 million applications as of January 2026.
Short of removing this provision due to its repetitive nature, we recommend ensuring that the minister provides reasons for ineligibility, as well as prescribing a period during which the minister may make a decision different from that of an officer, after which any applications deemed eligible would be referred to the IRB. Without prescribed timelines, the backlog will continue to grow and the settlement process of claimants will be halted, extending their time without a work permit.
The problem of overreach becomes more pronounced in the bill’s new ineligibility criteria, particularly the one-year bar on making a refugee claim. This provision imposes a rigid, front-end exclusion, preventing individuals from ever accessing the IRB, regardless of the strength of their fear of persecution. The bill substitutes nuanced, case-by-case credibility assessments with a blanket rule enforced by the executive.
[Translation]
Jessica Ranger, Legal Administrator, The Refugee Centre: This is a profound departure from existing IRB guidelines, which recognizes that there are many reasons to explain delayed claims, namely trauma, fear, or changing risk conditions.
By introducing this ineligibility criterion, the government is effectively prejudging credibility through legislation, rather than allowing an independent tribunal to assess it.
In order to ensure Canada’s non-refoulement efforts, we recommend changing the threshold so the clock starts from the most recent arrival to Canada and have the time period be taken into account on the backend as opposed to serving as a strict eligibility criteria.
Additionally, we recommend ensuring that those with ineligible claims are offered an enhanced PRRA which grants the right to a hearing and to an appeal. This would ensure Canada’s international commitments are maintained.
To that end, certain exceptions should be allowed for those whom Canada already understands may delay claiming, including victims of domestic violence, gender-based violence, members of the 2SLGBTQ+ community, those who were children when their one-year claim period started, unaccompanied minors and persons fleeing criminal groups.
The most striking example of governmental overreach, however, lies in the provisions on orders made in the public interest. These sections grant the minister the power to suspend or cancel in bulk claims and immigration documents with minimal oversight and based on an extraordinarily vague standard.
This authority bypasses independent review and due process, and opens the door to politicized decision-making. It is recommended that this provision be subject to a statutory review after three years. Without mandatory parliamentary scrutiny, these powers could be exercised against specific groups of non-citizens or nationals, raising serious concerns.
Honourable senators, Bill C-12 does not fix Canada’s asylum and immigration system. It weakens independent institutions, increases societal precarity through increased processing backlogs and lowers procedural protections for those seeking safety.
Short of removing these provisions, the recommendations before you will work to mitigate risks brought by this bill. Canada’s refugee determination system was deliberately designed to insulate life-and-death decisions from political pressure.
Efficiency is not achieved through overreach of discretionary authority and Canada must remain a country governed by procedural fairness, accountability and efficiency.
Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. We will now proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators will have four minutes for your question, and that includes the answer. Please indicate if your question is directed to a particular witness or all witnesses. The first question will be from Senator Burey.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much for your testimony and being here today.
Just so we have enough time, I’ll shorten my question because I would like responses from everyone, if possible. Yesterday we heard from Manon Brassard, Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. She detailed how they had efficiently and effectively increased their case processing and reduced loads.
She appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. When asked how the federal government could help further improve efficiency and client services at the IRB, she highlighted front-end screening and effective decision case review and intervention. I would like your comments on that.
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: Our organization has presented to both the board and the minister a comprehensive proposal on how the board could further reduce their backlog. These measures would not even require legislation. The board spends time accepting claims from countries with 95% success rates for claimants who do not have any security concerns. We suggest that those claims be taken out of the board’s queue. Those claimants could be given a pathway to permanent residence.
Alternatively, there are economic pathways. The government could create pathways for claimants who are currently working in industries with labour shortages. Pull them out of the queue so that they can have a pathway to permanent residency and be out of the board’s backlog.
There are a number of other measures that the board could take, but these measures would take tens of thousands of claimants out of the board’s queue. No legislation, particularly not this legislation, would be required to accomplish that.
Ms. Sreenivasan: Adding to what Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky has said, the board relies on eligibility and security considerations for the prescreening process. That is the important role of the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA. It is always important to identify the functions of the CBSA versus the IRB.
The other key component that I think the IRB would welcome is, in fact, increased investment in resources for the IRB’s capacity to handle the backlog. That’s a little bit different from the question at the front end. They are saying, “Please help ensure cases are as ready as they can be before they come to us.” But it is also clear, in the context of increased demand in a world where we can pretend it is not as difficult as it is but, in fact, produces an unprecedented number of globally displaced people, the board needs the resources to address it. This bill clearly is about trying to have less backlog and having the IRB do less work in a context where there is a high demand for protection. It makes a lot more sense to invest in the institution that is best equipped to address the merits of those claims.
Ms. Murad: In order for cases to be ready to be received by the IRB in the manner they should be expecting, we do need to invest more in our legal aid nationally. Legal aid is not accessible in every single province. Even then, it is very difficult to access a lawyer who can take on your case. That is definitely something that should be considered. I would also like to echo CARL’s ideas of additional pathways that could pull people from that queue.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Hay: Thank you all for being here. We have talked about, in the past, the impact of trauma and a claimant moving into a fight-flight-freeze-fear mode that can lead to a delay in disclosure. The Refugee Centre put forward a brief that highlights — to pick up on what you just said — inconsistent and limited access to legal aid, which exposes claimants to overcharging, bad-actor consultants, harmful or incorrect advice that can lead to incomplete applications, missed deadlines and abandoned claims.
Given the government’s proposal in Bill C-12 for a one-year ban on filing claims, I know you are concerned that the uneven access to legal aid across provinces can cause legitimate claimants to miss their deadlines. Can you give us some additional context and recommendations to that?
Ms. Murad: I will give it to my colleague, Ms. Ranger.
Ms. Ranger: Just to make sure I understand, are you asking for recommendations about legal aid in particular?
Senator Hay: I am asking about inconsistent access to legal aid across provinces.
[Translation]
Ms. Ranger: For legal aid, compensation is not the same from one province to the next. In Quebec, for example, legal aid — and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers could say more about this — is compensated per action, not by hour, unlike the other provinces where compensation is by hour.
This means that in Quebec, legal aid mandates often pay the least. That explains why few private lawyers take these cases, because payment is very low for all the work they require, especially in the context of the one-year limit, where cases would go through a pre-removal risk assessment. It’s a lot of work. That’s why few lawyers take on legal aid mandates for these types of claims. In Montreal in particular, there are only six immigration lawyers at the legal aid office. They have a very heavy caseload, so it can be difficult to have access to them. When it comes to cases where pre-removal risk assessment is concerned, we’ve seen many instances where legal aid lawyers couldn’t take them on simply because they were already swamped. Apart from this legislation, it would take an investment —
[English]
— in legal aid to ensure that everyone has access.
Ms. Murad: There are many legitimate reasons why a person would delay claiming, in reference to the one-year bar in your question. As my colleagues have covered, members of the 2SLGBTQ+ community do often experience delays in claiming. As my colleague Mr. Abou Hamrah mentioned in his opening statement, people who are in the closet may not feel safe or trusting of systems in order to come forward and make those claims, as well as survivors of gender-based violence, as my colleague has also said. People who have experienced trauma do take time, oftentimes, to claim. This is something recognized by the IRB. There are guidelines through the IRB for sexual orientation and gender identity issues, so for gender violence and sexuality reasons, et cetera. These guidelines are not necessarily taken into account with the one-year bar.
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: There are three provinces in Canada where there is no funding for immigration and refugee legal aid services whatsoever: New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan.
Legal Aid Ontario has advised us, as we’re on the subject of legal aid, that the cost of a judicial review application and the cost of a PRRA, all of that together, will create a greater strain on their resources than the typical process of claims that go through the IRB. As we are considering the efficiency of the system, as well as the strains on the public purse, that also goes to provincial legal aid societies. The way this bill is drafted now will have an increased impact on those legal aid societies and their abilities to provide the funding that claimants need in order to access the system in a timely fashion.
The Chair: Mr. Abou Hamrah, you have a few seconds. Senator McPhedran will direct a question to you, sir, and you will be able to add in.
Senator McPhedran: Feel welcome to respond to that and also to this particular question. I wanted to give you an opportunity to share more information with us. I wanted to be clear that, in my chosen family, I have an adopted trans son who escaped honour killings across three countries before we were finally able to get him to Canada. I want to hear more from you, please, about the impact if this bill were to become law.
Basel Abou Hamrah, Vice President, Canadian Council for Refugees: Thank you so much for this opportunity. First, I would like to talk about legal aid in Alberta. Refugee claimants in Alberta are not allowed to obtain a lawyer unless they have done their eligibility interview. In Alberta, legal aid lawyers cannot support the application process, which is an integral part of the refugee claim. It has a huge implication for seeing delays in the submission of refugee claims for even more than a year.
For the other questions, Bill C-12 has serious implications for LGBTQ and trans refugees, including students and workers who may later need protection. Many do not claim asylum immediately, not because they are unsafe, but because disclosure has previously led to arrest, violence or rejection. Delay is often a survival strategy.
Bill C-12 turns the survival instinct into a liability. Rigid timelines and restricted access to a full hearing risks excluding people whose danger is real but who needed time to feel safe enough to speak.
For LGBTQ and trans people, fair hearings and privacy are essential. Identity-based persecution requires careful, trauma-informed assessment and not speed-driven decisions.
Even if Bill C-12 appears neutral on its face, but its implication is not. It will disproportionately harm people whose identities have already made survival dangerous.
I urge the Senate to amend this bill to ensure protection is not denied to those who need time to stay alive. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator McPhedran, Senator Senior, has indicated she is ceding her time to you so you may continue.
Senator Senior: You asked my question.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. Let me thank each of the panel for being with us.
You would have heard my previous question about a favourite anecdote about gaming the system, which is not fact-based. Hopefully, we will be more aware of that when we hear it in the chamber.
My question to you is, is there a pivotal amendment here or two amendments? We are constantly engaged in a pragmatic process. We have some vociferous advocates for turning back the clock in Canada.
Are there one or two pivotal amendments that those of us who are deeply concerned about the cruelty and stupidity of this bill in relation to immigration should be focused on?
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: Yes. There are many amendments that this bill needs, but if I were to identify one or two, the first would be an elimination of the one-year bar for ineligibility. But to the extent that is not possible, a mandatory oral hearing for those who go through the PRRA process, similar to what the SIM did in 2019, would be the greatest reduction-of-harm pathway that the Senate could take at this stage.
Ensuring an oral hearing would allow claimants to address concerns that the decision maker deciding on their risk of prosecution would face, assuage any concerns about certain things that may be unclear and give them the procedural protections that are a bare minimum for a first-risk assessment.
Get red of the ineligibility but, if that cannot happen, at least give people a hearing.
Mr. Eisen: Thank you. I would add that, again, we would recommend scrapping the ineligibility provisions. But if that is not possible, in addition to what my colleague Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky has said, adding some exceptions, basically exemptions to the one-year bar for surplus claims; claims made in countries where circumstances in the country of origin have changed; exemptions for claims based on sexual orientation or gender violence, unaccompanied minors; and, as my colleagues have referred to already, people from moratorium countries to avoid this legal limbo situation we have spoken about already. I think those are all essential.
Ms. Sreenivasan: I would add that the one-year bar and the mass cancellation provision are huge overreach powers that have dangerous consequences for a current government that wants a class of people, people from a country. The risk of discrimination is so high. But a future government with those legal powers could take it even further.
It is part of global trends that states are trying to deny a context of people who, like you or I would if our and our families’ lives were in danger — are seeking protection and trying to create mass powers to prevent.
We need a wholesale, new approach, but the one-year bar ineligibility provisions deleted or, failing that, exemptions. And the mass cancellation powers are also extremely new, dangerous terrain, and so we would focus on you removing those.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Ms. Ranger: Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleagues. We have similar amendments proposed in our brief. The one-year bar, frankly, is extremely prejudicial and should be removed.
If it cannot be removed, we could amend it to be the last entry, not the first, to include the exemptions my colleagues have mentioned and that there be an enhanced PRRA, a hearing for that PRRA and an appeal mechanism for a rejected PRRA. I would agree with that.
For the mass cancellation powers as well, that is incredibly preoccupying. We don’t know how it will be used, which is a large part of the problem. As Ms. Sreenivasan said, we have seen — with global trends — how that is used to discrimination. We find that extremely preoccupying.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: I’m interested in knowing if any of the panellists have a contrary review that perhaps a better route here to address efficiency is simply expanding the capacity of the IRB? We are hearing this over and over. Is there anyone who has a contrary view to that? Didn’t think so. Thank you.
Another question for Mr. Eisen and Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: Do you have concerns about the constitutionality of this bill? I’ll start with Mr. Eisen.
Mr. Eisen: Yes. I think if you go back to the Singh decision, the basis of our refugee system for, I think, now 41, 42 years, there are serious issues raised by this bill about whether the fundamental rights contained in section 7 of the Charter are going to be respected, whether we will meet our international obligations and whether any of this is in compliance with the fundamental issues that are raised by the Charter. I’m very concerned with the constitutional implications of this bill.
I think this is another area where we are going to see potential litigation. It raises, again, this issue of efficiency and court capacity, things like that. I think it is important to consider all of those things together.
Senator Muggli: And people who live in provinces that don’t have legal aid access.
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky?
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: I think what all of us around the table can safely assume is that, if the bill passes as currently drafted, it will be the subject of litigation. That litigation is likely to challenge the constitutionality, which will be a question to be answered by the courts.
It will also introduce an amount of uncertainty into the system for those individuals who are affected by this bill and the system as a whole. These are the kinds of measures that get litigated and overturned by the courts. It is a huge amount of uncertainty and resources.
I would urge senators to ensure that Parliament gets this bill right the first time before it goes to court and is sent back to Parliament to fix it later on.
I echo my colleague Mr. Eisen in saying that the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Singh was clear that where there are credibility concerns regarding an individual’s refugee claim, they must be entitled to an oral hearing before they get sent home.
Currently, the legislation does allow for a hearing to be held when there are credibility concerns around a PRRA, but what we see in our practice is officers often sidestep this requirement, deciding cases where they may have credibility concerns on other grounds. It is very common that these kinds of decisions are the subject of judicial review in the Federal Court because of veiled credibility findings where officers, as I said, sidestep procedural fairness and an individual’s right to a hearing by saying, “You didn’t have enough evidence, so you haven’t satisfied me,” which is really saying, “I don’t believe you,” in a different way.
Senator Petitclerc: Thanks to your question, Senator McPhedran, many points were put clearly in front of us. I thank you for that.
My question is on the first or last entry. What I’m seeing is all of you support that it should be the last entry. Am I correct on that? I wanted to dive into that, but I think it is quite clear.
Maybe what I need to understand better is you talked a lot about the PRRA and the challenges. Many witnesses have come back on the need for oral hearings and appeals. Is there something else that is challenging with going to a PRRA? Maybe just give us a little more for that.
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: Yes, there is. I’ll answer briefly so that other witnesses can answer as well.
The other major issue with the PRRA is individuals who are in the PRRA process who are refused, where a person has gone through the PRRA process and the officer has decided they do not face a risk; they do not benefit from an automatic stay of removal.
Senator Petitclerc: Just for my understanding, we have the 12 months. The person is over the 12 months, for example, so they go to a PRRA.
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: Why don’t I walk you through the life cycle of one of these?
Senator Petitclerc: I would love you to walk me through that.
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: If this bill passes as drafted, an individual will make a claim for protection. They will identify to IRCC or CBSA that they fear persecution in their home country. They will be found ineligible because they took more than a year. Then, provided they are not from a moratorium country where there are no removals, at some point when CBSA is ready to remove them, they will be invited to the PRRA process. They will provide forms and documents showing why they face a risk of persecution, and an IRCC officer will make a determination on whether they face that risk and whether they can be removed. That is the process as it is set out.
Should the officer say, no, what happens next is that the individual does have the right to seek judicial review in the Federal Court, but, in the meantime, they can be deported while the Federal Court determines whether the officer made a mistake or not.
This is something that is not the case at the board where a person has a stay of removal while they go to the Refugee Appeal Division, which only takes about three months to issue their decision, or when they seek judicial review in the Federal Court.
For these people, this is the first time their risk is being assessed, and they can be deported while the court determines whether the officer has made a mistake. If, ultimately, it turns out that the officer did make a mistake but that person is in their home country, there are dire consequences. Another measure that could be taken within the parameters of this bill is to ensure that individuals seeking judicial review of a negative decision cannot be removed while the court is deciding whether that decision should be allowed to stand.
Senator Petitclerc: This could happen without the possibility of an oral hearing?
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: Yes, never an oral hearing.
Senator Petitclerc: That was very helpful for me. Thank you.
Senator Boudreau: Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky, you said if Bill C-12 passes, there likely will be litigation. You just walked us through the process. Knowing that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that there should be mandatory oral hearings, yet Bill C-12 is basically removing that right, legally. I’m trying to wrap my head around what the federal government is thinking if they already have a Supreme Court ruling that says oral hearings are mandatory. How do they expect this bill to get through and it become law without future litigation?
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: Senator, I am also trying to wrap my head around that. I think that’s helpful. That question was put to the Minister of Public Safety yesterday at SECD when he assured senators that, yes, it is constitutional. The Department of Justice Canada’s constitutional review says, yes, the PRRA is an appropriate method of determination. But as we have walked through over the course of this hearing this morning, there are significant challenges in the PRRA, both in terms of how it is expected to operate and how it operates in practice.
It is important to remember that when the minister talks about how the PRRA has been accepted as an appropriate risk assessment, that is for people where the board has already made a decision. Maybe a year has passed before they are being sent back to their country, so we have to determine whether something new has arisen or there is some new evidence. Most PRRAs are refused on that basis because the first risk assessment was negative and that person had the right to go to the board.
For people who have never had a risk assessment anywhere in the world, I remind you that individuals have an oral hearing if they have made a claim already in a Five Eyes country. People who made a claim in the U.S., the U.K., Australia or New Zealand, those individuals get an oral hearing.
What is different from the folks who are ineligible under Bill C-12’s provisions? Only how long they took to institute their claim. No one has ever determined whether they faced a risk. My colleagues have set out why it is perfectly legitimate that a person may make a claim after a certain amount of time.
Absolutely, senator, it is not clear where the government wants to go with this in terms of constitutionality. I can assure you that if the bill passes as drafted, it will be before the courts.
Mr. Abou Hamrah: I want to talk about the implications of the PRRA process for LGBTQ folks. I have seen how hard it is for trans people to explain their identity on paper without support. I have seen queer students struggle to gather evidence when their families don’t even know who they are. These cases require time, trust and careful trauma-informed decision making, but Bill C-12 prioritizes speed over safety. It pushes people away from independent hearings and into a weaker process where nuance, trauma and identity-based persecution are easier to miss. This is the PRRA process.
The Chair: Senator Miville-Dechêne, welcome.
Senator Arnold: Thank you all for this important testimony. I, too, have a question for Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky.
Thank you for bringing up the lack of legal aid in places such as New Brunswick. We are very fortunate to have some refugee clinics that are doing incredible work. I spoke to one recently.
I want to bring up a different topic. You obliquely referred to it. In New Brunswick, we have an aging demographic. We know that, over the next 10 years, we will need 130,000 new people to come into our province to fill jobs in construction, health care and in important roles in our communities.
You mentioned that you had presented to the government this idea of streamlining into the process people who are already working. What was the reaction to that?
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: Senator, we are still waiting. Those proposals were sent to the previous minister in early 2025, perhaps even late 2024. No, there has been no take-up on that particular proposal.
You raise a very important issue in terms of the ability of individuals in New Brunswick to access protection. We saw this a couple of years ago where the federal government, in response to concerns in some larger metropolitan areas about services for refugees, that individuals were being transferred, in particular, to New Brunswick, and the folks at the clinics in New Brunswick were doing unbelievable work. But a lot of those claimants who were transferred to New Brunswick ended up leaving the province in part because they could not access lawyers because there wasn’t legal aid available for them. I understand legal aid is not really at the heart of this bill, but the refugee determination system and the immigration system as a whole, where we push in one place, something moves in another, and when we pull somewhere else, something moves somewhere else. Each one of these provisions that are in this bill is going to have some knock-on effect down the line.
The government really does need to rethink how we can best ensure a fair system that gives fast yeses and fast nos, efficiently and fairly, with procedural protections for those who come before it, whether that means access to justice in terms of legal aid or whether that means access to the board and oral hearings. I don’t think there is anyone around the table today who would say that the system is not in need of reform, but Bill C-12 is not it. Bill C-12 is not going to address efficiency. It’s not even going to address fraud, as the minister said.
This bill is lacking, and to the extent that the government thinks that this bill is the answer to whatever ails the system, it has something else coming to it.
Senator Arnold: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Like many senators, I am very concerned about the announced measures for refugees. Refugees in general are very fragile. I tried to do some research — which was inconclusive — on what’s being done in other countries. I do that to see whether Canada is ahead of the curve or falling behind. I didn’t find any country — I didn’t go through all of them, so correct me if I’m wrong — where there were such long delays — we’re talking two years — to apply for refugee status. I heard you say that, in the Five Eyes countries, there’s always an in-person hearing.
How do you evaluate this new bill based on what’s being done in other countries? I know that in Europe, rules are much stricter in general, but refugees must submit their refugee status application as soon as possible after arriving in the country. Systems are very different from one another. Are we ahead of everybody or not?
[English]
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: I think part of the reason that the research may not have revealed countries that allow you to claim refugee protection after a certain number of years is, in part, connected to — the UNHCR’s minimum standards, which suggest that claims should be made at the earliest opportunity, but there isn’t a time attached to that. We have to consider, in the circumstances of an individual, what makes sense to be the earliest opportunity?
We have heard why individuals may delay, but critically, the issue of delay goes to the credibility of a claim. That is something that is considered by the board in every claim where there has been a delay. If an individual has not sought protection at potentially the earliest opportunity, a board member will put to them, “You know, you came to Canada two years ago. Why didn’t you make a claim when you first arrived?” That person might say, “Well, I came as a student, and I had a student visa, and I had a pathway to permanent residence, and so I didn’t need to make a refugee claim because I had this pathway. But now, you know, I wasn’t able to finish my studies, or the system changed, and so I can’t go back to my country because —”
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I get it. So what about oral hearings? Are they the norm elsewhere?
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: Yes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Where? Everywhere? Just the Five Eyes?
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: I can’t speak for all the countries in the world, but it is — as the UNHCR says, the minimum requirement is that there should be an oral hearing. There doesn’t necessarily need to be one where the evidence is overwhelming, but the application should be approved. But where a person is possibly going to be sent back to their home country, there ought to be an oral hearing.
[Translation]
Ms. Sreenivasan: That’s right. We just received information from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that in most other countries, there is an in-person hearing. It’s very important that we keep this basic standard in Canada.
With respect to the delay period, it’s important to note that the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees doesn’t say anything about a timeline, and that’s the international standard. There is no timeline in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. So why include it here?
[English]
In terms of options for why there is a backlog in Canada, there are important tools that the IRB also has to address delays, which include their capacity where the evidence is overwhelming to not have the oral hearing. But they maintain the importance of having the oral hearing in the context where there is a question that needs to be understood, and they are the world-renowned expert. And the last point I’ll make about —
[Translation]
Are we ahead of the curve compared to the rest of the world?
[English]
I want us to remember the role that Canada has played in leading the world on gender-based protection and protection for gender-based claims. We were the first country to recognize that a woman fleeing persecution from a partner can make a claim under the law, in the context of a social group.
Around the world, people have now followed all of the guidelines that the IRB has developed not just for gender-based claims, but for a complete understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity considerations. That is the leadership that we seem to be ready to toss in the garbage can. We need to ask ourselves — on the minister’s point from yesterday, we are Canada. Who is Canada? Is this what Canada is going to be willing to relegate?
These timeline questions are absolutely essential for gender-based claims. So that is shocking that Canada is willing to sort of go to the back of the line.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I will pass the last question to Senator Dean, sponsor of the bill.
Senator Dean: I have a quick question to whomever can answer it. I would be interesting in knowing what the success rates are the IRB, with its suite of measures in terms of access to an oral hearing. What percentage of pre-removal risk assessment, or PRAA, applicants find success with those provisions available at the IRB?
Ms. Murad: I believe that the PRRA acceptance rate is about 7%. Now, what I would like to note is that this is a — I’m sorry?
Senator Dean: It has to be higher.
Ms. Murad: The 7% is what we have in our brief. This is what data has been provided by the IRB. It doesn’t necessarily only include people who are offered the PRRA as the primary avenue for them. This is also people who have had their claims heard and then been rejected and then been offered this PRRA.
Mr. Eisen: I can clarify. The acceptance rate for PRRA, where it goes to an oral hearing, is higher. It is around 30% or 33%, I believe. The acceptance rate at the board varies from year to year, obviously. But I think it’s normally — or recently has been at least twice that, so we are talking 60% to 70%. If any of my colleagues have a specific number, they are welcome to add in.
Mr. Bercovitch Sadinsky: In terms of the PRRAs that have a hearing, yes, the acceptance rate is higher than for those that don’t. But I think we also have to keep in mind some of the reasons that individuals get to PRRAs that have hearings. Most of the folks who do get a hearing from a PRRA are because they have made a claim in some other country. It’s unclear the extent to which the fact of having been in some other country may be pulling down the acceptance rate. One imagines that for these individuals under Bill C-12, who have not had any previous claim, have not had a risk assessment, that it might be somewhat higher. But that would be speculation.
Senator Dean: I was wondering about the current figures. I’m not speaking about speculation. So somewhere between 60% and 70% I think is what we’re told?
Ms. Sreenivasan: We can get you some of the stats on the general success rate. I would point out that another important variable to look at is the question of the IRB decisions and how often are they overturned versus the PRRA. You heard clearly from the chairperson yesterday that only 1% of IRB rulings, after an appeal, are even questioned. Only 4% of those that have gone through the RAD. You have a much higher standard that results in a much lower frequency of it being challenged in the courts versus the PRRA. We can get you the stats so you kind of have in the different categories and the different kinds of PRRAs because we use them in different categories now so that you can see.
I will assure you that those stats will speak to the fact that the PRRA is very often challenged and then very often overturned, particularly if it will be found to be the first tool that is used to assess.
I’ll just add to Senator Petitclerc. Earlier you asked if there were any other questions you could raise about the PRRA. I think an important thing to remember who is conducting them. The PRRA is overseen by IRCC officials who have far fewer qualifications, but also in a department that is about to undergo massive cuts.
The vision of Bill C-12 is to say, it must be a problem that we have so many people at the IRB. We will create a process that transfers the load to the IRCC. Nothing in the bill addresses the reasons that people flee or the reasons how those people may be seeking protection. So it creates, in a sense, a new queue at the IRC at the PRRA even as they are undercutting the ability of IRCC officials, who are less trained and qualified to manage it, and giving them a restricted tool. That’s the only other factor I wanted to add.
The Chair: Thank you, everyone. We have come to the end of this panel. I am going to ask the witnesses who have promised to provide data or responses to particular questions. If you could consider doing that by tomorrow, we would be very grateful because we are going to report shortly thereafter.
I would like to thank all the witnesses for your testimony here today.
This is our final panel for today. Thank you to the witnesses who have made the adjustment to join us on the third panel. We welcome Anne Woolger, Founding Director, Matthew House Refugee Services Toronto; Katie Lay, Staff Lawyer, Immigration and Refugee Legal Clinic; Nadine Edirmanasinghe, Lawyer, Community Legal Services of Ottawa; and Karen Cocq, Co-Executive Director, Migrant Rights Network.
For your opening statement, you will have five minutes, followed by questions from committee members. Ms. Woolger, you have the floor.
Anne Woolger, Founding Director, Matthew House Refugee Services: Thank you. My name is Anne Woolger. I’m the founder of Matthew House Toronto, which is a group of homes that shelter and support newly arrived refugee claimants. We have also served as a catalyst for the opening of more than half a dozen other refugee claimant shelters across Canada, some by the same name, including Matthew House Ottawa, here in Ottawa.
I have personally been working with refugee claimants since 1988, which has been a long time. I have helped with the hands-on settlements of over 4,000 refugee claimants. I have served on various local and national refugee advocacy committees, including the Canadian Council for Refugees.
In light of my nearly 40 years in this sector, I have seen many changes over the years. For example, just for fun, I wanted to say that, when I began, there were no cell phones. We just had land lines with jacks working with refugees.
There was also no Safe Third Country Agreement for the first 15 years. I would argue that things ran much more smoothly. You’re welcome to ask me about that afterwards.
There was not even the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. It was established six months after I began working with refugee claimants.
Having served in the sector for so many years, I have seen ebbs and flows of government responses to refugee claimants, while the claimants and their need for protection have not changed.
I concur with many of the concerns expressed so effectively by my colleagues today, including the vital importance of access to a fair hearing, that is, through the IRB, irrespective of the manner or the time in which one enters Canada.
I also have concerns over the sweeping new powers of government to cancel or suspend immigration processes. Also, I have major concerns about new provisions that will result in claims being declared abandoned before referral to the IRB. Being a front-line, first-arrival shelter, I see the reasons for that.
Given my many years in the sector, I would like to offer a few big-picture observations of our national journey toward refugee justice. The Singh decision of the Supreme Court on April 4, 1985, granting the right of refugees to an oral hearing, was a pivotal milestone in refugee justice history in Canada. In fact, I feel it deserves another statue next to the suffragettes because it was when it was decided that refugees are persons.
Refugee Rights Day has been celebrated every April 4 by refugee rights advocates and groups across Canada ever since 1985.
Reflecting on the time when the IRB was first formed in the late 1980s, it was a huge step forward, though it did require some significant tweaking, for which many of us advocated over the years. These challenges included patronage appointments at the beginning, and sometimes there were hostile adjudicators, skewed decisions and unjustly low acceptance rates. There was also a lack of appeal. No effective appeal process existed, forcing long, expensive backlogs in the federal court.
Over the years and with much advocacy, major progress was made, especially with 2012 reforms which introduced merit-based appointments for the IRB and established the refugee appeal division. This resulted in better-trained adjudicators who based their decisions clearly on the refugee definition only, and perhaps unsurprisingly, acceptance rates have risen significantly over the years. As we have heard, it has sometimes been more than 75% in recent times.
While I could certainly speak about many flaws in our system, in short, the trajectory of Canada’s refugee sector has been toward greater justice. A process of refining the wheel has been happening, and that has made me proud to be a Canadian.
Therefore, I am deeply disturbed by Bill C-12, which threatens to reverse this progress and drag the system backwards toward its flawed early days. I’m seeing it. We’re just going backwards. Why are we doing this? Why should we regress? We have clearly been on a trajectory toward greater justice for refugees.
Last night, I came and watched the session here at the Senate with the minister, observing the government’s response to some of your colleague’s questions. I was deeply troubled by what seemed to be a lack of understanding regarding the bill’s implications for our government, yet I was so encouraged by the senators’ questions.
In closing, I implore you to hold the government accountable concerning this bill to ensure its harmful elements are removed so that we can continue on the path of justice for refugees. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Lay, you have the floor.
Katie Lay, Staff Lawyer, Immigration and Refugee Legal Clinic: Good morning senators. My name is Katie Lay. I am a staff lawyer at the Immigration and Refugee Legal Clinic, or IRLC, located in Vancouver, B.C.
We are a small clinic that advises and represents hundreds of people seeking safety in B.C. each year before the federal court and immigration tribunals. My role at the clinic is to provide summary legal advice and short service to vulnerable migrants, and a core part of the funding for my position is dedicated to helping victims of gender-based violence.
The IRLC urges you to reject this bill in its current form. At minimum, we urge you to adopt amendments to mitigate its impact on the most vulnerable.
I advise individuals who are fleeing war and targeted gang violence, people who face persecution based on their sexuality or gender identity — people who face horrors unimaginable to most of us sitting in this room.
My work is for those whom the clinic cannot represent, but who have nowhere else to turn for legal advice.
In my role, I work on cases for up to five individuals and families per day. Of the 160 people that I have personally met with since Bill C-12’s initial form — Bill C-2 — was tabled on June 3, 2025, there are 42 individuals who currently have strong refugee claims but will lose access to the right to a refugee claim if this bill passes in its current form. Of these 42 clients, 10 are children or youth and four are members of the LGBTQ+ community. This is just a snapshot of the people affected by the bill.
A principle of the rule of law is that people need to know what the law is in order to follow it. Bill C-12, in its current form, offends the rule of law by imposing retroactive restrictions on those seeking safety in Canada.
Bill C-12 is retroactive in two respects. It will apply to anyone who entered Canada after June 24, 2020, and will be retroactive to the day its original iteration, Bill C-2, was first introduced to the House of Commons on June 3, 2025.
The second retroactivity is set out in the transitional provisions of Part 8 at section 75(a).
My clients and their families have been in a state of limbo for the last seven months, unable to make an informed decision about what to do with their lives or how to escape the terrors they face back home.
As the law currently stands, a refugee claim is a viable and possibly life-saving option for many of the people I advise. However, because of the retroactive nature of Bill C-12, families have been put in a situation of uncertainty where the best decision today may not be an option for them tomorrow.
We represent trans youth and survivors of sexual assault who have filed claims and are currently awaiting a decision from the Refugee Protection Division. If Bill C-12 passes as is, they will lose this avenue of safety and be cast out without procedural protections.
Take, for example, the case of a woman whom I will call “Anna,” a lesbian international student from a country where homosexuality is illegal. Anna came to Canada in September 2021, based on the Canadian government’s promotional slogan, “study, explore, work, stay.”
On June 2, 2025, scared by the shifting rules for international students, Anna sought legal advice and learned about the possibility of a refugee claim. She rushed to file her claim as soon as possible on June 15, 2025. Anna would be in the refugee protection system right now awaiting a hearing and decision. If Bill C-12 passes as is, she would suddenly become ineligible and be cast out of that system.
Bill C-12, in its current form, is an assault on the rights of families. Canada has a reputation as a welcoming and safe country that greets people from all walks of life with open arms. We cannot offer safety to people in need then rip it out from under them.
My colleagues and I represent families and individuals who have filed refugee claims and are waiting in limbo, unsure if they will have the chance to flee the persecution and violence that awaits them back home.
You may be told that pre-removal risk assessment, or PRRA, will solve this, but this is not the case. As my colleagues have explained already, a PRRA does not guarantee access to a hearing; it does not provide special protections for children and youth; guidelines for accommodating people with disabilities or vulnerable people; or access to the IRB Gender Guidelines.
A PRRA does not offer meaningful protection to the most vulnerable. As well, a PRRA can only be offered by a CBSA officer when someone is “removal ready.”
There are already significant backlogs of individuals who have been excluded from making refugee claims for other reasons, or from countries like Venezuela or Afghanistan that have temporary stays or administrative deferrals of removal in place and are in limbo, unable to be offered PRRA.
Migrant-serving organizations, including ours, are terrified and outraged at the implosion of the refugee system described in this bill. We ask that you do not take away the chance of these refugee claimants to access safety, and please let refugee claims already in process remain eligible. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Lay.
Ms. Edirmanasinghe, the floor is yours.
Nadine Edirmanasinghe, Lawyer, Community Legal Services of Ottawa: Thank you for your ongoing attention and for the invitation to speak on this legislation.
I work at the Community Legal Services of Ottawa. Our clinic serves low-income clients across the city on immigration, housing and income-maintenance issues.
You’ve heard my colleagues speak to the legal issues with this legislation and offer their recommendations for amendments. I will not repeat them.
We support the recommendations of the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, and other human rights, refugee and migrant-serving organizations.
What I want to offer to you is a snapshot of those on the ground who would be most impacted by the proposed changes.
I do have examples of people who have abandoned their claims, which I may not have time to speak to but can provide them to you should you require.
First, the proposed shift from the refugee hearings at the Immigration and Refugee Board to paper-based pre-removal risk assessments.
We represented a gentleman this summer — whom I will refer to as “John” — whose PRRA was refused on the basis he would only suffer “simple persecution” if deported. It was John’s first risk assessment. He had not had a refugee hearing. The Federal Court, predictably, struck it down as the law is clear. The question is whether there is persecution — full stop — yes or no.
The training of PRRA officers cannot be compared to that of the IRB — a specialist tribunal with over 35 years of experience in refugee status determination, as John’s refusal clearly demonstrates.
Second, the proposed shift to bar refugee claimants from making a claim once one year has elapsed from their initial entry to Canada.
We are currently representing a refugee claimant — whom I will call “Donald” — who thought his refugee claim was submitted two years ago by his lawyer. We had to break the news to him that his claim had never been submitted, and the person he paid wasn’t licensed and had been sanctioned.
Sometimes, despite best efforts, claimants cannot submit their claim in a timely way. We have a refugee hearing this spring for a client — a woman I will call “Julia” — who was groomed at the age of 16 and suffered through a 20-year-long abusive relationship with a man 15 years her senior. Julia did not know she could make a claim based on her gender. We first met her during the pandemic. Julia did not have a computer, a secure internet connection or a private space to meet. The extreme stress of having to relive her trauma meant that Julia struggled to attend appointments and explain her story. It took Julia more than a year to understand she could make a claim, as well as to find a lawyer and the appropriate community supports to submit her claim.
The difficulty of overcoming trauma and other barriers should not be underestimated. This past Friday, we met with a 10-year-old girl, whom I will call “Evangeline.” She is in Canada visiting her father. Her mother back home has recently gone missing and is presumed dead. Evangeline’s dad cannot sponsor her from inside Canada. As a young girl, she would be at risk of endemic sexual and gender-based violence. Because Evangeline had come previously to visit her dad in 2023, more than a year has passed since she first arrived, and she would be ineligible to make a claim for protection. As well, Evangeline cannot be served with a PRRA because Canada is not enforcing removals to her country of origin.
The one-year bar should not apply to minors; it should not apply to moratorium countries; it should not apply to vulnerable claimants. The absurdity of this 10-year-old girl’s situation makes it clear why.
I would like to highlight the impact of the IRCCs pre-referral abandonment process — as a third point — and the front-loaded procedures which would not allow refugee claimants to explain the reasons their claim was deemed abandoned.
We have helped, among others, three brothers, just this past summer, who struggled to find a French-speaking lawyer to help file their claim within the timelines. We helped an individual navigate a late claim submission after suffering a mental health breakdown at the airport upon arrival and after he was separated from his wife. And we helped a woman file her claim after navigating Ottawa with her three kids in the middle of February.
We can’t make the mistake of thinking that just because someone is in Canada they are in a position to take advantage of all the freedoms, or to make a claim at the first available opportunity. The one-year bar will negatively impact marginalized and vulnerable groups.
The reasons for migration, I want to emphasize, are complex and intertwined. People move, and they stay for various reasons that aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. These measures propose a fundamental weakening of refugee protection, undermining the respect for Charter. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Cocq, the floor is yours.
Karen Cocq, Co-Executive Director, Migrant Rights Network: I am here on behalf of the Migrant Rights Network, Canada’s largest coalition of migrant-led organizations. Our members are made up of and represent temporary workers, refugees and undocumented people working across all sectors of the Canadian economy, living in small, remote areas and in major cities from B.C. to Prince Edward Island.
Our biggest concern with Bill C-12 is Part 7, which would grant sweeping authority to the Minister of Immigration, through an order-in-council, to cancel, suspend or modify immigration documents and applications en masse in “the public interest.” No oversight, checks and balances, individual assessment or ability to appeal. The use of such Orders in Council in Canadian immigration policy has a shameful record. Let me give you a few examples.
In 1919, in the midst of the Winnipeg General Strike, an order-in-council was used to deport labour organizers.
In 1939, an order-in-council was used to refuse the docking of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany aboard the MS St. Louis.
In 1945, an order-in-council was passed to deport Japanese immigrants and Japanese Canadians during the War Measures Act.
These mass cancellation powers are mass discrimination powers.
Women, Muslims, queer people and anyone from the pariah country of the day could be subject to this power. This law gives this and all future governments the power to exclude whomever is politically convenient to scapegoat.
The province of Ontario just cancelled 2,600 PR applications in bulk because of rules similar to Part 7 of Bill C-12 — welders, engineers, construction workers, people who had already been approved for PR and intended to finally reunite with their families. Why? Because the government suspected that some of those applications might have been fraudulent.
But this isn’t about fraud. IRCC already has the power to detect fraud on a case-by-case basis and has increased detection since 2024 by adding resources. If this was about fraud prevention, the government would not be laying off 3,300 IRCC employees.
There is no fixing of Part 7, and it must be deleted.
Part 5 of Bill C-12 allows the sharing of personal immigration information between immigration authorities and other federal and provincial agencies, Crown corporations and foreign entities, with no consent needed.
This information could include changes to identity, including gender identity, changes in immigration status or documents.
In effect, the decisions made by the problematic discriminatory Part 7 powers could take immediate effect through Part 7’s information-sharing powers.
Already the province of Alberta wants to deny services to migrants and refugees and put immigration status on a person’s government ID, exposing migrants to discrimination and racial profiling.
The reality for our migrant members is that their temporary immigration status puts them at the mercy of their employers. This means that no matter the abuse or exploitation you face at work — wage theft, sexual harassment, injury, violence — you know that reporting it risks your deportation.
Now, if you know that filing a provincial ministry of labour complaint will trigger information sharing with CBSA, why would you speak up?
Part 5 only entrenches a system where migrants can be exploited with impunity because seeking justice means risking deportation. Part 5 would make the consequences of mass discrimination in Part 7 immediate, denying a migrant access to essential services, the ability to assert basic rights, their safety and that of their families both here and abroad. Part 5’s information sharing powers are dangerous and must be deleted.
For two years, migrants have been blamed for crises in this country that they did not create: high housing prices, unemployment and overburdened social services, problems caused by decades of underinvestment and policy failures. But this scapegoating has been used to justify devastating cuts to immigration levels, the shutting down of immigration pathways and the changing of rules in the middle of the game for millions of people.
Policymakers have become obsessed with the numbers of migrants in this country and not with their rights. As a result, over 2.5 million people are being pushed out of the country in 2025 and 2026.
These are migrants who keep small and large businesses afloat through their labour and spending. Migrants pay taxes and contribute to social services for years without receiving benefits, effectively underwriting Canada’s social safety net.
The Royal Bank of Canada, or RBC, estimates that cuts to immigration will slash government revenues by a cumulative $50 billion over five years as of last year.
Migrants build this country. Migrants are the backbone of the food system and the care economy; they deserve the stability and equality that permanent residence provides, not precarity and scapegoating.
This bill is not about fraud prevention or protecting the integrity of the immigration system. This bill is about a government that wants to prove that it can be tough on immigration in a climate of rising and dangerous xenophobia.
This is about political agendas, not facts.
We are calling on you to take action.
Canada is attacking migrants. Deportations have skyrocketed. Permits are being cancelled.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Cocq.
Ms. Cocq: Each day our communities are being scapegoated. It cannot continue this way. Migrants are speaking up. We ask you to add your voice to ours. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
For this panel, senators will have four minutes for your question, and that includes the answer. Please indicate if your question is directed to a particular witness or witnesses.
The first question will be from Senator Senior, replacing Senator Burey.
Senator Senior: Thank you to our witnesses.
Thank you for sharing, walking us through some of what your clients are experiencing. First, are those experiences under the transitional time period of Bill C-12?
Second, how will you be counselling your clients before they submit claims now? What will be the difference in how you counsel your clients as a result of this? I will ask Ms. Lay and Ms. Edirmanasinghe. Thank you.
Ms. Lay: The 42 clients that I referenced are only the people I have personally spoken to between the date that Bill C-12 was tabled and literally today. They are the people where, when I have spoken to them, I have had to advise them on the possibility of Bill C-12 being passed and what that might mean for their refugee claim.
It has been very difficult where, under the law as it stood when I spoke with them, a refugee claim would be the best option by far. I have also had to walk them through rolling the dice of you could file a refugee claim and go through all of the emotional and financial effort of filing this claim. There is a possibility that, ultimately, you may not actually be eligible for it if Bill C-12 passes. It has been difficult where there are clients who have no choice but to take that risk.
There are other clients who have tried other options, like applying for a humanitarian and compassionate application, which has a 10-year processing time, and so maintaining their status during that period is very difficult.
I have spoken to many clients even before June 3, 2025, who will also be impacted since I spoke to them. Maybe they haven’t had the chance to file their refugee claim yet. That also puts them under this umbrella. It is something that many of my clients have come to me absolutely terrified about.
People have come to me before they are ready to make a refugee claim. They are not sure if that is actually what they want to do because they are approaching that 12-month mark and are very scared about what their future might look like.
It has been difficult. There have been many tears from clients.
Ms. Edirmanasinghe: The 10-year-old girl I referenced, her dad was shocked when he was told that her visit in 2023 meant that she couldn’t claim.
We are now in a position to check if individuals have come to Canada before. We want to exhaust other options. Generally, that is our advice. There is this perception that people are going to claim at the first opportunity, but there are a lot of reasons why we would push someone to do another type of application before doing a refugee claim. In that way, it hasn’t changed, but I think it is more so the case now. If there are opportunities to do other types of applications, that is what we are going to emphasize.
Senator Senior: Thank you.
Senator Hay: Thank you all for being here. I appreciate you all.
I want to pick up on a few points here around rhetoric. Immigration rhetoric is obviously shifting globally, with staggering rising anti-migrant sentiment that is influencing policy and debate in many countries and human rights, from basic human rights violations to the most egregious. Ms. Cocq, your briefing notes similar trends in Canada, and you also noted today migrants are being blamed for housing and health care and everything. Ms. Woolger, you have publicly described being angered and heartbroken when refugee claimants are portrayed as illegal, bogus and queue jumpers, noting their resilient and strong contributions to Canada. We have heard this, but please add some commentary about the impact that Bill C-12 may have on rhetoric. What should we be doing as parliamentarians to combat the rhetoric? It is a small question.
Ms. Woolger: Yes, a small question. As I said, I have seen ebbs and flows. Sometimes, refugees are the greatest, and the year 2015 is a great example of that with the Syrian flow. It won the election. Other years, refugees are the worst. We’ve seen it all. What we have to focus on are the facts.
I’m so glad the IRB no longer has patronage appointments because they are now built on the definition of refugee. We have to overturn myths, stay the course of seeking justice for refugees and plug our ears to the rhetoric. Just stay the course.
Senator Hay: What is the impact of Bill C-12?
Ms. Woolger: I was troubled last night when I heard some comments by government officials that implied that there were a lot, in recent years, of fraudulent refugee claims. If you look at the facts, actually, the number of claims accepted has been continually increasing. I think all of us have to work together. I know the Canadian Council for Refugees has a campaign stating we are better together and promoting public discourse and education. I must say, over the years, when we hear, for example, our Prime Minister or ministers of immigration, in the media, saying positive things about refugees and defending them, it really does bring positivity to the country. I feel it does bring the tone to a better level. Words make a huge difference. Let’s not fall prey to negativity.
Senator Hay: Words and policy and action.
Ms. Cocq: Thank you for the question. That is one of the impacts that we are concerned about, not just the immediate, material and concrete impacts on people’s lives should their immigration documents or permits be cancelled but also the impact these pieces of legislation have on producing precisely the public narrative shifts that have led us to this place. The first media stories tying international students to the housing crisis began in the spring of 2023. It increased from there. Then, a series of changes made under the previous government slashed the number of international students’ permits granted and fundamentally rewrote the rules for international students to be able to access post-graduate work permits on their path to permanent residency. These students were already here and had already invested years and tens of thousands of dollars of their lives.
This series of changes has since led to cuts to permanent immigration levels, as well as temporary immigration levels. Then, the government said they had to do that because support for immigration has fallen to all-time lows while not taking any responsibility for the fact that the scapegoating that produced the policy changes further entrenches the scapegoating of migrants. Bill C-12 will do exactly the same thing.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to each of you for making the time to come help those of us who are worried deal with some of the fear mongering that is being indulged here. I will ask the same question because I think it is important to build consensus. Could you share what you consider to be pivotal amendments to try to allay some of the obvious damage being done to so many human beings?
Ms. Lay: Before I get to my amendment, I will say that this bill, at least section 8, as a whole needs to be completely refigured. I don’t think it is tenable as it currently stands. However, if this bill must pass, if there is an amendment that needs to be made, I think one of the most important amendments would be to make the bill take effect as of the day it is passed, rather than have the effective date be the date that the previous iteration of the bill was tabled. That’s my amendment.
Senator McPhedran: Interesting. Thank you.
Ms. Edirmanasinghe: I echo the last entry being the first time that one arrived as opposed to the last time that one arrived and the importance of having a hearing. There should be some sort of mandatory opportunity to explain your story. I don’t know that I can emphasize the importance of that piece to determining credibility enough. That is increasingly the way forward, I think, in terms of determining credibility. Aside from what my colleagues have talked about in terms of the Singh decision and constitutionality, it is very hard for individuals in a situation where they have fled without documents, where they have not necessarily kept evidence of the factors that are going to put them at risk, to be able to explain. In a future where it will be difficult to ascertain the veracity of documentation, a hearing is going to be critical, not just for immigration but also throughout the judicial system.
Ms. Cocq: My colleagues have spoken extensively about the refugee provisions in Part 8. I would say the deletion of the one-year bar and the deletion of the closure of the 14-day exception are essential, as well as the deletion of Parts 5 and 7.
We heard a lot of commentary yesterday and today about “If it is not possible, then . . . .” I want to stress it is absolutely possible, and not only is it possible, but it is essential and necessary. The role of the Senate, as you well know, is to be the chamber of sober second thought. This bill has been rushed through without adequate consultation. This is the first opportunity any of us have had to present our concerns to legislators. We are imploring you to take this opportunity to simply delete the most offending portions of this bill that will be challenged in court, that will amount to mass discrimination and that will impact the lives, livelihoods and well-being of millions of people.
Ms. Woolger: I concur with many of the things, and I already mentioned the right to a fair oral hearing. Refugees are persons. It is so key.
I’m also very concerned about the sweeping new powers. Refugees who stay at Matthew House Toronto will often say, on the first morning, when they wake up, “That was the first peaceful sleep I have had in years.” It’s because they feel safe. They understand they have a process to go through. But, now, I’m realizing, with these sweeping powers, we can’t say to them, “You’re going through this process,” because, maybe, on a certain day, their case will be closed. That is terrifying. I kind of noticed that, and that is huge.
Senator Arnold: Thank you very much for articulating what we have been hearing consistently. Yesterday, when the IRB was here — I would like to begin with this — I was very impressed. I really felt proud to be Canadian, that we have been leaders in this, that we’ve done so much and that our system is getting better. But the IRB chair told us that, probably, maybe 80,000, possibly 90,000, hearings are what they could do per year. Someone said that 2.5 million people will possibly be sent from our country in the next year or so.
We’ve heard about the potential unintended consequences to the judicial system, but part of our role here, too, is to understand what those unintended consequences are. When seeking justice risks deportation, what would be the unintended consequences of people maybe going underground and not working with the system? Could we potentially be in a situation similar to the U.S. and whatever happens there?
Ms. Cocq: Thank you for your question, Senator Arnold. I would say yes, absolutely. The consequences of people having their immigration documents and permits suddenly, overnight, revoked or cancelled or suspended or changed mean that people are left without options. This is what happened over the last two years. All of the cuts to immigration levels, the changes to the international study permit program and to the post-graduate work permit program meant that people who had options lost them. As a result, over 1 million people left in 2025, and over 1 million people are expected to leave in 2026 because they have no other options.
If people become undocumented, that means that people no longer have access to basic, essential services like health care. Their kids risk not being able to go to school. It means that people who work in essential sectors, particularly in construction, in food production, processing and delivery, no longer have the ability, despite having the right on paper under provincial employment legislation, to assert their rights in the workplace, know that, in reality, they cannot because it risks too much for them.
That’s why we are concerned about the Part 5 information-sharing pieces. If those documents and those statuses are changed via Part 7 powers and that information is shared with a provincial or municipal housing agency, with a co-op housing agency or with a provincial or municipal police, those people become part of the immigration enforcement process. Those people are not trained; they do not have the experience and the skills and the expertise. Decisions made at the local level, about where a person lives, where a person shops, whether they access a clinic or a food bank, whether they are pulled over while driving, can result in a person’s deportation, or their detention and then their deportation.
Those consequences are already happening. They are very real. They are staggering because they could be so widespread. That could put us in exactly the same situation that the United States is in now. We have seen the violence. We cannot grandstand as Canadians saying that we are better than others if this is the legislation we are passing.
Ms. Edirmanasinghe: It would fundamentally change the fabric of Canadian society. It’s a really important point. We would have a huge segment of people who are disenfranchised from the system, who are not in the fold, who don’t have as much or anything to lose.
It’s a special kind of trauma when someone has lived their life without status, without documents. I see it every day. It’s a little bit different than other types of trauma. It’s like you’re not a person; you are so afraid. I was talking to my colleague about one of her files —
The Chair: We have to move on. Sorry.
Senator Boudreau: I would like to go back to Ms. Cocq’s introductory remarks. You talked about Part 7. It was very clear, in your opinion, that it can’t be fixed and needs to be removed. When you talked about Part 5, it wasn’t as direct; it wasn’t as categorical.
The act does give authority to the government to develop regulations that would put parameters around that information sharing. In your opinion, could there be sufficient regulations to satisfy your concerns? If so, what would you suggest needs to be in those regulations to make Part 5 acceptable?
Ms. Cocq: I would say no regulations would be able to satisfy those concerns. I will raise again the points that were made by my colleagues on the first panel, that regulations can be changed without oversight and without sufficient scrutiny. They can be changed on a political whim. Especially in the last two decades, we have seen increasingly that much of what is contentious about legislation gets pushed into regulations in order to evade the proper scrutiny that those changes to rights and to legislation require.
Second, as Mr. McSorley from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group said, once information is shared, we effectively don’t have any control over what happens to that information and how it is used. Any regulation that is added to try and control or limit the scope of Part 5 will never be able to account for that.
Bill C-12 proposes entering into information-sharing agreements. That means information is flowing in both directions, between provincial and territorial governments, agencies and Crown corporations and the federal government. That opens up a massive risk for the sharing of personal changes in identity, changes in immigration documents, like I said, made by potentially very controversial and unconstitutional powers in Part 7, then immediately being shared and having immediate impacts on people’s access to services, their ability to exercise their rights and their risk of immigration enforcement.
So, no. It needs to be deleted.
Senator Boudreau: Thank you. That’s all I had.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you for being here today with us. We have heard from a number of witnesses earlier about the constitutionality of the bill, so I’m going to go there.
Do you believe this bill is constitutional? If not, what if anything can the Senate do to amend the bill to make it compliant with Canada’s constitutional obligations?
Ms. Edirmanasinghe: We have this board that has come out of litigation that examines that question in so many ways. You’ve heard my colleagues talk about a hearing and the same decision. We have these lovely guidelines at the Immigration Refugee Board that talk about how we look at trauma; how we look at sexual orientation, gender expression and identity; how we look at gender-based violence. We have provisions for dealing with mental health, and very serious mental health, with designated representatives.
It’s hard to answer that because it’s a 35-year question that has been answered. We’ve done a really good job as Canadians in answering that question. We are an international model. It’s not like it’s the best from a human rights standard. It’s very efficient; it is. We have had incredible flows. But the board is catching up. I’m getting appeals from the Immigration Appeal Division in a month’s turnaround; my colleagues are, too.
A question was asked earlier about the board and the number of hearings they can do. They have provisions for dealing with things without a hearing. You can streamline processes. These things exist; they are already there. That constitutionality question, it’s so hard to answer. I have wrestled with how to answer this, and my answer is the IRB.
Ms. Cocq: I’m not a lawyer and I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but most of us in this room have been talking about this bill since June. That includes a number of constitutional lawyers who, again, are of the opinion that particularly Part 7 will be found unconstitutional when challenged in court because it is making decisions and determinations about entire groups of people based on who they are, their country of origin or the method by which they filed an application or the place where they work or the language they speak or their religion or anything that is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I do not think that it would be Charter compliant, but I do think that deletion of Part 7 would address that.
I want to raise again the examples that I gave of the early uses of exactly these kinds of orders-in-council, shameful uses of this kind of discretionary and arbitrary power in the hands of the Governor-in-Council and the ministers that were abandoned in the 1960s and taken out of the immigration legislation because they were used in such a shameful fashion and because they were found to be discriminatory.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I will remind senators that in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that, for example, the designated country of origin list under the Harper government was unconstitutional for precisely this basis, that you cannot say wholesale that an entire people from an entire country do not qualify without it being discriminatory.
Senator Greenwood: Do you want to add anything?
Ms. Lay: I would echo what my colleagues have said. The IRB is a system that works well. Like all systems, it’s imperfect, but I do not believe it is just to be able to take away people’s status, to take away protections based on arbitrary factors.
The Chair: Yesterday, at SECD, we had some discussions about subclause 87.302 of Part 8:
If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, the Governor in Council may . . .
(a) cancel or vary documents, including permanent resident visas, permanent resident cards, temporary resident visas, electronic travel authorizations, temporary resident permits, work permits or study permits;
Is that your understanding? I want to make it clear, because it was denied in that conversation as being something that could happen. Is this the understanding you have — that this could happen, that people with valid permanent resident visas —
Ms. Cocq: No, it’s actually very clear. It’s in the text of the legislation. It is very clear that the power to vary, to cancel or to change documents includes permanent residency applications, and this is why I referenced the example of Ontario, where people who have gone through all of the hoops, gotten all of the work experience, et cetera, and qualified and were accepted as permanent residents then had their applications thrown into the garbage.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for being here. My understanding — if I listened correctly — is that none of the witnesses today, you included, find that the 12 months is adequate.
What about having exceptions? Would that be better? Different exceptions, circumstances as seen in other places, would that be a good solution or would that be a compromise? How do you feel about that?
Ms. Edirmanasinghe: It’s a good starting point. It’s hard to pinpoint what the exceptions would be. The ones that have come up are minors, children who come, people who are vulnerable and countries where there are moratoriums that we are not doing removals to, but the examples I gave, such as someone who comes during COVID, and they are struggling, they don’t have access to a computer, or space to meet. The case law, when the board looks at it, is very varied.
One of the examples I have is someone who came to Ottawa in the middle of February with three children, trying to navigate, in the middle of winter, how to access the system. There are just so many exceptions.
It is a great start. Our colleagues have spoken to specific examples of exceptions that should be there. I struggle to think that it would be just those.
Ms. Cocq: Why make exemptions to a change to the legislation that is not in accordance with international refugee law to begin with? Again, I go back to my point about not what is possible but what is necessary. There is no need for this change in the legislation, and there is no need for this bar to begin with, so exemptions don’t really get at that problem.
Certainly, if you believe the rationale of the government, which is that the purpose of Bill C-12 is to improve efficiencies in the system, introducing a long list of categories of people who need to be exempted certainly is not the way to do that.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. This is helpful.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today, and thank you for the robust discussion that we have had in the three panels that we have conducted.
I would like to thank you again for coming. Many of you have travelled some distance to be here with us today.
Ms. Edirmanasinghe: I was asked previously with regard to comparing acceptance rates, the PRRA and refugee claims. I want the Senate to consider that it’s like comparing apples and oranges. The people who get access to a PRRA, even if it’s a first instance, are very different from the people who get a hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. I want to you consider that when looking at and comparing the statistics.
The Chair: Senators, we will now proceed to the in camera portion of this meeting.
(The committee continued in camera.)