THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 12, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 10:29 a.m. [ET] to consider 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; and, in camera, for consideration of a draft report.
Senator Rosemary Moodie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Rosemary Moodie. I’m a senator from Ontario and the chair of this committee.
Before we begin, I would like to do a round table and have senators introduce themselves.
Senator Burey: Good morning, welcome. Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
Senator Senior: Good morning. It’s great for you to be here. I’m Paulette Senior from Ontario.
Senator Pupatello: Hi, my name is Sandra Pupatello, and I’m a senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Mohamed: Good morning. Farah Mohamed, Ontario.
Senator Arnold: Good morning.Dawn Arnold, New Brunswick.
Senator Martin: Good morning. Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
Senator K. Wells: Good morning. Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, representing Ontario, and I am the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Busson: Good morning and welcome. I’m Bev Busson, senator from British Columbia.
Senator Osler: Good morning. Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, senator from Manitoba.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
Senator Muggli: Good morning. Tracy Muggli, Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory.
The Chair: Before I begin, as chair, I would like to acknowledge the terrible tragedy that has occurred in B.C. and here in Ottawa over the past two days. As we move ahead with our work today, it is my hope that we will continue to reflect on the very tragic events that have taken place and keep the families of the victims in our minds and in our hearts.
Today the committee continues 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 Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. The final report on Bill C-12 will be made by that committee — the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs — to the Senate of Canada.
Today, we have the pleasure of welcoming the Honourable Lena Metlege Diab, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.
The minister is accompanied by the following officials: from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, Harpreet S. Kochhar, Deputy Minister; Jason Hollmann, Director General, Asylum; Tara Lang, Director General, Integrity Policy and Programs; Joanie Roy-Craswell, Acting Senior Counsel, Legal Services; and from the Department of Justice Canada, Anna Lillicrap, Senior Counsel.
Thank you for joining us today.
Minister Diab, we will begin by inviting you to provide opening remarks. You may begin when you are ready. You have five minutes.
Hon. Lena Metlege Diab, P.C., M.P., Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship: Before my opening remarks, I want to say that I join you in offering my sympathies to those in the room and certainly to the families of the victims that were lost on Wednesday. We also had another tragedy here in Quebec. I am not sure if you have heard about the two little children who were also killed.
Before I make my opening remarks, there are two points I would like to clarify, based on my appearance earlier this week on the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee.
First, departmental analysis shows that, between June 3 and the end of October, about 37% of asylum claims could be impacted by the two proposed ineligibility measures — not 37. That would be approximately 19,000 of the 50,000 claims that were received during that period.
Second, over the last year, 17% of asylum claims came from students — not 37%, as indicated during the appearance.
If I may, I will now go to my opening remarks, chair.
Canada’s immigration system is expected to do many things at once. It must support economic growth and labour market needs, protect people who face real risk and process large volumes of applications fairly.
Bill C-12 updates a set of practical tools to support the effective functioning of Canada’s immigration system. It does so without changing Canada’s commitment to protection, due process or the fairness of decision making.
[Translation]
The pressures on the asylum system clearly illustrate why these updates are needed.
Canada’s asylum system is built on credibility and speed. When applications pile up faster than they can be processed, delays increase and uncertainty grows. We have a large number of applications in the queue. Processing times are long, and our system is not well equipped to handle further increases.
Bill C-12 provides for two new inadmissibility rules that would apply in situations where applications are not submitted in a timely manner or are used to circumvent normal immigration processes. These measures help prevent backlogs and allow the Immigration and Refugee Board to focus on the claims before it.
[English]
The pre-removal risk assessment, which will be offered to those impacted by the ineligibility measures, is a long-standing process designed to ensure that no one is returned to a situation of risk. It takes into account an individual’s situation and the circumstances in the removal country at that time and is consistent with Canada’s international and domestic obligations.
Individuals whose claims are found ineligible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board, or IRB, retain the right to this process. Where protection is found to be warranted, they’re granted the same protected person status or, in cases involving inadmissibility, a stay of removal. As with other immigration decisions, they may also seek review by the Federal Court.
[Translation]
It should be noted that these new eligibility criteria have no impact on the safe third country agreement and that there can be exceptions to the regulations.
[English]
The Safe Third Country Agreement is not affected, and regulations may provide for exceptions to the new ineligibilities.
The bill introduces targeted authorities to better manage immigration documents and application intake in exceptional situations, such as systemic error, fraud or public safety concerns. These authorities are administrative in nature and are distinct from an individual’s immigration status in Canada. They do not, on their own, change or revoke a person’s status, nor do they alter Canada’s removal process or removal enforcement capacity.
Any change to status would continue to occur only through existing processes set out in law, with access to safeguards and review. Individuals affected by the use of these authorities would also have recourse to the courts.
During House consideration, amendments clarified how these authorities may be used and introduced reporting requirements to Parliament when they’re exercised. The bill also includes administrative measures to support more orderly processing of asylum claims.
In closing, the measures in Bill C-12 reflect a careful balance. They preserve access to protection and due process, while ensuring the system can continue to function effectively under the sustained pressures we’re seeing today.
Thank you. I am happy to take questions. For elaborations on them, obviously, I have staff, but I also have persons here from legal and Justice officials.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister Diab. We now will proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators, we will have four minutes per question, and that includes the answer.
The first question will be from our deputy chair, Senator Burey.
Senator Burey: Good morning, minister. Thank you for being here. Minister, we heard compelling testimony. We also heard from Manon Brassard, chair of the IRB.
When the ministry and cabinet were crafting this very important legislation strengthening our immigration system, why was the role of the IRB — a proven institution, internationally recognized — not expanded, given their recent track record in decreasing backlogs and having a constitutionally fair process?
Ms. Metlege Diab: Thank you for the question.
I came in as a minister toward the end of May, and we recognized there were inefficiencies and a lot of backlogs. Currently, there are 300,000 pending claims with the IRB.
IRCC has done pre-removal risk assessments, or PRRAs, for a number of decades, so they have been around for a long time, and we have done them. We are also building capacity with the ability to triage cases and to send to the IRB those cases that IRB needs to handle, and then those that IRCC can handle through the PRRA would go to that.
It puts less strain on the IRB because we recognize there is already strain in the system.
Senator Burey: Thank you, minister.
We also heard in testimony that PRRA being at the front end instead of the back end could have unintended consequences, increasing judicial review and constitutional issues around oral hearings and, in fact, causing more backlogs in the system. Did you come across that in any of your analyses?
Ms. Metlege Diab: The pre-removal risk assessment has been upheld by a number of judicial reviews as meeting Canada’s humanitarian obligations, as well as the non-refoulement obligations we have. It was designed with that in mind. It wasn’t designed exclusively for failed claimants. It was designed for all individuals who may be removed from Canada who allege they are facing a risk in the country to which they would be returned.
There is a proven record that it works. Officers get a lot of training to be able to conduct these hearings. The Supreme Court has ruled that they can be done that way through paper copies, which makes it even more efficient. The only time a claimant must appear is when there is a question of a claimant’s credibility. That is when you appear in person to testify. Otherwise, if it is based on the country of return, the evidence would suggest whether that is done.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Welcome, minister. Welcome to your officials. We very much appreciate you being here in person.
I have a couple of questions. I hope it will feel okay to you if I start with a personal question, and that is to acknowledge that you are the child of immigrant parents and that you, yourself, have experienced war and conflict and returned here as a result of that.
I want to ask you whether you have looked at these from the perspective of whether your parents would have been able to come and stay in Canada under these rules, these changes.
Ms. Metlege Diab: I appreciate the question, and I appreciate your tone. I know it comes from a place of care for Canadians and for people around the globe.
Yes, because they would have come through immigration channels. They would have applied. They would have come through existing immigration channels.
This is specifically for people who, if you are talking about ineligibility, are already in Canada and, for the most part, have been here for a number of years and who are now claiming asylum. In the last number of years, it has become a real issue and challenge to deal with. Taken together with the fact that we recognize the issue, globally, is not going away and it is increasing, we need to be able to protect and bring in people who are really in need of asylum and protection.
What we are trying to do, frankly, with these changes is to deter misuse and to prevent people from using the system so that people who really need its protection can get it and get it faster. That is not happening.
Senator McPhedran: I think we would agree that is a lofty goal.
I wish to ask a more legal question, given that we are both lawyers, and that is about the way in which, very often, administrative rules and procedures — such as we see in this bill — are presented as being neutral, but, in fact, very often, there is an unequal impact as a result of the way in which the procedures are actually implemented.
We’ve heard some substantive concerns from experts and people on the front lines. One of the big concerns that we have heard — and I share this concern — is that the seemingly neutral administrative process actually creates a harsh burden on, for example, LGBTQI+ applicants, and I wonder if you or your officials could address that, please.
Ms. Metlege Diab: Absolutely. I will start and have one of my officials elaborate. We want to ensure the system is safe and available for those who really need it. You are right. That is our goal.
Jason Hollmann, Director General, Asylum, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: It is important that we ensure that the process we put in place offers protection to the people who need it. That is why we have continuously explained the pre-removal risk assessment. That process is done, as the minister said, by trained officers. They receive about six months of training and mentoring. They are trained. There are guidelines for dealing with minors, gender considerations and cases involving sexual orientation. They can reference the existing guidelines and tools available to support IRB decision making so that they look at things the same way and so we can ensure that the protection for those who might be facing different types of vulnerability is respected during the process.
Senator McPhedran: The same way but without the same skill set as the IRB. Thank you.
Senator Dean: I have a question on behalf of Senator Simons, who can’t be here today.
She says:
In clause 72, in Part 7, the proposed section 87.302 gives the mass cancellation provisions to shorten it up where it is in the public interest.
I will add as a sidebar that “in the public interest” is defined in the bill to deal with matters such as administrative errors, fraud, public health, public safety or national security, because that has also been a concern.
She continues:
We have been told that it is the government’s position that cancelling such documents does not cancel the status of those who hold them. This seems illogical because under section 47(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a foreign national loses temporary resident status on cancellation of their temporary resident permit. Obviously, if you cancel someone’s work permit, they cannot work in the country, enrol in classes, et cetera.
Can you please clarify or explain the position that cancelling a visa or a permit does not affect someone’s residency or status?
Ms. Metlege Diab: I will briefly explain that. I will also say we have prepared a written response to that, because we were given an undertaking at the other committee. We have that. I will let her answer after I say one thing on that.
I want to clarify the difference — and I needed to get that clarification myself — between permanent resident status and a permanent resident visa.
When we talk about student visas, work visas and visitor visas, they are all called temporary resident visas. But there is also something called a permanent resident visa. Those are visas for people who applied to come who have not yet come into the country. That is what we’re talking about here.
When you come into the country, you get landed immigrant status. Then you are in the country. That is not what this bill deals with. The status we cannot change unless you become inadmissible and do something illegal or unlawful. That is the difference. I really needed to get a lesson as well. If you would like more — Ms. Lang, do you mind?
Tara Lang, Director General of Integrity Policy and Programs, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you, minister. That is exactly it, so how 87.302(1) is written, you see words like “visa,” “permit,” et cetera, and those are travel documents, essentially. Someone’s status in Canada is inferred upon landing or entering Canada.
Very specifically, there are certain classes that are not included in this legislation, so if you are in Canada’s permanent resident application stream, anything tied to humanitarian, compassionate, the asylum process, passport and citizenship, all of those types of applications that result in immediate status are not included.
The intention behind the ability to vary or alter the visa is to deal very specifically with that, the travelling part of it. If there were an indication of fraud, we could pause or we could vary.
Again, I use the work permit situation. We could vary for a very positive reason. For instance, say, the person was authorized to work in a certain region or area. We could then vary it to say they are now allowed to work in a different area.
We can — we do have the authority if the Governor-in-Council so decides — to cancel permits or visas. In the situation of a work or a study permit, their visitor status would still remain. What would happen is that, if they were to travel outside of Canada, they probably would not be able to return. They could no longer work or study. It is not punitive.
The orders under which the Governor-in-Council could make this declaration — which would be published, et cetera, and, obviously, we would let the people know specifically — don’t mean that they can never apply for a new work or study permit, a temporary resident visa or anything. It would be very much dedicated to a very specific reason that would be articulated in the reasoning for the Governor-in-Council.
Senator Osler: Thank you, minister and officials, for being here.
My question follows on this: Part 7, specifically, clause 72, which proposes new section 87.302. This section empowers the Governor-in-Council to cancel, vary, suspend or impose new conditions on immigration documents, including permanent resident visas, as we have just heard, and permanent resident cards.
You talked about the distinction between documents and status. Minister, you made that clear at the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee meeting earlier this week that this part of the bill does not affect a person’s status in Canada. Yet, the documents covered in this clause are a person’s evidence of their status and the rights that it entails.
I have two questions: What are the government’s reasons for including permanent residents, many of whom are coming to Canada or are in Canada already to fill labour shortages in important sectors?
Second, in practical terms, for example, if a permanent resident card is cancelled, what implications would this have on their right to work in Canada or enter and exit?
Ms. Lang: Thank you. Maybe the policy intent around including permanent residents and permanent resident visas very specifically — again, these clauses, this part of the bill was for national interest, and Senator Dean did explain it has been further defined as errors, fraud, public safety and health.
An example could be the pandemic. We have no authorities to prevent people from applying or travelling to Canada. We cannot stop applications from coming in. In the example of the pandemic, people were continuing to apply and come to Canada, and we had no capacity within IRCC to process because we were all in lockdown, et cetera.
In that example, all of our applications piled up. Then we had to deal with them after the fact. That was actually a hardship for clients who could not come in because we were in a backlog situation.
But the permanent resident visa itself is more a better ability to control fraud or situations where we think that there is evidence of some kind of large-scale malfeasance. The minister just mentioned in my ear a cyberattack. There is a possibility, say, we’re hacked, and there are a number of visas issued improperly, and we have learned of this. We can pause the validity of the permanent resident visa while we are examining this.
Again, all of these situations are not presupposed. It just gives us an ability on a mass level to do this, whereas right now it is case by case only. Everything would have to go before the order‑in-council.
I want to talk about PR cards and permanent resident travel documents. Similarly, the intention of this is not to harm people who are here with a valid purpose and to take away their ability to work or study. A good example is that we often have a lot of defective or fraudulent PR cards. We identify those when people are renewing or there are residency concerns and we cannot find the person. We send the PR card to the person’s last address; it keeps coming back as “return to sender.”
In those situations, we could have the ability to cancel PR cards that we believe are somehow defective or part of a fraud scheme. Yes, you are absolutely right. They could have an impact on their ability to work, et cetera, but all of that would be covered under the order-in-council and would explain how operationally this would happen. Again, it wouldn’t be without a good reason, and the intent is not to harm your average person in Canada.
The Chair: Thank you. I will take a minute to remind both the witnesses and senators that there is a significant need today for you to be succinct in your questions and your answers.
We have a number of senators here today who would like to weigh in on this issue and ask the minister questions.
Senator Senior: Minister, this bill introduces a new information-sharing framework. By the way, thank you for being here. We know that we can’t do this work without having had this opportunity with you.
I am wanting to understand what is meant by this. It grants you and future ministers in your place the right to share information on temporary and permanent residents and naturalized citizens with provincial and territorial departments, agencies and other entities.
Why are permanent residents and naturalized citizens swept up in this information-sharing regime? What threat are you trying to stem, particularly from naturalized citizens and permanent residents, whom many of us are in this room?
Ms. Metlege Diab: Thank you for the question. I am glad you said “with provinces and territories” because that is the first thing that people mistake. This is within Canada, and it is with provinces and territories. But in order to do that, agreements would need to be signed with a province or a territory for specific purposes, first of all.
It would also be information sharing within the Government of Canada. As I said when I was here earlier, even within IRCC itself —
Senator Senior: My question is not about how; my question is why, because some of us have been here for over 50 years. We’re naturalized citizens; we weren’t born in this country. Why are you gathering information on us?
Ms. Metlege Diab: It is actually to facilitate and make it more efficient and easier for the people who are applying so that when they apply for one service from the government, their information is there, and we can use it for another service. For example, if they apply for a work permit and later for permanent residency and then a passport, the information is there already.
Senator Senior: I already have a passport because I’m a naturalized citizen, so you are not really answering my question. I see this as creating a divide among Canadian citizens.
I really need to understand why you are collecting information on those of us who are fully settled full citizens with the rights of those who were born here.
Ms. Lang: This is not about the collection of information; it is about purposeful sharing. The intention is not to create a divide but to make sure services are available, as mentioned.
There are a few pieces about the benefits. The first is that, right now, provinces and territories only receive information about newcomers on a case-by-case basis. With these new authorities, we would enter into information-sharing agreements, and those would very much specify what kind of information would be shared and when. The purpose of this is to allow provinces to know that you have these new people working and living with you, and they are entitled to these types of benefits —
Senator Senior: But I am not new. I have been here for 50 years, so why would you be collecting information on people like me?
Ms. Lang: Again, the collection isn’t new in the bill. So the naturalized citizenship part of it is — and we can take this back to ask what the intent was with naturalized citizens —
Senator Senior: I’d like that.
Ms. Lang: — is absolutely what the minister was saying about — oh, does Justice have an answer? No? I didn’t know if she said anything. The intention could be the sharing within IRCC itself. The minister mentioned the passport information. Right now, as you go through the immigration continuum, by the time you get from a visitor to being a citizen entitled to a passport, that same information cannot be shared. This would allow the IRCC to share that information.
Senator Senior: There are those of us who — I’m sorry.
The Chair: We will put you on the second round if we get there.
Senator Muggli: Thank you for being here. I know you have taken the time and been briefed on our hearings to date. You probably know, then, that nearly every witness has expressed concerns about the unconstitutionality of removing the interview. We also heard from all witnesses that changes will not increase efficiency and will impact the humanitarian aspect that in-person IRB interviews support.
By the way, almost every witness complimented the professionalism of IRB; they were very complimentary.
As someone who was a practising social worker for more than 36 years, and as a defender of social justice — a lens that we must apply here as senators — why not increase funding to IRB to retain the process that is clearly much better for those with traumatic experiences? Also, how much additional funding will IRCC be given to handle increased workloads on their end?
Ms. Metlege Diab: I will have to get back to you on the funding. I don’t have that information.
Senator Muggli: Does anybody have that information?
Harpreet S. Kochhar, Deputy Minister, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you for the question.
We are still undergoing budget discussions on that. However, we have some inbuilt capacity that already exists for the process. Of course, there will be some funding needed. We are still figuring out how much it would be.
Also, senator, just to mention this: The precision is not moving all the cases from the IRB here. We are only talking about those who are rendered ineligible, and that is a smaller number.
Senator Muggli: I’m concerned about those.
Mr. Kochhar: The assurance that we are here to provide you, senator, is that they will get a fair assessment of their cases as they are brought forward.
Senator Muggli: Maybe the word “fair” here is relative. The IRB has renowned expertise and is renowned around the world as being an excellent process. Why not increase the capacity of IRB?
Mr. Kochhar: I will let the minister respond to the capacity piece.
Ms. Metlege Diab: Again, we have a backlog of 300,000 cases in the IRB system.
Senator Muggli: Right. Then would resources to IRB not help?
Ms. Metlege Diab: At this point in time, there are many reasons — not just the backlog and the inventory level — it is also to deter people from misusing the system, frankly, which has been noticed in the last number of years as increasing. It is also letting people know from the beginning, before they even make those assertions, to please do that only if you believe there is a reason you are doing it and not because it is a last alternative to the immigration system. I think, probably, a lot of people would have thought you should go that way. I don’t think people were doing it because they wanted to be bad or cruel. I believe people —
Senator Muggli: How do you know you will not miss legitimate claims?
Ms. Metlege Diab: The officers are well trained. They have been doing this for decades already —
Senator Muggli: I will say “differently trained” than IRB, for sure.
Ms. Metlege Diab: Again, I . . .
Senator Muggli: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: I’m going to insert a question here as a follow-up to Senator Muggli’s. I wonder if you can give me the data or evidence that supports the assertion you make that there have been increased numbers of fraudulent attempts. We hear it talked about, but can you tell us where your evidence lies, please?
Ms. Metlege Diab: We will bring it back to you. I don’t want to give any numbers or percentages anymore. I will ensure whatever is available is brought to you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you, minister.
In your opening remarks, you mentioned that 17% of asylum claims came from students. My question is centred around that. In a scenario, you may have an international student at a recognized post-secondary institution, let’s say, doing a four‑year degree. As part of their studies, they come out in their second year as LGBTQIA+. Under the one-year rule that is proposed in Bill C-12, would that person not be prevented from putting in an asylum claim to the Immigration and Refugee Board because they have come out after the one-year period, which could, if they were removed, place them at extreme risk in a country hostile to their sexual orientation or gender identity?
Ms. Metlege Diab: That is an excellent question.
No, they would still be eligible. That’s part of the PRRA process. They would not automatically be ineligible.
Senator K. Wells: With the PRRA process, we have heard that some individuals have only six months of training. The IRB Guideline 9 is very clear: It says in proceedings before the IRB involving sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, an individual “. . . may reasonably delay making a claim for refugee protection . . .” based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, et cetera “. . . out of a fear of reprisal for themselves or family members. . . .” A reasonable delay may also arise out of their reluctance to reveal their sexual orientation or gender identity to a spouse or family member.
So we seem to have a direct contradiction between what this bill is proposing and what IRB Guideline 9 states.
Ms. Metlege Diab: Again, the pre-removal risk assessment process would be able to — based on the legislation we have drafted and based on the fact that, in regulations, we are able to put exceptions, and those are being worked on, as well — deal with those scenarios.
Senator K. Wells: Being able to deal with them through policy but having a contradiction through legislation can be a problem. The legislation is supreme. The policy interprets the legislation.
Would the federal government be open to an exemption in the legislation based on sexual orientation and gender identity claims that occur beyond one year?
Ms. Metlege Diab: Again, that is a part of our laws and our natural justice. The process will look at those and at countries and other factors. In fact, there are many countries that already have a deferral order in place; we cannot deport people to many of those countries, even if they are ruled ineligible.
So, it is not just this legislation; we also have to work with other legislation, with natural justice, with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with what courts have said. We believe that there would be protection.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
Senator Martin: Thank you, minister and officials, for being here. I know that Conservative colleagues in the House proposed a number of constructive amendments during clause-by-clause consideration that sought to clarify safeguards, but we also recognize the importance of advancing this legislation, given the unprecedented pressures facing the borders, our immigration system and public safety.
I want to ask about an amendment that was not adopted and how the bill will address this concern. This is regarding the termination of asylum claims when claimants fail to appear at scheduled hearings. The objective was to reinforce procedural fairness while helping reduce avoidable delays and backlog pressures at the IRB. How does the current bill strike that appropriate balance between procedural fairness and system efficiency when claimants miss hearings, and what tools will the IRB have to discourage these unnecessary delays?
Mr. Hollmann: I don’t remember the specific amendment that you are speaking about, but, effectively, when people fail to appear or fail to comply at certain points in the process, maybe even at the beginning, for example, fail to complete their application, there are already mechanisms to move those claims to what we consider an “abandoned approach.” The IRB convenes people to ensure protection for those for whom there is no real reason why somebody might have missed that hearing under legitimate circumstances. But if that person then fails to appear for their abandonment proceeding, the claims are abandoned, and the process is closed.
Senator Martin: Can you outline any performance targets, operational reforms or projected outcomes that demonstrate how the current framework is expected to improve processing timelines and reduce backlog growth?
Mr. Hollmann: There are two components to the asylum measures in the legislation. They are designed to complement each other. To one of the questions that was asked earlier, we spent a fair amount of time talking about the ineligibility measures that are designed to mitigate future surges on an already-strained system and deter misuse, as the minister has said.
The other components are real changes that will help bring efficiency to the system. That includes things like a single online application so people don’t have to submit information multiple times, or ensuring the IRB only receives claims that are ready for a decision because, right now, incomplete claims are sometimes referred, which creates a lot of back and forth.
To the measures we were talking about regarding abandonment, there are circumstances where an individual may initiate a process and not complete the full information that allows us to proceed with their case. If we only refer complete cases to the IRB, those incomplete cases will be stuck in the inventory and clog up the system. Therefore, we have also built measures into the legislation that allow for earlier abandonment to occur with those cases. We are trying to clear the system of cases that are not going to move forward.
Senator Martin: I’m going to go to the theme of border security. I live in British Columbia. Of course, we have a busy land border with the United States, including multiple unofficial entry points. The new ineligibility grounds introduce strict timelines for claims made after irregular entry, which may disproportionately affect claimants arriving in B.C. under urgent or complex circumstances. Ensuring fairness while maintaining system integrity will be very important.
How are officials at the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, and IRCC in British Columbia operationally prepared to apply these new ineligibility timelines at irregular entry points, and what measures are in place to ensure decisions are consistent and take into account the real-world circumstances of claimants arriving in the region?
Ms. Metlege Diab: We’ll take a stab at it at IRCC, but CBSA is here for the next hour as well.
The Chair: I’m going to suggest that we hold that question, if you don’t mind, because you have run out of time.
Senator Arnold: Thank you all for being here and providing some clarity on a very complex issue. I would like to get some reassurance regarding the PRRA. If we say that the IRB is doing such a great job — they have found efficiencies and have done miraculous work over the last few years, getting better and better, and they are world-renowned — say, they have 80,000 cases a year, which is 80,000 to 90,000 outside of what they are doing, but you are saying there is a backlog of 300,000 people. If they all go to — I hate the name of this — a pre‑removal risk assessment without an oral hearing — we’ve heard over and over how important an oral hearing is to so many people. Can someone please address that?
Ms. Metlege Diab: Yes. There is a bit of a disconnect in the question. Mr. Hollmann will answer.
Mr. Hollmann: You are right. The IRB does make good decisions. It is a well-functioning system, but it is overwhelmed. As you just mentioned, there are 300,000 cases in their inventory. If they issue 80,000 decisions a year, there is a three‑year wait time for people who are arriving in the system, which is very difficult for those seeking certainty of status. That’s where we want to make sure, as I said, we are not only applying efficiency measures to the asylum system but also trying to see how we can manage potential future surges and high volumes of claims, as well as misuse, through the ineligibility measures.
Those measures mean people will have access to the pre‑removal risk assessment as a way to ensure they have an effective decision. They have the opportunity to have their individual case heard. The grounds that are being looked at for protection are exactly the same grounds that the IRB would look at, as well as the same country conditions.
Our interpretation of the oral hearing issue is that, as we talked about a little earlier, we tend to have oral hearings when credibility is the key decision-making factor. Based on the information provided by the clients — they fill out a relatively extensive set of information to explain their protection needs; it is similar to what the IRB collects. They can do that with the assistance of an attorney, and they have sufficient time to do that. But a review of the conditions in their country and the level of state protection may allow for an easy positive decision without a hearing, so it wouldn’t be necessary to have additional steps to allow that case to proceed.
Similarly, the review of an internal flight alternative for somebody or the personal circumstances that they explain may allow for a quick negative decision that what they are suggesting doesn’t really meet the grounds for protection that are required. In those cases, it is easy to determine things on paper. When the issue of serious credibility is present, that’s when we would hold a hearing.
A good example of that would be a person who claims they would face persecution or risk based on conversion to a new religion. When reviewing the evidence, an officer looking at the file may find that if the applicant were found credible, neither is there adequate state protection in the country they came from, nor an internal flight alternative — and by that we mean whether they can move somewhere else in the country that reduces their risk — is available. Under those circumstances, the real determining factor for the individual’s decision would be the applicant’s credibility. In that case, we would convene a hearing.
The Chair: We have run out of time.
Senator Woo: Thank you, minister and officials. Can I start by saying that, with respect, it is not correct for you to say that the mass cancellation of permanent resident cards would not change the status of those holding permanent resident cards? That is misleading and an insult to the intelligence of Canadians.
In any case, we’re not talking about the cancellation of individual permanent resident cards. You already have the power to determine inadmissibility based on criminality, terrorist activities and so on. You have that power already. Why do you need the power for mass cancellation of permanent resident cards? Please, could you respond to that?
Ms. Metlege Diab: I’m going to go back to COVID. If the power —
Senator Woo: I’m talking about permanent resident cards. I’m not talking about visas to enter the country, student visas and so on. I’m talking about people who are here with permanent resident cards. There is no doubt that mass cancellations affect their status.
Ms. Metlege Diab: Any use of these powers is for exceptional purposes. It is not just the minister. It has to go to cabinet and the Governor-in-Council. It needs to be advertised. There needs to be a detailed explanation.
I was not in the federal government in 2016, but there was an attack on the IRCC system, and it shut down. I knew because I was in another country. I don’t know how much time it took, but there are examples of cyberattacks or illegitimate purposes being used. These are exceptional circumstances, and so rather than trying to find it one by one, which is extremely inefficient and costly, this is the pause to find out if there is sufficient evidence. You can then decide to reinstate or not.
Senator Woo: If I could pick up on the COVID example, at the time COVID took place, there would have been hundreds of thousands of Canadians with permanent resident cards living abroad who may have wanted to come back, subject to travel restrictions. Is it a possibility that you would mass-cancel their permanent resident cards precisely to prevent them from coming back to the country?
Ms. Lang: No. That would not be a situation the department would recommend to the Governor-in-Council. It could not be because it would need to be defined in the public interest. The public interest is defined as —
Senator Woo: Public health. You say it.
Ms. Lang: If there were a public health emergency, then the department might make a use case to the Governor-in-Council. I will give you examples of concrete reasons why.
First, a permanent resident card is not a status document. For instance, I have a very good friend who is a permanent resident.
Senator Woo: “Your PR card proves that you have PR status in Canada.” This is from your website.
Ms. Lang: Okay, it might prove you have PR status, but it does not impact your status. It is an identification document.
When you are landed in Canada, your status is conferred. You receive a PR card if you apply for one and you keep it up to date. If you do not keep your PR card up to date, you still are a permanent resident; you do not have to have a permanent resident card. Similarly, a citizen does not have to have a passport or a citizenship certificate in order to have status. It is a document that can be used.
A case where we might want to cancel permanent resident cards is if there were an administrative error and a bunch of cards were issued to the wrong people incorrectly. We could mass-cancel those cards and reissue them to the correct people without any fees charged to the clients. This is a use we would want to have for document control. It’s not to harm; it’s also to benefit.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Thank you to the minister and her team for being here today.
I want to follow up on a question that my colleague Senator Wells asked about the 2SLGBTQI+ community. In the scenario he described to you, you said that was correct, that after a year, they can still be processed through the PRRA. The PRRA does not include oral hearings, however. There has already been a Supreme Court decision that an oral hearing is a right, not a privilege. So how do you explain that? Doesn’t a Supreme Court decision apply to this community in Canada? How can you say, “We are looking after them through the PRRA system” when the PRRA system does not allow for an oral hearing?
Ms. Metlege Diab: I’m going to ask the witnesses from the Department of Justice to answer, because that is really a question about the act.
[English]
Joanie Roy-Craswell, Acting Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: I would be pleased to provide a quick summary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Singh, given that you have raised it.
The most important piece is that the Supreme Court in Singh found that in order to meet the requirements of fundamental justice, an oral hearing is required when there is a credibility issue at stake. The Supreme Court did not find that in all cases an oral hearing is required. I can point to specific paragraphs in the Singh decision if that would be helpful and also provide the context.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Singh examined a previous regime under the old Immigration Act. The process for determining a refugee claim was quite different. A refugee claimant would meet with a senior immigration officer. They would be examined. There would be a transcript of that examination. It would be sent to the minister and then transmitted to what was called the Refugee Status Advisory Committee. That committee would review the transcript and the claim and make a recommendation in terms of the applicant’s claim for refugee protection. That recommendation would be sent back to the minister for a decision. In many cases, the power to make that decision was customarily delegated to the registrar of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee.
The Supreme Court found, in essence, that this Refugee Status Advisory Committee was acting as a decision-making body, and yet it had isolated itself from the person whose status it was adjudicating. The court found that the committee was also making use of information that was never made available to the claimant.
The question before the Supreme Court was: Is this process fair and compliant with section 7 of the Charter? The court found that it was:
. . . possible that an oral hearing before the decision-maker is not required in every case in which s. 7 of the Charter is called into play. . . .
It found that “. . . procedural fairness may demand different things in different contexts.”
The most important paragraph of this decision is paragraph 59, where the court says that they were willing to accept that “. . . written submissions may be an adequate substitute for an oral hearing in appropriate circumstances.” However, they were of the view that:
. . . where a serious issue of credibility is involved, fundamental justice requires that credibility be determined on the basis of an oral hearing. . . .
So this is precisely what the PRRA process provides for. Where there is a serious credibility issue that is central to —
The Chair: Thank you. You have run out of time.
Senator Busson: Thank you all for taking the time to help us with our work. In September of last year, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration had an official testify who said — I’m taking a spinoff of Senator Senior’s question — the information-sharing provisions in Bill C-12 would allow the IRCC to “. . . share immigration information on applications between . . . business lines.”
According to this individual, she stated it would improve the integrity of the system but also streamline applications so they would not have to send the same information to several places, and that would allow the IRCC to omit errors. Could you explain to me the term “integrity of the system” and what errors they would be able to omit?
Ms. Metlege Diab: I didn’t know any of this until I became a minister, so it’s like, “Really?” But yes, really.
A person who comes into Canada needs to apply and reapply and reapply, depending on which permit, which visa, which this, even a passport, even citizenship, even permanent residency or temporary first. Why? Because they cannot share information. That is critical so that a person does not have to reapply and resend every single time they need to do something. It speeds things up in the office in Canada. It is good for the individual. However, if you want to look at it another way, it means if you apply for something else and say something totally different than what you said before, then the lights go on and say, “Is there an issue here?” I think it’s critical.
Senator Busson: Thank you, minister. I was surprised that this wasn’t already happening, so I appreciate your explanation around that.
Senator Mohamed: Welcome, minister.
First, I would like to understand why you use the first date of entry and not the last date of entry.
Second, the bill states the policy would apply, if adopted, to all those who entered Canada after June 24, 2020, which is five and a half years ago. Why use the date it was introduced versus the date that, if it does go through, it will be adopted? Effectively, doing this shifts the sands under the feet of people who have been following the process.
Ms. Metlege Diab: Would you mind answering this, Jason? I know we’ve answered this at different hearings.
Mr. Hollmann: Sure. As we have explained, part of the intent of the measures is to prevent surges and deter potential misuse of people who may be looking to avoid other immigration processes or extend their stay in Canada.
Using the date of the most recent entry may not have that desired deterrence impact and could have additional implications on the immigration system, in part, because people might be incentivized simply to leave Canada for a short period of time by perhaps driving across the border and coming right back again. It’s a process we have called “flagpoling,” and it creates some challenges for border officers on both sides. Effectively, it’s to reset the clock and avoid some of the measures.
The June 24, 2020, date was selected as the marker point for the timeline because that is the date by which entry regulations came into effect that give us certainty on the date of entry.
The bill, however, was set to say that it would be retroactive to the date of tabling. That’s the date that the measures became public. That’s why we use that date effectively so people understand the rules from that period forward. It will not apply to people who have filed their claims before that date but after. Part of it was to mitigate the risk of additional surges in claims by people who might be trying to get into the system and avoid the application of those measures.
Senator Mohamed: Thank you.
Just to quickly follow up, it would be really important — there are a lot of “mays” and “coulds” in your answer, and, with all due respect, for me, that’s not legitimate enough. I would like to understand — you don’t have to answer now, but it would be good to have a follow-up answer before we do a report — what the data is to back up the “mays” and the “coulds.” There are a lot of “they could go back” or “they may have gone across the border and come back.”
My hope is that decisions like this are based on data, so I would really like to understand the data behind some of these assumptions.
Mr. Hollmann: I can give a quick answer now.
We have some preliminary data. If we look at the change in behaviour over the last year, as I said earlier, we were seeing people largely claiming before having been in Canada for one year. Last year, we saw a change in behaviour where approximately 39% of all people who claimed inland were claiming after one year of arrival. That contrasts with 14% the year before.
Senator Mohamed: Do we understand why they are doing that?
Mr. Hollmann: I don’t, and part of the reason I use the “may” —
Senator Mohamed: I’m going to share with you what some of the witnesses said. They say you come here and, within a year, you are dealing with trying to find a place to live, getting your kids in school and understanding a new country. Sometimes a year is not enough time. That’s why.
Mr. Hollmann: Sure, but many of those factors would have been there in 2024 just as much as in 2025. There may be other changes.
The reason I use a lot of “mays” is we do not want to prejudge people’s behaviour, and I don’t want to prejudge their actual asylum claims. We do want to say we are trying to deter misuse to make people aware of these processes and to think twice.
Ms. Metlege Diab: We’re trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, which is what our system allows.
Senator Mohamed: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I would insert a comment here.
There is a promise for data being sent. We will need that by the end of the day today, if possible, because we are going into the report-writing stage. There is a lot of conversation about fraudulent attempts, flagpoling and other things that are not substantiated by evidence, and that has been asked for. I am referring to that.
Senator Pupatello: I realize the shortage of time, so for my question, I want to let you summarize for me so we understand at least what you’ve said today around the genesis of why you need this legislation. I’m not sure if that would be the deputy who can summarize on the technical side.
Where are the safeguards in this bill for all of these who would be called exemptions or people who aren’t going to fit under these rules who we know are likely genuine? There are real concerns by all of those who have come before the committee who say they are going to fall through the cracks. Then you have said in a number of places that there are safeguards. Could you summarize the safeguards?
My question is also about the data. Anecdotally, we know the stories of fraud in the system that are likely caused because they can’t get in the legitimate way, and they absolutely want to be in this country — they will stop at nothing to get here. I don’t blame them because the lineups are tremendous for the genuine system of immigration. I have lived that as a local MPP. They have come to my office. We know they’re not refugees, per se, but they are doing everything they can to get here. I don’t have a number on how many there are, but I recognize that’s the wrong system for them.
I just wish the immigration system worked like it did for my parents, where they went in properly, filled out the papers and did everything right. They were wanted and needed, and they came in. Now it is so overblown that they are in there for years. That is an issue that we need to address, which is totally different from this bill.
The data that requires this is, I think, really important for the committee to know. Where is the fraud? What is the genesis of that? That will help us see why you need these powers, but you also mentioned safeguards. I think that summary is important too.
Ms. Metlege Diab: I will quickly summarize.
The amendments that we’re proposing are needed to streamline the asylum system while we continue to uphold the integrity and fairness by creating efficiencies and making enhancements. It will allow IRCC and CBSA to really analyze and review claims fully before they are referred so that only complete, as was said, scheduling-ready files are referred to the IRB. Whereas now — I was told when I met with them — they get everything, and it takes a lot of time. When it’s not complete, they have to send it back.
It will also set out a single online application that specifies information and the documents that are required within specific timelines. It supports client service by avoiding duplicate questions on multiple forms and multiple interviews. It creates authority with respect to refugee claims or holding admissibility hearings if the person is no longer in Canada so we can do abandonment of claims, which they can’t do now. It will still continue in the system. It clarifies the authority to appoint a designated representative to help vulnerable claimants, like minors or those who don’t understand the process.
Again, I will go back: The pre-removal risk assessment, the PRRA, has been there for decades. We will enhance it. It works. There are situations where it’s clear on the face of the documents that people should be staying. We’ll put those aside. They get a “yes” right away from the PRRA, rather than having to go through other things.
There are clearly other applications that should not be admitted. They can remove those. Then you will get those in the middle where some may get called to a hearing because you need to speak to the individuals.
It really does streamline the process and makes it more efficient. I would say to you that it’s better for the applicants. It’s better for us as Canadians. It’s better for the system generally, and it’s better for people who are trying to figure out their lives rather than spending years wondering what is going to happen to them.
The Chair: Senators, this brings us to the end of the first panel. I would like to thank Minister Diab and officials for your testimony today.
For our second panel, we welcome, from the Canada Border Services Agency, Brett Bush, Director General, Immigration and Asylum Policy Directorate; and Carl Desmarais, Director General, Intelligence and Enforcement Branch; as well as the government officials who remain with us from the first panel.
Thank you for joining us today. We will now proceed immediately to questions from committee members.
Senator Burey: Thank you for being here and giving us your expertise. Now that we have CBSA here, I am very happy. Welcome.
I want to understand the new and improved PRRA as opposed to the old PRRA process. Could you walk us through that? The question is to both of you, so I’m sure we will get to the bottom of it.
Mr. Hollmann: I do not think that there is a new-and-improved PRRA compared to the old PRRA. As the minister explained, the PRRA process has been in place for quite a while. Like any program with a long history, we are continually looking at ways to make it more efficient and effective and to make adjustments. We are also continually monitoring court decisions around the process and updating our guidance to officers to reflect today’s reality and any recent jurisprudence.
In preparation for the potential for increased use of the PRRA mechanism, we recently updated our guidance and directions to officers to account for many of those things, and we’re updating our training processes to match the new guidance.
I might offer to the committee, as well, in the context of some of the questions that it is also important to remember that when we look at the approval rates for PRRA, because that often comes into question, the majority of people who access the PRRA today are people who have largely failed in their IRB decision already, and that is part of what accounts for a lower approval rate when you look at PRRA overall.
If we look at only those who are currently ineligible today, who might be accessing the PRRA as a first decision, the approval rate, in general, for those cases is about 45%, so much higher, and up to 65% depending on the reason that they were ineligible. When we look at those who have failed the PRRA process, only about 5% are returned for redetermination, either because of settlement or federal court decisions. As we have said, the jurisprudence and robustness of the PRRA have been upheld by courts over the history of the program.
Senator Burey: Thank you for providing those numbers. To clarify, you feel that the PRRA will be able to have a better positive response rate because of the population that we’re looking at right now, with the backlog. Is the backlog in that?
Mr. Hollmann: The backlog at the IRB would not be included.
Senator Burey: It is not in the PRRA?
Mr. Hollmann: Some who would have submitted claims since June, when the measures were tabled, will have been referred to the IRB, and we will be looking at redirecting those cases to PRRA. I gave the estimate in previous testimony that that’s about 19,000 cases from June to October. There will continue to be some that are steered towards PRRA and then new cases directed towards PRRA. Obviously, we would expect the approval rates to be higher than the general average because people will present prevent different circumstances, some of which may be very legitimate circumstances for protection.
Senator Burey: Thank you. I want to know about the reporting. Will we be able to get some of those new statistics? Will they be available?
Mr. Hollmann: We can definitely provide a written version of what I just said, for sure.
The Chair: To be received by the end of the day, please.
Senator McPhedran: I have a couple of points I would like to have clarified, please. In particular, we’ve heard testimony just now from the minister and other officials that the qualifications and the capacity for fair decision making, taking into account Charter rights and other conditions of fairness, are equivalent in the PRRA process to the IRB process.
Would you table here, please, by end of day, the actual guidelines that are used in the PRRA process? It is important that we be able to compare the IRB guidelines to the guidelines that are governing your PRRA process. Could I have that commitment, please?
Mr. Hollmann: I believe the delivery instructions for our programs, including PRRA, are all publicly available online. We can provide the —
Senator McPhedran: We would like them provided here, please. If there is anything else that is guidance for your PRRA process, please table that here by end of day.
The guidelines of the IRB reference the need to have enough capacity to understand what happens to victims of sexual violence, to those already addressed by Senator Wells, that is LGBTQ individuals. We would really appreciate it if you could point out, in particular, the guidelines or the standards in the PRRA in relation to these individuals making refugee claims.
The IRB chair guidelines specifically address myths and stereotypes that must not be used in the decision-making process. Could you clarify that, indeed, that is also the case with the PRRA process, please?
Mr. Hollmann: Yes. We can find the appropriate sections. As I said earlier as well, our officers not only follow the PRRA guidelines but, in certain circumstances, will also look at the chairperson’s guidelines to support their decision making.
Senator McPhedran: In what circumstances?
Mr. Hollmann: For example, in these cases, if they feel it is relevant to their decision making, they may consult the guidance specifically on the gender-based approach.
Senator McPhedran: Why do they have discretion to do that? Why is that not the operational standard of fairness for the PRRA process?
Mr. Hollmann: I can’t speak to exactly how the wording is in the guidance. We can make sure that we include that in our written response.
Senator McPhedran: Please address the question of why they have the discretion to do that — to decide if they will ignore the guidelines of the IRB on such a sensitive human matter.
Also, in relation to children, could you please explain to us the rationale of children being barred from making a claim one year after they entered the country, even if they came as children with their parents and obviously had no control over that situation? How do you justify that?
Mr. Hollmann: The one exception that has already been publicly communicated is for minors. We understand that they cannot make their own decisions; therefore, there is a mechanism to deal with them under the provisions. For those who might have come previously and then returned at a future time, they would still be covered by the ineligibility measure.
Senator McPhedran: Will you make an amendment to the bill then? Why is the bill worded this way if your answer is correct?
Mr. Hollmann: The bill allows for the drafting of exceptions through the regulatory process. We have operational ways as well to deal with minors, which is why we can ensure that it is being done from day one.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the officials for being here. My questions are for IRCC, specifically on Part 5, the information-sharing part.
Clause 28 proposes a new section, 5.5(2), which would allow provincial governments or provincial Crown corporations to disclose personal information, such as a person’s identity and immigration status, to a foreign entity with the written consent of the minister.
I have two questions. Under what kind of circumstances would provincial officials need to share an individual’s personal information with a foreign entity?
Second, the current act authorizes the minister to make arrangements and agreements on the disclosure of information with foreign governments. This new proposed section refers to a province disclosing personal information to a “foreign entity,” a term that is not defined in the act. What would be a foreign entity?
Ms. Lang: That’s a good question, one that might need some precision, to be honest. What is a foreign entity? We did very specifically make reference in the act to emphasize this requirement. As I understand it legally, provinces and territories, similarly to the federal government, must follow the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act.
When we were drafting the bill, we did actually add this clause very specifically to say that if the provinces and territories are engaging with a foreign entity for whatever reason, we want to confirm that they follow the Avoiding Complicity Act. This is why we put that clause in. IRCC would then understand the circumstances under which they might want to share that information, and we would govern whether that information could be shared and ensure that we invoke the requirements under the Avoiding Complicity Act. We regularly do this at IRCC now because personal information can be requested of us from other government entities, for instance.
I think it is written that way to be an actual safeguard because provinces and territories, as I mentioned, are expected to follow this, but this is actually allowing IRCC — because we have existing processes with the department committees that consider avoiding complicity in information sharing. In this way, we’re making sure that information is not passed on improperly without our knowledge and, more so, consent.
Senator Osler: I have a quick follow-up question: If the act as currently written states “foreign governments,” now we’re referring to “foreign entities” without it being defined. I understand the other act to which you are referring. Is that clear enough? Does this act require a definition of what a foreign entity is to align it with the other act?
Ms. Lang: Maybe. I don’t know. Do you have thoughts? One of our lawyers has thoughts.
Anna Lillicrap, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice Canada: Just to note, “foreign entities” is broader than “foreign governments” in terms of the definition and in terms of what would be captured by this. Because that definition will be larger than simply “foreign governments,” it could cover other forms of entities. Therefore, this requirement would apply in dealing not only with disclosures to foreign governments but with disclosures to other entities as well.
Giving examples is not something that we would do, generally, within the judicial department, but one might imagine foreign corporations or something that might not fit within a strict definition of a government. We would leave it, of course, to provincial and territorial governments to determine the kinds of entities they might be dealing with.
Senator Martin: In essence, how are CBSA and IRCC officials in British Columbia operationally prepared to apply the new ineligibility timelines at irregular entry points? What measures are in place to ensure decisions are consistent and take into account the real-world circumstances of claimants arriving in the region? It is a very busy border, and there are various irregular points.
Brett Bush, Director General, Immigration and Asylum Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency: Thank you for the question. There is an organization missing from this conversation because irregular arrivals would be between the ports of entry, and that belongs to the RCMP to manage.
I will speak briefly on publicly available statistics from them. Of course, they were managing all the irregular arrivals that were coming in pre-2023, when the Additional Protocol to the Safe Third Country Agreement was implemented, largely at Roxham Road in Quebec. Since then, the number of irregular arrival intercepts that the RCMP was doing has dropped off. The statistic I have is 1,300 in 2024. In 2025, after receiving increases in funding to have more border monitoring, and they can speak to that, the number of intercepts crossing irregularly — this is for the whole country, not B.C. — was 2,400 intercepts.
Those people would then be brought to the ports of entry at CBSA to process. The first ineligibility we would consider is whether the STCA, the Safe Third Country Agreement, applied to them or not. If there is an exemption or exception — the biggest one is if they have a family member in Canada — then they would be allowed in Canada to be processed through the Refugee Protection Division at the Immigration and Refugee Board. Largely, the ineligibility that is dealing with the 14 days is complementary to the STCA for all the same reasons. Then it would move into the PRRA process.
Mr. Hollmann: People, whether they are being looked at by IRCC or CBSA in that context, the first assessment would be if the Safe Third Country Agreement applies. And in the context of the 14 days, if they are under the 14 days, and there is documented proof of that, the Safe Third Country Agreement would apply, and unless they met another exemption, they would be returned to the U.S. It is on the claimant to demonstrate what their date of entry is. In that case, if they’ve crossed irregularly, there is no record of entry. That’s how come we know they arrived irregularly.
If it is after the 14 days, then the Safe Third Country Agreement doesn’t apply. So it is one or the other. If we have no record of your entry, and you have no visa or anything, in that case the 14-day ineligibility measure applies. We are ensuring common guidance to staff in both organizations on the direction for that, but effectively then that would, in the same way that we have other ineligibilities, simply mean somebody would mark them as ineligible to be referred to the IRB, and they would be directed toward the removal stream in the PRRA process.
Senator Martin: One quick comment is there are more boots on the ground, there are more officials, and there is close communication and cooperation between IRCC and CBSA.
Mr. Hollmann: Yes.
Senator Martin: Thank you very much.
Senator K. Wells: Since I have limited time, I have three questions that might require written responses.
We are putting a lot of emphasis now on the PRRA, and I believe you said there was six months of training provided for those members adjudicating claims or doing the risk assessment. I’m wondering if that six months is going to be increased. That seems to be the current amount. How much of that six months’ training is dedicated to focusing on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression concerns, and, secondly — this may be the written part — what does that training look like? What organizations or groups are providing that training, or is it done in-house?
Mr. Hollmann: The six months is training and mentoring. What we want to make sure is we are offering training to people and they are being matched up with existing trained officers to be able to have that supervision and ask questions and so on. We also have quality control processes in place where we’re monitoring —
Senator K. Wells: Sorry, I’m going to interrupt you there. I want just the specific LGBTQ+ training. How much? How long? Who is providing it?
Mr. Hollmann: Our training for officers is internal, as far as I know. But I will give you a written response that explains some of those details. I think it is important to remember that many of the people doing PRRA are senior immigration officers. They may be existing trained officers in the department on other lines of business and on decision making and some of the basic requirements that we would have to support decision making already, before they start the PRRA process.
Senator K. Wells: I look forward to receiving that information as soon as you can provide it. There was a question about data sharing from the federal government. The comment was about two provinces and territories. We have openly heard from some provinces musing about restricting public health care to citizens and not providing it to refugees or others who maybe don’t have permanent citizenship. In a case like that, having a ready-made list by the federal government, would they share that information with the province that wants to restrict public health care, for example? I think we are getting at the concern of developing a list that could be used for purposes that may be an affront to Canadian values.
Ms. Lang: Thank you. There is internal sharing within IRCC, there is provincial and territorial sharing, and there is federal government sharing. For both the provinces and territories and other federal government departments, we do require these information-sharing agreements to be set out in advance. But it is very likely that the type of information that we intend to share on a proactive basis with provinces and territories — again, once information-sharing agreements are in place and validated and cover the Charter, privacy and all of those things — would involve things like status. So, it is a potential that we share information with provinces, and that would directly result in benefits being given or withheld, depending on the status and the requirements of those provincial laws. The situation you are describing, if there was a province that passed legislation that said health care would only be provided to Canadian citizens and not permanent residents or refugee claimants, that is a possible outcome if that was a law that was passed in that province or territory.
Senator K. Wells: Okay. That’s shocking and concerning. The last question — maybe provide this in writing — is I would like to know specifically, within the last five-year period, how many asylum claims have been on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. And of those claims in the past five years, how many have been made after the one-year period?
Mr. Hollmann: For IRCC, we don’t track the basis for which people are making their claim. That information is submitted to the Immigration and Refugee Board. That request for data would need to be suggested to them.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: When the IRB testified, they told us how hard they have worked applying a lean methodology to become more efficient, performing far above expectations. The PRRA being upheld in court, to me, doesn’t mean it is better. Was increasing IRB capacity ever discussed as an option when devising this legislation to address backlog, and why was this option not chosen? In addition, how many PRRA officers do you anticipate adding to IRCC?
Mr. Hollmann: I cannot speak on behalf of the government as to how government revenues are allocated in the budget regarding increases in revenues to different departments. I can say that Budget 2024 did provide $743 million over five years to increase asylum system capacity to all the organizations that are part of the system.
Sorry, what was the second part of the question?
Senator Muggli: Was IRB capacity discussed as an option to address the backlog and why wasn’t it chosen? How many PRRA officers do you anticipate adding?
Mr. Hollmann: We have already started trying to ensure that we have additional capacity. So far, we have pulled 120 new officers into the PRRA processing to ensure the training and timelines —
Senator Muggli: Is that in anticipation of this legislation being passed?
Mr. Hollmann: It would be to ensure that we are ready, but that capacity is able. These are senior immigration officers who can also work on other lines of business.
Senator Muggli: So you have already started preparing for this legislation, assuming this legislation will pass.
Mr. Hollmann: Because the provisions are designed to come into effect on the day the legislation passes, assuming it passes, we want to ensure we have the capacity.
Senator Muggli: How many additional officers have you added with the boots hitting the ground as soon as this is passed, if passed?
Mr. Hollmann: We have so far increased the decision-making capacity for the PRRA in directing people towards training by 120, with more people still being trained.
Senator Muggli: One hundred and twenty officers to expand to . . . ?
Mr. Hollmann: I would have to get back to you on the total numbers.
Senator Muggli: That would be great.
Mr. Hollmann: As the deputy said, it relates, in part, to budget allocations.
Senator Muggli: How many IRB officers are there in total right now?
Mr. Hollmann: I cannot answer that question.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Senator Senior: I want to go back to the PRRA. I understand the word “efficiency” has been used, but now we are hearing that efficiency means additional money for additional people in order to accommodate this legislation.
Senator Burey asked about that from the beginning, and you said it was more about efficiency. Does that efficiency, in terms of capacity, include decision making that was not done prior? The PRRA has been in place for a long time. Has the decision making been expanded?
Mr. Hollmann: There are two components to the asylum measures that are included in the bill. One is the asylum reform changes that really are about looking at the system itself, trying to deal with some of the areas that have been causing bottlenecks and delays. Examples of that are the single application to reduce the information collected from clients and collecting it only once, as well as referring those hearing-ready cases to the IRB so that they have the certainty that files are ready to move toward scheduling, reducing the back and forth between organizations and with clients to collect additional information. We spoke earlier about the abandonment provisions and how we can clear inactive cases out of the system.
Senator Senior: I’m sorry, but the decision making to the IRB are only cases that are deemed to be sent to the IRB, but the decision making also includes not referring, correct?
Mr. Hollmann: There are two parts of the asylum changes that are proposed in the bill, and they complement each other in some ways. One is looking at the system today and trying to improve the decision-making capacity. The others we have been discussing around ineligibility are designed to protect the system from additional surges in claims when it already has significant inventories and timelines and to deter that misuse.
As we look to those people who might be affected there, they would be streamed to the other process, the pre-removal risk assessment process, and we are ensuring that we have the capacity to deal with those volumes so that the rest of the system can also continue to function for them.
Senator Senior: Thank you. Is this a decision-making capacity that was not there before?
Mr. Hollmann: There is an existing PRRA program.
Senator Senior: I understand that, but is this decision-making capacity, in terms of the referral, a new decision-making capacity?
Mr. Hollmann: I’m not fully understanding.
Senator Senior: Is this a decision that they have always made?
Mr. Hollmann: The PRRA officers have always had to deal with cases of people who are either ineligible or eligible for the pre-removal risk assessment for other reasons, such as the fact that one year might have elapsed since their last IRB decision, in which case we want to ensure they have another chance to present any circumstances that may have changed for them.
Senator Senior: Thank you, Mr. Hollmann.
I’m now curious about Part 7, which authorizes the Immigration Board to stop the processing of applications for permanent residence and cancel, suspend or change visas or other documents under specific situations in prescribed circumstances. May we have examples of what “prescribed circumstances” may be?
Ms. Lang: Prescribed circumstances would be set out in regulations and would be tied to those situations of fraud, et cetera.
Sorry, I just want to confer with legal.
Senator Senior: Madam Chair, I’m happy for them to provide it in writing.
The Chair: Provide it in writing, please.
Ms. Lang: Thank you.
Senator Arnold: Thank you for the clarity you are providing on this. I am still hung up on PRRA. They, in the past, have been the last resort. Now they will not be the last resort for a lot of people. To my mind, that is different training. How would you answer that?
Mr. Hollmann: The PRRA has always been available for people as a first decision-making mechanism, depending on the cases before them. We have existing ineligibility in the legislation today, reasons that people would not have their case referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board. It could be that they have an existing status somewhere else. It could be they had been in Canada before, filed a refugee claim, failed, left, came back and filed a new claim. It could be for other security requirements. All of those people are captured by existing ineligibility requirements and would also go to the PRRA as a way of ensuring their risk is assessed before any removal.
Senator Arnold: I hear that, but what I’m also hearing is that there is a backlog and that PRRA will be getting people who used to go to the IRB as a first step. Is that true?
Mr. Hollmann: There is a backlog in the system, yes. These measures will steer people who meet the timeline requirements over to the PRRA process for that assessment of their individual circumstances and the level of risk that they face, which means that the PRRA process will see an increased caseload. That’s why we are increasing our capacity to deliver.
Senator Arnold: Yet, I am consistently hearing that IRCC is being cut by 3,000 employees.
Mr. Hollmann: That is where the deputy said there would be funding allocated towards the capacity for these things should the legislation pass and we are required to deliver them. As we look at any potential staff reductions, we are also able to draw on existing trained officers to be able to perform those functions.
Senator Arnold: My next question is about the Safe Third Country Agreement. I think we all know what is happening south of the border. Are there any changes? Are there any other exceptions besides having a family member in Canada?
Mr. Hollmann: The Safe Third Country Agreement remains in effect. We are required by the legislation to monitor the situation in the U.S. for the designation of the U.S. as a safe third country, and the U.S. continues to be designated.
The Chair: I’m going to insert a question here on the PRRA because we are hearing some statements about the PRRA. In the last hour, I have received an email from an immigration and refugee lawyer.
Mr. Hollmann, you just said the PRRA has always been available as part of the process available to individuals. PRRA hearings, I’m hearing, almost never happen when they are not mandatory. So far, a number of officials have been saying that legislation allows for these hearings when there are credibility issues at stake, but officers just don’t do it and find other reasons to reside.
How many non-mandatory PRRA hearings happen every year with the current system?
Mr. Hollmann: I will have to get back to you with that figure. That said, the important clarification we have been trying to make is it is difficult to look at the existing statistics on some of these things and apply them to the forward caseload.
As we said, the bulk of the people who are accessing PRRA today are largely people who have failed at the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The Chair: We understand that.
Mr. Hollmann: In that way, they may not be providing any new information that would create a different decision than the Immigration and Refugee Board or create the circumstances whereby credibility would be the deciding factor. So, when you look at the different profiles of the cases, it may not lend itself to the forward direction.
The Chair: I guess the follow-up on the training issue that we have been talking about would be this: If, in fact, this has been the presiding mindset, if you will, what training have you done to ensure that there is a shift in mindset as you move into a new system? Because it is clear the capacity is significantly challenged if there is a low number, and we are hearing from individuals in the room that there is a concern about capacity — “capacity” meaning capability, competency skills.
Mr. Hollmann: We have always taken the protection obligation seriously under the PRRA program. We really want to consistently make sure our officers are trained to make those decisions. We are talking about protection decisions where people are claiming significant risks of persecution, and we don’t take that lightly. The training provided to our officers goes through the various decision-making requirements, such as what to take into consideration and the factors under which people might be claiming persecution. As I have said, we have updated that to match the additional guidance we have looked at and to take into account recent judicial and court decisions. It does provide a good basis for our officers to make those decisions.
The Chair: We can go an extra 15 minutes if folks agree to accommodate. Okay, thank you.
Senator Busson: It seems clear to me that the changes being sought by Bill C-12 are intended to streamline and generally make more efficient the processes by which immigrants are dealt with in this country. It also seems to me, listening to the questions in this room, that the big concern is largely around the unintended consequences of that work, if I might suggest that this is what is happening to some degree.
I’m wondering if you might be able to tell us what consultations have taken place outside of the government agencies and partners that are dealing with this, perhaps to even go so boldly as to ask you whether any clients who have recently been through the process or anyone in the process have been consulted, but largely other stakeholder groups as well.
Mr. Hollmann: Specifically on the asylum measures, when we designed those measures, as I said, there are two parts. Around the asylum reform component and looking at how to make the system more efficient, we took into account views from various front-line organizations involved in the process, as well as the UNHCR, that is, the UN Refugee Agency, which already came before this committee, I believe. We also meet regularly with different front-line organizations to hear how things are working — if there are issues with how we are doing things; maybe there are challenges with the IT systems and so on; how we can collect some of those views.
All of that about where the challenges in the system were and what could be done was factored into our decision making. The reform measures were previously tabled in a budget implementation act in 2024 and withdrawn. Since that time, we have also met with stakeholders to address some of the concerns they had to better explain the government’s position, and we made some adjustments to those reform measures.
For the ineligibility measures, we did not undertake any further consultations, in part, because, as I said, the measures are designed to provide deterrents and deal with surges. They were subject to confidence, and, to mitigate additional people who might have wanted to try to get into the system prior to the measures coming into effect, they were announced at the time of the tabling of the legislation.
Senator Busson: Interesting. Thank you very much.
Senator Boudreau: I would like to come back to a comment that Ms. Lang made earlier just for clarification.
When we were talking about provincial and territorial data sharing, you said that new data-sharing agreements would need to be put in place, but don’t they already exist? For example, in New Brunswick, if a new immigrant comes to the province, there is a three-month delay before health care services are provided, as an example. I take it the province gets that information from the federal government.
If those agreements already exist and data is already shared, why is it necessary to have new agreements?
Ms. Lang: Thank you for the question.
It’s because this legislation expands the types of information we can share. Right now, you are absolutely correct: We do share data with the provinces and territories. In some situations, some information is case by case but not as a matter of course.
This would allow us to more purposefully share information about status — not just raw numbers — so more tied to the type of document a client holds and their status in Canada. That would require, of course, information-sharing agreements to make sure that the parameters are set as to what entity within the province we share it with, under what circumstances, the frequency, et cetera.
Senator Boudreau: Thank you.
Ms. Lang: If I may, just to follow up on the last question about consultations and maybe to add some pieces about information sharing, this part of the legislation was previously tabled and made it all the way to the Senate under Bill S-6. I believe it was this committee that studied the information-sharing provisions of Bill S-6. They are the same as were tabled then, and they did go through rigorous consultation with the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner made recommendations, and they were all adopted at the time and reflect that same consultation with the Privacy Commissioner.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Pupatello: Some of my questions have been answered, but I would like you to make one comment. Being here in person really makes a difference; being face to face makes a huge difference in how information is gathered, which is exactly why the PRRA opportunity for in-person — likewise when it’s a life-and-death situation, like whether a refugee will be accepted — is equally important to be face to face. There is a big difference between on paper and in person. I know you appreciate that.
Hearing these concerns in person, how will you now change or add to the kinds of training your officers would have? You have now become the front door and, potentially, the last door. That really is the change, and that concern exists around the table. If we are supportive of everything that is happening — because I believe the system has to be pristine to recapture public support for immigration in this country; I know that is true — you have to acknowledge that more is going to be required, because you are now the holders of the key, and you weren’t before. You must have gathered, just from being here today, that you will now add to the level of training, the content and what is going to be required by your people.
Mr. Hollmann: As I said, we recently — and by “recently,” I mean within the last few months — reviewed the full package of operational guidance to our officers. It was time to do that to make sure it reflected the latest developments, court decisions and so on, and in anticipation that we may see higher volumes of people directed toward PRRA. Through that, we have updated and will continue to update the training.
We are also looking at our quality-control processes and how we can monitor the cases that are being decided. We really do want to make sure things are up to the standards required. As said, we take those decisions very seriously.
Of course, those are reflections that we do all the time on any immigration decision we make, and we will continue to do so for those PRRA processes to make sure we are monitoring them and making further adjustments if required.
Senator Mohamed: Thank you for being here.
We have heard a lot about the backlog, efficiencies and fraud or potential fraud that are bringing about these changes. I really need to wrap my head around this. With this bill and 300,000 claimants in the system, how long will it be before the backlog is cleared? That is part one of my question.
Mr. Hollmann: I can’t provide a timeline for that. Obviously, we expect the changes that are being applied in terms of those reforms to make a measurable difference in relation to how claims get through the system and how effective it is, reducing some of those areas we considered bottlenecks.
That said, the system itself is governed in some ways by how many claims come into the system in a given year and the decision-making capacity, as was already raised a few times, in relation to the funding and the number of decision makers and how many people are trained.
Senator Mohamed: But how do you know what success looks like? For all of the changes we are trying to make, how do we know what success looks like if, at the end of three years, we have 100,000? I just want to understand.
I think there are some really good things in this bill. There are some things that I am not comfortable with. For me to take an informed decision, if we are talking about making all these changes to deal with the backlog — I am not even talking about those coming in; I’m just saying for the 300,000 claims, 120 people hired, changes in terms of responsibility, changes in terms of ministerial power, all of these things — surely somebody has done a “If we do all of these things, here is where we could expect to be on the 300,000.” Otherwise, how do we make decisions to say whether or not the investment and the changes are worth what we are trying to solve for?
I have not heard any of that. I have heard there are problems. I have not heard what the solution will get us to. I want you to zone in on that 300,000 and what success can look like with all of this.
Mr. Hollmann: What we spoke about already, the 300,000, if the IRB has a decision-making capacity of 80 or 85, that leads to a three-year timeline for people who are applying today. Likely everyone around this table would find that timeline too long, both in terms of a certainty for clients and for an efficient system and a cost-effective system. We do want to bring that down. We need to find ways to do that.
The measures we have put forward will generate some of those efficiency gains. We tried to model that out, but, of course, it is constrained by a number of factors. We are hoping that they will yield about a 20% efficiency level in terms of flow. What that translates to in terms of backlog reduction, as I said, is constrained by how many cases you are getting and the decision‑making capacity.
Senator Mohamed: I find it alarming that we do not know what we are shooting for with all of the changes.
I know I don’t have time now, but I would like to submit an itemized list of the data points I am looking for in terms of that 300,000 and the breakdown, and then the numbers of fraud. The breakdown is to really understand what is going on with the system, pre- and now. I will submit that later.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: I am captured by a number of comments from a number of you as witnesses about the equivalency between the IRB and the PRRA processes, as well as the individuals making those decisions. This is a series of yes‑or-no questions from me.
First, in this bill, PRRA does not guarantee an oral in-person hearing. Yes or no?
Mr. Hollmann: Correct, yes.
Senator McPhedran: The PRRA does not guarantee the same procedural safeguards available at the IRB, including appeal rights. Yes or no?
Mr. Hollmann: They are different systems. People have the opportunity, should they get a negative PRRA decision, to go to the Federal Court.
Senator McPhedran: Right, at their own expense, with the kind of delays and the fact that we already know that the Federal Court is seriously overburdened.
The PRRA does not guarantee that IRCC officials who conduct PRRA have the same institutional independence or specialized mandate as IRB members, bearing in mind that IRB adjudicators receive extensive training and country-of-origin resources. Yes or no?
Mr. Hollmann: Canada has a decision-making system that is different from many other countries around the world.
Senator McPhedran: I am aware of that.
Mr. Hollmann: Our country’s decision-making tends to be internal to —
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. Yes or no to my question, please. The question is this: IRCC officials who conduct PRRA — can you guarantee that they have the same institutional independence and specialized mandate as IRB members? The argument has been made over and over again that there is an equivalency here. I personally think you have failed to make that case, but I would appreciate an answer to this.
Mr. Hollmann: The decision makers making PRRA decisions are part of the regular government bureaucracy, but they do make independent decisions.
Senator McPhedran: How is that so?
Mr. Hollmann: They are the decision maker of record on the files they have before them.
Senator McPhedran: That is authority, not independence, right?
Mr. Hollmann: In the sense that they are making the decision, it wouldn’t be for someone else to tell them what decision to render.
Senator Osler: I am following up on my previous question about the lack of a definition of “foreign entity” and the need for it.
The new clause that I referenced does talk about data sharing, respecting Canada’s international obligations in respect of mistreatment as defined in section 2 of Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act. When I went to that act, that act actually does not define “foreign entities.” Is this a harmonization of language? I would invite immigration officials and legal counsel to comment further.
Ms. Lang: Thank you. Yes, I was able to have a quick sidebar with my Justice colleague. We think that the way it is worded actually protects us more because the word “foreign” is what is important. Any sharing outside of a domestic situation with a foreign anything requires it to come back to IRCC to ensure it is balanced against ACA properly.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
The Chair: I would like to follow up on the question that Senator Mohamed asked just now about predicting your ability to improve the situation. It seems that the IRB is clearly able to predict what they can do in terms of the next year in terms of the clearance rate. You are able to predict, using their figures, that they would take three years at the current rate, or even with improvements, to clear the current backlog.
I am dismayed that you are not able to apply that to the new system. Why are the metrics not there? Why is the understanding not there that you can say with some certainty you expect beyond a 20% efficiency improvement? I’m not sure what that means. Clearance numbers: How many cases do you think you can clear by adding 120 plus officers?
Mr. Hollmann: Sorry, that is a different question. Maybe I misunderstood what you were asking me, apologies.
We can provide the committee with the statistics around how many decisions under PRRA we expect to render in a given year, based on the capacity that we are adding. That is not a problem.
The Chair: All of this will affect our deliberations today when we go to report writing. Thank you.
Senators, this brings us to the end of this panel. Thank you to our witnesses for your testimony today.
Joining us for our third panel, we welcome, from Rainbow Railroad, Latoya Nugent, Chief Communications and Advocacy Officer; from Battista Migration Law Group, by video conference, we welcome Pablo Irribarra, Barrister and Solicitor; and from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, also by video conference, Tamir Israel, Director, Privacy, Surveillance and Technology Program; and Aaden Pearson, Trans Rights Legal Fellow and Staff Lawyer.
For your opening statements, you will have five minutes, followed by questions from committee members. Ms. Nugent, the floor is yours.
Latoya Nugent, Chief Communications and Advocacy Officer, Rainbow Railroad: Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable senators, for having me today and giving me an opportunity to give evidence on Bill C-12.
I am Latoya Nugent, Chief Communications and Advocacy Officer for Rainbow Railroad. Rainbow Railroad is one of the few international human rights organizations operating at the intersection of forced displacement and persecution of LGBTQI+ people.
We provide direct services in the form of access to asylum mechanisms, cash assistance, critical information, service referrals and post-relocation support. Rainbow Railroad also publishes data annually about the state of global LGBTQI+ persecution and its correlation with forced displacement, and 2026 marks 20 years of doing this work.
Rainbow Railroad has provided this committee with a detailed policy brief covering four materially harmful parts of Bill C-12. I invite you to review it as you continue your study of this bill. Our four recommendations are as follows: one, eliminate the one-year bar on asylum; two, introduce safeguards for LGBTQI+ claimants whose claims are declared abandoned; three, restrict ministerial discretion and require oversight; and, four, limit data sharing.
Today, I wish to focus on eliminating the one-year bar on asylum that denies claimants access to an IRB hearing. Bill C-12 will make it nearly impossible to claim asylum after one year in Canada. Rainbow Railroad sees that as directly harmful to LGBTQI+ claimants. The state cannot attempt to impose a deadline for coming out.
The people we serve come from places where being queer is illegal and where being queer can get you killed. A queer person escaping persecution cannot be hurried into understanding their identity. After a lifetime of distrust, they will need patience and support to be ready to make their claim. Depriving them of access to the IRB takes away an opportunity for freedom, and many would be sent back to danger.
Several organizations have already raised grave concerns about excluding the IRB from deciding cases. The one-year bar is a harsh restriction on claimants’ rights to a hearing.
Just over three years ago, when I made an inland refugee claim, I was not aware of IRB Chairperson’s Guideline 9. This guideline governs the proceedings before the IRB involving sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics. While I didn’t know about the guideline at the time, one thing was certain: The IRB member treated me with respect, care, compassion and recognized my dignity.
My hearing lasted nearly two hours. At no point did the IRB member retraumatize me. I know this is not the experience of all LGBTQI+ refugee claimants, but I subsequently learned that IRB members who have been well trained on Guideline 9 have developed the competency to fairly and compassionately adjudicate LGBTQI+ refugee claims. Bill C-12 attempts to remove that safeguard of fairness and compassion from Canada’s immigration system.
In doing so, it undermines Canada’s diplomatic credibility and materially increases the risk of returning LGBTQI+ people to countries where we face persecution because of who we are and because of whom we love.
I am here today because I had a full IRB hearing. There are many LGBTQI+ refugees in Canada today who deserve that same access. Rainbow Railroad is asking the committee to keep one thing in mind: LGBTQI+ refugees are uniquely vulnerable. They are fleeing gender discrimination, family violence, community persecution and state-sponsored hatred. Don’t let this legislation make it worse. Canada’s legal architecture cannot come at a human cost. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Irribarra, you have the floor.
Pablo Irribarra, Barrister and Solicitor, Battista Migration Law Group: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the committee. I am an immigration and refugee lawyer and, as part of my practice, I have had the privilege of assisting many vulnerable refugee claimants in this country. My experience has included representation of clients before different decision makers, including the IRB, the Federal Court, IRCC, and CBSA.
I have significant concerns regarding key sections of Bill C-12, including Part 8, on which I will focus here. Bill C-12 limits access to independent and specialized refugee assessments by the IRB, as well as the right to appeal before the Refugee Appeal Division, or RAD. Affected refugee claimants who are found ineligible to have their claims assessed by the IRB are diverted to a primarily paper-based risk assessment, the PRRA, conducted by an IRCC officer.
The PRRA mechanism, however, was originally designed as an assessment process of last resort, with the presumption that the screening of refugee claims had already been done through other mechanisms. This means there are significant limitations built within the PRRA process, as compared to the IRB, including the lack of an oral hearing in most cases, a historically very low acceptance rate and with outcomes that are inconsistent and often fail to account for issues such as language barriers, trauma or identity-based persecution. There is also the lack of a statutory stay of removal while judicial reviews of such decisions are before the Federal Court.
Moreover, the new bases of ineligibility in Bill C-12 are arbitrary and will not effectively target concerns regarding system integrity and fraud that are not already being addressed by the IRB. The IRB, in fact, is focused on system integrity, with safeguards such as front-end screening, robust procedures to identify unfounded claims, as well as through oral hearings, in particular, incorporating detailed analysis of key issues, such as a claimant’s subjective fear, delay in claiming and credibility.
In addition, the new ineligibility provisions negatively impact the most vulnerable of refugee claimants, many of whom may delay filing a claim for reasons outside of fraud — in fact, because of their own vulnerability and factors like fear, language barrier, trauma or changing circumstances. For example, individuals from the LGBTQ+ community who fear persecution based on their sexual orientation or gender identity may often face multiple barriers that prevent them from or delay them in making a refugee claim. Such individuals may face rejection from their own families and communities due to their sexual orientation and may, therefore, not have the same level of support and information that other claimants may have.
In addition, many individuals fleeing homophobic environments may struggle with revealing their sexual orientation to government officials, particularly if they fled a country where their gender identity or sexual orientation is criminalized. Other individuals may only have become aware of their sexuality after being able to freely express themselves without fear in Canada for the first time.
In all of these scenarios, individuals may well have been in Canada for more than the one-year period, but although they have genuine refugee claims based on persecution, with reasonable explanations for the delay, they will nevertheless be impacted by these new ineligibility provisions.
Furthermore, by shifting the burden of refugee protection oversight to IRCC and the Federal Court through judicial review and away from specialized assessment by the IRB, Bill C-12 will increase the burden on Legal Aid programs and the courts. As more and more claimants are diverted to the PRRA process, the only mechanism for independent review will be the Federal Court. This will likely increase and overburden the Federal Court’s caseload, shifting already scarce judicial and Legal Aid resources toward judicial reviews of PRRA determinations. Moreover, a judicial review of a PRRA determination lacks a statutorily guaranteed stay of removal, in contrast to the IRB.
The absence of a statutory stay of removal will translate into an additional drain on both the Federal Court and Legal Aid resources, as judicial reviews of PRRA determinations will likely be accompanied by urgent and emergency stay-of-removal motions before the court in order to prevent removal while judicial review of a decision is in process.
In contrast, the majority of refugee claims assessed by the IRB have a statutorily guaranteed stay of removal while the decision is under appeal or judicial review and, therefore, do not necessitate accessing the significant Legal Aid and judicial resources needed as part of an urgent stay of removal or emergency stay of removal at the Federal Court.
The Chair: Mr. Irribarra, you have run out of time. My apologies.
Mr. Irribarra: Thank you.
The Chair: We will move on to Tamir Israel and Aaden Pearson. You share the next five minutes.
Aaden Pearson, Staff Lawyer and Trans Rights Legal Fellow, Canadian Civil Liberties Association: Thank you, senators, for the opportunity to appear today on Bill C-12 and for undertaking this study despite the very short timelines.
I am a lawyer with the Equality Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, or CCLA, and the Trans Rights Legal Fellow. With me today is my colleague Tamir Israel, a lawyer with CCLA’s Privacy, Surveillance and Technology Program.
Our concern with Bill C-12 is how broadly the powers it authorizes are framed and whether the bill respects the constitutional rights of the people whose lives it will directly affect. In our view, key parts of this bill are over-broad. It authorizes sweeping state action that goes well beyond what is necessary to achieve the bill’s objectives, without the procedural safeguards required by the Charter. This creates a serious risk of life-altering, rights-infringing consequences, often for people fleeing state harm elsewhere.
While CCLA shares concerns already raised before this committee regarding Part 8 of the bill, my remarks today focus on Part 7. My colleague will then address Part 5.
Taken together, these provisions mark a significant shift away from individualized, rights-based decision making toward broad executive control, with serious consequences.
As you know, Part 7 authorizes the suspension or termination of entire categories of applications and the cancellation or variation of existing immigration documents where doing so is said to be in the “public interest.” The bill offers examples of public interest — administrative errors, fraud, public health, public safety and national security — but these examples do not meaningfully constrain the power. Each category is itself expansive, and none is accompanied by clear thresholds, statutory criteria or a requirement for individualized assessment.
From a Charter perspective, this lack of constraint matters deeply. Section 7 is engaged when state action exposes people to serious consequences, such as loss of lawful status, family separation or removal from Canada. The Supreme Court has been clear that where such consequences are at stake, the Constitution requires greater procedural protections, including meaningful notice and an opportunity to respond and be heard.
Part 7 provides none of this as a matter of law. There is no requirement for advance notice to those impacted, no obligation to provide reasons, no opportunity to make submissions before an application or a document is cancelled and no guarantee of individualized consideration. Judicial review is not an appeal, and it does not cure a decision-making scheme that is constitutionally deficient from the outset.
Instead, the bill authorizes categorical pre-emptive measures, including mass cancellations based on executive determinations. That is precisely the type of unbounded discretion that section 7 of our Charter is meant to constrain. Part 7 also permits bans based on country of origin, which raises serious section 15 Charter equality concerns.
I’m going to turn it over now to my colleague, Tamir, to address Part 5 of the bill.
Tamir Israel, Director, Privacy, Surveillance and Technology Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association: Thank you.
Part 5 compounds these concerns. It creates broad authorization to disclose sensitive personal information for an open-ended set of purposes, with no necessity or proportionality requirement in place.
As with other elements of Bill C-12, we have heard nothing from the government that could explain why its existing information authorities, which are already quite broad, are inadequate or why such open-ended powers are necessary.
Under Part 5, sensitive information, such as immigration status, refugee claims or changes to gender identity, can be disseminated widely, with real impacts on safety, privacy and dignity. Onward disclosure to foreign governments can also be authorized without case-by-case federal assessment, heightening the risk of transnational repression.
Large-scale information sharing can also subject people to discrimination and put their social services in jeopardy. When coupled with mass cancellation powers in Part 7, Part 5 creates a system where decisions affecting liberty and security can be made quickly, collectively and opaquely, with minimal context and little opportunity for affected individuals to protect their interests.
To conclude, the Charter requires government action to be structured, reviewable and procedurally fair, especially where the consequences for individuals are severe, as is the case here. We urge the Senate to exercise its sober second thought and ensure that perceived efficiency is not purchased at the expense of fundamental justice.
Thank you once again for undertaking your study of this matter. We look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you to the witnesses.
We will now proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators will have four minutes for your questions, and that includes the answers. Please indicate if your question is directed to a particular witness or witnesses.
Mr. Israel, we understand if you have to step away. Mr. Israel will be appearing at another committee shortly.
Senator Burey: Welcome to our witnesses. Thank you so much for being here in person.
I’m going to hone in on the IRB process and these new changes. As you know, Manon Brassard, the Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board, testified 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 reviews and interventions.
The reason I read that out was you also heard from the last panel that the new PRRA — I say “new and improved” in quotations — was going to be more efficient, and we still haven’t gotten any statistics.
Could any of you or all of you comment on increasing resources to the IRB so they can carry out the process constitutionally and in an efficient manner? I would like your comments on the record.
Mr. Irribarra: From my experience, the IRB is actually well placed to be able to improve their abilities. They already have multiple systems in place, including training for their members. The members themselves are independent, but they do follow guidelines, and they are essentially trained as well throughout the process. If there was recruitment of additional members, that would be the most efficient way of improving, for example, processing from that perspective.
Ms. Nugent: I agree with that perspective. I will say that sometimes when we talk about efficiency, we are really talking about speed, but speed does not guarantee accuracy. For LGBTQI+ refugee claimants, accuracy is very important because the experiences of persecution are often very personal. When someone flees their home country because they are persecuted due to sexual orientation and gender identity, it is a different experience than someone who may be fleeing a climate disaster, geopolitical crises or war. I believe the process that the IRB currently offers is more adequate and suitable for LGBTQI+ claimants than the pre-removal risk assessment process.
I do concur that adding more resources to the IRB would be the best way to achieve efficiency, fairness and compassion. We cannot forget compassion in this conversation because that is an important part of what will alleviate the harms that many LGBTQI+ claimants would have experienced back in their home countries as a result of their sexual orientation and gender identity.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to our witnesses, both online and in person.
Let me begin by saying how challenging it is for us as senators, as parliamentarians, to be dealing with so much that is bad about this bill and trying to navigate the reality of how changes can be made. My questions are within that context.
We have heard from some previous advocates that if we have to only look at one amendment, we should be looking at the one‑year bar to claiming refugee status. We already have it confirmed by officials on the record that there are no explicit exemptions in this bill for survivors of gender-based violence, for LGBTQI+ people or for those who enter as children.
May I ask for feedback, to the extent we have time, on this focus on the one-year bar?
Ms. Nugent: I appreciate many of my colleagues in the sector are focusing on this one-year bar. We are also focusing on it. What the bar does is it retroactively prevents claimants from accessing IRB hearings or the full IRB process.
We all know that going back five plus years to prevent people from accessing or limiting their access to what is a right — making an asylum claim is a right that the Canadian government does recognize in law and in the 1951 convention that it signed onto. The focus is rightly on that bar. What the current provisions of the bill are doing is saying to individuals — LGBTQI+ individuals in particular — that they must come out to the state within one year. It is trying to legislate that coming-out process.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I’m going to have to offer the opportunity for the short time available to other speakers, please. Jump in, please, whoever wants to start.
Mr. Irribarra: The other component as well, including with vulnerable populations like the LGBTQ community, is that the one-year bar has no bearing on the risks they face or fear of persecution. They may not have been put in a situation, for example, where their lives were at risk until they were exposed, which might be a year later. Or they may not have come to terms with their own sexual orientation until way past that one-year period of living in Canada.
Senator McPhedran: Is there consensus among our witnesses that, indeed, we should be going after this as a primary amendment? I invite those who have not spoken yet, please.
Aaden Pearson: The amendments are very difficult because the provisions in this bill are fundamentally flawed. Any amendments, I think, that can lessen the harm that these provisions have are desirable, but they will not cure the legislation, if that makes sense. With that in mind, I do think that exceptions to the one-year bar would be helpful.
I also think that under Part 7, the mass cancellation powers, removing clause 72, which is the part that gives the power to the Governor-in-Council to vary or cancel documents en masse, removing that provision of Part 7 would help with the over-broad scope, at least, of that part of the bill.
I’ll let Tamir jump in if he has something to add.
Mr. Israel: I would second what my colleague has said. Part 7 and Part 5 are more difficult to amend in a way that would reduce harm, but there are a couple of amendments that could be added that would, at least, mitigate how these regimes are applied. I think Part 5 should be removed. The case for it has not been made. The government already has some fairly broad information-sharing powers, and we haven’t seen any explanation for this shift. Adding categories to Part 7, as my colleague has said, would be a way of limiting the harm that this regime would be imposing on refugees in Canada while not curing our fundamental concerns.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, Mr. Israel.
Senator Senior: Thank you for being here. We really appreciate your testimony. Thank you, Ms. Nugent, for sharing your example. It is good to know the efficiency, as we have heard, of the IRB is fully intact.
I’m curious about your reaction as you sat in the room and heard the testimonies that came before you. Hopefully, online, you were listening as well. Is there anything that you heard that reassures you or causes you deeper concern?
Ms. Nugent: The pre-removal risk assessment causes deeper concern. What I heard from the previous panels suggested that the PRRA would be an adequate replacement for what currently exists. I’m more deeply concerned that resources are already being allocated to that as opposed to the IRB, which is where I think the resources are needed the most. If there is anything I can offer this committee as it continues to deliberate ahead of making its report, it is that it emphasize to the government that the safeguards currently embedded in the IRB process, specifically Guideline 9, do not currently exist in the pre‑removal risk assessment process.
Mr. Irribarra: Yes. I was concerned, in particular, with the confirmation that no mandatory oral hearings are being sought under this new PRRA, given the impact an oral hearing can have in a determination like this. The fact that there is no contemplation of instituting a mandatory statutory stay of removal on judicial review subsequent to a negative PRRA decision is huge because it could result in people who are being deported back to persecution based on a negative PRRA decision while their judicial review is in process if they are not able to get, for example, a stay of removal due to a judicial resource.
Aaden Pearson: I would echo what my fellow witnesses have said. I was particularly concerned to hear the assertion that the PRRA process is procedurally equivalent to the IRB process. These are not minor procedural differences between these processes. They go to the heart of accuracy in life-and-death decisions. Using PRRA at scale changes its nature and risks outcomes that do not meet Canada’s Charter or international obligations.
Senator Senior: Thank you. I apologize for misgendering you. I hope I’m not doing the same with Mr. Israel.
Mr. Israel: Thank you for that, and for the question as well. My focus is on the information-sharing components. I was concerned to hear that the government is hoping to share information, often sensitive immigration information, with the provinces without limitation, as opposed to the fairly permissive case-by-case regime that is in place now. Of course, I also echo the concerns my colleagues have voiced regarding the other parts of this legislative proposal.
Senator K. Wells: My question is for Ms. Nugent. I will give you the opportunity to add, if there is anything further, about the amendments you shared with us and spoke to. We talked about extending or removing the one-year requirement.
Ms. Nugent: One of the things I would like us to contemplate is the combination of increased ministerial powers and data sharing. That combination is dangerous for LGBTQI+ claimants because, with that broad ministerial discretion, which currently has very limited oversight, and the ability to expand data sharing, it means that there is an increased risk that sensitive data about individuals’ sexual orientation and gender identity could potentially be revealed in that process. If someone is returned to danger, with the expanded sharing of information, because more people will have access to that information, it is likely that it would increase the risk to these individuals if they are returned to countries where they are criminalized and where they could, frankly, be killed.
The other piece that I would like to touch on is that, at Rainbow Railroad, we track on an annual basis what is happening in the over 60 countries where LGBTQI+ people are being persecuted, and we receive thousands of requests every year. Last year, we received 20,000 requests for help from individuals who are fleeing danger. We know the real dangers they will be sent back to.
One thing that shows up a lot in our data is that the significant majority of LGBTQI+ people at risk globally are young people. Eighty-two per cent of the individuals who reach out to us are between the ages of 18 and 35. I spoke earlier about how different it is when people are fleeing persecution because of who they are and whom they love. Many of these young people are fleeing violence at the hands of their own family members or community persecution. There is the compound effect of all of that and the risk that people have to take to reveal their sexual orientation in order to make a claim and then when the pre‑removal risk assessment is utilized. At every step of this changing process that the bill is encouraging or putting forward, we are adding risk. We are increasing risk where, as a country, we should be looking to decrease risk when individuals are fleeing dangerous circumstances because of who they are and whom they love.
While we are advancing some potential recommendations, if the government decides to go forward with the bill, I want us to also look at the compounding harms that each of these new provisions inside the bill will create for LGBTQI+ claimants. It is not about looking at the potential harm of one provision. It is about how the harm is compounded when you look at the different provisions side by side.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
We heard earlier about the hiring of new PRRA agents if this moves forward. We talked about training, and they said they receive six months of training. We are not sure yet. We hope to know soon how much of that is dedicated to 2SLGBTQ+ issues. Do you have a sense of what that training should look like and how much training should be provided for those officers?
Ms. Nugent: It should look like the training that IRB members currently receive.
Senator K. Wells: Do you know anything about what that training is, in particular with regard to Guideline 9?
Ms. Nugent: Even the development of Guideline 9 was based on the lived experiences of LGBTQI+ claimants. The Chairperson’s Guideline 9 was developed because of some of the very traumatic experiences that many LGBTQI+ claimants have experienced over the years. The guidelines are relatively new. They are about 9 or 10 years old.
The reason I answer the question that way is because that training and those guidelines actually acknowledge the realities for LGBTQI+ claimants. We know what the unique and acute issues are when people are making a claim. In the panel before, a representative from IRCC spoke about the exhaustive or extensive claim that individuals have to complete. People are documenting the history of their lives and the history of the traumatic experiences that they have gone through in their home countries because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.
To go through that process and to have to prove your credibility to the government that you deserve protection — that entire process became its own site of trauma, and the guidelines were developed as a response to addressing that.
When I spoke about my case earlier — that I was treated with dignity and care and respect — I know it is clear that it is because of the depth and comprehensiveness of the training that the IRB member who was adjudicating my case would have gone through, because there is an acute awareness and understanding of what these realities are and what it means for someone to have to document sometimes decades of trauma, having to perhaps access therapy in between writing and preparing for their hearings and so on. But getting legal support, mental health support, community support, those things matter, and you cannot get that from the pre-removal risk assessment.
Senator Muggli: Mr. Irribarra and Mr. Pearson, what your thoughts are on this statement from our previous witness: PRRA hearings almost never happen when they are not mandatory. The minister, IRCC and the Department of Justice, as we heard today, are saying that the legislation allows for hearings when there are credibility issues at stake, but officers just don’t do it and find other reasons to refuse.
What are your thoughts on that statement? I will start with Mr. Irribarra.
Mr. Irribarra: Thank you very much. In my experience, that matches the cases I have had to work with. Unless the PRRA hearing has been a mandatory component, generally speaking, having an actual in-person or a virtual hearing with a PRRA officer is almost unheard of. I have to say that, in the last 18 years of practice, I cannot actually think of a PRRA interview where it wasn’t mandatory.
Aaden Pearson: We don’t work directly with clients, but from my understanding of the process, I have the exact same understanding as Mr. Irribarra.
Senator Muggli: Ms. Nugent, you may have an opinion on that as well, and I will throw out this other thing that builds on what Senator Wells said earlier: Even if PRRA gets the same training that IRB does, is it really the same as having a hearing when you are hearing from someone face to face?
First on the question of the PRRA hearings and then the training, please.
Ms. Nugent: My understanding is the same — that it is usually in mandatory circumstances. While I believe that the same level of training that IRB members receive should be the same level of training that immigration officers receive, I agree that having a hearing makes a difference. It is in having a hearing that you are able to talk through many of the nuances and some of the unique realities that individuals may experience, whether they are making a claim based on their sexual orientation, gender identity or experience of gender-based violence. Whatever reason someone may have for fleeing, each individual’s circumstances would be unique, and a hearing is the best place or the best way.
Senator Muggli: You are saying that not everything can come through on a piece of paper.
Ms. Nugent: Absolutely not.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Senator Pupatello: A couple of you mentioned something related to an exemption in regulation. Where in this bill would you see the opportunity for exemptions in any of the areas that would counter some of the things you have described to us?
Ms. Nugent: I have a document here that I can share with the committee after where Rainbow Railroad is proposing two specific amendments to clauses 72 and —
Senator Pupatello: Sorry, I just meant in the regulation. Once the bill is passed, if they were to define or further define in regulation, it could be an opportunity and certainly easier. I wondered if you thought that. Someone on our panel online, I think, mentioned a regulatory opportunity.
Ms. Nugent: Maybe making a requirement for hearings. Even if they want to move forward with the bill as is, with no amendments, and there is an opportunity in regulations to mandate hearings for vulnerable communities or vulnerable claimants, that is perhaps worth contemplating.
Senator Dean: I believe one contribution or one part of an answer to that might be that in relation to the new provisions around going back to 2021 and the 14 days and the gateway that is being created here, there is, in that section of the act, clause 74, amending subsection 111.1(1), the ability to make exceptions to these rules through regulation. That is one possible route. That is one possible answer in the area of the new eligibility rules, if I can put it that way.
I make this point because I think a question came up earlier in relation to minors, and that is likely where that one would be addressed.
Senator McPhedran: If I can just ask the witnesses, please, for your assessment of the difference between changing the law and possibly having issues dealt with by regulation.
Ms. Nugent: The ideal preference is that the bill is withdrawn. We know that is not going to happen. The next best thing would be amendments to the bill in its current form. The next best after that would be trying to achieve some exemptions through regulations.
Senator McPhedran: What do you think the odds are of changing those regulations?
Ms. Nugent: I think they are very low, but I have confidence in this committee to push as much as it can.
Senator Arnold: I would just like your opinion, if we are talking reality here, on if we were to have a sunset clause — that this would be reviewed in three years or something like that. Do you think there could be any merit to that?
Ms. Nugent: It wouldn’t reduce the harm that this bill is currently causing.
Senator Arnold: No, I understand that, but could that be a slight mitigating factor?
Ms. Nugent: For the future, perhaps, but not for those impacted immediately.
The Chair: Senators, this brings us to the end of this panel. I thank our witnesses for your testimony today.
For the fourth panel, we welcome Kelti Cameron, Senior Officer, International Solidarity, Canadian Union of Public Employees; Julia Green, Humanitarian Immigration Lawyer, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration; and, by video conference, Harjit Kaur, Executive Director, Vancouver & Lower Mainland Multicultural Family Support Services Society.
For your opening statements, you will have five minutes, which will be followed by questions from committee members.
Ms. Cameron, the floor is yours.
Kelti Cameron, Senior Officer, International Solidarity, Canadian Union of Public Employees: Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns about Bill C-12 on behalf of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, CUPE. CUPE is Canada’s largest trade union, representing 800,000 members across the country.
We have thousands of members working with precarious immigration status, including refugees and temporary work permit holders. Many of our members care for our children, staff our hospitals and long-term-care facilities and keep our public services running. Our members contact us daily with concerns about expiring work permits without the option to renew them and without a clear pathway to permanent resident status. We are doing whatever we can to prevent them from becoming part of the growing pool of workers in this country who will lose their immigration status because of changes made to the immigration system recently.
It is our experience that the immigration system requires a major overhaul to one that reduces racism and insecurity, not perpetuates them. Migrants and refugees have become pawns in a trade war with the U.S. and scapegoats for governments intent on deflecting attention away from policy failures and refusal to adequately invest in public services, housing, health care and employment supports.
With an emphasis on national security, criminality, border security and a vaguely defined concern for the “public interest,” we are concerned that the inclusion of sweeping immigration changes in Bill C-12 is based upon and perpetuates the falsehood that migrants and refugees are to be feared and distrusted, rather than revered and supported.
It is our position that Bill C-12 is fundamentally flawed and that it should be completely withdrawn. Barring that, I want to address two parts of the bill that are of particular concern to CUPE, and those are Part 5 and Part 7.
We are opposed to the expansion of the power of IRCC to share the personal information of migrants and refugees with other federal and provincial governments, agencies and Crown corporations, in addition to foreign entities.
CUPE’s work with our members with temporary work permits is grounded in the understanding that living with precarious immigration status means you live with the constant fear of deportation. There is a vulnerability associated with this fear that is pervasive.
In the workplace, employers benefit from workers who are scared to speak up about their rights, who will put up with higher levels of harassment and exploitation than other workers who have permanent resident status or citizenship. Their fear is justified under the current system, and we think it will only get worse if Bill C-12 is adopted as is.
Sharing personal information that renders migrants and refugees vulnerable will have a chilling effect inside and outside the workplace. It could also threaten their ability to access services such as health care, social services or possibly education for their children.
Recipients of information shared by IRCC, such as law enforcement and public service providers, become implicated in the immigration enforcement system, dangerously and unjustly expanding the scope of their work without consideration of the implications or the necessary training. CUPE represents front‑line service providers across the country, and we are very concerned about this possibility. We recommend Part 5 be removed from the document in its entirety.
We are opposed to the changes in Part 7 of Bill C-12 that would grant sweeping powers to the Governor-in-Council to cancel, suspend or modify immigration documents and applications en masse.
We are particularly concerned that the expanded powers of authorities, under the vague justification of public interest, could be used in arbitrary, politically motivated and discriminatory ways based on country of origin or other grounds protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What is happening in the U.S. today should be instructive and raise alarm bells.
Previous witnesses have shared that the IRCC already has the power to address fraud or system errors by cancelling applications on a case-by-case basis, so it is unclear what the purpose of this dangerous expansion of power is. There also doesn’t appear to be any due process afforded someone when mistakes are made or if this power is abused.
Across the country, we risk losing thousands of workers in the public and private sectors because their work permits are expiring and they are being forced to stop working. This is devastating for workers, but it is also devastating for employers and all our communities.
We fear the ripple effect and the unintended consequences of expanding these powers are not fully understood, and we recommend Part 7 be removed from the bill in its entirety, as well. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Cameron. Ms. Green, you have the floor.
Julia Green, Humanitarian Immigration Lawyer, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration: Hello, my name is Julia Green. Today I am here representing the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration, otherwise known as AQAADI.
First, thank you for having us. I know you have had a very long day, so I will try to be very direct with my answers today.
Since Bill C-12 was first introduced, AQAADI has been primarily concerned with the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, that are covered in Part 8 of the bill and have to do with the ineligibility of certain refugee claims.
We are aware that the way Bill C-12 is currently drafted seems to suggest that exceptions to the one-year bar could be made in the regulations, but we find it difficult to comment on this part right now when we cannot see what those exceptions will be because we do not have a proposed amendment to the regulations before us.
If work was being done on the exceptions, we submit that there need to be exceptions to the one-year bar for people who find themselves in specific situations already mentioned by several witnesses, which means they naturally might have made their refugee claim after one year. This includes cases of domestic violence, unaccompanied minors, LGBTQ+ claims or people from countries where the humanitarian situation has significantly changed.
In Quebec, we are paying special attention to people who come from “moratorium countries.” As lawyers in Quebec, in particular, the need for an exception to the one-year bar for people who come from a moratorium country is particularly important. When I speak of moratorium countries, I mean these are countries to which the CBSA will not remove most foreign nationals due to the overall dangerous situation for all civilians. The countries covered by this policy include Haiti, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Venezuela, Mali, Yemen, Libya and Ukraine, among others.
If someone from one of these countries is found ineligible to make a refugee claim under the Safe Third Country Agreement or the one-year bar, their only remaining option to get permanent residency through one of our protection programs is the PRRA. However, if they are from a moratorium country and cannot be returned there, they will not be offered the PRRA, because the PRRA can only be offered when you are at the point of removal. Those people effectively end up in limbo where they can’t get their permanent residency through the refugee claim or through the PRRA, and that is a problem, especially when they may have children in their home country whom they now cannot sponsor until they are a permanent resident.
This is a big issue in Quebec, where we have large populations of people from Haiti, from Congo, from Mali — the French-speaking countries that do, unfortunately, produce a lot of refugee claimants and that Canada is not removing people to. We wish to highlight that.
My last comment would be that AQAADI has maintained throughout all the discussions of Bill C-12 that the IRB is one of our immigration system’s greatest assets. It is what protects the integrity of our asylum system while ensuring that every person who is asking this country for protection has all their rights under international and Canadian law respected. The IRB is made up of members who are experienced and trained to deal with the unique traumas of refugee claimants, and there is the built-in safeguard of the Refugee Appeal Division to ensure everyone gets the protection they need if they need it.
As refugee lawyers, we see first-hand how the board works, and we believe wholeheartedly that in as many cases as possible protection claims should be going to the IRB.
I look forward to answering your questions today, including some of the questions already posed to witnesses earlier. I’m happy to answer those as well. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Green.
Dr. Kaur, you have the floor.
Harjit Kaur, Executive Director, Vancouver & Lower Mainland Multicultural Family Support Services Society: Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the Vancouver & Lower Mainland Multicultural Family Support Services Society.
We are a non-profit organization established in 1991. Our services are for immigrant and refugee communities who are the most vulnerable and marginalized — gender-based violence and abuse survivors.
We support women during these harsh realities they face. It is this lived reality of gender-based violence survivors that is not reflected in Bill C-12. The proposed legislation significantly restricts the rights of refugee claimants in ways that fail to account for the realities faced by survivors of gender-based violence. The one-year bar applied retroactively to June 2020 is arbitrary and does not reflect the practical and emotional barriers faced by survivors coming forward.
Similarly, rendering individuals ineligible to seek refugee protection if they do not make the claim within 14 days of entering from the United States demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the circumstances under which survivors flee violence. Survivors often arrive in Canada in states of shock, trauma and fear. Their immediate priorities are safety, shelter, food and protection of their children, not legal filings and deadlines.
The expectation that individuals will instead rely on a pre‑removal risk assessment rather than having access to a full refugee hearing represents a troubling departure from an asylum system grounded in fairness and procedural justice. The PRRA is not an equivalent safeguard. It does not provide the same level of procedural protections, evidence flexibility or opportunity for survivors to fully present the complex and often deeply personal realities of the harm they face. As noted, our organization is rarely the first point of the many doors that victims must pass through.
It can take well over a year before individuals are aware of resources available to them or are in a position to safely explore options for leaving abusive relationships. Many are deeply traumatized and may be caring for children while attempting to secure safety and stability. As pointed out by the other panellists, language barriers, fear of authorities, isolation and misinformation further delay access to support. For many women, the idea of initiating legal proceedings feels impossible until they have achieved some measure of safety and emotional stability.
Bill C-12 does not adequately recognize these realities or the profound barriers that survivors face in accessing protection. Bill C-12 does not adequately understand the risk that an individual is already in, and our fear is that these precarious situations will further be pushed into invisibility, underground economies and continued abuse out of the fear of removal.
In practical terms, this places greater strain on community organizations, shelters, health care providers and emergency services, which continue to support individuals who have been denied meaningful access to protection under the refugee system.
The bill is framed as a measure to curb fraud and protect the integrity of the immigration system. However, when these measures disproportionately and severely impact those who are most vulnerable, it is difficult to see how the integrity of the system is being strengthened, a system that cannot accommodate the realities of trauma risks undermining public confidence and Canada’s long-standing humanitarian commitments. Protecting system integrity and protecting victims should not be mutually exclusive goals.
The Senate plays a vital role as a chamber of sober second thought and a safeguard within our legislative process. We respectfully urge this committee to ensure that Bill C-12 is not rushed forward without careful consideration of its impacts on survivors of violence. We ask that you pause to ensure that Canada’s immigration system continues to uphold its commitment to fairness, compassion and the protection of those who are most vulnerable.
Thank you for your time and for your careful consideration of these concerns.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Kaur.
We will now proceed to questions from committee members.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to our witnesses, both online and here in person.
Ms. Cameron, I’m going to pick up on your reference to the scope and the size of CUPE relative to and relevant to our country and ask if you could give us a more concrete understanding of what is facing members and those who experience themselves at risk and at greater risk if this bad bill is made law.
Ms. Cameron: Thank you for the question.
Yes, CUPE has 800,000 members. We would expect a representative percentage of our membership to be — I think the numbers were that 7.4% of the population have temporary work permits. Those are government figures. How accurate they are, I’m not entirely sure.
In terms of the impact, for example, in B.C., our Hospital Employees Union has, in two health authorities, 500 members who are losing their work permits. Those figures are based on the numbers we were able to get from the health authority.
A lot of the work we are doing is trying to better understand what the impact, in real numbers, is across the country in all sectors. That is hard to find because of the fear embedded in the experience of workers, and they don’t necessarily volunteer that information to us as the union.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. If I can jump to the second part of the question and ask you, in the event that this bad bill becomes law, what is going to be the potential impact on services reliant on members who are at risk?
Ms. Cameron: We have raised the issue of the mass cancellation of permits. For temporary workers, what that means is if you lose your work permit, you can’t work. That has an impact on our public services. Our members are in long-term care, health care, child care, hospitals — in all public services. If you can imagine that right now we are facing the situation where a minimum of 500 workers are going to be lost in the health care system in B.C. in addition to the possibility that we are going to lose more, it’s a huge impact that we don’t fully have a grasp of, I think.
Senator McPhedran: If I could extend the question to Ms. Kaur and Ms. Green, would you like to add to that or offer any other key points that you wanted to leave with us today?
Ms. Green: With respect to the permit cancellations, AQAADI is more focused on Part 8 today, so I don’t have anything to add on this subject.
Senator McPhedran: Dr. Kaur?
Ms. Kaur: I would like to add that the services would be totally stretched for us in terms of the survivors we support. We see women being further marginalized and pushed into invisibility, so there would be grave consequences for the women we support.
Senator McPhedran: We’re talking about the impact on families, children and productivity within a community and, therefore, within the country?
Ms. Cameron: A perfect example is the impact on post‑secondary education and international students and workers who are no longer able to stay and work. It has a tremendous impact on the institutions that rely on them but also the economy. Small rural communities rely on these students as students in the community who help keep the economy running, but they’re also workers in the community and community members.
I think this is the ripple effect, in addition to that fact that most of these workers are sending money — the nature of their temporary status is they are separated from their families, oftentimes sending money home to families and children. There is this massive system at play that relies on temporary workers, but this is a bill that could potentially make them even more vulnerable and more precarious.
Senator Senior: Thank you for being here and holding us up to the end of our witness testimonies.
I want to continue on that line in terms of not just what happens to workplaces and to Canada itself with the loss of temporary workers, but what happens as a result of not having status. I’m thinking about where this may drive people as they attempt to work because they have to live. What are some of the things that could happen as a result of this?
I’m thinking of populations that are particularly vulnerable because of status and other complicating issues and are driven underground, for example. In my previous work, I dealt a lot with women who turned to sex work as a way to make money.
What are the implications that you would see as a result of this? Maybe I’ll start with Ms. Kaur.
Ms. Kaur: Sure. For us, what we really worry about is seeing the increase of international students being impacted by violence. Not having an opportunity to stay on and to be able to sustain themselves, we see an increase in violence and, again, that invisibility that will happen. So one is the international students we are seeing.
The other is the sponsorships, so women who are coming and staying in the country because they have been in marriages, and now, because of marriage breakdown, they are forced to apply on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and become further marginalized. In this process, and in many situations, they don’t know what is available to them. We see all the immigrant women and women claiming refugee status. It becomes more of a crisis and trauma that is going to add to the invisibility.
Like I said earlier and as you mentioned, senator, the reality is they will be forced into situations where they are working under forced labour and experiencing abuse at higher levels. It could be the increase in deaths we’re seeing in B.C., for example, which is rampant. The sacrifice of life and death and brutalities and injuries is definitely something that we anticipate.
Ms. Green: Thank you for the question. We talked about it a couple of days ago. The 2.3 million workers are at risk now of losing their status because they’re losing their work permits. That pool is growing in this country. We can look south of the border for an example of the precarity of having no status.
I think people will have a — quote, unquote — choice to either stop working or, as a lot of people will say, just leave the country. Well, that is not always a choice. It’s not a choice to go back to their home countries. People have to survive. They do that by, as you said, working under the table in far more precarious and vulnerable positions.
Some have children. There are children in the education system in this country who are also at further risk of losing access to services. This is the part where the sharing of information — these are integrated systems. Parts 5 and 6 have a very live dynamic. How will they access health care and education for their children if their status will now be revealed? Then you have front-line workers who are part of a system of enforcement. They didn’t ask for this. This is not their job. This may not be within their belief system. We have a —
Senator Senior: Thank you. We’re out of time, unfortunately.
Senator Muggli: Thank you for facilitating our many last‑minute changes over the last couple of days. We appreciate your being here. My first question is for Ms. Cameron: Do you know how many CUPE members would potentially be seeking asylum?
Ms. Cameron: I wish I did; I don’t. That’s part of our work right now, to create a trusting environment within the union so we can better understand that.
Senator Muggli: Do you provide support to your members in terms of navigating the immigration system?
Ms. Cameron: Yes, we do. The short answer is yes. We are doing a lot of outreach, trying to inform our members of their rights. When the changes happened in 2024, in particular, we wanted to make sure that our members were aware that these things were happening and that they were at risk of losing their status. If they were in that situation, we said they should come to us and have a conversation.
But we don’t do it alone. We do it in coalition with a lot of the organizations you would have heard from two days ago, the Migrant Rights Network, the Canadian Council for Refugees —
Senator Muggli: Do you do it in collaboration with other unions?
Ms. Cameron: Yes. Absolutely. The private sector unions as well have different degrees of engagement with members. I’m thinking about agricultural workers. Many private sector employers, for example, are deeply affected by these changes, so it is an alliance. All sectors of society are affected by this.
Senator Muggli: It would be interesting to see data by employment field to understand how broad this issue could actually be.
Ms. Cameron: Oh, it’s huge. We have a sense, certainly, of the sectors most affected and the range, but the number of individuals who would be seeking asylum is a hard number to come up with.
Senator Muggli: There would be huge issues, potentially, yes.
Ms. Green, I want to read something that I read at an earlier panel and get your thoughts on this. It is a statement from another witness: “PRRA hearings almost never happen when they’re not mandatory.”
We’ve heard from the minister, IRCC and Justice saying that the legislation allows for hearings when there are credibility issues at stake. But we’ve heard witnesses say officers just don’t do it and find other reasons to refuse. Would you have an opinion on that?
Ms. Green: Yes. I agree with that. The hearings, unless they’re mandatory, are almost never happening in practice, even when it’s clear that it is a credibility concern. That’s what is most often going to the Federal Court — when it’s clear an officer had a credibility concern, didn’t use the word “credibility” so that it can’t be seen as a credibility concern, but it is. Then no hearing is called because they say it’s not a credibility concern, and then it ends up in Federal Court.
Senator Muggli: Why do you think this is happening?
Ms. Green: I’m not sure what’s going on with the internal policies of the PRRA officers. Maybe they don’t have the resources to do the hearings; I’m not sure, but hearings are not happening. The idea of the PRRA is to be efficient or fast, and maybe they think the hearings would slow things down. It’s not clear, but it’s a very common thing that lawyers see that there is no hearing, even when it seems on its face to be a credibility issue.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Senator Pupatello: I take your point, Ms. Green, about regulations. I will accept that. If that is what we’re left with in terms of this one-year period, and there is a portion — I’m trying to find the number here — clause 74 of Bill C-12, which allows for regulatory change in that one-year period. What should that period be? If it’s not one year, what is appropriate?
Because those exceptions could be on the basis of “vulnerable” communities, as it was described by a previous witness, for example, how would you define that? Maybe I could ask Dr. Kaur that same question. Is there an appropriate time frame if it were something that would be put in regulation?
Certainly, Ms. Cameron, you may also comment.
Ms. Green: To make sure I understand the question, you are asking about changing from one year to a different time period. Personally, I don’t think there should be any time period at all. I don’t see, again, how any sort of time period could make a claim more or less valid or more likely to be fraud. It is not clear to me what the one-year limit would actually achieve.
In terms of the exceptions, I understand that just saying someone who is generally vulnerable might be a bit vague. The language we have talked about at AQAADI would be “a significant change in circumstances,” for example. That might be language that could encompass many things. It could encompass somebody coming to terms with their sexuality, somebody experiencing domestic violence or the situation changing in their home country. I think that wording might be something that could be used in the exceptions.
In terms of the word “vulnerability,” I can see the concern with the vagueness of that. We would suggest something like that or just categories of exceptions, like domestic violence, LGBTQ+ claimants, unaccompanied minors or people who come from moratorium countries, as examples.
Senator Pupatello: I want to ask Dr. Kaur that same question but just to go a little bit further on no time period, from a public perspective, how would the public view our system if there were no guardrails around people applying and gaining some level of status in the country?
Ms. Green: The one-year bar is becoming a problem for people who already had some kind of status happening. For example, I work with a lot of survivors of domestic violence. Oftentimes, they came here and were sponsored. Their partners started to be abusive towards them. You know how long the permanent resident process is taking right now. There is one year already gone. Say they made a police report, and monsieur had to go back to his country. He is now back in his country, very upset that she reported him and got him kicked out of Canada — because we do remove criminals; that is what our law does. Now, if she goes back to her country that has far less protection for women in these situations, what might happen to her? Now she has a refugee claim, but it has been more than one year. She was never here without status; the status went away when the sponsorship broke down. It is situational, yes, but, personally, as a lawyer, in the majority of claims I have had to make out of a one-year circumstance, that person was in status by some other means, and then something happened. The circumstances changed, and they made a refugee claim.
Senator Pupatello: Okay. Could I get Dr. Kaur’s comment on that?
Ms. Kaur: Sure. I would lean on what Ms. Green was saying. For many women, just the idea of initiating legal proceedings can be so difficult, and many of them don’t want to do it and even find it impossible to do it until they have achieved some level of security or safety.
That one year is really dependent on the case we are looking at. If they were an international student, it would be different. If they were a survivor risking losing sponsorship, we would have a different timeline. If they were somebody else coming in and didn’t have status, and there were then circumstances in the country that changed, the one year would become really hard.
Having it be dependent on the situation of the survivor we are talking about would be more appropriate. Women, by the time they come to us, they have been through so many different doors. They have been to the police and transition houses, and they have reported repeatedly. This is just the reality of the situation we are facing, so that one-year bar is a tall order.
Senator Arnold: I would like to thank you, Ms. Cameron, for being here and articulating the situation of so many people who are keeping our communities going. That is definitely the case in New Brunswick.
But I think I’m hearing here just why the IRB is so important. It is for these unintended consequences. We have heard about how these cases will go and clog up our judicial system. We have heard how important these people are to our economy. We keep hearing about all of these exceptions. I think everyone would just like the IRB to be expanded and enhanced, because it is a pay-now-or-pay-later kind of thing. If we are trying to speed things through and get them through without doing due diligence, it is not going to work out well for us in the end.
However, we are in the situation we are in. Can you think of other exceptions, like top exceptions, that you think could possibly be put into the process as it goes along?
Ms. Green: Are we talking about exceptions to the one-year bar?
Senator Arnold: Just general exceptions. We have heard of minors and cases of domestic violence.
Ms. Green: So, exceptions from any ineligibility. Would you like a summary of what the exceptions should be?
Senator Arnold: Yes, if you have any off the top of your head.
Ms. Green: As I mentioned in my opening statement, I believe people from a moratorium country should have an exception where they can make an IRB claim, as well as unaccompanied minors, LGBTQ+ claimants and survivors of domestic violence. The language I mentioned of “a significant change of circumstances” would really cover a lot of what is going on. Then, it would become a question of how to prove a significant change of circumstances, but I believe the IRB board members have the skills to be able to assess that.
Ms. Cameron: I would just say that I have a hard time trying to determine a long list because I do feel uncomfortable about what the motivation behind some of these clauses is. For example, the other day, in a hearing, the explanation around the question of removing status was like, “No, no, no. They will still have status; we are just going to take away their work permit.” That is not the lived experience of that — and that’s immediately. Something like 30 or 90 days later, they lose status.
We are talking about a lot of workers, not just in the public system, so it does feel like we are trying to insert humanity into a bill that is really focused on criminality and is targeting migrants and refugees rather than trying to support them.
So, in that context, I find it very hard to come up with amendments that would satisfy and protect people.
Senator Senior: I want to go back to the idea of regulations versus amendments. I would like to hear your thoughts on that. My esteemed colleague asks that question quite regularly, but my concern is that regulations can be easily changed, depending on the whims of the government in power.
Senator McPhedran: Or they’re never done.
Senator Senior: Or they’re not done at all.
I really want to look at it from the perspective of legislation as opposed to regulation. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Second, we had a witness earlier this week — it feels like it was weeks ago — who made a statement that really intrigued me. And, Ms. Green, this is for you, in particular. The person said that the people who never miss a deadline for filing are the ones who are not necessarily legitimate. Could you also comment on that?
Ms. Green: First, with respect to the regulations, yes, I mentioned in my opening statement that I find it very difficult to come here today and talk about this theoretical element. I was happy when I noticed that Bill C-12 had put it in that exceptions can be added. That was encouraging, but when and who? As you said, it can be changed very easily. It is a bit alarming. So, it is difficult to talk about exceptions when they are not going to even be in the bill but by regulation. I believe it is something that could be in the bill and should be in the bill to make it more concrete.
With respect to what you mentioned about the people who make deadlines versus those who don’t, yes, I can see what that person was getting at. Many of our clients are extremely vulnerable, suffering from serious mental health issues. I have many clients who cannot read or write or clients who do not even have a high school education. The deadlines can be very hard. Having the information to make all the deadlines, to file everything properly and to have access to a lawyer — I will mention that for French-speaking claimants, there are not that many French-speaking lawyers in Canada and even fewer who are able to take cases on Legal Aid in Quebec or Ontario, so it is very hard for people to find lawyers to help them do this.
A lot of people do fall through the cracks; they aren’t able to do things in time or correctly, or they think they filed the refugee claim but didn’t. That happens a lot: They genuinely think they did. Then, we have to apply to reopen it.
I’m going to jump back to the question you were asking about the work permits because that is all related to me. Yes, when people end up in these situations of not having work permits and slipping through those cracks, they do end up turning to very precarious work situations. Also, I see many of my clients staying with a partner who is abusive because they have no other choice to have a roof over their heads. Many clients wind up homeless. They are on the streets, and then they get into some kind of trouble. Those are not great options. AQAADI’s focus is on Part 8, but the idea of work permits being mass-cancelled is very alarming for that reason.
Senator Senior: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: I’m going to go back to and increase our focus on the one-year bar. I have a few questions just to get your thoughts. I wish we could have given you more notice.
If we don’t succeed in deleting this — which we should, but our government representatives seem quite comfortable with it — what about increasing the bar from one to five years? What about explicit exemptions for particular classes of people at risk? Also, what about addressing the impacts on children who are part of a process coming in and have no control over the fact that way more than one year has passed when their situation may require them to try to claim asylum?
Ms. Green: If those could be in the bill, that would be great, instead of leaving it up to the regulations. Five years is better than one year. Really, just because it is so circumstantial, it is hard to put a number on it. I guess it is a start. Putting exemptions in the bill, as you mentioned, especially for children, yes, I agree that these would be good steps to take.
Senator McPhedran: Any other comments? Because I have another question.
If you were betting people, what odds would you give that there would be regulations that would actually cure the worst abuses that we’re concerned about here? What odds would you give that you will get those regulations?
Ms. Green: I’m not sure. I can’t say. As I said, I started out saying we’re not really comfortable with this idea of the regulations dictating the exception because of how easily they can be changed and because we do not have them before us right now. And I understand the approval process is different than it is for a bill, for example. So that is a little bit concerning that this is how the exceptions would be made.
Senator McPhedran: And perhaps also because regulations are often promised and never actually done?
Ms. Green: Yes.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to the witnesses for your attendance today. This brings us to the end of this portion of our meeting. We are grateful, again, for the flexibility that you have demonstrated and for turning up a day later and for being with us today, for giving us your testimony.
Colleagues, is it agreed that we go in camera to discuss the draft report of the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Thank you, senators.
At this point, I ask any members of the public to please leave the room.
(The committee continued in camera.)