Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

It's to protect Canadians from public crises that are deemed in the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Thank you, Minister.

Next, we have five minutes that go to Mr. Zuberi.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here for an extended period of time. We appreciate it.

I want to follow up on the previous line of questioning around public interest and the cancellation of applications.

You said that public interest isn't defined in the legislation. Are there any existing customary recognitions of public interest? How has it been defined in immigration law up until this point, by either the courts or the practice of immigration?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

It is intentionally not defined in the legislation, as I said, to allow maximum flexibility for the government to respond in a range of unforeseen circumstances that threaten the public interest. When we say “unforeseen circumstances”, obviously, I can't predict each and every circumstance, which is why we are here to put that measure in.

It is to protect the public interest, including but not limited to protecting the integrity of the immigration system, protecting the safety, security and health of Canadians and the security of our border, and responding to large-scale emergencies or other unforeseen scenarios. Each use of these authorities would be decided by the Governor in Council after considering all relevant factors, including the potential impact on vulnerable people, as well charter considerations.

To ensure public transparency, each order in council is published in the Canada Gazette, which would give all of that information.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

If I understand this correctly, you're saying it would be defined by an order in council.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That's correct.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Next, you named a non-exhaustive list of cases, but they all seem to be very exceptional. Therefore, the application of this public interest provision within the legislation would be very narrow in scope. Is that correct?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That is the intent—that it would be narrow in scope. With something like COVID that happened, it would have allowed us to do things differently at that time.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

In exceptional situations, it would assist with the backlog, but we're not talking about addressing the backlog specifically through this particular aspect of the legislation.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That's correct.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

That is helpful, and I think that's fair, personally, given that it shouldn't be arbitrary. The usage of this is not intended to be arbitrary.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Absolutely not.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Is there anything you'd like to add around the public interest provision, which I think you've really helped to define in this moment and exchange?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Just to reiterate for those who are really concerned, it is not meant to mass cancel asylum claims. It is not meant for individual cases. This is in exceptional circumstances. The power does not rest with the minister; it rests with the Governor in Council. We are lucky in Canada to have governments, to have immigration systems, to have people who.... It's a privilege to be here in front of you today to talk about these measures. We want to ensure that we safeguard people's rights as well but, at the same time, protect the integrity of our immigration system.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I would underscore the importance of safeguarding the rights of Canadians and also creating legislation that passes the test of time, so that whoever is minister—and you are the Minister of Immigration—creates legislation that passes the test of time, including around these provisions, which give great power but, as you said, are well limited in their scope.

I wanted to go back to the one-year requirement to seek asylum and ask about the case of trauma. You did answer this in part with respect to PRRA, with PRRA being a potential safeguard, but has there been any consideration of what happens, say, for example, in the case of somebody who has gone through great trauma, be it domestic abuse or some other form, around this one year? Has this question been looked at—whether or not the one year is adequate to file an asylum claim for somebody in that situation?

[Jason Hollmann]

Yes, we think it's a reasonable time frame to give someone to apply in the situation that they face. They have the ability to document their case on an individual basis through the application form, including using legal assistance to do so. Then it's reviewed by trained officers against all of the same criteria that the Immigration and Refugee Board would apply in terms of determining protection for the individual.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Hollmann.

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have two and a half minutes.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Madam Minister, I'm using my last few minutes to tell you that, in my opinion, after the Canada Revenue Agency, the department you head is the one most in need of modernization, because the processing times for all types of applications are unreasonable.

Every day, in our ridings, we support many immigrants, whether they are refugees or workers, in their journey. Our ridings are essentially branches of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

I'm concerned about your reform because I'm not sure you have the resources to achieve your goals. Your department is already overloaded and somewhat disorganized. I don't blame the public servants, but I can see that your department is under so much pressure; it's not easy to add tasks or change processes in a wave of change.

Truly, I'm not questioning your willingness, but I do feel that you may not necessarily have all the tools to manage your reform or your changes, and that you may find yourself frustrated in your ambitions because your department won't be able to keep up with the pace required by Bill C‑12.

I'll now turn to the 14-day referral period. People who enter Canada illegally, outside of official ports of entry, won't be able to apply for asylum. Those who are caught within 14 days of entry and who come from the United States will be returned to the United States under the safe third country agreement. However, those who are caught after 14 days should technically be removed to their country of origin.

From a technical standpoint, given the way the bill is written, are we sure that we can avoid sending people back to a country where they could be harmed if they're caught in Canada after 14 days?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

No. As I said at the outset, everyone affected by these new restrictions will have access to a pre-removal risk assessment.

I can also tell you that we are modernizing the immigration system. We're committed to providing modern, client-focused services. We're also adopting new digital technologies to transform our services and simplify application processes. We're doing a lot of things that will simplify the process, I hope, and—

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Simplify the process and reduce delays.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Next, we have five minutes for Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Minister, do you agree with your predecessor that the United States, a G7 country, is a safe third country for the purposes of asylum claimants, yes or no?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

The advice I've received is that it is.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

You do agree.

Do you agree that other G7 and developed EU nations are presumptively safe democracies, yes or no?