Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 18th, 2025

[Mark Weber]

They absolutely could, if it's the information our officers need. Again, the devil will be in the details. What kind of information would we be getting? Would we be sharing and not receiving?

Again, when we're looking specifically at refugee claimants, we're not going to be asking for any of that information, because that's all self-declared through a one-touch machine. Our interactions with the claimants coming through involve getting some tombstone information and doing the biodata, fingerprints and that kind of thing, and off they go to self-declare and do all the paperwork on their own, which then goes directly to IRCC.

I'm not really sure, in that milieu, what information we could get that would help, if we wouldn't be getting back to doing the actual screening up front when they arrive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Ms. Sodhi.

That concludes our first panel and our first hour. I want to say thanks to both of our witnesses, Ms. Douglas and Mr. Weber. Especially you, Mr. Weber, you've really been in the hot seat.

I want to thank all of my colleagues for their questions as well, and for the overall testimony.

I'm now going to suspend so we can change panels and start our second one, hopefully in five to 10 minutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Welcome back, everyone.

I think all of our witnesses are here in person, thankfully. We don't have anyone on Zoom, so thank you for being here in person.

I'm going to give a few reminders, although I think all of you are quite seasoned witnesses. Kindly wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. I'll give you a one-minute warning, and then basically your time is up, once it is completed.

Now, I would like to warmly welcome our witnesses for our second panel.

We have Professor Michael Barutciski. We have Mario Bellissimo, lawyer, certified specialist from Bellissimo Law Group Professional Corporation. We have Azadeh Tamjeedi, senior legal officer for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

I'd like to give a warm welcome to all three of you.

Each one of you will have five minutes to give your opening remarks, after which we will delve into questions.

Professor Barutciski, you can begin with five minutes.

[Michael Barutciski, Professor, As an Individual]

Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to appear before the committee.

We have witnessed, in the last few years, what is arguably one of the country's biggest public policy failures this century. We've seen record numbers in various categories, including asylum seekers who don't even come from the typical refugee-producing states. We've seen the issuing of visas that were super lenient, with consequences that we're still managing, and we still have three million temporary residents, who are not all going to become permanent residents. Even the very pro-immigration former prime minister and his immigration minister admitted a year ago that various parts of the system were being abused and were out of control.

It's in this exceptional context that I believe the immigration-related parts of Bill C-12 should be evaluated. Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. I'll jump right into the controversial parts of the bill.

First, I'll say a few words on part 8, which eliminates the 14-day exception. Canada needs to treat asylum seekers fairly and humanely, but we have to make sure the system isn't abused. It's logical to eliminate, at least in domestic law, the incoherent 14-day rule introduced in the amended version of the safe third country agreement two years ago. Claimants should return to the U.S. to make their case for asylum protection if the government considers that the U.S. is indeed safe for asylum seekers. If the migrants refuse to do that, it is not unreasonable for the government to decide that they should be returned to their country of origin, following a pre-removal risk assessment. The 14-day loophole remains in the treaty with the U.S., but it should be rendered ineffective, and the proposed amendment is a simple and elegant way of doing this.

I'll continue with another amendment in part 8, specifically the one-year deadline. The one-year filing deadline has existed in the U.S. since the 1990s. To some extent, harmonization is inevitable if we're going to seriously engage in continental co-operation. It's still somewhat controversial for Canada to adopt this rule, given how much it's been criticized by refugee advocates over the years. In the U.S., the one-year period is calculated from the date of an individual's last arrival. I don't understand why we're proposing to calculate the one-year period from the date of the first arrival. Why import this controversial new rule and make it even stricter? At the very least, a small compromise would be to calculate from the last arrival date.

Having said that, there is a larger issue that deserves more attention. The concept of refugee sur place, promoted by UNHCR for decades, shouldn't be dismissed so easily. It's the expression used to highlight changed circumstances in the home country while the migrant is residing in another country. I think the committee should suggest the idea of inserting an explicit requirement to consider UNHCR's refugee sur place concept somehow alongside the pre-removal risk assessment.

I'll say a few words now on part 7 and the mass cancellation ability. There is little transparency, yet the decisions can have grave consequences. Perhaps some public debate and scrutiny could be encouraged by inserting an obligation to adopt some sort of declaration in Parliament, recognizing, for example, a specific crisis or a situation of massive fraud. In any case, I'd encourage the committee to think about a mechanism that creates parameters around the use of this new tool.

How would these powers actually be used? Would the government really cancel visas or permits for entire groups? Then, if the people didn't leave voluntarily, what would it do, mass removals? You can change the law, but ultimately it depends on your willingness to actually remove those who are present unlawfully. Given the track record to date, it seems unlikely that we would do this or be effective at it.

My last suggestion is this. Why not look at the problem from the other end? If we're deploying carrots and sticks, then the approach in part 7 is as if we're signalling that we might bring out the big stick. The other side of the strategy, the carrot, could be for the government to incentivize migrants to leave on their own. Perhaps this could be done by proposing financial aid to help them return home. This could be combined with future eligibility for legal residence if they do leave on their own.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Professor Barutciski.

Next, we have Mr. Bellissimo.

You have five minutes.

[Mario Bellissimo, Lawyer, Certified Specialist, Bellissimo Law Group Professional Corporation, As an Individual]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear again today.

Bill C-12, in my view, presents a meaningful opportunity to modernize Canada's immigration and refugee system while restoring balance, security, efficiency and fairness. Its aims of integrity, transparency and modernization are commendable. Such measures as removing the designated country of origin regime, expanding digital tools and improving cross-agency co-operation are positive and long overdue.

The committee, though, has received, as my co-panellist just mentioned, substantial testimony warning that certain provisions expand discretion without adequate safeguards, weakening parliamentary oversight—including the role of this committee. Undefined “public interest” cancellation powers are of particular concern. The 2012 federal skilled worker termination demonstrated the uncertainty such authorities can generate. The minister testified that public interest is deliberately undefined to preserve flexibility. No doubt flexibility has value, but without limits, extraordinary powers risk becoming unconstitutional.

Similar concerns arise with the ineligibility bars for over-delayed or trauma-affected claims. There are concerns with the expanded data-sharing authorities and with provisions preventing proceedings unless claimants or persons concerned are physically in Canada. We recommend, as set out in our brief today and in the brief we put before SECU, that those provisions require further study.

Now, even if these clauses are ultimately upheld, implementing them would require major operational changes. For example, for many failed refugee claimants—apart from those from moratorium countries, to list one exception—the only remaining pathway would be the PRRA, as we've heard. It's a process not at present designed to replace IRB adjudication. To even approach fairness, PRRA would require significant scaling, an independent unit, specialized training and enhanced protection. The committee may wish to ask IRCC to produce current PRRA volumes and processing times to evaluate whether the system could realistically absorb that shift.

Recent actions have lowered intake, but Bill C-12's eligibility bars, in our view, will not produce lasting volume change, and neither will broad cancellation powers. Canada has seen this cycle before. We've tried restrictive levers and short-term fixes, only to see pressures reappear in different forms.

The good news is that none of this is inevitable. Lasting modernization and security are achieved not through episodic cancellations or deterrents but though transparent, predictable intake management across the entire immigration and refugee system. A flexible expression of interest framework could better align admissions with processing capacity and real-time reporting, guided by labour market needs and absorptive indicators, including housing, health care and francophone integration, supported by modern digital tools. Even in such rights-based streams as family and humanitarian, EOI principles can help, not as selection tools but to manage intake fairly and prevent backlogs.

For refugees overseas, a more structured preregistration process supplementing current UNHCR referrals would enable earlier identification of at-risk populations and orderly, data-informed movement planning. It would also reduce reliance on dangerous irregular routes.

For those already in Canada, the IRB could adopt EOI-style management and a national scheduling model supported by Bill C-12's improved information sharing to link hearings to capacity throughout Canada and better identify vulnerable claimants more effectively, reducing adjournments and delays while improving fairness.

Our recommendations offer practical ways to advance modernization while avoiding new legal or operational risks. Certain provisions are not suited to quick amendment, in our view. To give full effect to the bill's aims, the committee may wish to recommend that complementary reforms, reported and already explored here at CIMM, be referred back for further study and broad consultation following SECU's review.

With thoughtful revision that builds on the positive elements of Bill C-12, the legislation can modernize the system in a way that strengthens border security, protects fundamental rights and enhances public confidence. Canada can achieve both security and fairness without compromise.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Bellissimo. You should be a politician; that's almost exactly five minutes.

Next, we have Ms. Tamjeedi please, for five minutes.

[Azadeh Tamjeedi, Senior Legal Officer, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today on Bill C-12.

As UNHCR, the UN agency serving refugees and asylum seekers in 134 countries and territories, providing technical advice on building a strong asylum system is an integral part of our advisory role.

As of June 2025, 117.3 million people were forced to flee their homes, with 71% being hosted by low- to middle-income countries. Closer to home, Canada, like many countries, has seen a rise in asylum claims amid increased global displacement. Ensuring a strong asylum system that can both quickly recognize those in need of protection and refuse those who do not meet the international definition of a refugee is an important goal of any asylum process. We recognize the challenges that this entails, but we fully believe that Canada can meet them in a way that ensures that the right to seek asylum is protected.

Regarding Bill C-12, UNHCR notes that many of the proposed changes depend on future regulatory amendments, and a full assessment will only be possible once the draft regulations are available. We welcome elements that reflect past UNHCR recommendations, such as streamlining eligibility processes and enabling earlier appointment of designated representatives for children and other vulnerable persons, both of which contribute to a stronger and more efficient asylum system.

At this time, UNHCR would like to focus its comments and recommendations on the new ineligibility provisions. One of the main changes under the proposed bill is that individuals found ineligible under the two new provisions would receive a pre-removal risk assessment, or PRRA. Like the Immigration and Refugee Board, or the IRB, the PRRA could grant refugee or protected person status. It was originally designed to be used prior to removal after someone has exhausted all their legal means in Canada, including a hearing before the IRB.

However, if the PRRA is used as a first assessment of an individual's asylum application, as this legislation proposes, it should incorporate safeguards to comply with international and domestic law.

First, UNHCR recommends that a mandatory hearing be added, to ensure an individual's right to be heard.

Second, we recommend that those deemed ineligible under these new provisions have the right to a full appeal at the refugee appeal division of the IRB, which would also stay their removal until the appeal is heard. This would minimize the risk of returning a person to a place where their life would be at risk if there was an error in the PRRA decision, and it would increase overall system efficiency.

The final recommendation is that individuals from countries that Canada does not deport to—so-called moratorium countries—be granted exceptions to the new ineligibilities. If the bill remains unchanged, when a person from a moratorium country, like Afghanistan, is deemed ineligible under one of these new provisions, they will not have their refugee application heard, and their case will remain in limbo. These are typically strong asylum claims, and they merit an opportunity to obtain refugee protection.

Moreover, certain individuals should be exempt from the one-year ineligibility bar, such as vulnerable persons and when there is a change in circumstances. This would allow for the specialized tribunal, the IRB, to handle more complex claims. UNHCR has long supported Canada's refugee adjudication model and the IRB. At the same time, we recognize that finding ways to increase efficiencies while upholding access to fair procedures is a legitimate objective.

We hope that Canada continues to be a champion for fast, fair and efficient asylum systems and to lead in an environment where other countries are closing the door on the principle of asylum. We have seen first-hand how the 1951 refugee convention on asylum has saved millions of lives in the past 74 years.

As this committee has heard, 61% of those who claim asylum in Canada are found to be refugees, meaning that they have fled dangerous situations and require Canada's protection. For this vital reason, UNHCR remains committed to working with the Canadian government and civil society to ensure that the new measures are implemented in a manner that provides protection to those who need it and builds a stronger system to face the challenges of the future.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you to all witnesses for the excellent testimony and for all the great recommendations.

We are going to begin our first round of six minutes.

We're going to begin with Mr. Ma for six minutes, please.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My questions will be addressed to Mr. Barutciski.

In a June 2025 article, you discussed the safe third country agreement component of what is now Bill C-12. You emphasized that harmonization of the Canadian system with the U.S. system is “the only way...to bring migration under control.” Can you expand on this harmonization point for the committee?

[Michael Barutciski]

I can expand a little bit, if you want. What I was referring to is that the dynamics of regional approaches to refugee protection are such that we can't have partner states with widely different standards. That's the problem for Canada, to the extent that the U.S. is perceived as having lower standards, and Canada is perceived as having higher standards.

What I'm pointing to is that we have to think about this difficult situation where, because of geography and history, we're forced to co-operate with the U.S. and figure out a way to have standards that are relatively going towards harmonization. That is what I was trying to suggest.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

What impact would that have for Canadian asylum seekers, in your opinion?

[Michael Barutciski]

I think my colleagues sort of referred to that, in a sense. A lot of the testimony you received was about the risk of the standards in Canada dropping so low that they maybe don't respect our charter obligations, for example. The challenge for all of us is to figure out how to harmonize to some extent while preserving our specific approach, and we try to maintain relatively high standards.

These issues are not unlike what the European Union has to go through: wide standards and then the consequences of not harmonizing to some extent. There are consequences we have to think about, and that's a bit of the dynamic we're stuck in.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

I also noticed, in the paper on the 1998 Kosovo refugee crisis and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees' supervisory role, that burden-sharing agreements are a recurring theme for solutions. Can you outline some of the best practices around burden-sharing agreements, especially as they apply to Canada's safe third country agreement and how this can help bring our asylum numbers under control?

[Michael Barutciski]

Burden sharing or responsibility sharing is what we're dealing with with the U.S. We're trying to avoid having asylum seekers make multiple claims. I think that's the motivation behind this. It's related to your first question. Standards have to be somewhat similar, but we have to be confident that we can partner with another state, such as the U.S. and maybe other states as well, for some testimony or some questioning to explore other states that Canada would inevitably have to partner with in terms of safe third country agreements.

The idea is that we can agree on standards that are reasonable for all of us and then try to manage forced migration in that sense. I think we are, in a sense, forced to. This is not the nice side of international refugee protection, but the reality is that we're going to have to collaborate, and these responsibility-sharing mechanisms are something we're inevitably going to have to look at more seriously in the future.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

You described that “Federal failures broke Canada's asylum system” in a January 2024 commentary published with Macdonald-Laurier Institute. You also mentioned the burden-sharing scheme in this commentary as a solution. Building upon that article, would you say that Bill C-12 is doing enough to fix the problem of the broken asylum system?

[Michael Barutciski]

I don't know that I was explicitly trying to push the idea of a broken system; I was trying to suggest that there are a lot of problems. We have to acknowledge those problems and learn lessons from them.

In terms of figuring out something with the U.S., I think Bill C-12, as I tried to explain a few minutes ago, is proposing what I see as exceptional measures, and I think that makes sense if we accept the idea that we are in an exceptional situation. There are various problems relating not just to asylum questions but to the immigration system more generally. I think this is a good try at bringing this. I think it signals very clearly that the government is trying to fix something. Politically, this is delicate, in the sense that we don't want to insist too much on how we got there, yet we do want to learn the lessons, but we want to co-operate and figure out the mechanisms that can make sure that what is being proposed is charter-compliant and fair towards different migrants who are affected.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

What more should we be doing in Bill C-12, then, under this burden-sharing lens?

[Michael Barutciski]

I'm not sure I see more that can be done. I think what is actually being proposed can be refined so that it's better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Professor Barutciski.

Next, we have six minutes for Mr. Zuberi.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'm going to focus my questions on Ms. Tamjeedi, or as they say in French, Maître Tamjeedi.

You mentioned a number of things in terms of some concrete suggestions on how Bill C-12 can be adjusted, in your expert opinion from UNHCR. You said that if PRRA is used, all claimants should have a hearing. That's number one. Number two is an appeal to the IRB. Number three is moratoriums. You had a commentary on moratoriums in terms of those who are covered under that.

Do you make those suggestions because of any international pacts or obligations that Canada has?

[Azadeh Tamjeedi]

I make them because, under international law, to assess whether someone is a refugee or not, states are required to give them a right to be heard.

If, for example, you're going to refuse someone, you should give them an opportunity to respond to your concerns. That is also in conformity with Canadian jurisprudence under the Singh decision, so that's under the mandatory hearing requirement. A full appeal right through the refugee appeal division of the IRB is also a right that has been enshrined in international law and norms.

On the moratorium countries, the reason we make that suggestion is that we saw, when Canada brought in amendments in 2019 that did a similar thing and gave PRRA applications to certain ineligible persons as a first-instance refugee status determination, that persons from those countries weren't getting assessed. They don't have an opportunity to get refugee protection. They don't have an opportunity to integrate, and they don't have an opportunity to bring their family over. Arguably, persons from those countries who are under a suspension of removal have strong claims. They're coming from places like Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, so they should have an opportunity to have their cases heard.

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

Thank you.

Can you tell us which international pacts and covenants you're referring to that Canada is a signatory to?

[Azadeh Tamjeedi]

There's the 1951 refugee convention and the optional protocol that Canada is a signatory to.

There are also other international covenants, like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that Canada is signatory to. These covenants and conventions inform how an asylum system should be built and the rights that should be given to individuals when they come to claim in Canada.

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

Certainly.

Mr. Bellissimo, I believe you mentioned that PRRA wasn't designed for the way we're using it right now or intending to use it.

Do you like these suggestions you heard just now, in order to adapt it to the way in which we're trying to use it in this new system under Bill C-12?