Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 18th, 2025

[Mario Bellissimo]

I think there are a couple of things there. One, we have to be careful that we're not overcorrecting for a temporary intake. Refugee intake is down. The overall volume in Canada is down because of the measures the government has already taken.

The measures that my colleague is suggesting would go towards charter compliance. However, in my view, you already have an expert tribunal that is performing those functions. For the most part, as we talked about, with better management principles, better identifying of vulnerable claimants and some of the enhancements that Bill C-12 hands the IRB, there's no need to reinvent the wheel. Leave it where it is, because that's where I think we will achieve the greatest efficiencies.

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

You speak about better management techniques within the existing system. Do you want to concretely outline what those are?

[Mario Bellissimo]

I think Bill C-12 creates an informational journey that is much stronger than what exists. What the IRB is going to be receiving is stronger. If you leverage those expression of interest principles we talked about—the intake and the capacity management based on scheduling no matter where a member might be in Canada—you get that hearing going and you better identify vulnerable claimants, so you triage those cases faster. On the flip side, for the cases that are weaker, you triage them out faster.

With those tools, with what Bill C-12 is equipped with potentially—and again, I know the details will be in the regulations, but it sounds encouraging—I think you might see quite a positive outcome that I think CIMM should recommend be seen, and not overcorrect on a process where you'll have to scale, train officers and create an independent unit. In my view, it's quite expensive and you might create a larger backlog. PRRAs are already taking a long time. If you're now going to place that administrative burden or capacity burden on PRRA, I think we're working backwards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

You have 30 seconds.

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

Ms. Tamjeedi, I'll leave 30 seconds to you.

[Azadeh Tamjeedi]

As my colleague mentioned, the PRRA has been designed for the back end of the process.

I will say that there is always going to be a backlog in an asylum system. No asylum system is perfect and goes down to zero. It's a question of managing that backlog. How do you manage that backlog? You create triaging systems. You create accelerated processes and different ways of deciding a case that will help you figure out which ones can be decided on faster and which ones require a bit more time to study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Ms. Tamjeedi.

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses.

Ms. Tamjeedi, would the current version of Bill C‑12 violate the international convention agreements Canada has signed? If so, how?

[Azadeh Tamjeedi]

Thank you very much for the question.

If you don't mind, I'll answer in English.

I will note that there are regulations that have to be drafted and that we have not seen. It's hard to make a full assessment of the legislation without seeing those regulations, but the minimum standards we have outlined here today in terms of the amendments will bring the bill in line with international law and international norms regarding refugee status determination.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I'd like to ask you the same question, Mr. Barutciski.

[Michael Barutciski]

The problem is the way the bill is going to be used, not the bill itself. For the moment, we don't know how it'll be used. That's the issue, in my opinion.

That said, the minister and Governor in Council are being given very broad powers, which could be of concern. That's why we're talking about parameters, so that the decisions being made are subject to controls. I think that's where the problem lies.

We also have to try to avoid potential violations. I don't think we can say, for the moment, that the amendments are not in line with our international obligations.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

You talked earlier about harmonizing our system with those of partner countries, mainly the U.S.'s.

However, when a country like the U.S. makes considerable changes to its refugee acceptance measures, to the point where they might be in breach of international rules, how do we adapt our own rules?

[Michael Barutciski]

U.S. laws are still the same, for the moment.

The government's policies might change, but the directives, the orders coming from the White House have certainly changed over the past few years and months. Obviously, if U.S. laws change, then the way asylum seekers are treated could be very problematic with respect to international standards. We would have to rethink our co-operation with the U.S., but that's part of our system, anyway. We constantly have to review the situation to make sure the safe third country agreement Canada signed doesn't violate international law.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

My next question is for Ms. Tamjeedi, but the other witnesses can also answer. Public opinion on immigration in general, but also on asylum seekers, is increasingly negative. The debate is very polarized, even politicized, since the issue is often exploited for partisan or political purposes.

That said, back when he was immigration minister, Mr. Miller, alongside provincial ministers, announced with much fanfare the creation of a committee tasked with distributing asylum seekers across the country according to each province's demographic weight. That was the last time we heard anything about the committee, despite the fact that the idea was put forward by the immigration minister and several provinces that take in many asylum seekers, such as Quebec and Ontario.

Do you think this idea should have been included in Bill C‑12? Could the government defend its decision, from an international standpoint, to distribute asylum seekers among provinces regardless of which province they arrived in?

[Azadeh Tamjeedi]

I will state that there are nations that do distribute and relocate asylum seekers to different parts of the country, depending on their own policies. It is possible to do that in legislation and regulations or any other way that Canada decides to do so.

For UNHCR, the important thing is that we would prefer that this relocation be voluntary and that it look at other good practices that we see internationally. For example, in Mexico and Brazil, we're seeing relocation programs where they look at the employment needs of different parts of the country, pair asylum seekers and refugees with employers for training, and relocate them based on that employment need. That way, individuals are able to integrate properly in a different part of the country while they go through their process, and they're able to settle better once they get a decision on their case, if they get a positive decision.

[Michael Barutciski]

A year ago, I wrote an op-ed in La Presse on this topic.

I'd like to build on my colleague's comments, and say that it would be preferable if transfers were voluntary, but not necessary. We have to be realistic, and see what other countries are doing.

That said, your question is whether this proposal should be included in Bill C‑12. I think it's a policy issue that can be negotiated separately from the bill. The bill already has complex elements. I see no need to add an element that could be politically controversial, as you know.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I understand.

I just wanted to point out that the public's perception would probably improve if provinces that take in asylum seekers, as compared with those that don't, took in only their share, as per their demographic weight.

What you're saying is that this proposal shouldn't be included in Bill C‑12, given what's already in there. It should be separate.

[Michael Barutciski]

I totally agree with you on the public's perception.

In order for people to know that the situation is well managed and under control, I think that in certain parts of the country—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, but that is time, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Next, we go to five-minute rounds.

We'll start with Mr. Davies for five minutes.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. This has been very informative for me.

In my riding in the Niagara region—I can see by the reaction that you can tell where I'm going with this—we had a number of asylum seekers who took up a good portion of the hotels in Niagara Falls for 16 months. In fact, they took up the key hotels in the tourist area and put a significant strain not only on the tourism sector but on the educational sector, the health care sector and schools. The burden on the public education system was incredible.

This is a question for Mr. Barutciski.

Can you give me your opinion on the impact of this? Would you agree that we cannot continue to operate in that sort of atmosphere in any circumstance in the future, regardless of what this bill does?

[Michael Barutciski]

I think this is a good continuation of what Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe was talking about. We do need to think seriously about responsibility sharing within the federation. If a region is impacted disproportionately or if the government decides to resettle in certain areas, obviously that poses problems for the host community.

Quebec had another kind of problem, in that people were arriving initially there and then transferring, maybe without consent, to a particular region and creating problems in that region. This is obviously a problem, and it affects public opinion. I think part of the reason we're here is that we did not manage this politically very well. I don't think there's a legislative solution to this. It's a political problem that needs to be handled more effectively and more seriously—if we even took this seriously up to now.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

CBSA's recent departmental results found that the agency continued to miss key performance targets and had a lack of follow-through. The government has promised to hire 1,000 new CBSA officers. I was speaking in the House today about the problem with CBSA. One thousand new officers are a drop in the bucket of what is actually needed across the board to manage not just asylum seekers but border issues across the country.

I think it was Mr. Bellissimo who said that the IRB would have a better-informed intake process through parts of this legislation, but I just learned, for example, that CBSA reduced its detention capacity by over 40%. Now, for people coming into the country seeking asylum, the CBSA is discouraging those who are deemed to be a difficult case to be put into the community. That, in and of itself, creates another burden for the Canadian taxpayer.

What impact do you think this would have on the judicial process that these people may be going through, having been discharged from a detention centre, as an asylum seeker, into the community? Does that complicate the process through which they would proceed in order to find a determination of admissibility?

Ms. Tamjeedi.

[Azadeh Tamjeedi]

I just want to highlight that the majority of asylum seekers are fleeing persecution. They are not the agents of persecution or subject to criminality. Less than 1% of foreign nationals are deemed inadmissible to Canada due to some kind of serious criminality. Asylum seekers make up a very small proportion of that.

We actually recommend alternatives to detention during the asylum process, because it enables asylum seekers to participate in the asylum system much more effectively when they're not detained—to obtain documents and evidence of the persecution back home and be able to file that in a timely manner.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

If the CBSA has actually reduced its detention capacity, in your experience, what would put somebody into a CBSA detention centre?

[Azadeh Tamjeedi]

It would be if it's flagged as a high-risk case where there's a security concern. A very small proportion of individuals who claim asylum would fit under that category.