Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 18th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Davies and thank you, Ms. Tamjeedi.

Now we go to Ms. Zahid for five minutes.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

Thanks to the witnesses for coming today.

My first question is for Madame Tamjeedi.

You raised concerns in your opening remarks about the pre-removal risk assessment process and the fact that it does not include an in-person hearing for the claimant to make their case. Could you discuss the difference between an in-person hearing and one that is conducted on paper? How could the government create a process that meets its desire for an efficient process while still meeting our obligations under international treaties and ensuring procedural fairness for the claimant?

[Azadeh Tamjeedi]

A hearing gives the claimant an opportunity to respond to questions from an interviewer. It gives them an opportunity to validate their case and give evidence. Their testimony is part of their evidence. With the paper-based process, you won't get that type of evidence. You will just get bits and pieces of paper from an asylum seeker that may or may not show what they're claiming and why they're fleeing persecution.

It's important to remember that oftentimes asylum seekers don't have a lot of documentation. They are fleeing situations where they were at risk and they don't have time to pick up papers and leave. If you're fleeing a burning house, you don't have a lot of papers with you.

A hearing gives them an opportunity to give that in-person evidence as sworn testimony, and it gives them the opportunity to answer any concerns that a decision-maker would have about their claim.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

Can you give us some examples? Like, for some refugees coming from countries where there is moratorium or they cannot go back, how would that affect not having the chance for the in-person hearing?

[Azadeh Tamjeedi]

People from moratorium countries would never even get an assessment of their refugee claim if this legislation remains as is. Because the pre-removal risk assessment was designed as a process to be done at the end of someone's journey in Canada, they will not get that pre-removal risk assessment unless they get a removal order. Because there's a suspension on removals from their country, they will never get that assessment.

That's why we're asking that those individuals be granted an exception to this legislation, so they could have a chance to get a decision on their refugee claim. If they could get a decision on their refugee claim, then they would be able to apply for permanent residence, if they are accepted, and include any family members they wish to bring over to Canada, so they could integrate and continue their lives.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

You also mentioned in your opening remarks the right to full appeal. Can you elaborate on why that process is important?

[Azadeh Tamjeedi]

Currently, as this legislation stands, the only appeal that someone would have would be at the Federal Court, and what the Federal Court will be doing is not reassessing the decision or the case but looking at whether that decision was reasonable. They will not be interviewing the asylum seeker again. They will only look at paper-based arguments that are submitted by counsel. If they're granted the right to do that judicial review, the counsel will be able to make arguments in person.

A full appeal allows a decision-maker to re-evaluate the full case, and it allows a decision-maker to also call a hearing if need be. It's a good check on the pre-removal risk assessment process, and it's also a good way to distribute efficiencies within the system. This way, you're not sending a huge number of cases to the Federal Court, which already gets quite a few immigration-related cases, and you're ensuring that the refugee appeal division, which does have capacity, can look at those appeals.

Moreover, we recommend that people have a stay of removal when they are doing their first appeal after a first decision. You are eliminating the risk of them being returned to persecution. Under the current legislation, that stay of removal does not exist for people going through a pre-removal risk assessment, so you risk a chance that you would have an erroneous decision made by a decision-maker that would send someone back to a country where they may face risk. It's better to have that full appeal right up at the front, and then the whole system will have efficiencies further down the road.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

Canada has committed to having an orderly and managed immigration system. What are the UNHCR's best practices or recommendations for managing sudden surges in asylum claims or irregular border crossings in a manner that balances national security and system sustainability with our international humanitarian commitments?

[Azadeh Tamjeedi]

I would say it's flexibility. Make sure that your systems are flexible, that they have different triaging models and that you are able to also shift around personnel to be able to address increases in volume.

I will say this. I think Canada can manage this, and it has managed this in the past when we've seen increases at the border. It's been able to shift, for example, CBSA personnel from the west coast to the east coast to manage those increases. Canada has also done contingency planning to be able to respond to those increases. This includes the one-touch system as well, which I think has been able to create a system that's a bit more flexible to ensure that the CBSA can manage an increase in claims. The majority of people going through the one-touch program are identified as low-risk cases. If there's criminality identified, they are not going through the one-touch program; they're going through a longer, more elaborate process at the border.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much. That is time.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

The Bloc Québécois always gets less time.

Ms. Tamjeedi, according to several migrant advocacy groups, several refugee centres and Amnesty International, the current version of Bill C‑12 would greatly limit the rights of asylum seekers.

What is the UNHCR's position on the matter?

[Azadeh Tamjeedi]

UNHCR really is a body that's there to look at the minimum standards for an asylum claim and refugee status determination system. Canada has long had a gold standard in its refugee status determination process. We often use Canada as an example to other countries in the world on how to properly assess whether someone is a refugee or not.

For this legislation, the advice that I'm giving in terms of the recommendations that we are proposing to you today is to bring that legislation in line with the international minimum standards. It's up to Canada to decide if it wants to go beyond that or not.

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

Mr. Barutciski, migrant advocacy groups are saying that, if passed, Bill C‑12 would greatly limit the rights of asylum seekers. What do you think?

[Michael Barutciski]

Migrant advocacy groups will undoubtedly criticize any government proposal. They've done it before, they'll do it again. It's somewhat their job. They have to make sure standards are as high as they can be.

As was just said, Canada needs to decide what it wants to do about these standards. Yes, Canada may be limiting those rights and opening the door to quicker decisions, which is raising some issues.

Without a doubt, associations will be against it, but they'll continue to express their opposition, as they've always done.

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

Mr. Bellissimo, do you, as an immigration lawyer, think Bill C‑12 will free up the Immigration and Refugee Board or clog it up?

[Mario Bellissimo]

Absolutely. I think it is an overcorrection. Despite debating minimum or gold standards, ultimately you're taking legal and operational risks at a time when the Federal Court is incredibly backlogged. To me, it's an inopportune time to test something like this. I think it's best to talk about the efficiencies. You already see all of the unintended consequences, like moratorium countries and people under removal orders who will now need to go for stays while they're waiting to go to a PRRA.

In my view, there are other ways to gate it based on the recommendations we made. There's no need to get into constitutional quagmires right now. Let's stay focused on processing efficiencies using the great parts of Bill C-12 to move this all forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Bellissimo.

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe.

I always give you additional time. I think you know that.

We are left with three and a half minutes each for Mr. Menegakis and Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

First of all, thanks to all of you for appearing before us today.

Mr. Barutciski, I have a question for you. Do you believe that Bill C-12 will be challenged in the courts?

[Michael Barutciski]

As I just said to Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe, I have no doubt that it will be challenged. Regardless of what you do and what amendments you propose, it will be challenged. There is no question in my mind.

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

Do you think it will survive a court challenge?

[Michael Barutciski]

That, I am not too sure about. We have had situations like this in the past. I am thinking particularly of the big decision from the Supreme Court on the safe third country agreement, where all the associations and all the academics—everyone—were trying to prepare big files, and we had a unanimous decision telling us that the U.S. is safe for asylum seekers.

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

We are talking about people here who are fleeing persecution in other countries and so forth.

We've heard testimony in this committee recently that it will take almost four years to clear up the asylum backlog with no new additional applications, which is not reality. Every day we get applications. We've also heard testimony that Bill C-12 would make the process less fair, more costly and longer.

In your view, do you think this bill will clear the backlogs? They're talking about mass cancellations and all kinds of stuff here.

[Michael Barutciski]

If we think that the situation is not that exceptional, then we shouldn't overcorrect. If we think that the country cannot normalize six-digit numbers—100,000-plus asylum seekers per year—if that's the new norm, I don't think we'll.... It's a lot. It stands out if we look at the last couple of decades in Canada. I think it's very difficult to actually deal with that backlog with those kinds of numbers, which I would say are not comparable with those of all our ally states per capita. Actually, in absolute terms, they're getting close to the top.

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

We've also heard testimony about the one-touch system. With that system, Mr. Barutciski, as you know, if you pass the initial biometrics and the questions you're asked, then you have up to 45 days to provide the rest of the information.

Do you not think this lends itself to the possibility of allowing people who have criminal backgrounds to come into the country and into our communities in 45 days?

[Michael Barutciski]

Of course there's a risk there. I would hope that the security screening is very serious.