Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon. Welcome to meeting number 13 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Before I start off with a few reminders, I would like to warmly welcome students and guests from Tobago, who will be viewing part of our meeting today. I just want to say a warm welcome to all of you.

In terms of general comments and reminders, kindly wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Please do not speak over each other, as it will be hard for our translators to translate and it makes their job very difficult. Ensure that all your comments are addressed through the chair, and please raise your hand if you wish to speak. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

With that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on October 23, 2025, the committee is resuming its study of the subject matter 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.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses in our last panel on Bill C-12 for our last hour of study.

From the Canada Border Services Agency, with us is Aaron McCrorie, vice-president, intelligence and enforcement. From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Mr. Jason Hollmann, director general for asylum policy, and Tara Lang, director general for integrity policy and programs. From the Department of Justice, we have Karen Hamilton, senior counsel at IRCC legal services, and Anna Lillicrap, senior counsel at IRCC legal services.

I understand that it will be Mr. Hollmann who will be making an opening statement of up to five minutes, after which we will proceed to a round of questions.

Go ahead, Mr. Hollmann.

[Jason Hollmann, Director General, Asylum Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to appear and provide further information on the immigration measures in Bill C‑12, strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act.

Bill C-12 responds to challenges and potential challenges to the asylum system. Through new ineligibility provisions, Canada will deter misuse and prevent further surges in an already strained system.

The first ineligibility would apply to claims made more than one year after first entry into Canada. With recent changes to immigration levels planning, we know that some people were hoping to stay and may no longer have a pathway to do so. We want to discourage them from using the asylum system for that purpose.

The second ineligibility is for those who cross the border irregularly and make an asylum claim 14 days or more after entry. Claims after the 14 days effectively evade the safe third country agreement, which is designed to manage asylum claims across our shared border with the United States. This ineligibility safeguards Canada against future surges of claims.

Canada will continue to meet its legal obligations: those whose claims are found ineligible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board can access a pre-removal risk assessment.

In the risk assessment, trained officers review each case on its own merits. They use the same country condition information and—unless the applicant is inadmissible on serious grounds—the same grounds for protection.

In all cases, officers will assess if there's a serious credibility issue and, if so, an oral hearing will be held. Applicants can seek legal assistance and make submissions regarding the risks they face. New material can be provided for consideration until a decision is made.

Today's approval rates don't predict future decisions. For example, the majority of PRRA applications today are rejected because applicants have already been determined to not require protection by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Only new evidence is reviewed, so many cases stand by the original decision. These measures will alleviate some pressures on the strained Immigration and Refugee Board.

In addition to the ineligibilities, the legislation would improve the asylum system to address current inventories and reduce timelines. It removes bottlenecks and streamlines processes so that cases move as quickly as fairness allows.

Bill C‑12 also introduces new legislation to better manage immigration documents and applications, improve efficiency and reinforce the integrity of Canada's immigration system. It'll allow greater flexibility to respond quickly and responsibly in times of crisis or uncertainty.

To be clear, there is no particular set of circumstances where these authorities will be used, and the legislation does not predetermine scenarios for use. Rather, the authorities would be available for use against threats to Canada's national security, public health, ability to safely manage the flow of people coming into the country or other matters of public interest.

No immigration documents will be automatically cancelled as a result of this bill. The use of these authorities would require a separate cabinet process. The Governor in Council would determine if an intervention is in the public interest, based on all relevant considerations, including the impact on vulnerable populations. These authorities are limited to interventions on immigration documents and on the applications for those documents. The new authorities cannot be used to cancel asylum claims or to revoke people's status in Canada.

I welcome the committee's questions regarding the legislation and the immigration system. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Hollmann.

Now we will start our rounds of questions. The first round is six-minute questions, and we'll begin with Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

In 2012, former immigration minister Jason Kenney used one-time legislation in the 2012 budget to cancel specific applications. Why does the government need the powers outlined in this bill for applications? Why couldn't you just put it in a piece of legislation?

[Tara Lang, Director General, Integrity Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Currently, no authorities exist to cancel applications en masse. The 2012 federal skilled worker inventory elimination was accomplished through legislative amendments to—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

That's right, but why couldn't you just do a piece of legislation?

[Tara Lang]

It doesn't allow for the flexibility to define the public interest, as well as—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Okay, so, you, as the bureaucracy, want to be able to determine that without going through Parliament.

[Tara Lang]

No. The policy intent is to be able to quickly respond to emergencies, crises and health issues.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Why didn't you define what public interest means in the legislation, then?

[Tara Lang]

It's because there are so many potential instances. That's why we were trying to say health, security—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Why isn't that defined in the legislation?

[Tara Lang]

It would too closely restrict us to only being able to apply a recommendation to the OIC in—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

It's a fairly big devolution of power to the bureaucracy from Parliament. I'm trying to understand because there hasn't been an instance given by you or the minister of where that would be used or why that couldn't be achieved by legislation.

[Tara Lang]

May I offer some examples? Thank you.

It quickly facilitates the extensions or stay for temporary residents in Canada following a significant natural disaster. When intelligence is received from security partners, if there's a suspected specific threat of foreign interference, electoral interference or espionage, we could pause any applications in that process.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Why didn't you include a report to Parliament as part of the use of these powers?

[Tara Lang]

We were trying to clearly indicate that there is no one clear path for the use of these powers.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Except for legislation...which has been used before.

[Tara Lang]

That's right. It is a very defined portion of a one-time elimination of a backlog. It doesn't involve applications or documents.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Okay, so it's the backlog. We've now gotten to the heart of the matter.

Did you guys include this because the backlog is so big and you need to kind of...a little bit?

[Tara Lang]

This is exactly why we didn't go with one-time legislation, such as what was done in 2012 with former minister Kenney. That was a one-time elimination of a backlog. The intention of this has nothing to do with backlogs.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

You just talked about backlogs. Would you ever use it to clear a backlog?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

The witness has wanted to offer a full statement. I'm not sure that she's had the opportunity to do that on a few occasions here. Let's just allow for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Please let her answer the question.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

That's not a point of order. Thank you.

I'll ask again. You brought up the point of backlogs. I'm trying to figure out why I should support this. I'm on the fence, honestly, because it's a big devolution of powers. We've had a lot of witnesses say that I shouldn't. I need you to convince me, because the department has messed up. You guys have said that there's fraud. There's a huge backlog. We all get casework. Now you're telling me that I should give my powers as a legislator to you without any report to Parliament. Why should I trust you?