Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[Jason Hollmann]

I can respond on the first piece.

Effectively, the measures are designed to help deter people who might be looking to misuse the system. Changing the measure to most recent entry may not serve that deterrent effect, in part because people may look to leave the country quickly in order to reset the clock and come back, potentially by using the land border with the United States and coming right back again. We may not see the deterrent value or the operational impact of the measure.

The legislation does allow for the creation of exceptions at the regulatory stage. Those affected by the moratorium countries are in a group affected by the pre-removal risk assessment process today. Those individuals, while they may not trigger a pre-removal risk assessment until their removal, are in Canada and safe from the persecution they are claiming to be facing. They will receive a work permit and interim federal health care while they're here, and as soon as country conditions improve, they would get access to the PRRA, which would proceed with the determination.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

We've gone way past, but thank you so much, 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 thank the witnesses for being with us today. I'll start with the officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC.

Many critics of your bill come from migrant advocacy groups, such as Amnesty International, the Refugee Centre, and so on. They tell us that Bill C‑12 will restrict the rights of asylum seekers if it is implemented as currently drafted.

How do you respond to those criticisms?

[Jason Hollmann]

Thank you for the question.

The ineligibility measures that are largely being commented on are designed in large part to prevent misuse of the system. That said, we do want to make sure Canada fulfills the protection obligations that we have, and that is part of the reason we are ensuring people get access to the pre-removal risk assessment prior to being subject to removal.

That assessment process—I know questions have come up—effectively looks at the same protection definitions as the IRB process. It does have a lot of guidance and training, which are provided to the officers who are doing those assessments. They look at the same country conditions that are being explored. They use hearings when credibility of the client is at the root of the decision. The paper-based process allows for us to look at certain situations where people might be facing an easy “yes”. For example, they look at the country conditions that might be being experienced, and it might be easy to determine that somebody should warrant protection. There is a robust process there that has stood up to court challenges as well.

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

I get the impression that the pre-removal risk assessment is widely used to justify Bill C‑12, at least in your area.

What is the percentage of people who have gone through a pre-removal risk assessment and are able to stay in Canada?

[Jason Hollmann]

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, it's difficult to compare the approval rate today with what the approval rate will be for the new group. In large part, the majority of people today—

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

The question was simple: What is the percentage of pre-removal risk assessment cases that currently remain in the country?

[Jason Hollmann]

The approval rate today for those who are subject to the pre-removal risk assessment is 14%. However, the majority of those are people who have already gone through the—

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

So it's 14%. Some people told us that it was between 6% and 14%, depending on the situation. Let's say it's around 10%.

So what you're telling me is that things will change with the implementation of Bill C‑12 and that many more people will obtain a permit to stay following a post-removal risk assessment, because they won't have been able to file their asylum claim.

Is that what you're telling me?

[Jason Hollmann]

We expect that the approval rate will go up because they would be getting their full determination.

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

My understanding is that it won't change anything, since, at the end of the day, the person won't be able to make a claim for asylum, and they will remain in the country after the pre-removal risk assessment.

So what difference does it actually make?

[Jason Hollmann]

The measures are designed in part to avoid sending claims to an already overburdened Immigration and Refugee Board, which has significant inventories today. The pre-removal risk assessment process offers—

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

I understand—

[Jason Hollmann]

—an approach to protection that meets our obligations.

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

I understand, but—

[Jason Hollmann]

It is a faster mechanism.

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

Let me stop you there.

I understand what you're telling me, but you're telling the committee that it will no longer be IRCC officers who process asylum claims and that it will instead be the people responsible for pre-removal risk assessments. Forgive me for saying it this way, but I understand that it will change absolutely nothing. You just explained it to us. As the saying goes, we're going to rob Peter to pay Paul. At the end of the day, the applications are going to be processed somewhere else anyway.

I have questions for the official from the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA. At the last committee meeting, we heard from the president of the Customs and Immigration Union, who told us that, oddly enough, Bill C‑12 doesn't include the additional powers that the union had long been asking for, such as patrolling outside border crossings. He told us that this power would be very beneficial for the members of the union. Also, it's a purely administrative change. We don't even need to vote on a bill. You could deal with it right now.

How is it that this hasn't yet been done?

[Aaron McCrorie]

What it boils down to is that we have, I would argue, a very effective system in Canada. We have our colleagues in the RCMP who are responsible for patrolling between ports of entry, and we're focused at ports of entry. Our border services officers do a very good job at those ports of entry. They're very focused and they're dealing with lots of work there. Our colleagues in the RCMP are doing the same thing.

I'm not sure what the benefit would be of taking our officers away from a port of entry and having them duplicate what the RCMP is already doing.

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

So you're saying that one of the main demands of the Customs and Immigration Union and its members is pointless and shouldn't even be heard. Okay.

In addition, the union president told us that if Bill C‑12 were implemented now, there wouldn't be the necessary staff to implement it. Do you agree with him?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

That's your time, but Mr. McCrorie can give a quick answer.

[Aaron McCrorie]

I don't agree. That's also why I don't want border services officers patrolling between the ports of entry. We want them applied to the work we currently have and focused on those efforts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Mr. McCrorie.

Now we'll move to five-minute rounds.

To remind the witnesses, if you want to respond, get right on it, because we have lots of questions in a very short period of time. Don't wonder who wants to go—just whip right on in there.

First up is Mr. Redekopp for five minutes.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. McCrorie, carrying on with this point, Mr. Weber essentially said the one-touch system is a “terrible” system. You seem to have a different opinion.

Was he lying? Where's the misunderstanding?

[Aaron McCrorie]

I don't think he's lying. One of the things that really impress me about the one-touch system is that, as I noted, it was developed based on the recommendations of frontline staff who are dealing with the issues at the port of entry.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

And yet the union leader is telling me that it's a terrible system.