Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

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

I think you do. I think, if you look through it, you do.

I don't think you guys have made the case, and that concerns me. I feel like you guys are hiding something. The fact that you haven't defined the powers, that there's no reporting requirement.... I think you guys kind of swung and missed on this one a bit. I would encourage you to try to rectify that in the 48 hours that we have before we have to start amending this bill, because you haven't satisfied me, as a legislator. I think there are other people on this committee who feel the same way, across party stripes.

We don't trust you, so we need to have.... You said that there are checks and balances in this legislation. I don't think there are enough. I'll leave it at that.

Did you provide any advice to the minister on any other measures to reduce incentives to abuse the asylum system, measures that weren't included in this bill?

[Jason Hollmann]

I can't comment on advice to the minister.

We're here to talk about the measures that are being studied by the committee. We look at how the system—

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

You can, though. Actually, that's a valid question for the committee to ask.

Did you provide any advice to the minister, yes or no, on ways to reduce the abuse of the asylum system, ways that aren't included in this bill?

[Jason Hollmann]

We look at the system all the time in terms of how it is working and what we can do to improve it, whether that's procedural—

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

What's not included in this bill that could reduce the incentives?

How about, let's say, restricting the access to federal benefits to emergency health care for failed asylum claimants? Would that reduce the incentives to abuse the system?

[Jason Hollmann]

There are many things that could be explored. There are also pros and cons to each of those. Individuals, such as failed claimants who are here and potentially subject to challenges with removal, may find themselves in health emergency situations and require support.

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

That's what I said: emergency benefits.

What about the pre-removal risk assessment process? Did you recommend limiting pre-removal risk assessment appeals or new pre-removal risk assessments to when there's substantive, new, circumstantial change?

[Jason Hollmann]

The pre-removal risk assessment process—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Be very quick. You have 15 seconds.

[Jason Hollmann]

—for those who already have had an Immigration and Refugee Board decision, only looks at new evidence that has occurred since—

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

Like what...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Ms. Rempel Garner, I'm sorry. That is time.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

We have to go to Ms. Sodhi.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be splitting my time with my colleague, MP Fragiskatos.

My first question is for you, Ms. Lang, and it's with regard to the pre-removal risk assessment.

Has IRCC considered strengthening the PRRA process, for example, by guaranteeing access to hearing? How is the department preparing for potential backlogs or bottlenecks resulting from these new ineligibilities?

[Tara Lang]

I'll actually pass it to my colleague, Mr. Hollmann.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[Jason Hollmann]

The department is trying to ramp up operational preparedness. We are looking at making sure we can move forward in delivering the pre-removal risk assessments as quickly as possible with trained officers, increasing the level of training that we're offering and being positioned to make sure that we can move forward quickly, should the bill pass.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you for your answer.

At this committee, we've also heard concerns that allowing the Governor in Council to cancel immigration documents in bulk goes too far, especially with public interest not clearly defined.

How do you respond to these concerns, and why does IRCC believe that this level of flexibility is necessary?

[Tara Lang]

As mentioned before, public interest is intentionally not defined in the legislation to allow maximum flexibility for the Government of Canada to respond in a range of unforeseen circumstances that threaten the public interest. The intent is to protect the public interest—including the integrity of our immigration system; the safety, security and health of Canadians; and the security of our border—or to respond to large-scale emergencies and other foreseen circumstances. These are meant to be used exceptionally when needed and are not planned.

An example might include a pandemic, where the government may want to suspend visas for clients abroad in order to pause travel to Canada and protect Canadian public health. The suspension can then be lifted, for example, after the risk subsides or after clients provide evidence of a vaccine or a health test.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I have about 30 seconds.

Witnesses have also told this committee that the PRRA process is less thorough than the IRB process and often doesn't include the opportunity to plead their case in person. Can you explain why IRCC considers the PRRA process a reasonable alternative for those who would be ineligible to make an asylum claim under Bill C-12?

[Jason Hollmann]

As I explained, in our perspective, the PRRA process is a robust process. It has been around for about 20 years. It has been subject to court challenges in the past. I think the rate of cases that are failed PRRA cases that go to the federal court and are sent back for redetermination is only about 5%.

In our view, officers do look at the same protection factors. They receive significant guidance and training in order to do that. Clients have access to legal representation, and they look at the same country conditions as the IRB process. We do offer the ability to have a hearing. It happens in cases of significant credibility where the decision may hinge on an individual's circumstances or story. Otherwise, the paper-based process is an efficient process.

As I mentioned earlier, country circumstances and the level of state protection may allow for an easy “yes” decision or, on reviewing an application and an individual's file, it may be straightforward to know that there's an internal flight alternative for that individual resulting in a negative decision.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you to officials for appearing. I do trust you, and I think we all do around the table, although there might be some exceptions on certain points. Thank you for the work that you do.

In my experience, officials, like politicians, are loath to give hypotheticals, but this would be an exception.

Can you give another example, Ms. Lang, on this point about cancellation of documents where you and the government believe that this would be relevant?

[Tara Lang]

A cybersecurity attack, where a vast number of fraudulent immigration documents are issued in the system, could potentially require a mass cancellation of the documents to ensure that nefarious actors cannot use them to travel to Canada. Where large-scale fraud trends were to be observed, these authorities could also be used to cancel or suspend documents and applications for documents based on known fraud indicators. Such actions would not be country-based and are grounded in objective indicators linked to fraud.

These authorities can also be used to change conditions on temporary residents in Canada to respond to social or economic matters that concern the public interest. For example, IRCC could modify temporary residents' authorized length of stay or change employer-specific work permits to open work permits, allowing persons to work in different locations and fields across Canada where there is an increased public interest demand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Lang.

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Just because we have limited time left, with everyone's permission, I'll give four minutes to Mr. Menegakis, four minutes to Mr. Fragiskatos and one minute and a half to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Go ahead, Mr. Menegakis.