Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 4th, 2026

[Audrey Macklin]

Okay. I'll jump in.

The trial judge in the Supreme Court of Canada case found that one litigant in particular had been subject to arbitrary detention, was at risk of removal to her country of origin and was detained in the United States in frigid conditions. There is actually a term for this in the United States: putting detainees in detention and then turning down the temperature. It's called, in Spanish, “the fridge”. The Supreme Court of Canada said this was probably not typical, it didn't happen all the time and there was no reason to think that asylum seekers were routinely detained.

On that basis, they concluded that the United States as a whole was not an unsafe place to seek or obtain refugee protection and, further, that there was no reason Canada ought to have known of perhaps exceptional circumstances and cases or anomalous events such as this. Canada said this about the United States in 2023, but that finding, of course, is only as stable as the facts upon which the finding is based. I hope that I don't have to persuade any of you who have been paying attention to what's happening in the United States that those things no longer apply.

I also want to emphasize that these are not just random events. In fact, one of the executive orders by President Trump imposes mandatory indefinite detention on people who are subject to what they call “expedited removal”, and within that category are people seeking asylum. This is dramatic change. It is automatic detention in abusive conditions for asylum seekers under expedited removal. That's a significant change.

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

Certainly.

In your initial five minutes, Professor Macklin, you mentioned that the United States is currently deporting people to countries like Sudan and other states.

Was that the case in 2023 when the Supreme Court opined, as you explained to us, that those third states were places people in the United States were being deported to?

[Audrey Macklin]

The short answer is no.

The longer answer is that under the first Trump administration, President Trump entered into agreements with three countries in Central America—I think it was Honduras and maybe El Salvador and Guatemala—to do something like this: third country removals of asylum seekers. Those agreements were swiftly undone when President Biden came into office and were no longer in force in 2023 when the Supreme Court of Canada made its decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Mr. Zuberi.

Thank you, Professor Macklin.

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here with us today.

I have helped people who have been subject to a removal order a number of times, even though they have been in the country for a long time. We sometimes manage to get them off the plane, literally. It's happened to me. In some cases, it took three, four or five years to process their asylum claim.

We often talk about the difficulty asylum seekers have in finding housing and accessing legal aid, as well as the difficulties related to funding for the organizations that look after them.

Instead of trying to put out fires all the time, shouldn't we be looking at processing times for asylum claims? Isn't that the crux of the problem, at the core?

If we managed to reduce those delays in order to reach a threshold that makes sense, wouldn't that solve a lot of problems?

[Eva Gracia-Turgeon]

Yes. That's a very good point.

Processing times are a major issue, including in the asylum process itself. Sometimes, there are not only processing delays for one party, but also a lot of things are postponed, such as the hearing. So there are a lot of changes at the last minute. These are all communicated through email as well. So there is a literacy issue at play, because not everyone is accustomed to using technology.

Beyond the delays, we can also talk about the difficulty in accessing justice and good representation. It's one of the problems faced by people you may have encountered on the ground who found themselves subject to a removal order. We see a lot of fraud. There are people who, having been unable to access legal aid, will go to less suitable representatives or who are simply not competent. They will send batches of documents and copied-and-pasted applications. In those cases, it's certain that the person will quickly be subject to a removal order, because they haven't been properly defended. It's much more costly to go back and fix things. You're aware of that.

So you're absolutely right, and those two things have to be taken into account at the same time.

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

You just raised the issue of immigration consultants, who are ultimately not governed by any rules. It's the wild west, and there's a lot of exploitation of people who are completely vulnerable. There are outright networks that are set up. So, even if we want to intervene, if false information has been provided by the consultant, we're left high and dry, and it becomes difficult to act.

However, the fact remains that the issue of delays is of great interest to me, because I think it could really be a game changer, as my friends on this side of the Ottawa River say. Often, the context can change. If a person makes an asylum claim, which is processed four years later, perhaps the problematic situation that led them to flee their country no longer exists. Conversely, a person may no longer be able to return to their country since they arrived, because the context has changed.

Doesn't that clearly show the relevance of asking the federal government to make investments to quickly and radically reduce processing times for asylum claims?

[Eva Gracia-Turgeon]

Absolutely. This is certainly a request that the sector has been making for some time, and our colleague Ms. Macklin could probably comment on that as well. Indeed, the longer the delays, the greater the chance that the situation will change, that more work will have to be done on the person's file and that the person will simply have to adapt to a new reality. That's for sure.

In addition, this also applies to other processing times. We're talking about asylum claims right now, but we also mentioned processing times for work permit applications. In Quebec, in 2024, when the wait time was much more reasonable—two months—we saw a 60% reduction in social assistance claims from asylum seekers. So people aren't there to beg.

People want to work and be independent. Obviously, what they want is faster processing times. The feeling of helplessness and waiting is the worst feeling for asylum seekers.

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

In your opening remarks, you proposed that the federal government, the provinces and Quebec share the bill for asylum claims.

Is that right?

[Eva Gracia-Turgeon]

I was talking about legal aid.

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

Okay.

We know that international conventions are signed by the federal government alone and that asylum seekers and refugees fall strictly under federal jurisdiction. I don't see why the provinces, which depend on the federal government's signature, should foot a bill that ultimately falls to the federal government. The federal government is the sole responsible party. I don't know whether you agree. This proposal relates to yours.

I would also like to hear your comments on the distribution of asylum seekers across Canada. Some provinces really aren't pulling their weight, compared to Ontario and Quebec, for example.

[Eva Gracia-Turgeon]

First, concerning the division of costs between the provinces and the federal government, I would say that this is already somewhat the case in practice, even if it isn't in theory. The federal government must indeed meet these needs. However, last year, the funding fell $10 million short of the actual cost of legal aid services across Canada. The provinces then cover these additional costs. This is happening because a need exists. This shows that access to better representation up front helps to avoid issues down the line, as we say.

Lastly, a clearer agreement on this topic, which both parties would understand, could help to provide better services and proper legal representation up front. Unfortunately, this isn't happening right now. This may also be one reason why—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Sorry, but time's up.

Thank you, Ms. Gracia‑Turgeon and Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe.

Next we have five-minute rounds. We're going to start with Mr. Ho for five minutes.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My questions are for the team at The Refugee Centre from Montreal.

If I'm not mistaken, your agency is funded by federal dollars. Is that correct?

[Alina Murad]

No, we actually diversify our funding. We have private funding, as well as grants from private foundations.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Do you have some government funding as well, or is it mostly or all private funding?

[Eva Gracia-Turgeon]

We have some federal funding, but it's absolutely not the majority.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Okay.

Your agency has been around since 2015. Is that correct? Have you seen an increase in the number of refugees you've been serving in that time frame? Has there been a spike in any of those years?

[Alina Murad]

I've been at the centre for four and a half years, and I would say the influx we see is fairly steady. The only thing I have noticed is that when policies change in either the U.S. or other countries of origin, or if a political situation changes in the countries of origin, we tend to see a demographic shift with that.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Do you track employment outcomes in your agency? What are the success rates in six months or 12 months, or whatever metric you use to track employment outcomes?

[Alina Murad]

The tracking is relatively new. We have a sector within our centre that pairs refugee claimants with employment. Of course, the main goal is to make sure that people are autonomous and self-sustaining. I would say that typically, we are able to match refugees and empower them to get employment within six to 12 months. It's a large range, but as I said, the tracking is fairly new.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

What percentage would not be able to find employment within six to 12 months?

[Alina Murad]

It's a very small percentage. I would say it's under 10%.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

What about official language proficiency? What are you seeing in terms of those rates coming out of your centre?

[Alina Murad]

It depends on the demographic. Of course, Haitians come knowing French. There are potentially some literacy issues at that end, but they are very easily solvable.

When it comes to being based in Quebec, French is the language that refugee claimants need to learn. There are provincial classes for French, but the wait times are quite long. They go past six months.

At the centre, we provide both English and French classes. I would say the majority of our clients, if not all, speak both languages.