Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 9th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Good Monday morning, everyone. I call this meeting to order.

I want to welcome everyone to meeting number 23 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I'm obliged to make a few comments for the benefit of our witnesses and as a reminder to all of our members.

We don't have anybody joining us virtually. Everybody who is going to be part of our session today is here in person.

For all of those who are witnesses, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel, whether English or French, depending on how you would like to listen in. I believe it's only Madame Brassard who has five minutes, but for any of the questions and for everyone else, I will let you know when you have one minute left in your response time.

As always, kindly wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. I will remind everyone not to speak over each other, as it will be hard for our interpreters to interpret. It makes their job very difficult.

All comments and questions should be addressed through the chair.

Members, please remember to raise your hand if you wish to speak. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. Thank you so much for your co-operation.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motions adopted by the committee on September 16, 2025, and on February 23, 2026, the committee is resuming its study on Canada's immigration system. As a reminder to everyone, the motion we are looking at today is part of the overall motion around Canada's immigration system. The motion we have before us is:

That, having regard for the February 23, 2026 National Post article titled, “Overwhelmed by asylum claims, Ottawa coped by ignoring security protocol,” and further to its study on Canada's Immigration System, the committee invite the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada to appear before the committee, for two hours, at the earliest opportunity and no later than Wednesday, March 11, 2026.

I want to say that we're very blessed to have not only the Immigration and Refugee Board here with us today but also the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Canada Border Services Agency.

I want to formally welcome our witnesses for today. We have, from the Canada Border Services Agency, Brett Bush, director general, immigration and asylum policy; from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Jason Hollmann, director general, asylum policy, and Tal Elharrar, acting director general, integrity policy and programs; and from the Immigration and Refugee Board, Manon Brassard, chairperson, with Roula Eatrides, deputy chairperson, refugee protection division, and Gary Dukeshire, senior counsel, refugee protection division.

We have a five-minute introductory comment from Madame Brassard.

I would ask you to begin right now. Thank you, Madame Brassard.

[Manon Brassard, Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will focus my intervention today on the IRB's paper-based decision-making, or file review, process.

Before I start, and in order to situate the process, let me say that every adult making a refugee claim is interviewed by an officer of IRCC or CBSA when they make their claim. This is the first step of the in-Canada asylum system towards refugee status or removal, where CBSA or IRCC decides if a claim is ineligible to be referred to the board due to security, violating human rights or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.

CBSA or IRCC questions the claimant, gathers identity and biometric information, and conducts criminal record checks through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as well as security checks through the CBSA and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Based on the results, IRCC or CBSA decides if the claim is eligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board and, if it is eligible, whether the minister should intervene on the case.

Once a claim is referred to the IRB, our role is to decide whether it is well founded. We do not duplicate the work of IRCC or CBSA, but if at any stage of our process we detect something that should be raised to the attention of the minister, we formally notify them.

This takes me to the file review process. The file review process was not a response to the Yeates report, although recommendation 26 did suggest that paper-based decision-making should be considered in as many cases as is feasible.

The board's authority to accept asylum claims without a hearing dates back to 1993, under subsection 69.1(7.1) of the former Immigration Act. It is now found in paragraph 170(f) of IRPA.

How and when we consider triaging a claim for the file process is the other point I'd like to clarify. We start by looking for a notice that the minister intends to intervene in the case. If there is one, the file is screened to a full hearing. Then we confirm that a front-end security screening, the FESS, has been completed. If not, the file won't proceed in any stream until it is.

When we look at files for suitability in the file review process, we look at countries or claim types with an acceptance rate of 80% or higher, based on outcomes of regular hearings; those in which identity is established by reliable documents; those in which the evidence is not ambiguous about the risks faced by claimants; and those in which complex issues do not often arise at the hearing.

There then needs to be claimant-specific evidence—a passport, a birth certificate, membership cards, police reports, medical reports—in support of the claimant's specific allegations. If the requirements are met, we inform the minister of our intention to proceed, and the minister may choose to intervene. If they do, the case will proceed to a hearing. Remember, triaging is an administrative transaction, not a decision. It allows us to use our resources in proportion to the nature and complexity of the case at hand.

When a case is referred to a member for a file review, the member exercises their discretion and, if they believe it's necessary, they can refer the case to a full hearing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

You have one minute.

[Manon Brassard]

In 2025, 11,700 cases were resolved following a file review; that represents roughly 10% to 12% of the 78,000 refugee claims that were resolved.

The file review process is a way to ensure faster processing of refugee claims when no security concerns are raised and the legal requirements have been met. It lets us focus on the majority of claims that are more complex and require a full hearing.

Madam Chair, I'll leave it at that and turn it back to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you so much, Madame Brassard.

We will now go to rounds of questions. The first set of questions will be for six minutes each.

We'll begin with Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

Madame Brassard, I want to start with you. You said that the file review process was not related to the Auditor General's report in 2019, yet this seems to be when it was initiated. Can you clarify this for me?

[Manon Brassard]

As I said, the process has existed since 1993. It was called different things, and it had different names, but it has existed for a long time.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Okay. It did not start in 2019. It started in 1993, from what you've said.

[Manon Brassard]

Yes, in one form or another.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I want to focus on the low-risk part of this. In the Auditor General's report, they suggested that you optimize procedures based on low-risk countries—

[Manon Brassard]

Yes.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

—yet the list of countries published at the time had a lot of countries on it that, to me, are not low-risk countries: Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, Syria, North Korea and these kinds of countries. How do you define “low risk”?

[Manon Brassard]

Well, I wasn't there when the list you're talking about—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Are you responsible for the department?

[Manon Brassard]

I am responsible for the board, sir.

I'm really happy to.... Yes, let me go back to the list of countries and claim types.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

To repeat the question, it's not necessarily the countries that are there. The countries that I listed, to me, don't sound like low-risk countries, yet you're claiming that they are low-risk countries. Can you clarify that?

[Manon Brassard]

Well, you mentioned—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

North Korea....

[Manon Brassard]

North Korea does not have—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Iraq, Syria....

[Roula Eatrides, Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Protection Division, Immigration and Refugee Board]

I'm sorry. Maybe I'll step in on North Korea.

North Korea has never been a “less complex” country. We take the position that North Koreans can be considered for citizenship in South Korea, so it has never been part of the list.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Can I interrupt? I have the list from 2019. It says “less complex claims”, and North Korea is on the list. Is this wrong? Is the document wrong?

[Roula Eatrides]

We've never approved a less complex claim from North Korea. In fact, we have only two claims in our entire inventory on North Korea.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

This document from IRB was incorrect, then, is what you're saying.

[Manon Brassard]

It was potentially an evaluation done at the time. The evaluation may have changed over time.