Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 9th, 2026

[Brett Bush]

With regard to the admissibility regime, there are provisions to find people who are involved in terrorism inadmissible. There are provisions to find people involved in espionage inadmissible. There are provisions for people being involved in human rights abuses, criminality, organized crime and the full gamut of inadmissibilities.

The provisions exist to be able to.... The question I believe your colleague asked was with regard to whether they will keep people and the senior officials of the Iranian regime from coming into Canada. Among all of those things, including the designation of the Iranian regime, which includes the top 50% of those officials, they will keep the decision-makers and the organizers of the regime from coming to Canada.

We also need to keep in mind that there will be challenges, as of this past week, in travelling out of the region and being able to make that move in the first place.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I understand. Thank you very much, Mr. Bush.

Madame Brassard, in the exchange you had with my colleague Mr. Zuberi, this was not said directly, but it struck me as an important point. The individual before the IRB who's making a claim...the onus is on them to show that they are a legitimate refugee. Is that correct?

[Manon Brassard]

Absolutely. The onus of proof is on the claimant to establish their claim and all aspects of the definition of a convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

These are basic facts, I understand, but with so much being said and so much being implied, it's important to clarify where the onus lies.

[Manon Brassard]

Absolutely.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you for that.

Let's go back to the file review, because there's been so much said and implied. You were asked about the C.D. Howe report, and you spoke to that. I want to look at other countries for a moment. Are there other countries employing a similar process that you're aware of or that colleagues of yours would be aware of?

[Manon Brassard]

Different countries use different processes, as I said, such as tier one and tier two decision-making and stuff. Australia has a paper process. It's for what I call “manifestly founded” claims in which a hearing wouldn't add anything to what's already in the file. Therefore, it does exist elsewhere. It uses a level of effort proportional to the need of the claim or the file so that we put in the appropriate level of resources and energy. This is generally done in administrative tribunals and elsewhere.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Australia uses an approach like that, and it is a Commonwealth partner. There are presumably other countries, but we don't have to go into the specifics.

[Manon Brassard]

There's presumably one way or another of simplifying the process, particularly for very obvious claims. The U.K. may have something similar, but it's not necessarily exactly the way we do it, because every system is somewhat different.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I think I have just a few seconds remaining.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

You have 45 seconds.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

For the purpose of the record, 90% of cases that come before the IRB are given a hearing, and 10% go to file review.

[Manon Brassard]

It's about 88% and 12%, but yes, it's either a full or an abandonment hearing, or they withdraw.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Once again, all cases that go before a file review have already been looked at by the CBSA and IRCC.

[Manon Brassard]

Yes, and they have been given a repeat chance to intervene. When we think a file is suitable for the process, we formally advise in each and every single case so that if they have since found something, they can intervene.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos and Madame Brassard.

We are now into our last round of questioning.

Mr. Redekopp, we have you up for five minutes.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

My first question is for Mr. Bush and CBSA. We were talking about Seyed Salman Samani. You indicated previously to my colleague that you don't know if he's been deported. I think it's a very relevant question that a lot of Canadians and this committee are wondering about. I wonder if you can find an answer to the question and table it with this committee by the end of the week. It should be a fairly easy thing to find out. Is this something you can do?

[Brett Bush]

I can take it back to the agency and have my colleagues who are responsible for this provide a response.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

If you can provide it by the end of the week, that would be great. Thank you.

I want to go back to Madame Brassard on the list of countries, because I'm a little confused. I was looking at this list. You said there was no list, but then you told my colleague Mr. Deschênes that there is a list. Is there a list of countries that you use in the file review process?

[Manon Brassard]

We work with 220 countries. People come from all around the world. We have developed expertise at the IRB over the years, and we know which kinds of claims will likely have a serious—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'm going to interrupt you, because I have very limited time.

Specifically, on the list, are you saying your list has 220 countries on it? Is that what you're telling me?

[Manon Brassard]

I think what you're trying to look at is that there is a list, and if you're not on the list, you're out. We're looking for—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

It's like this one right here.

[Manon Brassard]

That's an old list that existed then.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Is there an equivalent to this list today?