Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[Aaron McCrorie]

I would suggest that, first of all, and I've tried to convey this impression, we don't rely on a single layer of defence. No single layer of defence is going be perfect. We rely, first of all, on that initial assessment by our border services officers, guided by strict mandatory questions that guide their risk assessment, including the collection of biometric information. Based on the available information they have at that moment in time, they make a decision.

There are subsequent layers of defence. That's where our centre for immigration national security screening—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'm sorry. I'm running out of time here.

Another thing Mr. Weber said that was a little bit disturbing was that he essentially accused management of being more about service than security. On that note, are CBSA executives' pay bonuses based on service metrics, such as processing times and things like that, or security in terms of not allowing criminals to come into the country?

[Aaron McCrorie]

I can't comment on people's performance pay generally. What I will say is that as an agency, that is the inherent tension that we have. We want to move legitimate goods and people into the country quickly and efficiently, and we want to stop bad people and bad things from coming into the country. The fundamental nature of my job is enforcement.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Are bonuses based on—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp and Mr. McCrorie. Time is up.

Next is Ms. Salma Zahid for five minutes.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for appearing again.

I'll continue my round of questioning with Mr. McCrorie.

You have answered some of the questions raised in the testimony from Mark Weber, the national president of the Customs and Immigration Union, that were very worrying. Can you please clarify the steps when someone lands? Take the example of Pearson airport. Can anyone, whether a Canadian citizen or permanent resident or asylum seeker, land at Pearson airport and enter Canada without interacting with any real person?

[Aaron McCrorie]

That's a pretty broad question.

If you're contemplating somebody flying into Pearson airport, there will be a number of different ways they will come in. They may do an advanced declaration or they may present themselves at a kiosk. On the way out of the kiosk, they will present themselves to a border services officer, so, yes, there will be an interaction with a person.

For somebody claiming asylum at a port of entry, 100% of them will spend a considerable amount of time with a border services officer to do that initial risk assessment.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

Can you please clarify whether anyone can claim asylum at a kiosk?

[Aaron McCrorie]

No, not at all.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

Can you explain what the steps are when someone goes to the kiosk to complete their declaration?

[Aaron McCrorie]

You complete your declaration. If you're going to make an asylum claim, it will vary between a land port of entry and an airport. You'll present yourself and indicate that you want to make an asylum claim, and then you'll be taken into secondary and go through a different process.

Again, that's where I suggest our first step is to do the risk assessment to understand who you are, assess whether you're admissible into the country and eligible to make a claim, and establish your identity. We have mandatory questions to guide that, with a face-to-face interview as a part of that process. We collect biometric information. We run your name and biometric information against our databases and policing databases.

It's a very rigorous process. Is it perfect? No. There is no perfect system, and that's why we have subsequent layers of defence. We will allow you to move to the one-touch process only if you're deemed to be a low-risk asylum claimant. As suggested, you will complete the administrative portion of the assessment inland.

A novel and important feature is that the process requires the claimant to enter data into the system, rather than wasting the time of a highly trained and highly experienced border services officer by doing data entry. One-touch is one of two or three different ways we'll do an asylum claim, but if you do not meet that low-risk threshold, you will go through the full assessment process at the port of entry. You may still enter the country and proceed with your claim, but the process will be completed at the port of entry.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

If someone is coming to Canada as a landed immigrant for the first time, have they already undergone security screening?

[Aaron McCrorie]

I should let my colleagues from IRCC start with that process, because we worked together on it.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

This is if they are coming as a PR.

[Tara Lang]

Yes, they would have already completed the security screening.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

Okay.

I have one quick question. We have heard from a lot of witnesses that this new one-year ineligibility for asylum claimants introduced by Bill C-12 would disproportionately impact women and minority communities, individuals and other survivors of gender-based violence.

Can you please tell us if IRCC has looked at how different groups like these will be impacted by these provisions? Are you confident that minority groups will be protected under this legislation?

[Jason Hollmann]

In developing the measures, we did a full gender-based analysis plus. Generally, it found that specific vulnerable groups would benefit from faster access to protection, which we hope to be able to provide for those who merit it.

The pre-removal risk assessment process that those impacted by ineligibility would be directed toward has guidelines and training for officers in relation to dealing with minors, gender considerations, cases involving sexual orientation and specific cases of vulnerability. They can also reference the same guidelines that are available to the IRB officers.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

Is there anything else with regard to the eligibility criteria and the processes involved that you would like to highlight?

[Jason Hollmann]

I would come back to the earlier question about the benefits beyond those I already explained back in the opening statement. One of the key things we want to achieve by those measures is the deterrent effect. We are hoping to deter misuse of the system by those looking to extend their stay or those looking to evade the safe third country agreement.

Besides the operational impact and the protections we want to make sure we have for people who really need protection, we are hoping to discourage—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Hollmann.

Thank you, Ms. Zahid.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to quickly come back to one point. Mr. McCrorie, I understand very well that you don't want officers to start patrolling the border in place of RCMP officers. That makes a lot of sense. However, the president of the union representing border services officers told us that if they learned that something suspicious was happening at the border, for example, they could intervene more quickly. Rather than calling the RCMP, which would take six hours to get there, border services officers could be called, and they could be there in half an hour. Right now, they don't have that power.

Why don't you allow that? Not only is this a matter of logic and efficiency, but it would also respond to a request from the union representing border services officers, and it would even help RCMP officers do their job.

[Aaron McCrorie]

Thank you for the question.

I guess what I'd come back to is really making sure that both organizations, and other organizations involved in law enforcement, are making the best use of the resources they have—the most efficient, most effective use of the resources they have.

CBSA does collaborate quite extensively with law enforcement, especially in an inland enforcement context, but also in criminal investigations. Right now, in terms of the best use of our resources at a port of entry and the best use of RCMP resources, the RCMP hasn't come to us saying that they need more help in that regard.

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

No, but your members are asking you for it, though. This stonewalling is unbelievable when this request is documented and comes from the union representing the officers. In short, I invite you to remain open to this type of request. It could be beneficial for border security.

I have a question for the Department of Justice officials.

A lot of people tell us that, if Bill C‑12 is passed as currently drafted, we'll end up with a host of legal challenges from a number of migrant advocacy groups, among others, and that will clog up the courts.

So what do you expect? Do we have the necessary resources to deal with such a backlog in the courts?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Give a quick response in 30 seconds, please.

[Karen Hamilton, Senior Counsel, IRCC Legal Services, Department of Justice]

I think it's fair to say that new amendments often bring challenges before the courts, but I would note, for example, that in terms of the new ineligibilities, while a person may seek leave and judicial review of the court of a decision to refuse their PRRA application, this is also the case for anyone who reaches the end of the IRB process. Once they reach the end of the IRB process, they also have equal access to seek leave and judicial review of the courts.

I'm not able to speak to the relative volumes. I think it's fair to say that there will be court challenges, but in terms of—