Public Safety Committee on Nov. 4th, 2025

[Mike McGuire]

I would say that the bill does what it can to address the issues that require legislative gaps to be closed and is complemented by the border plan.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

You haven't answered my question.

[Mike McGuire]

I'm sorry...?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

You haven't answered my question. Do you agree that it is a failure in the bill not to address this deterrence issue?

[Mike McGuire]

No, I think the bill is closing a number of really important legislative gaps that exist and will help to secure our borders and help us in the fight against fentanyl.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Can you commit that in the future there will be quarterly reporting of seizure, prosecution and sentence outcomes?

[Mike McGuire]

I can take that back, Mr. Chair, as a question for the different departments that would be responsible for collecting that data. I am not able to respond on their behalf here.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

At this stage, what is the coordination among different—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry, MP Au. These were good questions, but unfortunately the time is up, which means we'll move to MP Ramsay for five minutes.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

My questions are for Christopher Hamilton and Tara Lang.

Some criticism has been levelled at portions of the bill that deal with immigration. I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to that criticism, since the committee will not be hearing from witnesses on that subject.

First, Mr. Hamilton, I heard you say that the pre-removal risk assessment process is robust, and I take your word for it. However, it is undeniable that procedural fairness in this assessment is not the same as at the Immigration and Refugee Board. There is some concern that this could lead to more challenges in Federal Court. The intent of the bill is to avoid bogging down the Federal Court.

What is your assessment of that issue?

[Christopher Hamilton]

I thank the member for his question, Mr. Chair.

As I understand the question, it's about the difference between the PRRA process and what would be considered at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The PRRA process, as I explained earlier, is one that is robust and considers many of the same factors that are considered in an IRB decision. It considers the fear of persecution and the risk of refoulement impacts that someone would be subjected to if they were returned to their country of origin.

With respect to the Federal Court, the PRRA process has been in place for a number of years and is quite robust. It has been defended in that way and has stood up to those types of challenges. In that respect, yes, the PRRA process is considered sufficient in this case.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Very well.

With regard to the one-year time limit, many specific cases have been mentioned: minors, people whose situation in their country of origin could change. These are special situations.

Was a mechanism provided to allow for some discretion or flexibility in order to adjust to such situations? If so, what is that mechanism?

[Christopher Hamilton]

Thank you for the question.

Again, the PRRA process is a robust process that considers a number of factors to ensure that Canada does not remove individuals to a country where they could be at risk of persecution, danger or torture. That process is available to people prior to their removal. They can apply for it. In our view, that process is sufficient.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

That process is the pre-removal risk assessment. That's what you're referring to, isn't it?

[Christopher Hamilton]

Yes.

It's the pre-removal risk assessment process.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Let's say a person arrives here at the age of 16 and decides to apply when they are 18. Does the pre-removal risk assessment apply in that case? That's not the case, is it?

[Christopher Hamilton]

Thank you again for your question.

The measures in Bill C-12 do provide authorities to allow for exceptions in certain cases, and unaccompanied minors are one of the exceptions that are being considered. Those exceptions will be set out in regulations.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Okay.

My last question is about the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act.

Part 5.5(2) of Bill C‑12 states that, in the case of a disclosure to a foreign entity, the minister is the arbiter who gives written consent to the disclosure.

Have you considered an additional safeguard? Is that necessary, in your opinion?

[Tara Lang]

Thank you for the question.

In the instance of an information-sharing agreement with other parties, such as the provinces and territories, in order to comply with other legislation, it will be required that if there is a suggestion of onward forwarding to another government overseas, for instance, another organization, they would have to come back to the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship under the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act to ensure that we were not contravening that. No onward sharing of information that is provided under an information-sharing agreement would be permitted unless authorized by the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much for those exchanges.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Tettamanti, I will conclude with you.

I understand that your powers will change, but that, unlike the Canada Border Services Agency, you were not given an additional budget to purchase boats, hire coast guard officers, or increase your vessel capacity. All Bill C‑12 changes is the ability to legally share information, which you did not previously have.

Did I understand correctly? Can you give me a yes or no answer?

[Ryan Tettamanti]

I thank the member for her question.

Once this bill passes, we'll be going through the parliamentary process to seek funds. What I can say is that simply with these powers, we will be able to do a lot more than we can today, but the intent is to seek additional funding to enhance our security mandate.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Very well. That's fine.

You do confirm, however, that you have to submit budget requests, but that you have not received an additional budget for your new responsibilities.

My next question is for Mr. Graeme Hamilton.

There are new requirements for the private sector, which must acquire facilities—spaces for border officers to conduct inspections. There's a lot of talk about marshalling yards, because we know it's not easy to inspect trains at the moment. You have a fairly limited capacity.

Bill C‑12 gives the impression that the agency had great ambition but few resources. Even with additional resources, you still have a shortage of officers. When you send officers to inspect a train, other officers cannot carry out inspections because they are working on emergencies. Your resources are therefore limited.

Do you seriously believe that, with additional resources at the agency, you'll be able to inspect marshalling yards, require facilities and allow border officers to do their work safely?

[Graeme Hamilton]

Thank you for the question.

As we've discussed previously, the agency takes a risk-based approach to resource allocations, including assigning border service officers to conduct these types of examinations.

With the additional 1,000 border officers that have been announced, as Mr. McGuire mentioned earlier, we'll be in a better position to allocate more of those resources to undertake the types of examinations that you've been talking about, be they in rail yards or marine ports, where we see a considerable threat factor related to commercial pathways being exploited to bring in things that we've been talking about here today.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Do you have a deployment plan?