Public Safety Committee on Nov. 6th, 2025

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

I imagine there are cases where people cannot be returned to countries where the situation makes this impossible.

Do you know that migrants are being exploited by human smugglers who demand astronomical amounts just to take them across the border, as well as an additional amount nowadays to hide them for 14 days? They now charge migrants almost double the amount, to help them cross the border and then hide them for 14 days.

Are you aware of this practice by human smugglers?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Look, I think there's a range of criminal activity that has taken place over the years, and an exploitation of individuals, many of whom may be very vulnerable. It does impact certainly on their well-being, but also, it exposes Canada to a level of risk through transnational organized crime that we are trying to address here as well.

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

I really would like to come back to this 14-day provision, because I believe it’s a vital issue.

We’re currently hearing the same thing from immigrant-serving organizations on the ground on both sides of the border. They tell us that this 14-day provision is doing more and more harm, because people are coming much less often to regular entry points and are continuing to use this type of loophole that can be found in the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement.

Bill C‑12 may not resolve this situation, because as I’ve already said, they will be entitled to a pre-removal risk assessment anyway. So it remains a motivating factor for migrants and something human smugglers can use to promote their services.

We’re currently seeing that a lot of young women who cross the border are at the mercy of these people for 14 days, because they have to remain in hiding during this time. What we’re talking about here is prostitution and sex worker networks. I don’t see anything in Bill C‑12 that will resolve this situation.

Some organizations on the ground are sounding the alarm, warning that people are being exploited due to this infamous 14-day provision.

Isn’t this a clear opportunity for the Canadian government to have discussions with the U.S. authorities about reviewing the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement and just removing the 14-day provision? This way, human smugglers will no longer be able to use this point to further exploit these people, who in most cases are desperate and being exploited both monetarily and from a safety standpoint.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That’s a very good question, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, but the answer will have to wait, unfortunately, since your time has now run out.

I’ll now yield the floor to Mr. Lloyd for five minutes.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, it's interesting that Bill C-12 is legislation that has evolved from the previous legislation in Bill C-2, the strong borders act. I just find it an interesting kind of unintended admission that if you have a bill coming forward called the strong borders act, it's really saying that our borders are not strong at all.

I'd also ask, Minister, since our last meeting when I raised the issue of the Mexican visas being lifted in 2016, have you had a chance to review the information that I raised to you? Do you have any other thoughts on the impacts that your government's decision to lift those in 2016 had on weakening our border and our immigration system?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd, for the question. Look, whether it be Bill C-12 or Bill C-2, it's very much premised on the fact that we need to do more to strengthen our border and to strengthen law enforcement's ability to enforce by giving them additional tools to make sure our border is stronger. Our border is very strong. That's a starting point. It's not perfect, but of course it is the longest undefended border in the world. It's one where, over time, we've had very good co-operation—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Minister.

Given the information I gave you last week on the statistics we received about deportations for Mexican nationals since 2016, are you now willing to recognize the evidence that your government is largely responsible for the rapid increase in deportations from Canada...resulting in people who shouldn't have been here?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

First of all, last year we closed the ability of Mexican nationals to come here without a visa. I think that's been an important step. Additional measures that we've taken at the border, including the bill that's in front of you, I believe, address many of the concerns that were identified on that.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Minister.

I just want to provide some more details, because we had some redacted documents last week, and I've received some more information. In 2016, the first year your government lifted the visa requirement, there were about 128 people from Mexico detained at the border. The visa requirement worked. It prevented people from coming here who had questionable backgrounds.

Do you have any idea what that number was in 2017, after your government lifted the visas? It went from 128 people in 2016 to 2,471 people in 2017. That is a massive, massive change. In fact, if you look at it cumulatively, from 2016 to 2024, 11,000 out of 16,000 people who were detained at the border were Mexican nationals. That's 68% of all the people who were detained at the border since your government lifted the visa requirement. This is huge work for the CBSA to do. These people were also released on a 48-hour alternative to detention.

Minister, do you not recognize that there was a cause and effect? You said in the last meeting that you saw no correlation, that you lifted this visa requirement and your government opened the floodgates for this to come to Canada.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Lloyd, I don't like to target a particular community or a particular nation. I can speak to you in a broader sense. What's important, I think, is that we take measured steps to, first of all, put in restrictions. As of last year, in the case of Mexico, we have done that.

It's also about ensuring that within Canada there is enforcement and there are tools for law enforcement to be able to address those who are coming across our border who are ineligible to be here.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Minister, you say you don't want to target communities. By your own admission, your government reimposed the visas on Mexico in 2024. In fact, in 2023 over 3,000 people were deported from Canada to Mexico: 40% of all the deportations by Canada in 2023 were from that one country.

If you're coming here and accusing members of targeting specific countries, Minister, the statistics show that it's your government—

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Let me be very clear, Mr. Lloyd: I'm not suggesting that you're targeting; I'm suggesting that I don't want to get into that frame of discussion. What I can tell you is that Mexico and the United States are our closest trading partners, with long-standing trade links, including the USMCA. There are economic reasons where certain decisions were made—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Yet, Minister, prior to your government's lifting the visa requirements, this wasn't an issue. We had great bilateral trading relationships with our Mexican allies and our American allies, and yet your government's decision resulted in this absolute chaos at the border. That's why this legislation is before us today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you for your questions, Mr. Lloyd.

Ms. Dandurand, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m very pleased with the direction in which my Bloc Québécois colleague Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe is taking this inquiry, and I would like to continue that line of inquiry, Minister.

There’s a lot of concern about irregular entries and what will happen afterwards.

Can you tell us how an “irregular entry” is currently defined and explain what will become an “irregular entry” once the amendment made through Bill C‑12 is adopted? The intent of my question is really to see how we’ll improve the situation.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you for the question.

I do want to acknowledge the work that you're doing at your border and a given number of border crossings in your communities and the area you represent.

Bill C-12 by itself doesn't necessarily change the process by which individuals, either through regular ports of entry or through irregular ports of entry, come into Canada. What this does is.... There does appear to be a loophole, as Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe indicated, on the 14 days. It merely clamps down and makes that exemption within the Safe Third Country Agreement.... It nullifies that and ensures that those who are coming in through the regular ports of entry have to file a claim right away.

Notwithstanding their ineligibility, they will get a pre-removal risk assessment, which is a very different process from a referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Most experts and most refugee advocates would suggest that the IRB is well placed for refugee determination, whereas we're of the belief that, in line with our obligations to the Refugee Convention of 1951, the hearing will be part of the pre-removal risk assessment, which is a very different type of process.

There is some tightening of regulation that will enable us to streamline these processes.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you.

Over the past few years, we’ve seen a lot of irregular entries into Canada, especially in Quebec. These are people who stay here while their file is being reviewed. I get the impression that the system is backlogged and that some people are arriving in Canada under false pretences, claiming to be asylum seekers.

Will the measures set out in Bill C‑12 help remove this backlog and make more room for genuine asylum seekers? Is that the goal?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

I'm going to ask President O'Gorman to comment, and then let me just complete that.

Thank you.

[Erin O'Gorman]

I’ll reply first, and then invite my colleague from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to add his comments.

First of all, I’d like to say something about the 14-day provision.

It removes the incentive to come between the ports.

As we have said, it’s dangerous and people become victims of human trafficking.

As far as the efficiency of the system, I’ll now turn it over to my colleague.

[Jean-Marc Gionet, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Protection and Family Programs Sector, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you for that question.

This bill contains measures intended to make the system more efficient. When people file a claim—regardless of how they entered the country—we will use a consistent approach and this will be easier for them. We’ll ask them for the information once, at the right time. We’ll also ensure that both we and the Canada Border Services Agency receive the information before passing a file on to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, or the IRB.

As far as new grounds for ineligibility, we recognize that there are a lot of files working their way through the system, so a measure is in place to protect it. People whose applications will be deemed inadmissible by the IRB will nonetheless be entitled to a protective measure, namely, the pre-removal risk assessment process, which is intended to prevent people from being sent back to a country where they would be in danger.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

You have five seconds left, Ms. Dandurand, so I think we can move on to the next person.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you. I’ll give those five seconds to my colleague, since we’re asking the same type of questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Okay. Members on both sides of the room have evidently come to an acceptable agreement.

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

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

I therefore have 2 minutes and 35 seconds, in fact. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This bill refers to “compliance with Canada’s international obligations in respect of mistreatment". Before this, it used to be an explicit prohibition on conveying information in cases with a risk of political persecution.

Isn’t the new wording a little too broad? Why has it been changed?

Are we ready, all of a sudden, to provide sensitive information to people who may use it inappropriately?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

We have international legal commitments not to share information with any country in which that information could essentially impact their safety and security. The name of the convention slips my mind, but it is a principle that we work on. It's any information that is shared, and we routinely share information, especially with the Five Eyes countries on a range of issues, including biometrics.... We do that for regular immigration processing, whether it be TRVs or other security checks, and that happens on an ongoing basis.