Public Safety Committee on March 12th, 2026

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Is that my time? It goes by so quickly.

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Unfortunately, yes, it's often like that. I'm sorry, Madam Kirkland.

MP Acan has the floor for five minutes.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Watson, thank you very much for joining us today.

In this committee, we heard from Brian Sauvé, the president of the National Police Federation, the union that represents members of the RCMP. We discussed how our government is hiring 1,000 new officers at both law enforcement agencies involved at the border, the CBSA and the RCMP.

I come from a technical background. I did projects in the past in public safety and security. I am curious as to what types of tools and technologies are used when identifying criminal admissibility and executive removals in New Zealand.

[Steve Watson]

Are you talking about what types of IT systems we use?

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

That's IT or any other technical system. This can include CCTV or anything used in removal processes that involves tech.

[Steve Watson]

We're not very high-tech, to be fair. We have a case management system.

We have facial recognition software at the border. This has some ability to identify people who are not eligible for entry. The New Zealand police have closed-circuit TV and security cameras around the streets, but we, as yet, don't use those for identifying people who are unlawfully in New Zealand. I'm not sure we would be able to reach that threshold, at this stage.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Thank you very much. I understand that facial recognition is usually used at airports in certain areas.

In Canada, as you know, we have the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It is similar to your Immigration Act since they both serve the purpose of the regulation of immigration.

Today, we tabled new legislation for lawful access, which has very strong support from all levels of law enforcement in Canada. I know that Australia also has a very strong lawful access provision, giving law enforcement the tools to access the data relevant to assist in investigations.

From a legislative standpoint, are there any statutory mechanisms that empower law enforcement to collect, share and operationalize intelligence when addressing criminality in New Zealand?

[Steve Watson]

Yes, we have some statutory provisions in our Immigration Act that we can request information under. However, the main vehicle that we use for information sharing is, in fact, our Privacy Act. There is a principle in our Privacy Act that says that, for the purposes of law enforcement, you can share personal information. There's a form through which it has to be requested. Basically, if we want to request information from another agency, we give the person's name and the reason we want the information—so, for example, because they have breached the Immigration Act or have committed whatever offence—and request any holdings they may have on that person that may assist us with that investigation. It's quite successful.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

I'm curious about the length of this process. In Canada, we need to have a judicial permit to get access to that information. It's a lengthy process. The police have mentioned that it can take up to 11 weeks in really serious cases.

What is your experience when it comes to the length of time for processing this form and getting the approval?

[Steve Watson]

It's much quicker than that. In really serious cases, we would escalate it, and we could get the information the same day.

The other thing that I was going to mention is that, between some agencies, like the police and us, we have approved information-sharing agreements, which gives them permission to proactively share with us. For example, if a migrant is convicted of an offence, we would not need to ask the police about that; they will tell us. That is done through a legal agreement vehicle called an approved information-sharing agreement, which is a process under our Privacy Act.

For the transactional stuff, it really depends on the workload. If we needed information quickly, if it was a really serious offence and if public safety depended on it, I'm confident that we could get the information from the police or the other agencies, if not that day, the next day.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Very quickly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry, MP Acan. We must now turn to MP DeBellefeuille for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I find it quite amazing that we can speak today with someone on the other side of the world, in New Zealand, so that they can share best practices with us.

I also want to congratulate our interpreters, who make it so that you can understand me, Mr. Watson, and that everyone can understand each other. Our interpreters are good, and I wanted to say hello to them. There's even a male voice, which is quite rare. I'd like to thank them very much.

Mr. Watson, you have answered all my questions. I found our discussions very interesting, and I have no further questions for you, so I'll let the chair manage the time. However, I'd like to thank you for participating in our study and for being so generous. I know we aren't in the same time zone, so it's a lot of effort and energy on your part.

Thank you once again, on behalf of the committee, for coming to testify.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille, for your usual kindness.

As well as being kind to the witness, you're being kind to the next speaker, who is Mr. Au.

You have five minutes, please.

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

Once again, thank you for participating in the hearing.

I have a few questions, so I will just go right into them.

I want to get some clarification. I read the background information, and it seems to me that in New Zealand a person can be deported if there is a certain time of imprisonment, even if the judge's sentencing doesn't require it.

[Steve Watson]

That is the case, and it's quite a technical piece of work in our legislation. I don't have the specific details, but you are right. There is a sliding scale of imprisonment for residence visa holders. Concerning a person who is on a temporary visa, no matter what period of imprisonment they are sentenced to, if we deem them to be of bad character, we will deport them.

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

For example, in your case, if the offence was committed within the first five years of obtaining residence, the court has the power to impose a sentence of at least two years in prison.

Then, the court can sentence less than what is permissible, but the prisoner can still be deported.

[Steve Watson]

Yes, that's right. The decision is made on the maximum available sentence for that offence. I'm not sure about Canada, but in New Zealand, it's very rare that a person receives five years for a five-year imprisonment. You know, there's always a starting point, and then there are mitigations, and judges make decisions. They have judicial independence.

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

Yes, I asked that question because, in Canada, we've seen cases in which the judge cut down the sentence to avoid the person being deported. I find this to be very enlightening.

We are stuck between the concern over public safety and human rights. Again, how do you strike a balance between public safety concerns and also safeguarding human rights, especially in cases such as people who have already committed a crime, exhausted all legal applications to stay and then finally claim asylum or claim to be a refugee?

How do you avoid that kind of situation from happening in New Zealand?

[Steve Watson]

You used the words “strike the balance”. That is the exact name of our strategy. In a case such as you have referred to, if it's a second, third or subsequent claim, obviously we are required to consider that claim, but we do have a fast-track process, and we work very closely with our refugee determinations team for those people who are third, fourth and subsequent claims. If they are found to be unfounded, again we prioritize those, and we work very quickly.

Once the claim has been determined, we will then start to engage with the client and begin the removal process once all appeals have been exhausted.

They are complex cases, and we've had a couple where we've had multiple claims, but we generally get there in the end. It just takes time, and you have to follow due process.

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

You seem to have a very effective and also a very tight timeline for processing those deportation cases. How successful have you been in following the timeline? Is it that in most cases you were able to fit into the timeline you specified in the process?

[Steve Watson]

Yes, it's particularly so for criminal offending. When people are in jail, we get early notification, and we prioritize those cases. The work is done at the earliest possible opportunity, and then the case just sits ready to go. Again, as I said, when they're released from prison, they are picked up and put on a plane.

Again, because we prioritize criminal offending, we are able to work through those cases quite quickly. We put most people working on that. What that does mean, though, is a trade-off in terms of the cohort of people who are just here unlawfully and don't commit any crimes. We tend to not have the time to deal with those. We then use other approaches with them such as phone calls and text messaging to try to maintain some contact.

Yes, we prioritize criminal offending because it's what the country expects us to do. The government is very clear that, when you are a temporary visitor to New Zealand or you have been allowed to reside here, you obey the rules, and there are consequences for not obeying the rules.

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

My final question is about case management—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry, MP Au. I would like to be more generous, but unfortunately, we've exceeded the time.

That leads us to MP Ehsassi for five minutes, please.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you also to Mr. Watson for appearing before our committee. I found this very informative.

I wanted to follow up on the question that MP Lloyd asked you about the strengths of the procedures in New Zealand with respect to deportations and removals. I understand that through the Five Eyes, you have been privy to how our system works. What would you say is the strength of the Canadian system?