THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, February 9, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures; and, in camera, to consider a draft report on the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 19, 20 and 21 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025; and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business) related to Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.
Senator Hassan Yussuff (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs.
Before we begin, I would like to take a moment to remind senators and our guests of the audio feedback prevention guidelines that must be observed by all in-person participants.
Consult the cards placed on the committee tables for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Keep your earpieces away from all microphones at all times. Mics must not be touched. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Avoid handling your earpieces while the microphone is active. Earpieces should either remain on the ear or be placed on the designated sticker at each seat. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
I am joined today by my fellow committee members. I welcome them to introduce themselves starting with our deputy chair.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak, Ontario.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario, and the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, Manitoba.
Senator White: Judy White, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Good morning. Claude Carignan from Quebec.
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Today we begin our study on Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.
To open the study, we have the pleasure of welcoming the Honourable Gary Anandasangaree, Minister of Public Safety and the Honourable Lena Metlege Diab, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.
The ministers are accompanied by the following officials; from Public Safety Canada, Shannon Grainger, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch; from Canada Border Services Agency, Erin O’Gorman, President; from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Bryan Larkin, Senior Deputy Commissioner; from Health Canada, Jennifer Pelley, Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Controlled Substances and Opioid Response Directorate, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch; from the Canadian Coast Guard, Ryan Tettamanti, Senior Director, Maritime Security Force Development; and from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Jason Hollmann, Director General, Asylum. Thank you for joining us today.
Minister Anandasangaree, we will begin by inviting you to provide opening remarks. You may begin when you are ready.
Hon. Gary Anandasangaree, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I would like to start by acknowledging that we are meeting here in the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishnaabe People. I thank you for inviting me to speak on Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act.
Thank you, Senator Dean, for sponsoring the bill.
[Translation]
The Canada-United States border is the longest land border in the world and also one of the safest.
[English]
While we can be proud of that reputation for safety and security, we can always do more to keep Canada and everyone who lives here safe from the illegal trafficking of drugs, humans and weapons.
We must adapt to keep up with the tactics of transnational organized crime groups as they continue to evolve at rapid speeds. That is why Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, is so important.
As we begin this discussion, I want to keep in mind the following three principles that guide this bill and related policy measures. First, it is charter compliant. Second, we have made every effort to ensure that there is due process. And third, that this bill is in line with the Refugee Convention of 1951.
[Translation]
The measures contained in Bill C-12 would help give our law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools they need to keep pace.
[English]
The measures are based on two themes: securing the border and combatting transnational organized crime, including illegal fentanyl and illicit financing.
The bill proposes to amend the Customs Act to obligate certain ports of entry and exit to provide, equip and maintain facilities for any purpose that falls under the Canada Border Services Agency’s mandate, including the examination and detention of goods destined for export to match what is currently in place for the import regime.
The bill would also amend the Oceans Act to add security-related activities to Coast Guard services, including the ability for Coast Guard assets to conduct security patrols and collect and share information with security and law enforcement partners. It also introduces measures to strengthen our authorities related to immigration documents and information sharing, as well as new measures to strengthen Canada’s asylum system by improving the application process. These measures will help ensure the system is not used as a shortcut to regular immigration pathways.
I have had the opportunity to speak with several of you who have addressed portions of the immigration measures, including concerns regarding mass cancellation of documents and disproportionality of vulnerable groups seeking asylum. I can assure this committee that this does not take away from the ability of legitimate claimants to claim asylum. We have an international obligation to ensure we are not sending people back to situations of danger.
We believe we have sufficient safeguards in place. Additionally, any use of this power of mass cancellation and change or suspension will have an explanation of why the order is in the public interest, who will be impacted and how they will be impacted. Every time an order is put forward, it will be published in the Canada Gazette to increase transparency. This is about addressing issues within the system and making sure it functions in the manner intended. We are streamlining bottlenecks to keep claims moving faster. This is something we must do.
Related to financing and money laundering, Bill C-12 proposes measures that would strengthen Canada’s anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, including through stronger anti-money laundering penalties and information reporting and sharing. This is because we know that, without money, transnational organized crime groups cannot function. We need to hinder their ability to get and maintain access to funds.
Keeping in mind the devastation that illegal drugs and precursors bring to our communities, Bill C-12 contains measures that would allow law and border enforcement agencies to take swift action to prevent the illegal importation and use of precursor chemicals. It would also ensure strict federal oversight over any legitimate use of these chemicals.
Let me just reflect on this for a moment. Over 55,000 Canadians from every one of our communities have been impacted by the fentanyl crisis. Each night, over 20 families go to bed having lost their loved ones. This is one of the major issues we are trying to address.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I can say that a number of amendments to Bill C-12 were agreed to in the House of Commons, particularly in relation to the asylum system.
[English]
I am happy to speak further about these amendments during the round of questioning. Mr. Chair, I would like to take the opportunity to encourage the Senate’s support for this bill so we can implement these important measures to keep our borders and communities safe. I look forward to questions and comments and any follow-ups that colleagues may have.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. We will now invite Minister Diab to provide her opening remarks, to be followed by questions. Minister, you may begin when ready.
Hon. Lena Metlege Diab, P.C., M.P. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship: Good afternoon, senators. I’m joined by my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, and our entourage. We hope we can answer all your questions to your satisfaction, which is what we’d like to do because we believe in this legislation we are putting before you.
[Translation]
As senators know, Canada’s immigration system must fulfill several functions at the same time.
It must support economic growth, meet labour market needs, offer protection to people who face real risk, and process a large number of applications fairly.
[English]
The purpose of Bill C-12 is simple — I’m speaking on the immigration provisions, and I’ll leave the others to my colleague — which is to fill the existing gaps in our legislation and regulations so we can ensure we have a responsible, nimble, efficient system that can handle the immense pressure it is under.
[Translation]
Bill C-12 updates a set of practical tools that support the functioning of Canada’s immigration system, including the processing of asylum claims, the sharing of information, and program integrity. It does so without altering Canada’s commitment to protection, due process or fairness in decision-making. The pressures on the asylum system are clear examples of why these updates are needed.
[English]
Canada’s asylum system relies on credibility and timeliness. When claims accumulate faster than they can be processed, delays grow and create uncertainty.
[Translation]
The bill also makes practical improvements to how the asylum system works.
[English]
A single online application system will improve consistency and eliminate the requirement for applicants to provide the same information to multiple organizations, which is exactly what is happening now. By increasing the number of hearing-ready files that we can refer to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, or IRB, and removing the abandoned claims, the system can keep its focus on active cases and timely decisions.
Bill C-12 also addresses how information is shared with federal, provincial and territorial partners. Here, I want to stress this is only domestic sharing. There is no international component to this bill at all. When information cannot be shared clearly or consistently across government, it becomes harder to plan services, manage programs and combat fraud.
During consideration in the House, the House adopted amendments, clarified the limits of document-control authorities and strengthened oversight. These included new reporting requirements to Parliament when the authorities are exercised and clear constraints on their use — I think I skipped a page, but that’s okay — Amendments also clarified how ineligible claims are handled.
In closing, the immigration measures in Bill C-12, in our opinion, reflect a careful balance. They preserve access to protection and due process. They strengthen the system’s ability to function effectively under pressure. We are also modernizing information sharing between the federal government and the provinces and territories. The bill will introduce new document-control authorities to manage documents and application intake. In exceptional circumstances, such as fraud, public safety concerns or systemic errors — kind of like what happened during COVID — we would have these authorities that would make life easier. These authorities are not always about cancelling numbers of documents. They are for allowing the flexibility to adjust when it’s in the public interest. Usually, that means we suspend operations, do what we need to do, deal with it and go back to it.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. We will now proceed to questions.
I would like to note that the ministers will be with us today until 5 p.m. We will do our best to allow time for each member to ask a question during this first hour. A second round of questions with the officials will take place from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.
With that in mind, four minutes will be allotted for each question, including the answer. I ask that you keep your questions succinct in an effort to allow as many interventions as possible.
I would also like to ask our two ministers to keep their answers succinct so we can get on with the questioning.
I would like to offer the first question to our deputy chair, Senator Al Zaibak.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you, ministers, for your opening remarks and for being here with your team to answer our questions.
My first question is for Minister Anandasangaree and is related to the security aspect of Bill C-12. As you know, there have been amendments to the Customs Act to have operators provide and maintain Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, examination facilities. You mentioned, in your opening remarks, it is to ensure alignment with the import regime and other immigration-related matters. What does that entail for industry stakeholders? Are any new or additional costs incurred to facilitate this change?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator. It is quite an important question. Let me speak about the current authorities. We are, right now, legally able to search both inbound and outbound goods, so goods that are coming into Canada and going out. However, the current system demands that, for those goods that are coming in, the service provider, whether it is a port authority or a bridge authority, has to provide search capacity within their space for us to conduct searches.
However, the corresponding outbound rule, so from Canada to the U.S., does not exist. That means our ability to do outbound searches is somewhat limited. What we are doing here is to ensure that we close that gap and have more flexibility so we can do both inbound and outbound searches in a more fluid way.
As you may know, one of the concerns outlined by the administration south of the border is that fentanyl, for example, is coming over the border, which we categorically deny. However, it’s not just about denying that. We also have to demonstrate that we’re doing the appropriate level of work and have the legal tools to do that work. That is exactly what this provision does in the amendment, senator.
Senator Al Zaibak: Are there any implications cost-wise?
Mr. Anandasangaree: There are no direct expenses, but there may be some unintended expenditures that may be borne. Ultimately, we are talking about facilities with a great deal of capacity. We are not asking a small operator. We are asking billion-dollar enterprises to be able to do their part in securing our border. It is, in my opinion, a long-term investment as part of the ability for the port authorities and bridge authorities to do the required work for us to ensure that there is greater safety and security.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question concerns immigration, particularly the one-year period required for an application to be admissible, as well as the transitional provision. This is the first time I’ve seen a transitional provision that freezes eligibility retroactively based on a bill that was never passed, Bill C-2. Clause 75 refers to Bill C-2, not to the introduction of the current bill for retroactive effect. Why was Bill C-2 chosen over introducing this bill?
Second, how many asylum seekers are in the backlog? According to my figures, we’re talking about approximately 170,000 requests annually. How many asylum seekers are in the backlog, and how many will lose the right to make a claim because of the one-year period and the retroactive clause?
Ms. Metlege Diab: Allow me to answer in English if possible, it will go faster.
Senator Carignan: Yes, of course, we have the interpretation, it is your constitutional right.
[English]
Ms. Metlege Diab: You asked me why the measures are retroactive to the Bill C-2 tabling?
Senator Carignan: Exactly.
Ms. Metlege Diab: We needed to have a date. At that point in time, we felt we had given notice to individuals that if you really want to claim asylum, you should do it for the proper purposes and don’t claim asylum if you have been here for two, three or four years because that’s what we have been seeing.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Bill C-2 was under a different government?
Ms. Metlege Diab: No, it was us.
[English]
In the last number of years, we have seen a tremendous number of claims, many of which are fraudulent. Again, the purpose for people claiming asylum under the law is, quite frankly, for those fearing a risk of persecution, torture, threats on their lives or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, as described by certain sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA.
What we have seen in reality over the last number of years is when people have come to what they perceive as “we don’t know what else to do,” they’ve started to do that. Not everyone, obviously, but it has created a lot of strain.
What we have seen in the last one year, though, is asylum claims have gone down by one third largely because, I believe, not only have we been efficient in what we are doing, but we have also put a deterrent factor to warn people this is not what you should be doing. Many of our claims are already inland, which means people who are already here in Canada on visas, such as visitors or students. Does that answer your question?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’m not sure you understood my question about the number in the backlog. How many cases are waiting to be studied —
Ms. Metlege Diab: About 300,000 cases.
Senator Carignan: How many cases will this bill eliminate because of the one-year limitation?
Jason Hollmann, Director General, Asylum, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: We looked at the applications received between the start date, which was June 3, and the end of October to get a sense of the number. It was about 37%, or 19,000 cases out of the 50,000 cases received during that period.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: We have two senators who have joined us: Senator Andrew Cardozo from Ontario and Senator Rosemary Moodie, also from Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: My apologies for being late. You may have covered this, in which case, you can just tell me to move to the next question.
I’ve been working on this. Let me read it to you because I want to get it right. The bill is called Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act. You are trying to strike a balance between advancing the security of Canadians and increasing the powers of security forces while ensuring the rights of Canadians. That’s always the kind of balance you must strike. In one sense, this is a timely bill.
I would suggest to you that migration around the world is a challenge facing virtually all governments. I would say that migration has resulted in a right-wing shift in governments and politics around the world, in some cases to the far right. I think the definition of “far right” has certain problems. If democratic, moderate governments don’t respond to this one major issue, we end up moving politics further to the right, further setting back the rights of migrants and people who are moving.
Could you outline what you think are the key measures on each side of this, where you are tightening up but, at the same time, ensuring rights and keeping in mind there is considerable concern that you are moving too far in the direction of tightening up? I would ask Mr. Anandasangaree first and then Minister Diab.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator. That is a very astute observation with respect to where the trends are internationally. We see that with our Five Eyes and G7 partners, and we see it globally.
I think what is critical for us in Canada is to ensure that we maintain the consensus of Canadians around immigration, especially with respect to asylum seekers and those who seek protection from Canada. My family came to Canada as refugees, and I fully appreciate and recognize the enormous power it has given me in enabling myself and hundreds of thousands of Canadians to be able to benefit from this country.
What is important is what I outlined earlier, namely, the three principles that have helped us develop this bill. First and foremost is our obligation to the Refugee Convention, which imposes a certain number of restrictions on what our government can do. Secondly, that whatever we do is in compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is another narrative that is building where we can, at will, not have Charter protections available. The third element is due process. I believe the measures that are taken here, especially with respect to immigration, strike that balance, and it enables Canada to have a humanitarian system while strengthening certain provisions that appear to be loopholes and be able to have what I think are reasonable limitations on, for example, the one-year limitation for individuals to seek asylum once they are in the country. We believe that strikes the right balance between providing protection and, at the same time, ensuring that we have some limitations on our system overall.
Senator Cardozo: Minister Diab?
Ms. Metlege Diab: If you have a question, go ahead.
Senator Cardozo: My concern is, with some of the provisions, are we not just going to end up in court as people push back on some of these measures?
Mr. Anandasangaree: I go back to the three principles, Senator Cardozo. We believe that we have struck the right balance. Virtually every measure taken here has procedural safeguards in place, is Charter compliant and in line with the Refugee Convention of 1951. While every piece of legislation will have the scrutiny of the courts, that is the prerogative of those seeking that remedy. My sense is that this secures our ability to withstand court challenges.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you all for being with us today. I have two questions that I’m going to put into one so I can get them both answered. They are for Minister Anandasangaree, and they are about the Coast Guard, which is near and dear to my heart as a Maritimer.
The Coast Guard will now be taking on some security activities, particularly in the North. What is going to be done to ensure that they have the proper ships to be able to do a 12‑month surveillance in the North? What is going to be done to ensure that if they need to use force, they will actually have the capability to use force? I understand they are not going to be armed.
The second question is related to the Canadian Coast Guard’s sharing of intelligence with the United States Coast Guard, which is important for the illicit drug trade, for sure. The President of the United States, or POTUS, has shown that he is a bit unpredictable. He summarily fired the Commander of the Coast Guard, Admiral Linda Fagan, about a year ago, claiming she was a diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, hire.
Given the fact that we may become the fifty-first state, according to him, what are the safeguards around intelligence sharing with the United States Coast Guard?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator. I appreciate your concerns about the Coast Guard.
This is a significant shift in the way the Coast Guard has operated. The additional function of intelligence gathering is critical. It enables us to secure the two-per-cent commitments to NATO. It also enables us to have greater visibility over the Arctic, especially from an intelligence perspective, because we know that they are of critical importance not just to Canada but to the world and particularly to the Inuit, who have called it that home for millennia.
The balancing act here is that the coast guard does not have the ability to do law enforcement. For example, if it is a customs or CBSA function, then CBSA would have to be embedded within the Coast Guard for them to have an active role other than transport because they can’t go into the law enforcement lane. So it is a clear delineation.
With respect to information sharing, we have a robust system of sharing information, particularly through the Five Eyes. In September we met with our colleagues in London, and we will be meeting the Five Eyes countries again in the summer. We have a robust information-sharing regime that enables us to share information mutually, with some limitations and some safeguards in place. The objective of the Coast Guard being able to gather information is about Canada’s safety and security and about our fundamental ability to gather information for the benefit of Canada’s Arctic sovereignty. That’s the singular and probably the most important reason why that functionality is being expanded.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you all for being here. Before I start, I would like to congratulate Minister Anandasangaree for the great team that came to Washington two weeks ago to provide the evidence on the border work. It was good to hear specific data. Thank you for that.
My question concerns a letter from the Honourable Marie Deschamps, chair of the National Security Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, regarding the government’s national security footprint that would result from the passage of this legislation. The letter suggests that the NSIRA is already facing budget reductions under the government’s expenditure review, and with this legislation and the subsequent expanded national security footprint, it is tough to understand how it could fill its oversight role by an acceptable measure or standard. I am wondering what your response might be to these concerns, and if you see a meaningful role for this agency moving forward parallel to or with this legislation?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator, and thank you for the kind words. I will relay them to the team.
Issues regarding national security require safeguards in place and independent scrutiny of the work of our national security agencies. The work of NSIRA and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, and the two committees — one of Parliament and one of the upper house — are critically important tools. The fiscal frame that we are in has resulted in an across-the-board reduction in some cases, including NSIRA. I have acknowledged that and have had a number of conversations about it.
At the core of this is whether there are adequate safeguards in place for an independent review. I believe it is there, and I believe it is able to do the work it needs to do, along with NSICOP, two committees, the Auditor General and a number of other independent bodies that do the work.
Right now, the Coast Guard is not subject to NSIRA, from my understanding, so the work that we’re doing to expand is not currently within the scope such that NSIRA would be required to do the review. Most of the other matters do not relate to intelligence; they relate more to border control, as well as on the immigration side, to the Immigration Refugee Board. I believe the appropriate safeguards are in place.
I would suggest that, as we look at the national security plan that we intend to bring forward over the spring and this year, there will be additional features regarding scrutiny and regulation that we will contemplate and be able to share with Canadians.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I want to clarify this. Would NSIRA be able to anticipate increased resources to do the work they need to do if this legislation is passed as it is currently written? Or is that to be determined?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Right now, they are going through the regular Comprehensive Expenditure Review, and every agency is going through that except for front-line offices, which are CBSA, RCMP and CSIS. If you look at the Office of the Correctional Investigator, there are a number of agencies, including Public Safety Canada, that have faced some reductions. That’s a government-wide approach, as you are aware, and it is one we need to do in order to strengthen our ability to withstand the current challenges we face south of the border as well as the difficult trade relationships that we have faced.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today. My question is for Minister Diab. It’s on Part 7 and the proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Clause 72 empowers the Governor-in-Council to cancel or vary immigration documents, including permanent residence status if it is in the public interest.
In my home province of Manitoba, we have permanent residents who fill persistent labour shortages in high-demand sectors like health care, technology and skilled trades. Typically, holding PR status confers security of status within Canada, but this change, along with proposed section 87.302(1), which cancels or varies documents, does make PR status vulnerable to revocation or suspension. What were the reasons for the government’s decision to apply these new powers to permanent resident status?
Ms. Metlege Diab: We are all here talking and saying the same thing. We cannot cancel permanent residents with these clauses. So I’m not sure where you are reading that. We would be happy to look at that, but it is not for permanent residents. It is strictly for those who are here on visas — so temporary residents like visitors — but certainly not for permanent residents.
Senator Osler: For clarification, the proposed section 87.302(1) to cancel or vary documents, which does actually say “permanent resident status” — so if there were a matter of national interest, does that make those permanent residents potentially vulnerable to a change in their status?
Ms. Metlege Diab: The bill itself is not designed to address people’s status. We can’t take away people’s status. That is a matter of right, and people can obviously challenge that. It strengthens control over the immigration documents, the application and the inventory when it’s necessary in the public interest.
This isn’t new. Actually, we already have a lot of these powers. The difference is that we now have to do them one by one. I learned that when I came in as a minister. They told me that during COVID-19 they had to do them one by one, which was very time-consuming, inefficient and whatnot.
If we can put the powers there as they did during COVID — they could have it done at once by suspending — it would have been much better, as opposed to telling the pilots or whatever — as it was explained to me — you have to put the quarantine provisions so you can’t fly over Canada, or something of that sort is what I was told in order to get around not allowing people to come into Canada. So that would help us with that situation.
It is the same as if there is a scam in our security features or in our immigration system where there is a cyber attack or so on. We would then be able to stop all inventory and all intakes coming in all at once until that is figured out.
Senator Osler: Thank you, minister. Perhaps if the department now or perhaps at some point in writing could provide some clarification. I know the previous section does talk about the application process, but section 87.302 (1) does make it sound like status could be varied or changed. That would be wonderful. Thank you from my concerned Manitobans.
Ms. Metlege Diab: We will take that back.
The Chair: Minister, if you could send that response to the committee clerk, we would appreciate it very much.
Senator Hay: Thank you, ministers, for all the work you do for all the people in Canada, not just the Canadians in Canada. I appreciate that.
I may be asking a tough question that is likely a worry on people’s minds. As my 88-year-old mom would say, just get it out on the table, so I’m putting it out on this table.
Minister Diab, stakeholders argue that Bill C-12 could lead to mass deportations without full or fair hearings. We are seeing what this kind of policy change can do right now in the United States with federal agents and their treatment of American citizens and acting in a way that’s not transparent and is against human rights, from basic human rights to the most egregious.
My question is: What safeguards let the Government of Canada ensure that asylum claimants or newly arrived claimants will receive meaningful, procedural fairness through the Canadian immigration system and that they will have access to judicial review before being potentially removed from Canada?
Ms. Metlege Diab: Thank you. Maybe I will speak here about the pre-removal risk assessment process that is ultimately the one that is in the act. Of course, prior to people getting on that, they would probably have claimed through other channels as well.
Let me talk about the pre-removal risk assessment as I alluded to earlier. It has been in Canada for over 20 years, and it has been upheld by numerous judicial reviews as meeting Canada’s international obligations.
It was designed in response to our non-refoulement obligations and not designed specifically for failed claimants, but rather for individuals who may be removed from Canada who allege they are facing a risk in the country to which they would be returned.
That process is initiated when a client is no longer eligible to remain in Canada and is subject to an enforceable order. So an order would have been issued from CBSA that you have to leave. If they feel there is a sufficient reason that they can say they are facing a risk of persecution, torture, threats to their lives or cruel and unusual treatment, they are allowed to stay. But that’s the threshold they have to face.
Even at that point, though, they can still challenge through the federal court as well.
Senator Hay: For clarification, do you see that Bill C-12 could lead to mass deportation in Canada?
Ms. Metlege Diab: It is not designed for mass deportation at all. It would have to be a public safety issue, as I said. It would have to be a real threat to Canada.
Mr. Anandasangaree: If I may be very clear on this, I would categorically reject that notion. This is not in any way meant for mass deportation. We are Canada. Bill C-12 reflects the values that we espouse. Our sense of what we see in other parts of the world has driven how we do things differently in Canada, and ensures that the right lens — the human rights lens, as well as the humanitarian perspective — are embedded in the legislation.
While I think your 88-year-old mother would probably be right in appropriately thinking that what is happening in other places cannot be replicated here, that’s not the case with Bill C-12, senator.
Senator Hay: Thank you, ministers.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you to the ministers for being here. I’m pleased to see that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is here, because today we are discussing security issues, but with a cross-cutting approach.
My question concerns the process. What facts and studies are used to propose such a significant omnibus bill, particularly one that affects both security and asylum seekers? You also stated that it amends the laws aimed at strengthening Canada’s immigration system and its border. What, then, are the threats identified in the objectives that justify these measures?
[English]
Ms. Metlege Diab: The bill itself is designed to fill the gaps that the current regulations, legislation and authorities don’t have. A lot of these measures we already have. It is meant, though, to provide us with more efficiencies and more control over our documents in terms of information sharing, as I said. That’s one of the four sections it is to be able to share with — even in the federal — even in the IRCC division at the moment. When you apply to come into Canada on a work permit or student permit, that’s one application. You go later to apply for permanent residency; that’s a separate one. You have to redo everything all over again. And if you decide to stay and you want to get a passport, that’s a third one altogether.
Part of this is to make it all one line system. A lot of it is for efficiencies. That is one of the four provisions. There are two provisions that talk about ineligibility. For me, I would submit to you that they are simple in that there is a 14-day requirement. If you are coming from the United States and you are claiming asylum after 14 days, we are saying you are not eligible unless you can satisfy the fear-of-persecution, et cetera stage. What we’re also saying is we want to tighten up on individuals who are in Canada already with visas — regardless of the visa, visitor whatever, you name it — after being here one year, student or whatever, you cannot all of a sudden claim asylum because we need to protect those who are persecuted. That is our system. That’s the fair way to do it.
Right now, there are 300,000 in the system, I am told 37% of which may be ineligible because of those requirements. Our system is stressed. Canadians, rightly, are expecting us to take control and to do something. This didn’t come overnight, but, quite honestly, over the last few years.
When I first went into politics over 10 years ago, this was not an issue. In fact, we were crying for people, wanting them to come. Now it is access. We still want people to come, but the issue is we want them to come properly, by using the immigration channels we have and not improperly. We also want to say to those who are committing extortion and crimes and so on, that’s it. We want to move them out faster. We heard loud and clear we need to do something, and this is our way of responding.
Mr. Anandasangaree: I realize we are short on time.
The Chair: I will give you a minute.
Mr. Anandasangaree: There are a number of measures that are outside of the IRCC world that I want to highlight, which is on the ability of cuts to CBSA to do outboard inspections. They changed the Canadian Coast Guard mandate, enabling precursors, for example, to be listed faster, as well as measures around border control and removal. There are a number of measures that relate not to immigration alone but to the border, as well as directly attacking synthetic and opioids and other illicit drugs, including fentanyl.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, ministers, for being here today. There is certainly a lot to unpack in this bill, and when I read the background material, I had questions all over the place, but I want to start with parts 9 and 10 on illicit financing. What the bill does is increase the penalties for certain kinds of crimes.
I want to understand the background on this. What has happened? How has the situation changed? What are we trying to accomplish here? What are the goals?
I also want to understand a little bit more about who the offenders are. Are they terrorist organizations? Criminal organizations? Are we talking about foreign interests or foreign elements? Are we talking about foreign state actors, for example? Might they be part of what is in this bill?
Those are my first questions.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator. Those are important questions. When we had the Five Eyes and G7 meetings this year, one of the terms that came out was “poly‑criminality” and the expansion of organized crime groups, for example, who are very much following the money. If it is auto theft, they follow the auto-theft money route. If it is extortion, they follow that. If it is drugs, they follow that.
There is a range of criminal groups who use financing as the actual means by which to profit, whether it is through human smuggling or migrant smuggling. We needed a comprehensive response to that. That’s why we have a range of restrictions coupled with additional resources and an additional mandate of FINTRAC so we can actually follow the money and ensure that it’s not just police work. We are setting up a financial crime agency of Canada as part of Budget 2025. It is to ensure that the financing component has the laser-sharp focus it needs for us to use that as an additional tool of law enforcement.
If you wish, I would ask Deputy Commissioner Larkin to comment on it.
Bryan Larkin, Senior Deputy Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you, minister and Madam Senator. What the minister referred to is a complete erosion of traditional organized crime, an erosion of those who would typically do foreign actor interference and terrorist financing. The term poly-criminality means that they no longer discriminate when it comes to the kind of crime. Groups operating in Canada will participate in organized crime to support terrorist financing. Vice versa, they will support organized crime activities.
One of the notions of interest for policing is that, obviously, Bill C-12 does provide some enhanced abilities around the proceeds of crime. There’s the ability to investigate money laundering, the ability to seize assets and the ability to recoup, but it also enhances our relationships through FINTRAC and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI, in particular, by working with financial institutions. We have already launched an integrated financing team with financial institutions to advance that work.
These are important pieces. The old adage of “follow the money” means that crime can be a lucrative opportunity in Canada. Everybody is looking at different pieces. It is no longer national security looking at this, no longer looking at organized crime. The reality is we need a blended, integrated approach to ensure the safety of Canadians.
Senator Dasko: Are these offenders domestic? Are they working in Canada? Are they working on a transnational basis? Or are they mainly foreigners? Who are they? Are they all of the above?
Mr. Larkin: Yes. No. Maybe. Senator, the reality is that the tentacles of crime know no geographical boundaries. Yes, we have those who commit crimes domestically, and we also have those who are globally networked. These are large enterprises that move money across the nation. That’s why the work of Five Eyes and working with non-traditional partners are equally important to the safety of not only Canadians but also of everyone on the globe and our partners.
Mr. Anandasangaree: The recent arrest of Ryan Wedding is illustrative of the type of organized crime that we’re talking about, which is, in this case, more on the American side but very much linked to Canada and Mexico.
Senator Moodie: My question is for the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Minister Diab, I want to follow up on a question from Senator Carignan. Parts 5 and 6 of the bill introduce a one-year ban on making a refugee claim after the first entry to Canada, including retroactive application. Many legal experts, including the Migrant, Immigrant and Refugee Rights Alliance, the Canadian Council for Refugees and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, argue that this could deny protection to people whose circumstances change considerably over time.
My question to you is this: What empirical evidence supports this change in the law, and how does the Government of Canada address concerns that it values the rights of these persons?
Yes, Minister Anandasangaree, you are correct. We are Canada, and these are values that we hold dear, not just for Canadians but for all people on Canadian soil.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Maybe I’ll start, Minister Diab. I think the one-year bar, which means that—
Senator Moodie: Sorry to interrupt, but respectfully, it was directed at Minister Diab. I’d love to hear your thoughts after.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Okay.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
Ms. Metlege Diab: You’re talking about the section of the bill that discusses ineligibility, particularly for the one-year bar. As I said, they will have access to the pre-removal risk assessment before they are removed from Canada, and that application suspends the removal until Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, renders a decision on the risks a person may face, so they will not be removed until that takes place.
Senator Moodie: I understand the process, Madam Minister, but I am asking about the empirical evidence that supports the change in this law. If you could focus on that, that would be helpful.
Ms. Metlege Diab: We have stats.
Jason Hollmann, Director General, Asylum, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: I would say that we focus on the pre-removal risk assessment because it is key to ensuring, as the minister mentioned, that people are not sent back to situations of harm or danger. In that sense, it looks at the same types of criteria that the Immigration and Refugee Board does. Regarding the pre-removal risk assessment, it would be artificial to compare the approval rates because, right now, largely, the people who have access to the pre-removal risk assessment are people who have already failed an IRB decision. Therefore, the new evidence they provide does not lead to a different decision.
What we see is that the mechanism, as the minister said earlier, is a 20-year-old process that has been subject to significant judicial scrutiny over that time. Only about 5% of the cases that go to the federal court are either returned for review or are settled, so we are pretty confident in the approach. The officers making those decisions receive about six months of training and mentoring in order to ensure they have the skills to make the decision. Each case is reviewed on its own merits, and the clients provide the same type of information they provide to the Immigration and Refugee Board. That information can be continuously updated right up until the hearing. Should they have new information or want to continue to work on their case, they can be supported by an attorney or legal aid in the same way they can with the Immigration and Refugee Board process.
Ms. Metlege Diab: I’m going to give you one stat that was passed to me, just to show you how concerned we are. Over the last year, 37% of asylum claims came from students.
Senator Woo: Thank you, ministers and officials.
My understanding of the system as we have it today is that the IRB was created precisely because of a Supreme Court decision, Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, which found it was necessary to have an in-person and oral hearing before an adjudication panel.
This is the same question we are going through again today. I don’t know how you can tell us that this is Charter compliant when the Supreme Court has already said that it isn’t.
Ms. Metlege Diab: We have someone here from the Department of Justice who can answer that if you like.
Senator Woo: I would prefer to hear from one of the ministers.
Mr. Anandasangaree: I can answer this. We have to be clear in terms of where we are today vis-à-vis our refugee determination process. Right now, it is bursting at the seams, which is an understatement. It is significantly slower because of the volume we are dealing with. It is patently unfair for people going through this who have faced trauma and have been in the system where it might take six, seven or eight years to reunite with their families. That’s the premise we are approaching this with.
When you are in Canada, you have a year to make a claim, which is a reasonable time. It is not 10 or 14 days. It is one full year. I would say most people who come in through the border will have to make the claim on the day they come to the border. Those who are arriving on flights, for example, will make the claim right away. We want to make sure the ability to file that and to seek asylum is available. One year is a number that is somewhat subjective, but it is a reasonable amount of time for somebody to make their claim. Those people will get the full benefit of the immigration and refugee protection system.
For those who face significant challenges — for example, issues around LGBTQ and members of the LGBTQ communities — if they come in, there is a risk for their safety and security upon return. If they make the claim after a year, when they are ineligible, the safeguard is the pre-removal risk assessment. When it comes through the system — through the IRB or through appeals — the PRRA has a very low acceptance rate. When it is the first instance, the actual determination piece, without any other mechanism in place, whether it is IRB or any other form of determination, it is far higher, in the 60-percentile range.
I think it is a compromise we have had to make, but it is still grounded in principle. While the Singh decision is a critical guiding principle of refugee protection in Canada, in this context of what we’re dealing with, it is an important step to ensure that our system is fair and more efficient, but also absolutely humane in terms of those who may be impacted.
Senator Woo: It sounds like you are going to let the courts decide if and when someone makes a challenge. Of course, it’s going to take time and money, and people are going to get hurt. Your argument to the Supreme Court, essentially, is that the world has changed, we need to be expedient and we have a huge backlog; therefore, we think you should make a different decision this time.
Mr. Anandasangaree: That’s not correct, senator.
Senator Woo: What’s the argument you are going to make to the Supreme Court?
Mr. Anandasangaree: I know the lawyer who worked on the Singh decision, and I have the utmost respect for her. She’s one of my mentors.
What I will say is that the legislation in front of you today has the safeguards in place, ensures a better and more efficient immigration and refugee system and will also make sure that people do not fall through the cracks. That’s why the PRRA, which is automatic in this case, will be provided.
Senator Woo: Thank you.
Ms. Metlege Diab: I will add to that that courts have confirmed that neither the Charter nor the Refugee Convention requires a particular form of refugee determination process. Therefore, as long as those with ineligible claims are given access to a risk assessment — which we’re saying the pre‑removal risk assessment is there — this proposed ineligibility provision would be found compliant with Canada’s international refugee obligations in section 7 of the Charter.
Senator Woo: Can you provide us with those rulings? That would be very helpful.
Ms. Metlege Diab: That’s the information that I have from experts from departments, but sure.
Mr. Anandasangaree: We can provide that.
Ms. Metlege Diab: I believe a Charter challenge was filed when Bill C-2 was first tabled back in June.
The Chair: Colleagues, we are approaching the witching hour, which is almost five minutes after five. I want to thank all of you for your very thoughtful interventions in regard to the ministers here today.
Minister Diab, I know my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, or SOCI, are hearing sections of the bill more specific to the immigration changes.
Ms. Metlege Diab: If you say so. I’m not sure.
The Chair: They have asked you to appear before that committee as they deal with the bill. I would urge you to consider appearing before that committee as well because they are hearing from far more witnesses on the immigration side of the bill, and that obviously requires your leadership to speak to those issues.
To both ministers, thank you very much for being here today. It is a very complex bill, as we go through the process. We thank you for taking the time to be here.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you for this opportunity, and thank you again to Senator Dean.
What I would suggest, I have had a lot of one-on-one meetings with senators over the last nine months. I would invite you to connect with my office or Minister Diab’s office. I would be more than happy to sit down and go through any concerns that people have. We recognize it is a complex, multi-layered bill with many different dimensions to it, so we appreciate the complexity you are all working with.
On my part, I will be more than available. If you PM me personally, I will get back to you. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senators, the department officials from Public Safety Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canada Border Services Agency, Health Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada have graciously agreed to stay behind and will continue answering our questions.
We will now begin. For those who wish to ask questions or for those joining us live, we are meeting today to open our study on Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.
In the past hour, we’ve had the pleasure of hearing the Minister of Public Safety, the Honourable Gary Anandasangaree, and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, the Honourable Lena Metlege Diab, on this topic.
We now continue our questions with Public Safety Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canada Border Services Agency, Health Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
Moving forward, I ask that members identify to whom each question is directed, if possible. I ask the officials to approach the table when a question pertaining to them is called. Please bring your name card with you so that we will know your name.
Senator Al Zaibak: My question is to the Canada Border Services Agency. Bill C-12 introduces new authorities for border examinations of export goods. From an operational standpoint, how will CBSA ensure that these powers are applied consistently and appropriately across ports of entry everywhere?
Graeme Hamilton, Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the question. I am Graeme Hamilton, the Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency.
I appreciate very much the question from the senator. I would like to clarify two small things with regard to the powers that are included in Bill C-12 or under the Customs Act.
The first is that there are no new examination authorities included under the changes. What is changing is the authority to access the goods and then exercise the authority to do the examination we already have. In many ways, it clarifies the legal obligation for transporters, warehouses and those privately operated ports to provide us access to the goods so we can undertake the examination authorities we already have, particularly as it relates to exported goods. That is because those pieces of legislation that currently exist in the Customs Act uniquely identify those obligations related to imported goods.
In terms of your question regarding how we will use those judicially, Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, uses a risk-based approach in order to identify which goods are subject to examination. This is based on pre-arrival information that is provided from goods, and we will continue to use that to inform which goods are subject to additional examination at the border, either for import or export.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you. For the RCMP and CBSA, what new capabilities or tools under Bill C-12 will most directly strengthen efforts to disrupt transnational organized crime networks, including those involved in fentanyl trafficking?
Mr. Hamilton: I will take the question from the perspective of the Canada Border Services Agency. What you see in terms of what is included in Bill C-12 from a Customs Act perspective is really an alignment to ensure that the powers and authorities we currently have to undertake an examination of goods destined for import — so protecting the safety and security of Canadians in terms of examining those goods coming into the Canadian economy — mirrors some of those obligations to allow us to exercise those authorities for goods that are being exported from Canada.
There was a misalignment in terms of the language of the bill, where we didn’t necessarily have all the authorities required for us to legally compel access to goods being exported so that we could examine them to make sure that the goods flowing out of Canada aren’t being done in a way in which there is a lot of contraband. We see large amounts of cannabis being exported from Canada, for example. Last year, we saw a significant increase in the number of stolen vehicles being exported from Canada. The authorities included in Bill C-12 are related to ensuring that the border services officers who are working at the border have the authority to access goods that are being exported from the country to make sure that they don’t include contraband, which includes drugs and other materials.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: I have a couple of questions. The first is on Part 5 with regard to IRCC being able to share information about temporary residents, permanent residents and naturalized citizens within the department and with other federal departments. How do you decide how you can do that? What the limitations are? How do you make sure you don’t contravene the Privacy Act?
My second question is along the same lines as my colleague’s question on the Customs Act. Will you be training your staff at CBSA to be able to deal with exports, and are you going to be focusing on the large problem of the illicit “export” of vehicles that has been happening for a while? I don’t think we have that problem quite under control yet.
Tara Lang, Director General, Integrity Policy and Programs, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you for the question. I’m going to start with immigration information sharing. There are a couple of different amendments in this space. Right now, we can only share on a case-by-case basis and with a really specific reason in mind. That includes within our own department, as the minister mentioned. Right now, the new information-sharing provisions would allow us to share on a more regular and purposeful way with provinces and territories. In order to do that, we would have to set up information-sharing agreements, which would itemize the circumstances under which those would be shared. Before we can do the sharing, we have to negotiate those information-sharing agreements.
With other federal departments, such as our Public Safety colleagues, right now, when there is an investigation, even a police force might call the Department of Immigration and say:
I have this guy on the side of the road. Can you tell me who they are? Do they have status in Canada?
There is a large process we must go through in order to be able to share that information. It is in the need-to-know space. When dealing with emergency situations and criminal investigations, the need to know is much quicker than months. In order to do that type of sharing, we would have to have information sharing in place, and also we might have to write regulations. We are investigating what kind of information we would want to share with, for example, public safety law enforcement partners and what those situations might be. If they become a little tenuous in terms of privacy and not tight enough, then we will enter into regulations in order to do that.
The last piece about internal to IRCC is, again, that ability to share within lines of business and make sure that clients don’t have to submit the same information over and over again. We as a department can also validate the changes between your temporary resident application and permanent resident application and your work application. You are saying the same things. You are saying: These are my brothers and sisters; this is where I live, et cetera. Right now, we have to have a very specific need to know, but in terms of privacy, these are all going to continue to follow the Privacy Act and existing legislation. But information-sharing agreements need to be in place to share with provinces and territories.
There is one other part about privacy. It also prevents onward sharing. Even if we share information with provinces and territories, they are limited to keeping that within their own jurisdiction. They are not able to share with any other entity, foreign or otherwise, and it has to respect the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act. There is no onward sharing. This is in no way foreign sharing. This is truly domestic and within Canada.
Senator Cardozo: When somebody comes at Pearson one year and then British Columbia the next year, is that information available to CBSA officials in the second place — that the person came in a year earlier?
Ms. Lang: It is. Yes. But when you are assessing the applications from an immigration perspective, right now we have to know about the other application and have to find a reason why we would access certain information within it. So now that would rectify that problem and make it a lot more streamlined.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you. If there is time, I have a question on the Customs Act.
Mr. Hamilton: I will address it quickly. I would say that there is a small group of dedicated officers who have been trained specifically around export. I know that there are a small number at the Port of Montreal, for example, that were born out of the stolen vehicles experience and needing to provide dedicated support for that. I would say, as part of the government’s announcement of the hiring of 1,000 new border services officers, some of that will go toward balancing a little bit of our examination footprint in terms of making sure that we are examining goods both coming in and out of the country. I cannot speak to what that balance would look like, but it will provide additional flexibility.
I would say, on the training side, one of the things that we have seen is most effective is making sure we are taking a targeted-risk-based approach to undertaking our examinations. It is like looking for a needle in a haystack. There is a lot of illegitimate trade out there. So we need to make sure that our intelligence officers are trained to identify anomalies in the data, that we are being given high-quality data and that we are using it in our targeting system to identify for our front-line officers which of the containers they should be opening up. That includes working with our police of jurisdiction, our counterparts, the RCMP in particular, to make sure that we are as targeted as possible. That is where some of that training is being focused in terms of developing that officer skill set around targeted interventions.
Senator Cardozo: On average, what percentage of containers are looked at [Technical difficulties]?
Mr. Hamilton: I would not be able to provide that. We may be able to provide that after.
Senator Cardozo: Is it in the 5% or 50% range, do you think?
Mr. Hamilton: It is a much smaller number than 50% for sure. There are millions of containers that transit through Canadian ports every year. It can take upwards of 24 hours to destuff a container and to fully examine its contents. We often find contraband not in the contents itself but actually embedded in the metal of the container. So we would have to go through large-scale imaging as well in order to determine where those holds may be and where drugs might be stuffed. It is quite a laborious process, which is part of the reason why the intelligence that directs where we put our efforts is so important.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
The Chair: Some questions will go on a bit longer to save you from getting on the roster a second time, to help complete the process here.
Senator Kutcher: I would like to follow up on the questions on the Coast Guard. Do we have a Coast Guard person around?
Ryan Tettamanti, Senior Director, Maritime Security Force Development, Canadian Coast Guard: Yes. Hello, senator.
Senator Kutcher: I must say, one of the best meals I have eaten on a ship was on a Coast Guard ship.
Mr. Tettamanti: That is great to hear.
Senator Kutcher: Section 41(2) talks about adding security and security patrols. I’m interested in exactly what kind of security you envision being added, and whether or not we are going to have to increase the vessels in the fleet to make them icebreakers, if you are going to the North; that’s another part of the question. How do you currently work with the RCMP and the Canadian Navy, and what are the plans for that?
Mr. Tettamanti: Thank you, senator. That’s a great question. Fundamentally, we envision that there will be two types of security patrols: those where the Coast Guard does not have an embarked partner. With the model we currently use, we do embark the RCMP and Maritime Security Enforcement Teams as well as the DFO Conservation and Protection program, where the Coast Guard acts as the platform so that they can execute their mandate at sea. That will continue. We are ready to continue supporting our security and enforcement partners at sea, which will include CBSA and National Defence if they require it.
That’s one element of the security patrol. The other is where the Coast Guard does not have an embarked partner. In that case, we will be out at sea, as we are every day, building maritime domain awareness. In this case, what we are doing is making sure that we understand who is in our waters, that we are able to gather that information and send it back to the Marine Security Operation Centres, and share with our security partners there. In that role, the security patrol is less about enforcement and more about maritime domain awareness, understanding what is there, so that we can share that information with our partners.
Senator Kutcher: Ships?
Mr. Tettamanti: One of the great things about the Coast Guard is we are able to undertake multiple missions, if you will, at the same time. Essentially, the vision right now is that every time a Coast Guard ship goes out, we will be building that maritime domain awareness around us. Fundamentally, we are able to do multiple programs at the same time. Imagine that a Coast Guard vessel is operating in the Arctic, icebreaking, escorting a vessel into a community for summer resupply. All along that track, we are going to be building domain awareness. We are going to be doing that already. The question then becomes if we have to do more security patrols in support of partners. If there is greater demand from the RCMP or CBSA and these other partners, that’s where we will need to have dedicated resource vessels to support those programs. Right now, we are ready to support. I think we are just waiting for the demand signal from the enforcement and security partners in Canada. That will drive the requirements, in which case we will have to come and revisit the size of the fleet.
Senator Kutcher: Specifically with icebreakers, because my understanding is some of the new frigates we now have in the navy, which are outstanding — I got a tour of them — are ice capable but don’t have capacity for icebreaking. So the Coast Guard would have to actually go and break the ice for the frigate to get through. How is that being discussed and dealt with?
Mr. Tettamanti: Another great question. Thank you for that. We work very closely with the navy. We already do that now where we rendezvous in the Arctic. We do joint exercises. We have one planned for this coming summer. Fundamentally, that work will continue. The navy is able to navigate the Arctic without Coast Guard assistance in the summertime. Fundamentally, they are able to operate. They understand the ice conditions where they can operate with the hulls that they have. But if there are any missions where they require icebreaker support, then we will certainly support that. But for the most part, they operate in summer and are able to navigate — they understand where the ice-free areas are and don’t necessarily require an escort.
Senator Kutcher: So we are waiting for Russia to move only in the summertime.
Mr. Tettamanti: No, sir. The Coast Guard deploys throughout the summer months because that is their capability. However, I will say that we have two polar icebreakers we are building. They will be coming on line in 2030 and 2032. Those will allow the Coast Guard to operate in the Arctic all year round. We will have a 365-day presence in the Arctic once those vessels are delivered, which will be a first for Canada and a significant boost, if I can say so, for sovereignty and security in Canadian waters.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator White: Thank you very much. My question’s comments are about Part 4, the Oceans Act, and it builds on what Senator Kutcher was saying. My understanding is that now we have broader powers to be able to provide security. Then we collect data and analyze it. I guess I want to hear more: What kinds of data are we collecting? Are there any safeguards for how we are going to share it and who we are going to share it with? You talked about partners. I understand partners within Canada, but are there any protocols or agreements with any of our allied partners for any maritime intelligence?
Mr. Tettamanti: Excellent. Thank you for the question. I will start with internal. First, looking at partners within Canada. Essentially, we work through the Marine Security Operations Centres. There are three. There is one in Halifax, one in Victoria and one in the Great Lakes region. There we share information with five other partners. There is the RCMP, the DFO Conservation and Protection program, Transport Canada, CBSA and National Defence. Until this bill comes into effect, the Coast Guard actually doesn’t have a mandate or the ability to share information for the purposes of security. We are a safety organization. So we have information. We have a very good understanding of what is happening in Canadian waters, but we are not able to share that information with those security partners officially. So fundamentally, this bill will allow us to do that. And the Coast Guard has quite a significant amount of resources, infrastructure and capability in place that allow us to build a very solid picture of everything within the 200-mile limit of Canadian waters. This bill will enable us to join that picture as a security partner and really contribute, I think, to our security status here in Canada.
As far as externally, with other countries, I will be honest that we have not looked at that as much within the Coast Guard. Those talks will advance through our colleagues at National Defence, but, for the moment, we haven’t looked too heavily at that yet.
Senator M. Deacon: I have 30 seconds to add a little part on here.
In this new sort of security leadership part, will there also be additional staff required in the training process? Or do you think you will be able to absorb this sort of new way with the existing staff that you have?
Mr. Tettamanti: No, we will not. We already know that. We are already working through the Treasury Board process for a demand for resources, full-time equivalents, or FTEs, as well as money for new equipment, which will enable us to operate and basically meet the moment for the security mandate that is now coming.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much.
Ms. Pelley, welcome back. I have a question for you. It was touched on earlier, but my question concerns changes to the Precursor Control Regulations. I hope you’re the right person for this. The Minister of Health has control over precursor chemicals used to produce illicit drugs. It is my understanding that this legislation would speed up this process to allow for nimbleness in what is an ever-changing synthetic drug environment. It’s really hard to keep up with it.
Typically, what is the process involved in these decisions? Does an expedited process — one of those unintended consequences — risk overreaching, potentially, scheduling chemicals that are also widely used for legitimate purposes? Furthermore, what would these changes mean for businesses looking to acquire chemicals for legitimate purposes?
Jennifer Pelley, Director, Office of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Controlled Substances and Opioid Response Directorate, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch, Health Canada: Thank you for the question. We already, under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, have the ability for the Minister of Health to rapidly control any substance that they believe poses a risk to public health or public safety. We have made use of that power already to control precursor chemicals.
The gap is that we don’t then have the ability to regulate those chemicals the way they should be regulated, which is as precursors pursuant to the Precursor Control Regulations. That leaves us in a bit of a weird space with respect to those legitimate uses. I think, as you’ve said, we recognize that some of these chemicals are novel chemicals that are being developed specifically to evade international controls. Those, by and large, do not have international uses. But, last year, when we made use of this pathway to schedule three fentanyl precursors, one of those in particular had significant legitimate uses. Where we did not have the ability to kind of enable those legitimate uses was pursuant to the Precursor Control Regulations.
Companies in Canada are familiar with those regulations. They are familiar with the process to apply for a licence or a registration, depending on whether or not it is a Class A or Class B precursor chemical. We don’t currently have the ability to both control and regulate those chemicals. It is a barrier for legitimate uses, and that’s specifically the gap we are looking to address through Part 2 of Bill C-12.
Senator Hay: Thank you all for being here and for your work. I am always interested in, and I probably talk ad nauseam about things like data governance and sovereignty. So I am going to go down that path, and it might be you, Ms. Lang, that I speak to because you spoke about it. I am picking up from Senator Cardozo’s commentary.
Canada, around the governance and sovereignty of data, has not really fully developed, for today’s world, the future world, the guardrails that need to be around it. Therefore, cybersecurity and process protocols around data, once it is shared, are sometimes grey areas, and risk increases.
As I understand Part 5 of Bill C-12, the minister of citizenship and immigration can share personal information within IRCC for any purpose related to administering immigration programs and, externally, under agreements, as you spoke about, with federal departments, provinces and territories and Crown corporations and others operating under federal-provincial law. It also says information cannot be sent to foreign governments without the federal minister’s consent, which basically means it can be shared with foreign governments.
So I have two questions. One is, what is your opinion on whether the current privacy laws and regulations are sufficient for Part 5 of Bill C-12? And, second, could you clarify what Minister Diab said earlier about the fact that this information-sharing is only in Canada — I remember her saying that — but that, in fact, she would have powers to share it outside Canada?
Ms. Lang: Yes. Thank you for the question. I will go backwards to the information-sharing onward for foreign entities.
As you know, we do currently use, on a regular basis, the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act. This is something that we use within IRCC and any other government department that deals with clients. When we’re looking to share information with foreign entities, we first have to do a fulsome assessment under the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act.
We very specifically added this clause within the bill to make it clear that if provinces and territories, in particular, received information from us and then were approached by a foreign entity, they would first have to come back to IRCC and explain that request. We would then do an assessment under the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act.
It is actually a redundant addition to the bill. It was made very purposefully, actually, at the request of Minister Anandasangaree who wanted to ensure that extra safeguard was very specifically placed. It is already within the privacy requirements of the provinces and territories and any other federal government department. It was like an extra layer of safety to make sure that we’re going forward with the “avoiding complicity and mistreatment.”
Could you repeat the first part of the question? I’m sorry.
Senator Hay: Just as data travels and is stored, it boomerangs all over the place.
Ms. Lang: You are concerned whether the privacy is sufficient?
Senator Hay: Correct. Are we at a sufficient level right now?
Ms. Lang: Speaking strictly as a bureaucrat who may become responsible for enacting a lot of this legislation, I absolutely think that the safeguards are in place. In fact, we have to share agreements with a multitude of entities in order to define what information we would share and under what circumstances before we can begin sharing. Even when the bill becomes law, if it passes, we cannot start all of a sudden. We must have very purposeful conversations that are legally binding under the Privacy Act and other things, so I really do believe that the strength exists within the bill.
Senator Hay: Thank you.
Senator Dean: I have been engaged in a previous life with encouraging public servants, in an organization that I led, to share information between departments. The biggest pushback — and I’m looking perhaps for a nod of agreement here — to sharing information outside of departments comes from people inside those departments. They worry about confidentiality. They wonder where that information might go. They worry about culpability. The biggest pushback to these changes will actually come from public servants unless the federal public service has changed since the last time I dipped my toes into the water.
This will take some warming up a bit. Those of you who might worry about information flying out of the door the day after parts of this bill or all of this bill are proclaimed, I would say to you that it probably won’t happen quickly enough to achieve the sorts of efficiencies that the proponents would like to see. That’s a good thing. That is the movement of the tide, if I can put it that way, and I think you are seeing heads nod sufficiently. We don’t need another response to that, but I just wanted to get that on the record.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I would like to continue on the issue of information sharing. This seems problematic to me. This practice raises privacy concerns; we’ve talked about that. I would like to focus on the protection and vulnerability of at-risk populations. What will this information be used for, and how will you ensure that humanitarian law is respected?
[English]
Ms. Lang: Thank you. I will give you a couple of examples of the benefits of information sharing, but maybe I will start, again, with the safeguards. We want to make sure that these information-sharing agreements are in place within provinces and territories and, potentially, within other federal government departments. So there are going to be, in addition to regular Privacy Act considerations by which we abide, Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act considerations. Especially in the case of vulnerable people, like refugee-seeking populations, those would be considerations and would not be taken lightly.
In terms of benefits, I have a few examples. It would allow us to confirm the identity of people who arrived in Canada through our immigration system, which is needed to give people access to a variety of public services and to support their successful integration into Canada. Right now, for instance, provinces and territories don’t, on a very regular basis, receive information about new visitors or new workers, and then, they don’t know what access they are entitled to.
It will also, along that same vein, be able to detect people who are defrauding programs and other services by using different identities. As I mentioned, it will help us carry out law and border enforcement activities and investigations. I did mention the multiple touches that a client wouldn’t have to have when applying for applications. It is a “tell us once” principle, allowing us to have fewer discrepancies between clients. We can go with an identity-based sharing of information rather than an application-based process. Grosso modo, the proactive sharing of information with provinces and territories will allow us to help newcomers more seamlessly and, at the same time, detect if there is fraud. A province could say, “This client popped up and they say they have this so-and-so document” and then we can say, “They are not in our system.” That will allow two-way enforcement within the department itself.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
I have a question about Bill C-2 and Bill C-12. Given that several elements of Bill C-2 are included in Bill C-12, does the government intend to withdraw Bill C-2 to avoid the coexistence of two bills with overlapping pieces of legislation?
Mike McGuire, Director General, International and Border Policy, Public Safety Canada: I can speak to that. I’m Mike McGuire, Director General, International and Border Policy at Public Safety Canada. I don’t know what the government’s decision will be on Bill C-2. It remains a House of Commons bill for the moment. If Bill C-12 is passed by the Senate and the House of Commons, the elements of legislation that would be duplicated would certainly need to be removed from Bill C-2. However, it would be up to the government to make that decision.
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: My question is in regard to Part 7 of the bill. What we’re talking about here is to allow the government to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents and to suspend, cancel or stop accepting new applications. I guess accepting new applications is something that currently exists. I am concerned more about the part around cancelling, suspending or changing immigration documents. Could you say a little bit more about what would be included in that? Why do you need to do that? Do those powers exist currently, either at the departmental or the ministerial level?
Then, the House added the requirement that these are consistent with the public interest. What is public interest? How do you define it, and how loosely do you define it? To pull an example out of the air, if a leader doesn’t like people from a certain religious or ethnic group or people from a certain country, could they simply say no more of that group?
Ms. Lang: Thank you for the question. I am glad to be able to tackle this because I know there were questions for the ministers and a lot of interest. It’s too bad that Senator Osler had to leave.
Very specifically, what is in scope are documents, and documents are different than status. A simple way of thinking about it — I was in the back ruminating about it — is a visa, as outlined in subsection 87.302(1), is a vehicle for travel. Status is what you have in Canada. For instance, what is included in the scope of these documents are temporary resident visas, electronic travel authorizations, temporary resident permits, work permits, study permits, permanent resident, or PR visas, PR travel documents and PR cards. What is not included are things issued understand the Citizenship Act or the Canadian Passport Order, applications for asylum in Canada, applications for pre-removal risk assessment, applications for extension or restoration of status, and in-Canada permanent resident applications that lead directly to permanent resident status. Things like that would be agency, public policies, and in-Canada spousal applications.
This is important because these authorities do not give the Governor-in-Council — because it is not a ministerial authority — any authority to revoke status and thereby have this risk of mass deportations. It allows you to pause applications, alter or vary documents and, potentially, cancel documents, absolutely. When you cancel a document, for instance, a work permit, the person’s status in Canada is not, at that point, affected. What it means is this they can no longer work, so their status is actually conferred when they enter the territory. CBSA allows them to enter, and the revocation of status is under sections 47 and 46 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act itself. It is not about status. It is about documents.
Examples of where we might use this —
Senator Cardozo: You made a difference between status and documents, but isn’t it the documents that give people status? What is the difference between the two?
Ms. Lang: They don’t. A document is purely that. It allows you to do something. Your status in Canada is conferred only after your travel, and you are landed. From a permanent resident situation, if you are overseas, you are issued a permanent resident visa. When you travel to Canada, you are landed by a Canada Border Services Agency officer. That’s your status. You now are a permanent resident of Canada. Your permanent resident visa is the vehicle that allows you to travel to Canada. That’s the document that we are talking about that can be impacted or affected.
It works similarly with a temporary resident visa. When you travel to Canada on a temporary resident visa, your authorized period of stay is generally six months. That’s the general situation. If your visa is cancelled, your validity and authorization of status in Canada remain. You are still allowed to be here. What happens is, if you leave the country, you no longer have a status to travel back on, for instance. If you are a worker and your document is cancelled, you are still a visitor.
I also want to mention that this is not a punitive measure. By that, I mean that if we identify some kind of fraud or — we’ve been using the example of a cybersecurity attack. Somebody hacks into our system, issues all these visas to potentially nefarious travellers, and we find out about through our regular checks or we get a tip. At that point, we can do a couple of things. We can pause all those applications, look at them and try to better identify the situation, or we can just cancel them and say, forget about it; we have enough evidence. When I say “we,” I don’t mean the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada or the Minister of Public Safety.
There would have to be a case that is written with an all-of-government approach that goes to the Governor-in-Council for consideration. All the pieces of the puzzle would be included. Who, exactly, are the document holders? What are the documents? Then they would have to convince the Governor-in-Council that this is actually acting in the best interests of Canada. Then it would be the Governor-in-Council who makes that decision.
That would be published in the Canada Gazette, and we have a requirement now to report to Parliament within seven days. What else do I want to say about safeguards? In the situation of a minister who had an ill-advised focus on a certain population, they would have to convince all of their counterparts in the government that this is a worthwhile endeavour and then prove to the Governor-in-Council that this is truly in the public interest. There are checks and balances there.
Senator Cardozo: They would have to put it out publicly.
Ms. Lang: They would have to put it out publicly and be subject to those situations.
Senator Cardozo: The matter of the public interest, how do you define that, and how can that shift over time?
Ms. Lang: Originally, public interest in the bill was purposefully originally vague, and it was just defined as the public interest. However, an amendment was passed, which now better defines the meaning of “public interest.” It says that it is the purpose to address matters such as an administrative error. For example, if we had a system glitch and a bunch of documents were issued with incorrect dates; fraud, again, in a proven case of fraud from our partners; public health — we had the pandemic example, for instance, and you mentioned that you know that we can pause applications or stop accepting them, but we cannot.
There are no provisions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, right now to stop accepting applications. That does not exist. Right now, although there are programs that have caps, temporary residents continuously apply, and they still sit in our inventory until we can process them. Public safety or national security — all of those pieces would have to fit within one of the cases to be made for the public interest.
Senator Cardozo: That could be a group. I don’t want to use slipshod language, but if there were a couple of terrorist attacks that came from a certain country in the world, we could just say, no more of them from that entire country.
Ms. Lang: Well, I can’t presuppose what the government might want to do or what the Governor-in-Council would accept, but in an international security situation, such as one in which we had identified that certain actors had applied for visas, and we had evidence that proved them to be part of a terrorist organization, then we could cancel, alter or pause their application or their document. Yes.
The Chair: That was a fairly extensive answer, but a good one. I appreciate it very much because I have a couple of questions in the same regard.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, Ms. Lang. That was outstanding. It was very helpful. I must admit that I became a bit confused by the previous panel. Let me just share a concern with you. I don’t think it is addressed in the bill, but I just want to make sure. There have been concerns brought to my attention that there may be significant numbers of duplicates in permanent residency applications — that the same individual has applied under different streams, and that that might be causing some of the backlog within the system and having them processed expeditiously.
That issue is not on the table here. I became confused about the minister talking about a person who is here but not here. Can you help me as if I were five years old? Can you explain it to me so that I understand it correctly?
Ms. Lang: In the instance of multiple permanent resident applications, I don’t know that we would want or suggest that eliminating duplicate applications, et cetera, en masse, would be in the public interest. We could deal with that within the existing information-sharing provisions because we would therefore be able to see that one client had this PR application for this or that PR application.
Where we would potentially use the mass authorities provision is if we somehow identified that someone had multiple permanent resident applications under different identities. So the same biometric potentially, but was applying as “Tara Lang” on one application, “Jennifer Pelley” on another, but we could identify that they were the same biometrics. In that case, we could pause, investigate and then potentially deal with that situation.
Again, it is on applications or documents. It is not on status. If we got into a status situation, it would be a different part of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and it is not covered by this act.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you so much for that. I appreciate it. I understand it now.
The Chair: While we still have you on the hot seat, I have a couple of questions. In terms of Orders in Council, obviously, they are not secret; they will be public. The public can learn when there is an order-in-council and what it entails. How quickly can an order-in-council become known by the public once there is a request?
Ms. Lang: I don’t know. The same day? My deputy says the same day.
The Chair: Same day. That’s good. Secondly, you did answer that the minister must tell Parliament within five days —
Ms. Lang: — seven days, yes.
The Chair: Members of Parliament have a constituency they represent, and if something impacted the community they represent, they would want to know about it so they can advocate on their behalf. In regard to information sharing, this has been a worry from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and a whole number of spheres within the government. In this legislation, is the government specifically considering asking the Privacy Commissioner to look at what this legislation entails? How you can best pre-emptively protect the rights of citizens in this country if you are sharing their information?
Ms. Lang: Yes. Thank you for the question. This is the second kick at the can, if you will, of the information-sharing provisions. Actually, it was tabled and went as far as the Senate under Bill S-6 a couple of years ago. At that time, we worked very closely with the Privacy Commissioner, who gave us advice and guidance, and we amended the legislation to take into consideration all of the points of view of the Privacy Commissioner. So it now reflects exactly the comfort level of the Privacy Commissioner, and he is satisfied with all the provisions and safeguards.
The Chair: Let me go one step farther. In sharing privacy information with provinces and territories, the regime is quite different across the country. It is somewhat unique, but not exclusively unique to the federal privacy legislation. How would we ensure that there is consistency in how they treat and disseminate the information, given that we are giving them our guidelines in the federal jurisdiction?
Ms. Lang: Absolutely. Our best line of defence or offence is in our information-sharing agreements. The type of information we would want to share with one province, we would also want to share with another. I don’t think there would be a situation in which there would be different information needs or things that the department would see as of value in exchanging in terms of access to benefits the status of the individual or that type of thing.
From a departmental perspective, we would be negotiating these more as a package or a one-stop shop, and hopefully we would be able to balance that with the provinces and vice versa. That’s the best line of defence. I assume we would move forward in such a way that we would try to have consistency across those information-sharing agreements.
The Chair: I also have a question for Ms. Pelley while you are still here on the stand. With regard to the number of families that have been impacted by drugs that are killing their loved ones, it is easy for criminals to get access to these chemicals that produeg the drugs that are doing so much harm. In the context of the legislation, and knowing what evidence we already have right now — some of it is internal, but it is also coming from other jurisdictions into the country.
Would you say this legislation — at least the proposed changes in the bill — is going to give us a better handle on how we can choke off the production of the chemical used to produce fentanyl in this country that is killing our loved ones?
Ms. Pelley: Thank you very much for the question. As you say, illegal drugs are a main driver of overdose deaths and harm, particularly illegal fentanyl, and it is a grave situation. Between 2016 and June 2025, over 53,000 people lost their lives due to an opioid overdose, and that is absolutely tragic.
The amendments included in Part 2 of Bill C-12 will largely provide us with a more flexible and nimble approach to rapidly control certain precursor chemicals. In and of themselves, the amendments are not enough, but we are working very closely — through Canada’s border plan, Health Canada — as well as many other departments, but Health Canada in particular — received some funding to do a few things in support of the broader efforts to detect and disrupt the illegal drug trade. These amendments are a part of it, but, certainly, I think we are working very closely with public safety partners trying to get a better handle on the sources of the chemicals and how they can be used.
We have really bolstered relationships with the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, so we are talking to each other closely, and where they find a new chemical at the border, my team at Health Canada can help them figure out what it might be used for.
I think this would be one element of our broader approach to stemming the flow of precursor chemicals. These chemicals are largely being imported illegally into the country. That’s the main source of them, so that is what we are looking to address here is to make sure that we — we do have a regular process whereby we can list chemicals in Schedule VI to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, thereby subjecting them to those important import controls that will help stem the flow. This would be one additional tool to more rapidly respond to what we might perceive as being an emerging threat that needs to be shut down quickly, but it also provides that certainly that if a company were also using that chemical for legitimate reasons, that there would be the opportunity for them to come in and apply for a licence to continue.
We don’t want to be disrupting legitimate business when we control chemicals. However, we really need those enforceable tools to allow border service officers to actually seize substances at the border and prevent them from coming into the country where they can be used to make illegal drugs.
The Chair: Thank you.
My last question is to my friends in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP. Given what the legislation entails in disrupting criminal activities at the border, what new tools do you envision the government is going to provide you and CBSA to, of course, guard our border much more diligently than we have been doing in the past?
Bryan Larkin, Senior Deputy Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Maybe I will start the question, and then I will ask Chief Superintendent McGowan to provide some real operational, on-the-ground expertise.
There are a couple of pieces. As my colleague. Jennifer Pelley, alluded to the introduction of the bill, also came with a significant investment into the RCMP, particularly into our federal policing mandate. Over the next five years, a $1.8 billion investment will see the addition of 750 regular member police officers and 250 specialized public servants in the financial crime areas, intelligence analysts and other technical operations. That is a significant component to the work that we are doing.
Initially, prior to that announcement, we also received an infusion of money that allowed us to actually enhance the full‑time equivalents of regular members across the country, at the border and the border integrity unit, but also technology. We were able to leverage that work and, of course, our ongoing partnership with CBSA and, as alluded to, our colleagues from the Canadian Coast Guard. The systems work naturally very well.
I want to provide a bit of data of the work that we have been doing, and it references strengthening the border when we do dedicated work. From May 20 to October 31 this year, the Canadian Integrated Response to Organized Crime — so the RCMP, along with many law enforcement, federal, provincial and municipal agencies — conducted a fentanyl sprint to highlight the challenges that our country is facing. As Jennifer Pelley alluded to, there are some significant impacts on communities and on families.
To show you the significant amount of work that was done, more than 386 kilograms of fentanyl were seized, as well as 270 kilograms of precursor chemicals, 5,983 kilograms of cocaine, 1,700 kilograms of meth and about $13.46 million in cash that led to the arrest of more than 8,130 persons and the laying of charges, with 217 of those specifically for illicit trafficking.
This demonstrates one of the challenges we are facing, but it also demonstrates the opportunity that when we come together and when we share information and share intelligence, we can actually have significant success. That is just one example of the work we are doing.
And, in particular, the work that Chief Superintendent McGowan and his team have been around providing policy wisdom to Bill C-12, he will give you some live examples of where this will strengthen the work the RCMP does across the nation.
Jamie McGowan, Chief Superintendent, Federal Policing, Border Integrity, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
Bill C-12 certainly provides us with more opportunities to enhance Canada’s border plan that was announced in December 2024. We enacted our Aerial Intelligence Task Force that provided proactive patrols of our borders. We have dedicated personnel to the border, as we discussed.
Some of the technologies that we have will enable greater security at our border, and the information sharing that Bill C-12 allows through the sex offender registry and through the amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act will greatly provide us with more tools to target criminal activity that is taking place.
In terms of the work that is being done, as I mentioned, there is the Aerial Intelligence Task Force. We have enhanced the level of people that are working at the border, and we are working very closely with our partners.
We have talked quite a bit about information sharing today. We are working with Transport Canada. We are working with the Canadian Coast Guard. We are working with the National Defence, all in efforts to have a whole-of-government approach to fighting fentanyl and crime at our borders.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’m sorry, I stepped out. If I ask a question that has already been asked, please let me know, and I’ll go to the notes just to be sure.
The point that interests me concerns the precursors, the chemical aspects. I once saw a case where a high school math teacher was doing chemistry in his shed and producing a large quantity of . . . He was arrested, but he seemed to have obtained supplies from vendors or companies that were using these chemical products lawfully.
My question is about tracing. How do you ensure that the company that purchases these products legitimately doesn’t then resell them to someone who would use them unlawfully? Do you have a tracing system? Will the measures in Bill C-12 make it possible for regulations to be made or create pressure so that there’s tracing of how the company uses the product after purchasing it, and not only when it acquires it?
Ms. Pelley: There is no specific provision in Bill C-12 that will affect retail sales.
[English]
Under the Precursor Control Regulations in Canada, not every chemical used in illegal drug production is listed in one of the schedules to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. There are chemicals that are not regulated that can also be used in illegal drug production, so for chemicals like those, there would be no requirements.
It is, however, illegal to produce illegal drugs, regardless of how you do it. That action remains illegal by virtue of the act, regardless of where you procure your chemicals.
In terms of the controls, where we focused our efforts is really on the essential chemicals, without which you could not make a drug. If you look at fentanyl, in particular, the backbone molecules — the ones that you absolutely need to make illegal fentanyl — those are all strictly controlled. So we require someone to come in and have a licence. There is a rigorous process of validating that we are not just giving licences to just anyone. There are record-keeping requirements.
Then, at the point of sale or resale to an end user, they are required to keep records of that sale to see where it is going. Certainly, there are some chemicals that could still then be sold again. But it is a very tight system of controls.
By and large, the core molecules that are being used to make illegal fentanyl are not being diverted or purchased from legitimate sources. We have very strong evidence to suggest that diversion is not the issue. Rather, it is illegal importation. That is where we are focusing our efforts are addressing the illegal importation of chemicals.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My second question is about Part 3. This amendment is probably technical, but I’m trying to understand, with respect to clause 22 or 23, which deals with cannabis, what the reason is for removing or exempting police officers from the offence of conspiracy. Is there a technical reason for this? I’m trying to understand it. The idea is to avoid having a police officer be part of a conspiracy to import or to commit an offence. This would be the case of undercover officers, I assume, where they have to take part in the conspiracy in order to remain active in their role as someone doing infiltration work?
Kristin McLeod, Director, Drug Policy, Crime Prevention Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you very much for the question. I will answer in English.
[English]
The amendments being proposed in Bill C-12 relate to offences found in the Criminal Code. What we are proposing will confirm the authority of the Governor-in-Council to make regulations that exempt law enforcement from those particular types of drug-related offences within the Criminal Code, just as the Governor-in-Council can do for similar drug-related offences.
Senator Carignan: The question is why, because I read that.
Ms. McLeod: It is because, in the conduct of an investigation, police might need to exercise a broad range of techniques. That can include some undercover investigations or conspiracies. The exemptions are really to prevent law enforcement from themselves facing criminal charges when they undertake those investigations in the conduct of their duties while undertaking lawful investigations. It is very much ensuring that law enforcement feel that they can undertake their work and can use these different techniques without running up against any type of liability themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Are there other technical elements that I’m missing? When a police officer commits a criminal act as part of a legitimate investigation, if they have to commit a criminal act, they don’t have the mens rea to do so. They’re not doing it for a criminal purpose; they’re doing it for another purpose. Are we trying to avoid that in order to protect the officer or to create another form of immunity, or is there something that prevents them from using it if they’ve been involved in the criminal act? It seems to me that another step is missing.
[English]
Ms. McLeod: I think the issue at hand we are trying to address in Bill C-12 is very much an administrative issue as opposed to trying to provide law enforcement with additional techniques or access additional techniques. It is really about confirming that those protections exist.
Senator Carignan: Okay.
Senator Cardozo: One more question with regard to Part 11. It is for Senior Deputy Commissioner Larkin. I ask this question with great respect and carefully.
The section in the act talks about the role of the RCMP in regard to sex offender information registration. What can you say to give Canadians confidence that the RCMP is the agency to address this scourge when we have this report today that over 600 RCMP officers face disciplinary charges tied to gender-based violence in the past decade?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. First, in relation to the conduct articles and media interests you are referring to, in many ways the senior executive recognizes that any misconduct sexual in nature or gender-based violence; first off, it is unacceptable. There is no place in the organization. We need to continue to mature and do the work we are doing.
Over the last decade, over numerous reports, numerous different information, the Bastarache Report and others, we have actually gone through a significant undertaking of revamping and modernizing our conduct process. The report we released is a compliance report delivered to our minister.
In many ways, one highlights our ability to hold our members accountable. In many ways, there are success stories in there. It is regrettable it continues to occur. Over the last decade, we have made significant progress, and over the last three years some significant pieces where we have enhanced the ability to discipline individuals.
As it relates to Bill C-12 and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, we, on behalf of all police services in the country, play a convener role. The information we collect from across all 194 police services and 36 self-administered Indigenous police services around sex offender information, we coordinate. We have a significant team with significant expertise supported by skilled public servants and professionals in this world, in this area. We coordinate the sharing of information not only with domestic police services but international police services.
A Canadian citizen who may be a registered sex offender who is travelling or leaving the country, the RCMP has the responsibility to look at whether we are going to share that information to prevent a risk to children in other countries where somebody may be travelling.
There was a gap; the disclosure threshold created some challenges, and some of our Five Eyes partners did express concern, particularly in countries where sex tourism and travel around the sex trade are significant issues. They felt that our threshold was very rigid, and the amount of information we were sharing did not ensure safety and security. That included the timeline around when a sex offender was going to travel, et cetera.
So the proposed changes and amendments allow the RCMP — under the new threshold, it is really focused on reasonable grounds to believe. It lowers the threshold. The intent of this is to really ensure the safety of children, not only in Canada, but across the globe. My colleague from Public Safety Canada may want to add to that.
We have long had the stewardship. We are proud of that stewardship. That stewardship is governed through a national advisory committee with representatives from each province and each territory. Senior police leaders provide feedback and govern the systems on behalf of all services. But the RCMP has the leadership and stewardship. It is challenging work. I want to publicly recognize the regular members and public servants in that area who do outstanding work to ensure the safety and security of children, and to ensure those who prey on our greatest asset are held accountable.
Chad Westmacott, Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Public Safety Canada: I think my colleague covered it well. As Commissioner Larkin said, it’s about changing the threshold of where that information can be shared, both domestically and internationally, going from necessary to enable the investigation or the prevention of a crime of a sexual nature down to reasonable grounds to believe it will assist.
This is a very recognized threshold, and it allows greater flexibility in ensuring that sexual offenders who are registered and travelling to another country and there are reasonable grounds to believe that this will assist in the prevention or investigation of a crime of a sexual nature. Then that information can then be shared, either with an international partner or, as I said, domestically as well with other police jurisdictions.
Senator Cardozo: Would that be the same when these individuals are coming back to Canada or are they foreign individuals you have information on?
Mr. Westmacott: In this case, it is really about the individuals that are on the National Sex Offender Registry. There are two elements there in terms of what you were saying, senator. One element is if there was a Canadian who has been abroad, potentially committed a crime of a sexual nature, when they return back to Canada, if there is information that has been received through CBSA or through foreign partners, then, yes, that information could be shared domestically with other police of jurisdiction.
If the information is about a foreign sex offender coming into Canada, then there are already information processes in place where CBSA is made aware of that information, and then CBSA chooses whether or not to let that individual into the country based on that information that they have received.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. This brings us to the end of our time with this panel. I would like to thank our witnesses for this informative discussion and for taking the time to meet with us today. I want to say, on behalf of our entire committee, you do a lot on behalf of our country. More often than not, I don’t think you get thanked. We thank you for your service to the country. We know the diligence and the hard work you put in to try to ensure you are doing what is expected of you, but I know these are difficult times. So thank you again for being here. Thank you for all you do on behalf of the nation. We look forward to continuing to collaborate with you. We will do our best to get this legislation back into the chamber for a full debate, and my colleagues will make the ultimate decision. Thank you for being here today.
Colleagues, there are two items remaining for us to do today. First, the consideration of a report, subject of Bill C-15; and, second, our work plan moving forward on Bill C-12. With your agreement, I suggest that we proceed in camera to have these discussions.
(The committee continued in camera.)