Committee overview: Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security: Foreign Nationals (December 2, 2025)

Opening remarks

Good morning,

I am joined today by Mr. Aaron McCrorie, Vice-President of the CBSA's Intelligence and Enforcement Branch and Mr. Carl Desmarais, Director General of Inland Enforcement.

I would like to begin by giving you an overview of the removals process and then I will provide a breakdown of the removals inventory.

Every non-citizen entering the country is assessed for inadmissibility at a port of entry.

If there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person may be inadmissible to Canada they may be allowed to leave, be issued a removal order or have their case referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board for an admissibility hearing.

In other words, being inadmissible does not necessarily give the CBSA the legal authority to prevent somebody from entering Canada. Claimants who are eligible to file a claim and are assessed as high-risk may be arrested by a CBSA officer and detained. All refugee claimants who enter Canada are issued a removal order when their claim is referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).

Let's fast forward – approximately two years in time – to the point when, on average, a decision in the asylum claim is rendered. That is when a removal order comes into force.

La loi stipule que les personnes ont l'obligation légale de quitter le Canada dans les 30 jours suivant la date à laquelle leur mesure de renvoi devient exécutoire, lorsqu'une mesure de renvoi a été émise.

Malgré cette obligation légale, de nombreuses personnes ne quittent pas immédiatement le pays et certaines se cachent. For example, in this fiscal year, 12% of individuals failed to appear for their scheduled interviews, and 7% failed to appear for a scheduled removal.

There are currently around 30,000 people in the "removal-in-progress" inventory. CBSA officers are actively engaging with many of these people and are working with them to go through removal proceedings and to make arrangements for their departure. The CBSA has already completed 30,900 removals interviews this fiscal year.

Les raisons pour lesquelles le renvoi peut ne pas être immédiat comprennent le fait de permettre aux personnes de régler leurs affaires personnelles, de passer les fêtes, de terminer l'année scolaire ou de se remettre d'une opération chirurgicale.

While this number has hovered around the 30,000 mark since 2020, it is not static. The CBSA is removing about 400 people every week, on average. At the same time, the CBSA is seeing between 450 and 550 new people entering the removal inventory every week.

The Immigration and Refugee Board makes approximately 70,000 decisions on asylum claims each year, of which some 37% are not approved. This means that about 25,900 new cases will enter the removals inventory each year.

CBSA officers are always working the cases in the inventory and have removed more people last year and then again this year than in any other year in the past decade.

I will now say a few words on our wanted inventory, which currently sits at around 33,000. Au cours des cinq dernières années, les listes de personnes recherchées ont fluctué d'une année à l'autre, mais sont restées relativement stables.

People on the wanted inventory are those who failed to appear for removal processes. Once we have established that people are actively seeking to evade removal, CBSA will issue an immigration warrant, which allows law enforcement partners to advise CBSA if they locate them.

For the safety and security of Canada and its citizens, we place the highest priority on removal cases involving criminality, security, organized crime and human rights violations.

Over the past five years, we have nearly doubled the number of removals of individuals who were inadmissible on serious grounds, such as criminality.

L'agence emploie environ 550 personnes qui se consacrent à mener des enquêtes en matière d'immigration et aux activités de renvoi.

We also employ more than 200 Criminal Investigators whose mandate includes investigating organizations that facilitate immigration fraud or who are suspected of unlawfully acting as consultants involved with the illegal employment of foreign nationals.

To the question of why we would not assign more officers to removals, I would say that everything has a consequence and we allocate our staff across all of the many risks facing Canada at the border.

Finally, I would add that some of the challenges associated with removals relate to countries not providing documents for their citizens to be able to return. Here, we are actively working, including with Global Affairs colleagues, to have those countries issue the necessary documents.

I can now take your questions.

Committee Members

About the Committee

SECU was created on April 5, 2006, at the start of the 39th Parliament. The Committee is responsible for one of the largest departmental portfolios, including close to 140 statutes administered by the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and its agencies, including the CBSA.

Committee Mandate

SECU reviews the legislation, policies, programs and expenditure plans of government departments and agencies responsible for public safety and national security, policing and law enforcement, corrections and conditional release of federal offenders, emergency management, crime prevention and the protection of Canada's borders.

The Standing Orders of the House of Commons provide that the committee may review and report on:

• Legislation proposed by the government or Members of Parliament
• Immediate, medium- and long-term expenditure plans, and the effectiveness of their implementation by the department
• An analysis of the relative success of the relevant department, as measured by the results obtained as compared with its stated objectives
• Other matters relating to the mandate, management, organization, or operation of the department in question, as the Committee deems fit

The committee examines the policies, programs and statutes relating to the following departments and agencies:

• Public Safety Canada (PS)
• Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)
• Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
• Correctional Service Canada (CSC)
• Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)
• Parole Board of Canada (PBC)
• Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CRCC)
• RCMP External Review Committee (ERC)
• Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI)

CBSA-related Studies (45th Parliament)

• Growing Problem of Car Thefts in Canada (Update on Implementation of the National Action Plan to Combat Auto Theft)
  • Report 1 - Fighting the phenomenon of vehicle thefts in Canada
• Mandate and Priorities of the Minister of Public Safety
• Canada-United States Border Management
• Foreign Nationals (Removals)

CBSA-related Legislation (45th Parliament)

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

Committee Members biographies

Jean Yves Duclos (Chair)

Political affiliation: Liberal Party of Canada
Constituency: Québec Centre

• Former cabinet minister (Health, Procurement, Treasury Board, Families and Children)
• First elected 2015, re-elected in 2019, 2021, 2025
• Formerly head of Economics department at Laval University
• As former cabinet member, he is well acquainted with high-profile files, particularly those involving procurement and transparency in contracting and spending decisions

Frank Caputo (Vice-Chair)

Political affiliation: Conservative Party of Canada
Constituency: Kamloops – Thompson – Nicola
Shadow Minister for Public Safety

• Previously worked as Crown Prosecutor and Law Professor
• First elected in 2021 and re-elected in 2025
• Previous committee memberships:
  • SECU (April to September 2024)
  • ACVA (December 2021 to October 2022)
  • ETHI (September 2024 to January 2025)
  • JUST (October 2022 to April 2024)
• Member of several interparliamentary groups
• Legal background provides strong footing in oversight of law enforcement, corrections, and security policy
• Interests: Bail reform, child predators

Claude DeBellefeuille (Vice-Chair)

Political affiliation: Bloc Québécois
Constituency: Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon
Critic for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (since 2025)

• Profession/Occupation: Social worker, Chief of Staff in Quebec provincial government
• First elected in 2006 and served until 2011, then re-elected in 2019, 2021, and 2025
• Served as party's Chief Whip (2019 to 2024), was previously critic for Canadian Heritage and Natural Resources (2006 to 2008)
• From a border community, supports border security and resources for border officers, including off-site patrolling, and exit controls

Sima Acan

Political affiliation: Liberal Party of Canada
Constituency: Oakville West

• First elected in April 2025
• First Canadian MP of Turkish descent
• Holds an engineering degree, immigrated in 2007
• Entrepreneur: owns a local robotics company and served as president of the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations
• Brings a community-focused, tech-savvy lens to public safety and security discussions
• Has called for faster convictions and smarter crime prevention measures

Chak Au

Political affiliation: Conservative Party of Canada
Constituency: Richmond Centre—Marpole

• Previously worked as City Councillor and school trustee, is a family therapist by profession
• Immigrated to Canada from Hong Kong in 1988 served as an assistant professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong
• First elected in April 2025
• Brings local insight into immigration, public safety, and multicultural issues in BC
• Opposes drug liberalization, committed to prevention, education, and recovery-focused policies

Ali Ehsassi

Political affiliation: Liberal Party of Canada
Constituency: Willowdale

• First elected in 2015; re-elected in 2019, 2021, and 2025
• Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade
• Previously Chair of the Foreign Affairs committee; has also served on INDU, ETHI, JUST, and CIMM
• Father was Iranian diplomat and worked in Iran's embassy in Switzerland, family left Iran during Iranian Revolution
• Opposes the Iranian government and has called for a public inquiry into potential Iranian interference in Canadian elections

Rhonda Kirkland

Political affiliation: Conservative Party of Canada
Constituency: Oshawa

• First elected in April 2025
• Worked for twenty years as certified educational therapist and local childhood development advocate
• Helped advance federal legislation related to victims' rights and human trafficking
• Active community member with volunteer roles in local Rotary Club and numerous political campaigns, including that of her MP predecessor Colin Carrie

Dane Lloyd

Political affiliation: Conservative Party of Canada
Constituency: Parkland, Alberta
Shadow Minister for Emergency Preparedness and Community Resilience

• First elected in 2017, re-elected in 2019, 2021 and 2025
• Former Shadow Minister for:
  • Digital Government (September 2020 to February 2021)
  • Rural Economic Development (February 2021 to November 2021)
• Holds a BA in History & Political Science and serves as a Captain in the Canadian Army Reserve
• Has spoken out about safe supply program
• Prior to recent revision, his riding included Villeneuve Airport (airport of entry)

Marcus Powlowski

Political affiliation: Liberal Party of Canada
Constituency: Thunder Bay—Rainy River

• First elected in 2019
• Represents a riding along the border
• Previously served on the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on National Defence, and the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs
• Before being elected, he worked as an Emergency Room physician in Thunder Bay for 15 years and spent seven years practicing medicine in developing countries
• Known for his advocacy in health, including drafting a private member's bill on forced labour in supply chains that was merged into Bill S-211
• In addition to being a medical doctor, he has two law degrees - LL.B, LL.M from the universities of Toronto and Georgetown, respectively. He also attended Harvard University and obtained a Masters of Public Health in Health Law and Policy

Jacques Ramsay

Political affiliation: Liberal Party of Canada
Constituency: La Prairie—Atateken
Parliamentary Secretary to Public Safety Minister

• First elected in April 2025
• Has been a doctor since 1987, and has worked in several countries, and then in Montreal in various specialties
• Serves as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

SECU scenario note and media scan

Topic: Foreign Nationals
Date and time: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 (11:00 – 12:00)
Location: Room 410, Wellington Building, 197 Sparks Street

Overview

The motion for this study was adopted on September 18, 2025 at an in-camera meeting of the committee. This is the first of six meetings of this study.

Removals and deportations, particularly of foreign nationals with criminal records, have dominated the discussion across SECU and CIMM across multiple studies since the beginning of the 45th Parliament.

SECU launched a study on removals following widely reported figures indicating 1,635 foreign nationals with criminal records are facing deportation, 600 of whom failed to appear and are currently of unknown whereabouts. The study aims to assess Canada's ability to deport criminally inadmissible foreign nationals, propose measures to prevent such individuals from entering Canada, and identify more effective enforcement approaches.

Motion

The motion for this study was adopted on September 18, 2025 at an in-camera meeting of the committee.
The text of the motion is below:

It was agreed, — That, given reports that 1,635 foreign nationals with criminal records are facing deportation, of which 600 have failed to attend their deportation proceedings and their whereabouts are unknown, 431 have been found guilty of serious crimes, and 361 have been avoiding deportation for more than two years, the committee undertake a study, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), into Canada's ability to deport foreign nationals with criminal records with a view of recommending measures to prevent these criminals from entering Canada in the first place, and to identify more effective ways of ensuring such criminals are deported;
that the committee dedicate no fewer than six meetings for this study and that the committee invite the following witnesses to appear: The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, the Minister of Public Safety, the President of the Canada Border Service Agency;
that the committee receive evidence from victims' groups, law enforcement agencies, departmental officials and experts submitted to the clerk by members of the committee; and that at the conclusion of the hearings, the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House, and, pursuant to Standing Order 109, request a government response.

Witnesses to appear

• Erin O'Gorman, President, Canada Border Services Agency
• Aaron McCrorie, Vice-President, Intelligence and Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
• Carl Desmarais, Director General, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency

Rounds of questions

• Five minutes are allotted for the opening statement
• Questioning of witnesses:
  • First round: six minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows: Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois
  • For the second, and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning is as follows:
    • Conservative Party, five minutes
    • Liberal Party, five minutes
    • Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes
    • Conservative Party, five minutes
    • Liberal Party, five minutes

The total time allocated per round of questioning includes the member's questions and the witness' responses. There is no time limit on responses from witnesses; however, succinct answers are preferred.

Questions to expect

On performance and accountability:

• How many foreign nationals with criminal records are currently awaiting removal, broken down by status (detained, released, missing, appeals pending, etc.)
• Why 600 individuals' whereabouts are unknown and how the CBSA is attempting to locate them
• The criteria used to prioritize removals, particularly those involving violent or repeat offenders
• Average timelines for removals, and what factors cause long delays (e.g., appeals, lack of travel documents, foreign cooperation)
• Accountability measures when removal orders are not enforced or are delayed for years
• Officials should be ready to describe inland enforcement operations, risk assessments, and coordination with RCMP and IRCC on files involving serious inadmissibility

On prevention and security screening:

• Details on One-Touch process for asylum claims (efficiency vs security)
• Details on pre-arrival screening and information-sharing with foreign partners such as Five Eyes and Interpol
• How visa screening and watchlist systems flag criminal records before entry
• Whether IRCC and CBSA share data effectively to stop inadmissible individuals before they obtain visas, student permits, work permits, or permanent residence

On capacity and resources:

• The number of inland enforcement officers currently assigned to removals, including armed and unarmed officers
• Training capacity at Rigaud, plans to develop other training facilities, status of hiring the 1,000 new CBSA officers and how many will be assigned to executing removals
• Use of technology for tracking absconders or monitoring compliance
• Whether CBSA has adequate funding, staff, and investigative authority to execute removal orders effectively

On legal barriers/impediments:

• Legal and procedural barriers such as appeals to the Immigration and Refugee Board, Federal Court challenges, or Charter constraints that delay removals
• How CBSA prioritizes high-risk or criminal cases within those constraints
• international cooperation challenges, such as countries refusing to issue travel documents for deportees

Parliamentary analysis – House of Commons

CIMM and SECU Study (45th Parliament): Bill C-12 – Border Bill

The Standing Committees on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) and on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) conducted a study of Bill C-12. The committees held multiple meetings between November 4 and 25, 2025. The CBSA appeared at several of these meetings and was referenced throughout testimony, particularly on removals, inland enforcement, staffing shortages, screening processes, and the operational impacts of Bill C-12. Across both committees, members repeatedly raised concerns about CBSA's ability to enforce removal orders, screen asylum claimants, and hiring/training of the promised 1000 additional CBSA officers.

At the November 4 SECU technical briefing, Conservative Members focused on the 32,000 foreign nationals with enforceable removal orders and asked how many CBSA officers are actively searching for them. CBSA officials said roughly 1,000 inland officers work on Immigration and Refugee Protection Act enforcement and about half are involved in removals, committing to provide exact figures to the committee. Members also questioned CBSA's ability to track individuals who fail to appear and asked whether expanded inspection powers under Bill C-12 can be implemented without additional personnel. Officials acknowledged capacity constraints and advised the government's plan to hire 1,000 new CBSA officers will help but hiring and training will take time.

At the November 6 CIMM meeting, officials from the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) appeared to speak to Bill C-12. Members raised removal pressures linked to the asylum backlog, abandoned asylum claims, and the number of people in Canada who do not appear for hearings. Officials confirmed that individuals who leave Canada and re-enter become ineligible, after which responsibility shifts to CBSA for enforcement and removal. Members also explored how C-12's 14-day irregular-entry rule and one-year bar would redirect more cases into the PRRA system, potentially increasing CBSA's removal workload. Liberal members asked about screening timelines to which IRB officials confirmed that CBSA requires six (6) to eight (8) months to complete front-end security screening for asylum applications before IRB hearings can proceed.

At the November 6 SECU, where the Public Safety Minister and President O'Gorman appeared, Conservative members asked for the number of armed officers executing removal orders to which the President committed to provide a breakdown to the committee. The Minister and the President said hiring for the 1,000 officer is being phased in and that about half of inland enforcement staff work on removals. Members also linked removals pressure to the decision of lifting the visa requirement for Mexican nationals (CBSA committed to provide a response in writing on this topic during the SECU October 23 meeting on CAN-US border management) and asked how many people ordered removed for criminality remain in Canada. The Bloc Quebecois member focused on the 14-day rule and said it risks creating Safe Third Country Agreement loopholes exploited by human smugglers and organized crime networks.

At the November 18 CIMM meeting, the Customs and Immigration Union President Mark Webber stated that staffing shortages undermine both removals and screening. He said CBSA remains 2,000–3,000 officers short and that Rigaud can train only about 700 recruits per year, while attrition is roughly 600. He warned that One-Touch intake reduces officer interaction at first contact, making it harder to identify risk indicators (Note: He re-iterated the same concerns at the November 20 SECU meeting). Members also heard that 10 percent of claimants never complete One-Touch forms and must be located later by inland enforcement. The Bloc Quebecois member questioned whether CBSA can handle increased inland enforcement workload caused by Bill C-12's new ineligibility rules without additional resources, pointing to a report of a possible surge of influx in migrants in early February 2026 because of US policies about visas, particularly for Haitians.

At the November 20 CIMM meeting, Conservative members asked the CBSA about the One-Touch screening process and reduced officer interactions with travelers at the border as described by the CIU President at the November 18 CIMM meeting. They also asked whether CBSA has adequate tools to track individuals who do not return for follow-up screening. Bloc members questioned CBSA's capacity to handle increased inland investigations if more claimants are deemed ineligible under C-12. Liberal members requested detailed explanations of CBSA's security screening process, including biometric collection, interview requirements, and CPIC checks, and asked how long removals typically take when claimants fail security screening.

CIMM Study (45th Parliament): Canada's Immigration System

CIMM is currently studying "Canada's Immigration System". It has held three (3) out of 15 meetings on this study (October 21 and 23, 2025). The CBSA (VP McCrorie) appeared at the October 21 meeting alongside officials from PS and RCMP.

During the October 21 appearance, Conservative members asked VP McCrorie how the Agency handles failed asylum claimants and removals, the number of outstanding removal cases and timelines for clearing its removal backlog. They asked if the CBSA has a departure tracking method. They requested statistics on how many people have departed Canada after exhausting appeals and how often CBSA's non-favorable security recommendations are overturned by IRCC. The Bloc Quebecois member focused on Roxham Road and the land contracts with Pierre Guay, asking whether the government had terminated the contracts with Pierre Guay and the status of the lands from 2023 to 2025.

SECU study (45th Parliament): CAN-US Border Management

SECU undertook a study on "Canada–United States Border Management" which spanned over five (5) meetings between September 23 and November 27, 2025. The CBSA appeared at two (2) of these meetings (September 23 and October 23, 2025) and was referenced in later testimony, particularly concerning removals, tracking/locating individuals, departure tracking, staffing, and Bill C-12.

Across the study, members raised concerns about CBSA's operational capacity to enforce removals and maintain staffing levels while implementing new legislative and modernization initiatives under Bill C-12.

At the September 23 meeting, Conservative members asked CBSA and Public Safety officials how the government is tracking 30,000 foreign nationals awaiting deportation, and how long it will take to hire and train 1,000 new CBSA officers. They also asked what is being done to find foreign nationals ordered removed who are still in Canada. Officials advised CBSA owns the removals program and that the hiring plan is underway but will take time to complete.

At the October 7 meeting, the Customs and Immigration Union President Mark Webber said the government's staffing promises are unrealistic because CBSA's training centre in Rigaud can only handle a limited number of recruits. He said the Agency has too many managers and not enough frontline officers, and that the current 300 inland enforcement officers are not enough to handle the removals workload. The Bloc Québécois member raised similar concerns and asked about increasing training.

At the October 21 meeting, witnesses from the Peace Bridge and Niagara Falls Bridge Commissions said Bill C-12 could increase costs for border operators and strain CBSA's capacity to implement new enforcement measures. Members from all parties linked these concerns to the Agency's staffing and operational limits. They flagged CBSA's ability to enforce removals and inspections could be affected if it is not properly funded/resourced.

At the October 23 meeting, the Public Safety Minister, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, and President O'Gorman were questioned about removals and hiring timelines for the additional officers. Conservative members asked where the 30,000 people awaiting deportation are located, when the 1,000 new hires will start working, and whether CBSA has enough staff for removals. Officials said hiring will be phased in over three to four years, with new intakes starting in November, and that about 200 of the new staff will focus on liaison and inland investigations. The Bloc member asked how many recruits will train at Rigaud.

CBSA officials should be ready for questions on: how the Agency tracks and enforces removals; how many foreign nationals with criminal records are currently awaiting removal, broken down by status (detained, released, missing, appeals pending, etc.) the number of officers assigned to removals and inland enforcement; Average timelines for removals, and what factors (appeals, lack of travel documents, foreign cooperation) cause long delays; Hiring of the 1000 CBSA officers and training timelines, including Rigaud training capacity; and how Bill C-12 will affect CBSA's ability to staff and enforce removals.

SECU briefing (45th Parliament): Mandate and Priorities (PS Minister)

The Minister of Public Safety appeared at SECU on October 9, 2025, alongside officials from his portfolio, to discuss his mandate and priorities.

During this appearance, committee members questioned the Minister about the government's handling of removal orders, highlighting reports that roughly 600 inadmissible foreign nationals, many with criminal convictions, could not be located for deportation which prompted questions about enforcement priorities, investigative capacity, and public safety implications. Members also examined progress on hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers, asking whether current staffing and training resources are sufficient to support removals and border enforcement. Bloc Québécois member raised concerns about CBSA's operational capacity at rural Quebec border crossings and reduced overnight service hours, questioning whether such decisions weaken security in areas vulnerable to smuggling and irregular crossings. Overall, members across parties questioned CBSA's capacity to enforce removal orders, manage staffing commitments, and maintain border integrity amid public concerns about safety, organized crime, and irregular migration.

CBSA officials should prepare for questions on efforts to locate and remove inadmissible individuals, including those with criminal convictions, enforcement priorities and tracking mechanisms for removal cases, recruitment and training progress for the 1,000 new officers, coordination with RCMP and U.S. agencies on cross-border enforcement, security impacts of reduced service hours at rural border posts and overall resource and operational capacity to manage removals effectively.

CIMM Study (45th Parliament): International Student Program and Study Permits

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) is currently studying "the International Student Program and Study Permits". The committee held three (3) meetings on this study. The CBSA did not appear for this study. However, CBSA was referenced several times during testimony from IRCC officials during their appearance on September 24, 2025.

During this appearance, committee members questioned officials about removal orders issued to former international students and Post-Graduate Work Permit holders who had made asylum claims. Officials clarified that removals are the responsibility of the CBSA. Members also raised concerns about an estimated 47,000 potentially non-compliant international students. Officials explained that CBSA conducts inland investigations and enforces removals, while Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) supports these efforts by sharing compliance data. They further noted that CBSA led investigations into approximately 1,500 fraudulent student visa cases in 2023, reinforcing its lead role in enforcement and removals.

CBSA officials should prepare for questions on the Agency's role in executing removal orders for former international students and Post-Graduate Work Permit holders who have made asylum claims and/or have expired permits, coordination with IRCC on compliance data sharing, and enforcement measures for non-compliant or fraudulent cases. They may also be asked about investigative capacity, timelines for removals, and how CBSA prioritizes cases involving inadmissibility, fraud, or national security within the international student program.

SECU Study (44th parliament): Impacts of Donald Trump's Announced Measures on Border Security and Migration

In the 44th parliament, SECU undertook a study on "the impacts of Impacts of Donald Trump's Announced Measures on Border Security and Migration". The committee held one (1) meeting for this study (December 12, 2024) where the CBSA (President O'Gorman and VP McCrorie) and the RCMP appeared.

During this appearance, committee members inquired about an order paper question which showed the government had lost track of 30,000 individuals who were scheduled for removal. The CBSA President advised that the removals inventory is significant and that the CBSA has made a big effort to increase investigations into those who are here illegally. Additionally, members inquired about the impacts of massive deportations of irregular migrants in the US and immigration holding centers capacity to withstand a surge to which the CBSA advised they were prepared (of irregular migrants coming to Canada to escape deportation) noting the application of the Safe Third Country Agreement.

CBSA officials can expect questions related to a recently tabled (September 2025) OPQ response on removals where statistics were provided (Q-187 Removal of Persons) and statistics on irregular migrants/asylum seekers with criminal records coming from the US to escape deportation.

SECU Study (44th parliament): Review of the Foiled Terrorist Plot in Toronto and of the Security Screening Process for Permanent Residence and Citizenship Application

In the 44th parliament, SECU undertook a review of"the Foiled Terrorist Plot in Toronto and of the Security Screening Process for Permanent Residence and Citizenship Application". The committee held four (4) meetings for this study. The CBSA appeared at three meetings (September 19, 2024 and August 28, 2025, with two meetings on the latter date) alongside IRCC, Public Safety, RCMP, and CSIS.

During the appearances, committee members questioned the CBSA's security screening process after an accused individual obtained Canadian status despite risk indicators during the application process. Officials were pressed on security screening failures, removal statistics (those removed vs those pending removal), and detection of falsified records, while citing reports of suspected terrorists entering Canada. CBSA officials emphasized that Canada's system is comprehensive, layered, and under active review. Committee members discussed resource needs, collaboration/information sharing among agencies, and prevention measures going forward.

The committee may revisit this issue. CBSA officials should prepare for questions on immigration processes, security screening improvements, and the removal status of individuals flagged in this case.

Questions, statements, and debates in the House

1. Question period:

• September 25, 2025 - James Bezan (Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman) - Removals - 600 Foreign Nationals
• September 24, 2025 - John Brassard (Barrie South – Innisfill) - Removals - 600 Foreign Nationals
• September 23, 2025 - Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary – Nose Hill) CPC - Removals - 600 Foreign Nationals

2. Petitions:

• June 30, 2025 – MP Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, BC, NDP) Petition e-6627 – Borders ,Bill C-2, Public Safety
• May 28, 2025 - MP Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, AB, NDP) Petition e-6506 - Canada–U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, Asylum, Canada-United States relations
• October 30, 2024 – MP Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK, CPC) Petition 441-02793 – Reduction in Border Services

Media responses

Q1) I would like to know if there are any updates on the search for Jagdeep Singh?

We are working with police forces to locate the individual. Anyone with information is asked to call 911.

Q2) I am also wondering if you can tell me who was guarding him at the time of his escape. I understand the CBSA hired security company Guarda for the task. Can you confirm and can you tell me if it is standard practice to contract out the guarding of a detainee?

Q3) My understanding is that anyone under arrest must remain in the company of a peace officer. Does the hiring of Guarda security align with that requirement?

It is standard practice for the CBSA to use contracted guards to maintain custody and control of all detained individuals 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The guards keep individuals safe and secure through regular observation, monitoring, engagement, and intervention. Guards are also responsible for transporting individuals, including their luggage and personal effects, to and from various locations as required.

The individual was in the custody of contracted guards prior to escaping. We are taking this issue very seriously and are conducting a full review of the incident.

A person's immigration information is considered personal information and protected under the Privacy Act. Due to the privacy provisions of the legislation, and to protect the integrity of the investigation process, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) is unable to provide any further information at this time.

The CBSA takes appropriate enforcement action when it identifies individuals who are not in compliance with immigration legislation. Any foreign national who fails to comply with Canadian immigration laws risks serious consequences which may include removal from Canada. More information on removals and detention can be found here: Enforcing immigration laws in Canada.

Q1. I'm referring to the data from this e-mail thread, sent to me and Joe Friesen last year [see below]. I'm working on a story about foreign nationals holding post-graduate work permits (PGWPs) that have expired. I was hoping to get a number of updated data points.

• How many PGWP holders are believed to have overstayed their permits, currently?
• How many PGWP holders overstayed their permits in 2024?
• How many foreign nationals on expired PGWPs has CBSA removed this year and last year?
• How many foreign nationals on any expired permit has CBSA removed this year and last year?

Foreign nationals holding post-graduate work permits that do not leave Canada at the end of their stay are reported inadmissible for non-compliance. System limitations do not allow us to disaggregate the sub-groups of the general "non-compliance" inadmissibility.

Please refer to the Current Removal Inventory table on our Removal Program Statistics webpage. Temporary residents who remain in Canada beyond their status are classified under the following type of inadmissibility: Non-compliance (s. 41) - non-claimants for asylum. This is a broad category that includes various reasons why a person may be inadmissible for non-compliance, such as overstaying the time they were permitted to remain in Canada as well as studying and working without authorization or not being in compliance with specific conditions of their authorized study or work permit.

Foreign nationals are expected to respect the conditions of their entry and leave Canada when the authorized period of stay has ended. When we become aware of situations where foreign nationals may be inadmissible, the CBSA will initiate an investigation. In the case of foreign students who have overstayed their study permits, a Minister's Delegate has the authority to issue a removal order. Depending on the inadmissibility ground and status of the individual, other types of cases may be referred to the Immigration Division at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) for an inadmissibility determination.

Q2. What is CBSA's policy when it comes to removing foreign nationals who hold expired PGWPs?

The CBSA is mandated to remove as soon as possible all foreign nationals who are inadmissible to Canada and subject to an enforceable removal order. Cases involving security, organized crime, human rights violations and criminality are considered to be of the highest priority for the safety and security of Canada and its citizens. Failed refugee claimants are the next priority and all other immigration violations are considered thereafter. It is important to note that even though the latter group is a lower priority, it is necessary to action these removals due to their impact on the immigration system.

The timely removal of inadmissible foreign nationals plays a critical role in supporting the integrity of Canada's immigration system. There are multiple steps built into the process to ensure procedural fairness and the CBSA only actions a removal order once all legal avenues of recourse that can stay a removal have been exhausted. All individuals issued a removal order for non-compliance may be eligible to seek redress through the Federal Court of Canada (judicial review) and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) (Pre-removal risk assessment). Please visit the CBSA website for more information about removals.

The CBSA removed over 18,000 inadmissible people last fiscal year – the most in a decade. The Border Plan provides funding for the CBSA to increase the rate at which it removes inadmissible people from Canada, to complete 20,000 removals for each of the next two fiscal years. To reach this target, the CBSA has hired approximately 30 additional frontline personnel, allowing for an increase in the number of interviews with inadmissible foreign nationals facing removal from Canada. The Agency is taking steps toward meeting its commitment to completing 20,000 removals by March 31, 2026 and maintaining that cadence the following fiscal year. More information and statistics on removals are available online: CBSA removals program statistics.

Under The Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the United States (U.S.), refugee claimants are required to request refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in, unless they qualify for an exception to the Agreement. In March 2023, the governments of Canada and the United States announced an additional protocol to the STCA, extending its scope to the entire land border.

When a person makes a claim for refugee protection at a port of entry, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers will conduct an examination – including an interview – to determine if the claim is eligible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) of Canada's Refugee Protection Division.

As part of the eligibility determination, officers will determine if, based on the circumstances of their seeking entry to Canada, the refugee claimant is subject to the STCA or Additional Protocol. As per s.100(1)(1.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the onus is on the refugee claimant to provide the officer with evidence (documentary and/or testamentary) that their claim is eligible. Officers will consider all relevant information, including the claimant's own statements and documentary evidence.

If the claim qualifies, the individual's file will be forwarded to the IRB for review, and the person will be allowed to enter Canada to pursue their claim for protection.

If the refugee claimant is subject to the STCA, meaning that no exemption or exception is claimed or identified, then the officer will find the claim ineligible under IRPA s.101(1)(e) and the claimant will be reported as inadmissible, issued a removal order, and then removed back to the United States. With this type of ineligibility, the removal order comes into force on the same day as the ineligibility determination and the individual is generally removed to the United States that same day – or at the earliest availability.

When an individual is found to be ineligible under the STCA, the CBSA will typically send written notice to and/or call the U.S. CBP officials at the U.S. port of entry prior to their removal from Canada and will arrange for the individual's transportation back to the U.S. port of entry. For all cases found ineligible under the STCA or Additional Protocol, the CBSA will provide supporting documentation under strict parameters to establish that the person should be returned to the U.S. This includes both persons who entered Canada at a CBSA port of entry or who entered Canada between the ports.

Upon removal to the United States, ineligible asylum claimants enter the care of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (U.S. CBP). The CBSA's involvement ends when ineligible asylum claimants are transferred to the United States.

For detailed asylum claimant statistics, you can consult the following webpages: Asylum statistics, trends and data and Claims by Country of Alleged Persecution – 2025.

For more information, I would invite you to consult the following webpages: Claiming refugee protection (asylum) at the border when you enter Canada, Meet the requirements to submit a refugee claim, Processing in-Canada claims for protection – Safe Third Country Agreement and What to expect at the border.

The Canada Border Services Agency's (CBSA) resources are strategically allocated to respond to the threats and responsibilities at ports of entry. The CBSA has more than 8,500 frontline personnel who work across the country and around the world to keep our border safe. This includes border services officers, trade officers, intelligence officers and investigators.

The CBSA undertakes rigorous planning to deploy sufficient frontline officers who are trained and equipped to stop dangerous weapons, drugs and people from entering Canada. Since 2020, the number of active frontline personnel has grown by 4%, from approximately 7,900 to approximately 8,500, in response to increased pressures at our border.

The Government of Canada has committed to hiring 1,000 additional CBSA officers under Budget 2025 and the Border Plan. We are bolstering our frontlines and ensuring that they have the tools and technology they need to continue to interdict illicit drugs and illegal firearms.

In Canada, border security and integrity is a shared mandate between the CBSA and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The CBSA is responsible for enforcing the law at designated ports of entry in Canada and the RCMP is responsible for enforcing Canadian legislation between ports of entry.

All foreign nationals who make a refugee claim are subject to a rigorous risk assessment, including mandatory screening questions, biometrics, a search of criminal history databases, and an officer interview.

All eligible refugee claimants who are allowed in Canada must fulfill their responsibilities to pursue their claim, whether they are subject to the One Touch process or not. This includes the requirement to provide additional information to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada before a decision can be made on if they can remain in Canada.

The One Touch process allows low-risk refugee claimants to finalize aspects of their refugee application in Canada by submitting additional administrative details (such as education history) through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's online portal after departing the port of entry, rather than this information being collected and entered by a border services officer. An expedited processing method for low-risk claimants allows officers to focus on interviews and risk assessment, rather than data entry for low-risk claimants. No risk assessment, security or enforcement requirements are removed by using One Touch processing.

The CBSA and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada track refugee claims and follows up directly with claimants who have not submitted their administrative details. Refugee claimants are issued removal orders from Canada if they don't pursue their claim as required or if it is not approved by the Refugee Board of Canada.

The CBSA has the authority to investigate, detain, and remove foreign nationals who are found to be inadmissible to Canada. We employ over 200 criminal investigators across Canada who investigate individuals who commit offences against Canada's border legislation. Mechanisms are in place to identify and manage these cases and Bill C-12 would strengthen these mechanisms.

All foreign national who make a refugee claim are subject to a rigorous risk assessment, including mandatory screening questions, biometrics, a search of criminal history databases, and an officer interview.

All eligible refugee claimants who are allowed in Canada must fulfill their responsibilities to pursue their claim, whether they are subject to the One Touch process or not. This includes the requirement to provide additional information to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada before a decision can be made on if they can remain in Canada.

The CBSA and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada track refugee claims and follows up directly with claimants who have not submitted their administrative details.

Refugee claimants are issued removal orders from Canada if they don't pursue their claim as required or if it is not approved by the Refugee Board of Canada.

The CBSA has the authority to investigate, detain, and remove foreign nationals who are found to be inadmissible to Canada. We employ over 200 criminal investigators across Canada who investigate individuals who commit offences against Canada's border legislation. Mechanisms are in place to identify and manage these cases and Bill C-12 would strengthen these mechanisms.

One Touch processing allows low-risk eligible refugee claimants to finalize aspects of their refugee application in Canada by submitting additional administrative details (such as education history) through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's (IRCC) online portal after departing the port of entry, rather than this information being collected and entered by a border services officer. An expedited processing method for low-risk claimants allows officers to focus on interviews and risk assessment, rather than data entry for low-risk claimants. No risk assessment, security or enforcement requirements are removed by using One Touch processing for any claimants. To be clear, there is no One Touch mobile application.

The Canada Border Services Agency's (CBSA) refugee processing model, which includes One Touch and full case processing, prioritizes the immediate completion of risk assessment for all claimants to maintain safety, security, and asylum program integrity.

When a foreign national makes a claim for refugee protection to the CBSA, border services officers conduct an in-person examination and risk assessment, which includes the collection and review of mandatory screening questions, biometrics, criminality, a search of criminal history databases, and an officer interview. Officers confirm a claimant's identity and determine whether they are admissible to Canada before determining whether the claim is eligible for referral to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). After officers complete their assessment, they determine how the claim will be processed. Full refugee processing must be completed unless the officer is satisfied the claimant is low-risk and eligible. Officers can only utilize One Touch processing on low-risk eligible claimants.

One Touch processing, which has been used since 2022, allows low-risk eligible refugee claimants to finalize the administrative aspects of their refugee application in Canada. The primary difference for claimants processed under One Touch processing is that they submit additional administrative details (such as education history) through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's (IRCC) online portal after departing the port of entry, rather than this information being collected and entered by a border services officer. An expedited processing method for low-risk claimants allows officers to focus on interviews and risk assessment, rather than data entry for low-risk claimants. No security or enforcement requirements are removed from the process for any claimants. To be clear, there is no One Touch mobile application.

If the claimant is ineligible under the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement, they conclude processing and the claimant is removed back to the United States.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and its Regulations establish the requirements to enter and remain in Canada.

Only Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and persons registered as an Indian under the Indian Act enter Canada by right [A19]. Foreign nationals seeking to visit, study, or work in Canada must establish that they hold a valid visa (unless exempted) and that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay [A20(1)(b)]. Most foreign nationals must obtain a visa or electronic travel authorization before travelling to Canada [A11], with limited exceptions including for U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents [R7.1(3)(b)]. Please visit Entry requirements by country or territory for more information.

All travellers seeking entry to Canada must appear for an examination on arrival to determine whether they enter by right or may become authorized to enter [A18(1)]. Each traveller's application is assessed on a case-by-case basis, using the information available at the time of entry. Having obtained a visa or electronic travel authorization does not guarantee entry to Canada, as foreign nationals must continue to meet the requirements for temporary residency at the time of examination [R180]. If the examination reveals that they are inadmissible on grounds of criminality, misrepresentation, or other reasons described in the IRPA, they could be allowed to leave Canada voluntarily or be reported as inadmissible and face formal removal proceedings. A complete list of reasons for inadmissibility can be found under Sections 34 to 42 of the IRPA.

There is no compassionate visa category for temporary residence, however permanent resident applications may consider humanitarian and compassionate grounds at an applicant's request pursuant to A25(1). For more information, please consult Guide 5291 - Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations or contact Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

Foreign nationals who are authorized entry to Canada as temporary residents will need to make a new application (as in, appear for examination again) should they leave the country and later seek to return, even if they hold a multiple-entry visa valid for travel back to Canada. The CBSA cannot provide advance decisions on whether a foreign national who left Canada would later be authorized to re-enter. Each situation is unique, and therefore we do not speculate on individual outcomes.

For this calendar year, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has processed 31,312 asylum applications in Canada as of November 16, 2025. By the same date last year, the Agency had processed 53,933 asylum applications in Canada. This represents a reduction of approximately 42%. This includes all asylum applications, including those deemed ineligible.

For the current year, the CBSA in the province of Quebec has processed 20,434 asylum applications as November 16, 2025. By the same date last year, the Agency had processed 28,761 asylum applications in Quebec.

From January 1 to November 16, 2025, 14,533 asylum applications were received at the Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle port of entry, compared to 7,015 for the same period in 2024.

Elsewhere in the country:

1. For the current year, the CBSA in Ontario has processed 9,064 asylum applications as of November 16, 2025. By the same date last year, the Agency had processed 22,355 asylum applications in Ontario
2. For the current year, the CBSA in British Columbia has processed 1,058 asylum applications as of November 16, 2025. By the same date last year, the Agency had processed 1,746 asylum applications in British Columbia
3. For the current year, the CBSA in Alberta has processed 458 asylum applications as of November 16, 2025. By the same date last year, the Agency had processed 815 asylum applications in Alberta
4. For the current year, the CBSA in Manitoba has processed 146 asylum applications as of November 16, 2025. By the same date last year, the Agency had processed 164 asylum applications in Manitoba
5. For the current year, the CBSA in New Brunswick has processed 53 asylum applications as of November 16, 2025. By the same date last year, the Agency had processed 27 asylum applications in New Brunswick
6. For the current year, the CBSA in Saskatchewan has processed 57 asylum applications as of November 16, 2025. By the same date last year, the Agency had processed 27 asylum applications in Saskatchewan
7. For the current year, the CBSA in Nova Scotia has processed 32 asylum applications as of November 16, 2025. By the same date last year, the Agency had processed 35 asylum applications in Nova Scotia
8. For the current year, the CBSA in Newfoundland and Labrador has processed 7 asylum applications as of November 16, 2025. By the same date last year, the Agency had processed 3 asylum applications in Newfoundland and Labrador
9. For the current year, the CBSA in the Yukon Territory has processed 3 asylum applications as of November 16, 2025. By the same date last year, the Agency had processed 0 asylum applications in the Yukon
10. The CBSA in P.E.I. and all other territories had no claims in both time periods

In March 2023, the governments of Canada and the United States announced an additional protocol to the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), extending its scope to the entire land border. If a person fails to meet an exception to the STCA, he or she will be returned to the United States. If the claim qualifies, the person's file will be forwarded to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for review, and the person will be allowed to enter Canada to pursue his or her claim for protection.

From January 1 to November 17, 3,958 asylum claimants were removed to the U.S. for their ineligibility under the STCA.

These are the top 10 countries of citizenship for asylum claimants processed at CBSA land border ports of entry in 2025, as of November 16. This includes claimants who entered irregularly between ports of entry and were subsequently brought to a land port of entry for CBSA processing. The list is in descending order:

1. Haiti
2. USA
3. Venezuela
4. Colombia
5. Pakistan
6. Chile
7. Romania
8. Nicaragua
9. Afghanistan
10. Mexico

The following table shows the number of foreign nationals who appeared at a Canadian port of entry, made a claim for refugee protection, and were found ineligible under the STCA and subsequently removed to the United States:

The following table shows the number of foreign nationals who crossed into Canada between ports of entry, made a claim for refugee protection, and were found ineligible under the STCA Additional Protocol and subsequently removed to the United States:

A person's immigration information is considered personal information and protected under the Privacy Act. Due to the privacy provisions of the legislation, and to protect the integrity of the investigation process, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) is unable to provide any further information at this time.

The CBSA takes appropriate enforcement action when it identifies individuals who are not in compliance with immigration legislation. Any foreign national who fails to comply with Canadian immigration laws risks serious consequences which may include removal from Canada. More information on removals and detention can be found here: Enforcing immigration laws in Canada.

The timely removal of inadmissible foreign nationals plays a critical role in supporting the integrity of Canada's immigration system. Our priority is to remove inadmissible individuals from Canada as soon as possible, with a particular focus on individuals who are inadmissible for reasons such as serious criminality.

Please visit the CBSA website for more information about removals. For publicly available information, please refer to the courts or the IRB.

The Canada Border Services Agency's (CBSA) Pacific Region Immigration Enforcement and Intelligence and Investigations Operations are an integral part of the Extortion Task Force. Their role is to assist in the execution of search warrants, conduct Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) investigations and share information with law enforcement partners.

The CBSA supports law enforcement investigations into kidnapping and extortion when there is a border nexus and provides information that furthers local or federal investigations. The CBSA is mandated under the IRPA to remove inadmissible foreign nationals as soon as possible. Inland Enforcement Officers have the powers of a peace officer for the purposes of enforcing the IRPA and have the authority to investigate, detain, and remove foreign nationals who are found to be inadmissible to Canada.

The IRPA sets out inadmissibility categories, which include:

• Security grounds
• Criminality
• Transborder Criminality
• Organized criminality
• Misrepresentation
• Non-compliance with IRPA

Due to the privacy provisions of the legislation, and to protect the integrity of the investigation process, the CBSA is unable to provide any further information.

What we can tell you is that the CBSA has a legal obligation to remove as quickly as possible all foreign nationals who are inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and are subject to an enforceable removal order. The process for determining inadmissibility begins with the issuance of a 44 report that outlines the inadmissibility and referral of the report to an authorized decision-maker: Minister's Delegate or an Immigration Division Member for an admissibility hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) where a determination is made on whether to issue a removal order.

It should be noted that criminal proceedings take precedence over immigration matters, which will delay a removal. However, many of the processes can be conducted concurrently to a person serving their sentence, ensuring that once a criminal sentence has been completed, and due process is completed, the CBSA will carry out their removal.

Anyone with information about suspicious cross-border activity is encouraged to call the toll-free CBSA Border Watch line at 1-888-502-9060.

The Canada Border Services Agency's (CBSA) cannot provide comment on specific cases as a person's immigration and border information is considered personal information and is protected by the Privacy Act.

The CBSA role is to assess the security risk and admissibility of persons coming to Canada. This process may include primary interviews and secondary inspections. This means that all travellers, foreign nationals and those who enter Canada by right, may be referred for further inspection. Secondary inspections are part of the cross-border process and enables the CBSA to ensure travellers to Canada are complying with Canada's laws and regulations.

There are many reasons why a border services officer may determine that an individual, or the goods they are carrying, require further processing or inspection, including:

1. verify declaration and travel documents
2. ask more in-depth questions about the traveller
3. determine admissibility to Canada (whether the traveller is allowed to enter Canada)
4. inspect and determine the admissibility of the goods being brought across the border, including conveyances (examples: vehicle, vessel, aircraft, trailer) as well as food, plants or animal products.
5. process paperwork for reported currency, cheques or monetary instruments equal to or greater than CAN$10,000

CBSA Officers do not refer travellers for secondary inspections on the basis of race, nationality, religion, age or gender.

The CBSA administers more than 100 acts, regulations and international agreements, many on behalf of other federal departments and agencies, the provinces and the territories. These include the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Customs Act, and food, plant and animal regulations. CBSA officers are authorized by these laws and regulations to conduct secondary inspections, including the inspection of travellers and goods, at Canadian ports of entry.

It is important to note that travellers referred to secondary inspection are not being "detained". Foreign nationals seeking entry into Canada can be subjected to a secondary inspection by an officer to determine admissibility to Canada. In some instances, the inspection may take longer due to information being gathered through questioning. This is part of normal processing and the CBSA's mandate under the IRPA.

A foreign national or permanent resident can be detained when there are reasonable grounds to believe they are a danger to the public, a flight risk for immigration processes, unable to satisfy the officer of their identity (foreign nationals only), or reasonable grounds to suspect they are inadmissible to Canada for security concerns, human rights violations or criminality. For more information on detention: Immigration detention in Canada.

Once the secondary inspection has been completed, if the traveller has been deemed admissible to Canada, they are free to enter Canada. If a CBSA officer believes the traveller to be inadmissible, there are several options, such as being reported inadmissible and issued a removal order, allowed to leave Canada voluntarily or issued a temporary resident permit should the traveller have a valid reason to enter Canada that outweighs the health or safety risks to Canadian society. Information on the TRP application process is available on the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada website.

For more information on secondary inspections, please visit Canadian customs: Secondary inspections.

Q1) Number of operations: Please provide the number of CBSA "planned regulatory compliance" operations that involved monitoring and removing foreign nationals who are in Canada unlawfully over the past 3–5 years, broken down annually. Please provide locations, provinces these operations take place if possible (i.e., worksites, residential buildings, other etc.)

Foreign nationals admitted into Canada have an authorized period of entry and conditions of their stay established upon arrival, based on their individual circumstances. They are required to comply with those conditions and leave Canada at the end of their authorized period of stay unless they apply for and receive an extension of their status. When the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) becomes aware of individuals who are in violation of immigration legislation, the Agency will take appropriate enforcement action.

The CBSA can provide national statistics for the annual number of inadmissibility investigations into possible non-compliance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) that it has concluded, which include workplace investigations. Please note that non-compliance is a broad category that includes circumstances such as remaining in Canada beyond a foreign national's authorized period of stay, working without authorization, studying without authorization, and returning to Canada without authorization.

Q2) Results of operations: Please provide the number of arrests or removals (deportations) of foreign nationals that resulted from these operations, broken down annually if available. Please indicate whether all individuals arrested or removed were in Canada without legal status, or if any held valid status at the time of the operation.

The CBSA takes appropriate enforcement action when it identifies individuals who are not in compliance with immigration legislation. The IRPA sets out various inadmissibility categories. The IRPA imposes certain obligations on officers as well as some flexibility in managing cases in accordance with IRPA objectives. For example, the IRPA does not permit proactive arrest and detention of all persons subject to immigration enforcement and CBSA officials must assess specific factors prescribed in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations when considering immigration enforcement. This means that not everyone who is inadmissible will be automatically arrested and detained. In addition, the IRPA prescribes that a standard of proof be met, with sufficient evidence required in order to prove an inadmissibility allegation. Furthermore, it is important to note that an individual can be inadmissible for multiple allegations at the same time. In all cases, however, foreign nationals can only be removed once they are found inadmissible, are subject to an enforceable removal order, and have exhausted available relief mechanisms.

Please visit our website for detailed CBSA removals program statistics which show year-over-year removal totals by inadmissibility grounds including non-compliance with the IRPA.

Q3) Rationale for increase: Please explain why these operations appear to have increased in frequency over time.

The last several years has seen an increase in foreign nationals being admitted into Canada either as visitors, workers, or students. While the vast majority of foreign nationals comply with the conditions of their entry, some do not and they then become subject to immigration enforcement. The increase in immigration enforcement is consistent with the increase in the number of foreign nationals admitted to Canada.

Q4) Nature and purpose of these operations: Please explain the purpose of these "planned regulatory compliance" operations that deal with monitoring and removing foreign nationals without status, including:

a) How they are initiated,
b) What agencies are typically involved
c) What criteria or intelligence triggers such operations, and
d) How CBSA ensures these operations do not result in racial profiling or unlawful questioning

Two of the IRPA's objectives are directly linked to the CBSA's enforcement mandate, namely to protect the health and safety of Canadians and maintain the security of Canadian society, and to promote international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights and by denying access to Canadian territory to foreign nationals who are criminals or security risks. The IRPA sets out various inadmissibility categories, along with applicable standards of proof. CBSA officers involved in the enforcement of the IRPA must consider and weigh all facts and evidence and ensure that actions taken support the objectives of the IRPA and are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The CBSA receives and acts upon information received from various sources, including referrals from law enforcement agencies, other government departments, and the public. The CBSA also operates a tip line that allows the public to share information or directly report on the whereabouts of those who are inadmissible to Canada. Anyone with information about suspicious cross-border activity is encouraged to call the toll-free Border Watch Line at 1-888-502-9060 or fill out the secure online reporting form. All tips received are reviewed, triaged, and assigned to officers for investigations based on established priorities. The CBSA allocates its resources strategically to prioritize its public safety mandate. It places the highest priority on the investigation and removal of cases involving national security, organized crime, crimes against humanity, and criminality.

The CBSA has the mandate to conduct investigations and enforcement under the IRPA. That said, the CBSA may participate in joint operations with law enforcement partners if the proposed initiative supports the CBSA mandate and where there is legal authority to do so. For example, a law enforcement agency may be investigating criminal offences and there is information that individuals involved may also be subject to immigration warrants.

Workplace investigations are an important tool to identify those who should not be in the country. They may cause a temporary disruption at the workplace but they are critical to ensuring compliance with the law. CBSA officers may exercise their designated peace officer authorities by conducting ID checks for the purpose of administering and enforcing the IRPA.

A finding of inadmissibility begins with an allegation by an officer pursuant to subsection 44(1) of the IRPA. The report must be substantiated before a second official (i.e., a Minister's Delegate). Depending on the grounds of inadmissibility, the decision whether to issue a removal order will either be within the jurisdiction of the Minister's Delegate, or else the Minister's Delegate will need to refer the inadmissibility report to the Immigration Division (ID) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for an admissibility hearing. The Minister's Delegate has jurisdiction to issue removal orders for cases involving straightforward, fact-based assessments. Admissibility determinations based on more complex or nuanced evidence fall within the jurisdiction of the ID. Everyone ordered removed from Canada is entitled to due process before the law and removal orders are subject to various levels of appeal. Once a removal order becomes enforceable, individuals are expected to obey the law and leave Canada or be subject to removal proceedings.

Q1) In regards to these cases, can you elaborate a little on what the CBSA can and can't comment on? Specifically - I take it your role is to remove people who have been found inadmissible. So are you unable to provide their names in this case because of a particular statute or order … or are you saying that would be up to the IRB to release? Essentially, I'm asking you to be a bit more specific about the privacy concerns involving these cases. As you can understand - where an admissibility hearing has been held, and the results are public, I am asking for information. If those hearings are subject to publication bans - that of course would be a different matter, but I would like specifics on those reasons.

A person's border and immigration information is considered personal information, which is protected by the Privacy Act. Removal orders are issued to individual foreign nationals who are inadmissible to Canada. They are not publicly available or searchable documents.

When the Canada Border Services Agency reports someone as inadmissible to Canada, that report is referred to an authorized decision-maker. Certain types of inadmissibility grounds require a decision by an Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Member on whether to issue a removal order. In such cases, there may be public records of the admissibility hearing that are available upon request to the IRB. Removal orders for other types of alleged inadmissibility can be issued by a Minister's Delegate. In these cases, there would be no public records associated with the decision to remove, except potentially if the foreign national made an appeal of the decision before the IRB or applied for leave and judicial review before Federal Court.

In the three cases you referenced, issuance of the removal orders did not require an IRB Member decision.

Q1. Je souhaiterais, par la présente, demander une entrevue avec Mme Erin O'Gorman. J'ai écouté sa comparution devant le comité parlementaire il y a deux semaines et j'aimerais revenir sur la question des 32 000 personnes faisant l'objet de mandats actifs qui sont présentement recherchées à travers le pays. Comme ce sujet a été soulevé à plusieurs reprises au comité, je crois qu'il mérite d'être approfondi. Cette entrevue permettrait de faire le point sur le chiffre, d'en comprendre les nuances et d'offrir au public une meilleure perspective sur cet enjeu.

L'Agence des services frontaliers du Canada (ASFC) prend des mesures d'exécution dès qu'elle est informée de personnes qui ne se conforment pas aux lois sur canadiennes l'immigration, y compris le renvoi du pays.

L'ASFC identifie et renvoie les ressortissants étrangers qui sont interdits de territoire et peut arrêter et détenir ceux qui représentent un danger pour le public ou présentent un risque de fuite. Depuis 2021, l'ASFC a doublé le nombre de renvois, passant de 7 530 par année à 18 048 au dernier exercice.

Lorsqu'un ressortissant étranger interdit de territoire ne se conforme pas aux exigences de renvoi, l'ASFC émet un mandat d'arrestation. Ces renseignements sont communiqués aux services de police à l'échelle nationale. L'ASFC travaille en étroite collaboration avec ses partenaires policiers qui communiquent avec elle lorsqu'ils identifient des personnes recherchées en vertu d'un mandat d'immigration.

Lorsqu'une personne ne se présente pas à une procédure de renvoi, elle est transférée dans l'inventaire des personnes recherchées aux fins d'autres mesures. Cet inventaire comprend les personnes qui ont omis de se présenter aux fins d'une procédure de renvoi et peut faire l'objet d'un mandat; les personnes susceptibles d'être renvoyées lorsqu'aucun mandat n'a été délivré ou les cas où un mandat a été émis pour le renvoi de l'étranger. Il faut également tenir compte du fait que les ressortissants étrangers visés par une mesure de renvoi peuvent quitter le Canada sans confirmer leur départ et resteront dans notre inventaire des mandats d'expulsion en cours jusqu'à ce que nous confirmions leur départ dans notre système.

Vous pouvez consulter l'information sur les inventaires de l'ASFC sur notre site Web : Statistiques sur le programme de renvois de l'Agence des services frontaliers du Canada. Le tableau 6.1 : « Sous-inventaires des renvois par région » indique le nombre de personnes recherchées et le tableau 6.2, intitulé « Inventaire de renvois en cours – Type d'interdiction de territoire », vous indiquera le nombre de personnes (y compris les demandeurs du statut de réfugié qui ne se conforment pas aux exigences et les demandeurs d'asile non conformes) pour qui le renvoi est en cours.

Renseignements supplémentaires :

L'ASFC accorde la plus haute priorité aux cas liés à la sécurité nationale, le crime organisé, les crimes contre l'humanité et la criminalité.

L'an dernier, l'ASFC a fermé 542 mandats d'immigration visant des personnes inadmissibles ayant fait l'objet de condamnations criminelles, et 254 autres depuis le début de l'année. L'ASFC a également renvoyé 905 personnes interdites de territoire pour criminalité, criminalité organisée et sécurité en 2024.

L'ASFC a également une ligne de surveillance frontalière qui permet au public d'échanger de l'information sur les allées et venues de ceux qui tentent d'échapper à la loi.

Media articles

Toronto killer ordered deported in 2020 gets six years on gun charges – Vancouver Sun, Nov. 26, 2025

An Ontario killer ordered deported in 2020 has been sentenced to six years in a Canadian prison after he was caught soon after he got out of custody for a manslaughter conviction with a Glock semi-automatic handgun in his Toronto nightstand that was equipped with a laser sight and loaded with seven rounds of .40 calibre ammunition.

Police also allegedly found other items in Christopher Enrique Gordon's bedroom during their September 2022 search, including about $6,000 in cash, 18.56 grams of fentanyl, 10.13 grams of cocaine and drug trafficking paraphernalia.

The court heard from the Canada Border Services Agency that once Gordon's "legal matters are concluded, he will be deported back to St. Vincent."

The agency "has already applied for a travel document for him, and … they will be monitoring the outcome of his court matters," said the decision.

But Gordon's lawyer told the court he "had retained an immigration lawyer and if he is sentenced to time served up to six months he is entitled to a pre-removal risk assessment and there is a possibility that immigration would consider it."

A pre-removal risk assessment would be Gordon's last-ditch bid to stay in Canada.

Gordon was convicted of manslaughter in December 2019, for stabbing 54-year David Blacquiere of Angus, Ont., in the chest several times in a Toronto-area Shoppers Drug Mart parking lot on Nov. 15, 2018.

On Dec. 9, 2020, he was sentenced to six years and nine months. After deducting credit for pre-sentence custody, he had 586 days left to serve.

Gordon, who recently turned 26, was born in St. Vincent.

"His father had minimal involvement in his upbringing. When Mr. Gordon was seven, his mother left his father and went to Canada in an effort to improve her family's financial situation," it said.

"Mr. Gordon stayed behind and was looked after by various relatives. Mr. Gordon's mother brought him to Canada for a visit when he was eight. After seeing that he had not been well cared for, she kept him with her in Canada. However, Mr. Gordon never became a Canadian citizen."

His "family history, lack of citizenship and socio-economic status have intersected with anti-Black racism to compound disadvantage and exacerbate the many challenges he has faced," said the decision. "He has experienced racism in various contexts, including at school, through police harassment and while incarcerated."

Gordon was given the opportunity to apply for status in Canada after he was ordered deported for manslaughter, it said, though the decision does not indicate whether he tried that route to stay here.

Wassenaar said she "considered potential immigration consequences," her sentence for gun crimes might have on Gordon.

"It seems rather speculative to suggest that the sentence I impose could have additional immigration consequences," said the judge.

"In any event, the risk of deportation cannot justify imposing a sentence that is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of proportionality."

Foreign criminals keep getting their deportations cancelled – National Post, Nov. 26, 2025

When he was about 22, a Jamaican national and Canadian permanent resident impregnated his 13-year-old stepsister. She said he forced himself onto her, he said he didn't remember; you be the judge. She had a child. This happened in 2007, and in 2008 he was convicted of sexual interference and sentenced to five-and-a-half months.

That should have been the end of his time here - his crime was considered "serious criminality," and this rendered him legally inadmissible to Canada. But officials cancelled his deportation to give him another chance. He went on to commit more crimes, including domestic violence, and in 2018 he was still fighting before the courts.

By then, he had three Canadian children - the oldest being the one conceived through criminal means - and he used them to argue against being returned to Jamaica. He lost his last appeal, but whether he's still here, we don't know. He could have not shown up to his flight and dropped off the radar. The Canada Border Services Agency's position is that a criminal's deportation status is private information, even though such information should be as public as a court docket.

That's Canadian immigration for you: in the place of hard lines are soft, bendy pool noodles that are easily pushed aside.

The criminal conviction is an obvious hard line that should exist, but doesn't.

For one, Canada only considers crimes over a certain threshold - those with a maximum of 10 years or greater, or cases where the individual's sentence was over six months - to count as "serious criminality" warranting possible deportation of a permanent resident. This is one reason that immigration discounts are used in Canadian law: in cases where doing so will make a difference, judges will sometimes sentence a permanent resident below six months to help keep the offender here.

When courts do sentence foreign offenders to the point of reaching "serious criminality," it renders the individual in question legally inadmissible to Canada. Inadmissible status is generally followed by a removal order, which should lead to actual deportation. But that process can be interrupted. One route involves convincing a judge to pause the order and put the offender on probation of sorts, giving them time to prove their rehabilitation and worthiness to Canadian society.

This was how the Jamaican national managed to remain in Canada after sexually assaulting and impregnating his stepsister. In 2009, he was ordered deported by the Immigration and Refugee Board's lowest-level tribunal - but on appeal the next year, adjudicator Hazelyn Ross decided to let him stay even though he had four convictions at the time.

Ross got her law degree in Barbados, and was previously an Ontario government lawyer who worked on race relations policy; after her immigration board stint, she was appointed to the federal social security tribunal. She paused the stepsister abuser's deportation for five years and gave him at least 16 conditions to follow. By 2016, he'd violated six of those.

The most egregious excuse-making for this man happened under a Conservative federal government. It was Conservatives who were in charge of the immigration laws at the time, and Conservatives who elevated into immigration tribunal management the woman who would go on to allow an alleged child rapist to stay in Canada. (Though to their credit, it was also the Conservatives who appointed the judge who rejected his final pleas to remain in Canada: former federal court chief justice Paul Crampton, who retired last month.)

This remains the status quo under the Liberals. Judges and immigration adjudicators continue to stay deportations of all sorts of permanent resident criminals on the off chance that they'll stop abusing the privilege of living in Canada.

In June immigration appeal adjudicator Harold Shepherd (appointed in 2022) paused the deportation of Fiji national Ricky Ravikash Lal, 43, whose long criminal record runs from 2006 to 2020 and includes obstructing police, impaired driving, ignoring court orders, mischief over $5,000 and possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

Though Lal's probability of rehabilitation was considered low, and though he "has not demonstrated a settled desire to overcome his issues and rehabilitate himself to the extent that he no longer poses a risk to the public or of reoffending," the adjudicator decided to give him another three years here to turn things around.

In August, immigration appeal adjudicator Catherine Gaudet (appointed 2022) paused the deportation of Trinidad and Tobago national Avinash Ryan Persaud, 22, who has been convicted of robbery 13 times since 2018. During these proceedings, he was charged with another 30 counts involving drugs and weapons. What remorse he has shown has been superficial. But the adjudicator believed in the faint hope that mental health treatment, which Persaud had never seriously pursued, could turn his life around.

And earlier in November, 42-year-old Philippine national Jaques Delgado Lazaro, who was convicted of "several criminal offences" in 2021 and was in the news for ramming a Toronto police cruiser while breaching bail in 2023, was fortunate enough to have his deportation paused by Federal Court Justice John Norris.

Lazaro was in the middle of fighting the results of his removal risk assessment (another means for criminals to delay and sometimes prevent removal) and argued that deportation would unfairly disrupt those court proceedings. His argument was that returning to the Philippines would put him at risk of relapsing into addiction and thus greater harm, as drug users are treated harshly in his home country.

Under the current system, the mental health of a foreign perpetual criminal is more important than the physical safety of Canadians and the preservation of an ordered, high-trust society. This can't continue. We need immigration laws that guarantee the swift removal of non-citizens convicted under the Criminal Code from Canada. No judicial stays, no excuses. And in the rare circumstances where it's established that deportation to one's home country will result in grievous physical harm, they should be deported elsewhere.

Canada is already above capacity. We don't need more child rapists and robbers from abroad competing for limited apartments and jobs, let alone drunk drivers, small-time fraudsters and mischief-makers.

Somali woman who was in a polygamous marriage and lied to get into Canada wins another chance to stay – National Post, Nov. 25, 2025

A Somali woman barred from Canada for five years for giving false names and birth dates for herself and her two children while applying for refugee status here, dodging the fact that she had entered into a polygamous marriage with a Canadian-Somali man, has won another chance at staying in this country.

Fadumo Yusuf Mohamed Abdille came to Canada in 2012 and was granted refugee status, but that was vacated in 2023 due to misrepresentation on her refugee claim, according to a recent Federal Court decision out of Toronto…While the officer noted that the best interest of Abdille's children was considered, "the hardship that may be caused by her removal did not outweigh the serious nature of her misrepresentation."

Crime and punishment, and deportation

Judges are too often ignoring the will of Parliament, and the Supreme Court, in shielding non-citizens from the consequences of criminal conduct – Globe and Mail, Nov. 25, 2025

Judges in too many cases are protecting non-citizens from the consequences of their criminal conduct on their status in Canada. In doing so, they are flying in the face of what Parliament and the Supreme Court have directed. And they are adding to a growing sense among Canadians that judges are at times a law unto themselves.

Opinion

Canada has lost control of its immigration system - and Canadians know it – National Post, Nov. 21, 2025

Recent polling shows that more than half of Canadians now believe immigration levels are too high - double the number from just three years ago. One-third think immigration increases crime, and six in 10 say too many newcomers fail to adopt Canadian values. These are not the views of a suddenly intolerant country. They reflect a public losing confidence in a system that no longer seems to protect their safety or the integrity of Canadian citizenship.

Canada's immigration system is no longer just strained; it is compromised. Bureaucratic neglect, damaging court rulings, and political timidity have combined to produce a system that admits people faster than it can vet, monitor, or remove them. Nearly half a million temporary residents have overstayed their visas with no record of departure. Tens of thousands of international students have simply vanished. A reduced sentence was sought for a convicted child abductor to keep his conviction below the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act's threshold for deportation, thereby sparing him "disproportionate hardship."

The federal government has budgeted $120.4 million to fast-track hundreds of thousands of asylum claimants into permanent residency through an opaque process without clarifying who qualifies as an "eligible protected person," what security screening these individuals underwent during the Trudeau-era surge when acceptance rates exceeded 85 per cent, and whether compromised vetting protocols will be remediated before conferring permanent status and a pathway to citizenship for thousands of people.

Canadians are generous. But generosity must be met with accountability and order. Here's what Parliament must do to earn back the faith of Canadians.

1) End program-switching and restore security-first screening

Canada must close the loophole that allows individuals to enter as students, workers, or visitors - and then file asylum claims midstream or when their permits expire. This "program-switching" has turned temporary visas into back-door immigration streams, flooding the asylum system with what are often claims of convenience. Refugee protection should be reserved for those fleeing genuine danger, not for those seeking to extend their stay.

At the same time, Canada should return to a security-first approach by processing most immigration and refugee applications overseas, where proper vetting can occur before arrival. This would ensure that the system keeps track of who is entering before they arrive, preventing years-long appeals that erode public confidence. In-Canada processing should be reserved for genuine emergencies.

2) Enforce automatic deportation and end the culture of "compassionate" leniency

Canadians should not need to debate whether a foreign national convicted of child abuse, domestic violence, or terrorism can remain in this country. Yet too often, the system allows offenders and their lawyers to game sentencing, strategically seeking reduced penalties to stay below deportation thresholds - and some judges accommodate this strategy, treating removal as an undue hardship rather than the natural consequence of committing a serious crime.

That mindset must change. Compassion must begin with protecting law-abiding Canadians, rather than shielding those who violate our laws. Conviction for any terrorism, espionage, violent or sexual offence, or crime against children should automatically trigger deportation, without plea bargains or discretionary exemptions that allow offenders to manipulate the system. Immigration is a privilege, not an entitlement - and decision-makers who mistake leniency for mercy compromise both justice and safety.

3) Address the CBSA Enforcement Crisis

Even the strongest laws mean nothing if no one is there to enforce them. Canada Border Services Agency officers face staggering caseloads, managing hundreds of complex security files each while navigating outdated procedures and chronic understaffing. Hundreds of veteran officers are now eligible for early retirement under new pension rules, threatening an enforcement vacuum at the precise moment that migration pressures are surging. Ottawa should immediately implement retention bonuses for experienced staff, fast-track recruitment of law-enforcement and military veterans, and establish a CBSA Reserve Corps to deploy trained retirees during processing, vetting and enforcement surges. Security capacity cannot be an afterthought; it is the foundation of the entire system.

4) Cancel the plan to fast track asylum claimants

Canada's 2025 budget allocates $120.4 million to fast-track hundreds of thousands of asylum claimants into permanent residency, ostensibly to address processing backlogs. The government's lack of clarity has created confusion about who qualifies as an "eligible protected person," what mechanism will be used. Will this program resettled refugees, those accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), or those granted protection through Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)? This opacity obscures a fundamental security problem: in Canada's immigration system, "clearing processing backlogs" has historically meant compromising security screenings in favour of processing speed and volume.

5) Close loopholes exploited by foreign regime operatives

Among the most urgent security gaps are those exploited by affiliates of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Iranian regime. Despite Iran's designation as a state supporter of terrorism, its operatives have used Canada's immigration and refugee pathways to establish presence, intimidate dissidents, and launder funds. Dedicated IRGC investigation units within CBSA and CSIS - supported by enhanced intelligence sharing and clear legislative authority for deportation - are overdue. Canada's openness must never shelter those who abuse it to commit foreign repression.

Throughout Canada's history, immigration has been central to our success - but only when coupled with healthy realism, careful screening, rigorous enforcement, respect for the rule of law, and a firm commitment to a shared civic identity. The immigration reforms that Canada needs are significant, urgent, and essential to preserving public trust, public safety, and Canada's standing as a nation that takes immigration seriously.

Sheryl Saperia is CEO of Secure Canada, where Sophie Milman is strategic advisor. Ches W. Parsons is a retired Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP and?its?former Director General of National Security. Secure Canada's mission is to combat terrorism and extremism by creating innovative laws, policies, and alliances that strengthen Canada's national security and democracy.

Border officers' union raises security concerns about use of automation during asylum intakes – CBC, Nov. 20, 2025

The head of the union representing Canada's border officers is suggesting the government's move toward automating the refugee claimant process is creating security gaps.

The Canada Border Services Agency was firm in pushing back against those allegations.

At issue is the CBSA's One Touch intake system. It was thrust into the spotlight earlier this week after Customs and Immigration Union president Mark Weber raised concerns with what he sees as the dwindling amount of human interaction at the border while testifying before the standing committee on citizenship and immigration.

"This is a terrible thing," he told MPs on the committee Tuesday.

"We are short-staffed, we're allowing people into the country without first doing that security screening."

The One Touch model, which was piloted in 2022 and has since been rolled out nationally, was created to process what the CBSA calls "low-risk" claimants while managing high volumes of asylum seekers.

Previously, people seeking asylum in Canada would complete their forms in the presence of an officer upon arrival.

"That was our opportunity to ask follow-up questions, make sure that the claim is genuine. We could look for things like indications of coaching, human smuggling, that kind of thing," Weber told CBC News in an interview Thursday.

Under the One Touch process, an eligible claimant is assessed by an officer and has their biometrics, like fingerprint impressions and photos, taken.

According to the CBSA, if they are flagged as high risk, the claimant still goes through the in-person application. But those deemed low risk have 45 days to fill out the required forms themselves online.

Weber called the initial risk assessment "very cursory."

"We're not verifying anyone's story at all," he said. "The ability for us to confirm whether or not their story is genuine has really been removed."

Weber also said about 10 per cent of claimants don't fill out the form, leaving it to CBSA inland offices to try and track them down for removal.

"It's exactly the people with the greatest motivation to not self-declare who are going to be the ones who don't self-declare and don't report back," he said.

"They essentially disappear into Canada."

CBSA cites 'multiple layers of defence'

Testifying before the same committee Thursday, Aaron McCrorie, vice-president of intelligence and enforcement at the CBSA, defended the move to the One Touch model.

"There are multiple layers of defence," he said.

"Somebody claiming asylum out of port of entry, 100 per cent of them will spend time, and considerable amount of time, with the border services officer to do that initial risk assessment."

McCrorie said the CBSA's first step is to do the risk assessment for claimants arriving at a port of entry "to understand who you are, to assess whether you're admissible into the country, eligible to make a claim and establishing your identity."

The senior CBSA official also said names and biometric information is run against border security and law enforcement databases.

"It's a very rigorous process. Is it perfect? No, there is no perfect system. And that's why we have subsequent layers of defence," McCrorie said.

During a news conference earlier on Thursday, Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner called the union's comments "super concerning" and said her party is seeking more information.

The government has promised to hire 1,000 new border officers as part of its border security strategy.

Conservative MP and Shadow Minister for Immigration Michelle Rempel Garner holds a news conference on immigration. – Media Q, Nov. 20, 2025

… And so Conservatives will propose a series of substantive reforms to prevent this from happening, presented as amendments to Bill C-12 during its clause-by-clause review at the Security Committee next week.

Given the bill's scope, our amendments will have two objectives. The first, truly fix Canada's broken asylum system by reducing incentives for people to make fraudulent claims, making it harder to make fraudulent claims to begin with, processing claims more efficiently, and making it easier to remove people with no legal reason for being in Canada.

The second objective will focus on strengthening Canada's border security by modernizing the standards by which non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault while in our country can be removed, and making the removal process for non- citizen convicted criminals and those with no legal reason to be in Canada more efficient and more transparent.

So the first objective. Of the many areas that require urgent reform in Canada's immigration system, one takes the cake, our profoundly broken asylum system.

Europe stopped a Hamas-linked terror plot - and Canada should heed the warning – Toronto Sun, Nov. 17, 2025

In recent weeks, German authorities - working with partners across Europe and with crucial intelligence support from Israel - disrupted a sophisticated Hamas-linked plot to carry out targeted assassinations against Jewish and Israeli civilians in Berlin and other cities. Five suspects were arrested in Germany, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and at the Czech border. Weapons included an AK-47, eight Glock pistols, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

No attack occurred. Prevention was successful because democratic states took the threat seriously, cooperated deeply, and shared intelligence without hesitation - including with Israel, whose early warnings were indispensable. But precisely because the operation was thwarted, it is easy to overlook what it reveals about the evolving landscape of extremism in the West, and why countries like Canada should absorb its lessons now.

Bold lesson for Canada: Hamas is expanding global operations: The first is that Hamas' ambitions are no longer confined to the Middle East. Since its mass-casualty assault on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas has shifted toward a more global posture, one that includes precision operations abroad aimed at Jewish civilians. The Berlin plot appears to have been coordinated from Gaza or Lebanon and assembled within months. Its targets were not random. The cell conducted reconnaissance on synagogues during services, Israeli cultural and community events, and diplomatic movements.

Attacking Jewish civilians abroad is a deliberate strategy: It extends the conflict into Western societies while exploiting their internal divisions. It is also a way of testing whether democracies still possess the moral clarity to protect a vulnerable minority when doing so becomes politically inconvenient.

Canada's security vulnerabilities are growing: This brings us to the second lesson. The suspects in Germany were a blend of long-term residents, naturalized citizens, and transient operatives who moved through Europe using legitimate travel documents. There is nothing unusual about their immigration histories in themselves. That is precisely the point. Terrorist groups exploit the openness, trust, and legal predictability of democratic societies - not because immigration is a problem, but because democratic systems are built on the assumption that individuals enter and reside in good faith.

Europe's Schengen Area, with its internal border-free regime, creates additional mobility that Canada does not share, and it is important not to overstate the comparison. But Canada faces its own vulnerabilities - serious ones. Our immigration system is struggling under pressures that have left screening, enforcement, and removals inadequate for the moment we are living in. Extremist narratives have gained a foothold across the country: On university campuses, at rallies, in online spaces, and increasingly in mainstream political discourse.

Domestic radicalization is accelerating, and recent court rulings have made it harder, not easier, for authorities to act when individuals pose security risks. These are not abstract concerns. They are emerging features of Canada's security landscape.

Western intelligence systems face structural weaknesses: The Berlin arrests also highlight deeper structural challenges that are common across Western security systems. Fragmented intelligence-sharing, overstretched watchlists, outdated legal frameworks, and siloed policing or immigration agencies complicate the detection of rapidly evolving extremist networks. Social media amplifies propaganda at a pace states struggle to match. Courts in many democracies, including Canada, have narrowed the tools available to respond to national-security inadmissibility.

These constraints do not erase the threat; they make early detection and cooperation even more essential.

Canada cannot rely on geography - or luck: That leads to the third and most urgent lesson for Canada. Geography has protected us before, but geography is not a security strategy. We are not Europe, and we do not have the same exposure to cross-border movement, but we face our own risks: Increasing antisemitism, a surge in extremist rhetoric since Oct. 7, rising radicalization in major cities, and repeated security breaches aimed at Jewish institutions.

If Hamas is shifting to global operations, the question for Canada is not whether we are next, but whether we treat Europe's near-miss as a warning instead of a distant event.

Canada must strengthen intelligence cooperation with Israel: What prevented a tragedy in Germany was a combination of proactive policing, intelligence fusion across multiple states, and a willingness to work closely with Israel - one of the few actors with deep insight into the structures and intentions of Hamas.

Canada should strengthen the partnerships that made this disruption possible, not shy away from them. We should also improve coordination among CSIS, RCMP, and CBSA; modernize our approach to extremist radicalization; and ensure that Jewish institutions receive the protections they need without hesitation or controversy.

When hate groups place Jewish communities at the centre of their targeting, they are signalling something about their wider objectives: undermining the social contract at the heart of democratic society.

A foiled plot is not reassurance - it is a warning: The Berlin plot was stopped. For that, Europe - and indeed all democracies - owe a debt to the officers and analysts who acted quickly, and to the intelligence partners who sounded the alarm. But a foiled attack is not a reassurance; it is a reminder.

Prevention worked this time. It will only work again if countries like Canada understand the message: security is not guaranteed by distance, luck, or optimism. It is guaranteed by vigilance, cooperation, and an unambiguous commitment to protect those extremists most wish to harm.

Sheryl Saperia is CEO of Secure Canada, a non-profit dedicated to combating terrorism, extremism and related national security threats. Ches W. Parsons is a retired Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP and its former Director General of National Security

Yahia Meddah expulsé vers l'Algérie – La Prese, Nov. 14, 2025

Croix gammées à Saint-Barnabé-Sud

Un ressortissant algérien au passé trouble qui avait installé des croix gammées devant son domicile de Saint-Barnabé-Sud pour protester contre la municipalité a été expulsé en Algérie jeudi soir. Considéré comme un fugitif « extrêmement dangereux » par le FBI, il faisait l'objet d'une tentative d'expulsion du Canada depuis 2010, a appris La Presse.

Yahia Meddah s'est vu refuser mercredi un ultime recours en Cour fédérale pour empêcher son renvoi vers son pays d'origine. Il a été expulsé vers l'Algérie par l'Agence des services frontaliers du Canada, jeudi soir, a confirmé le député fédéral Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay…

Abbotsford, B.C., extortion victim says he was shocked by $1-million demand after business shooting – CBC, Nov. 14, 2025

An Abbotsford, B.C., man remembers feeling shocked and confused after walking up to his business early one morning and seeing the glass entrance riddled with bullet holes. He says he received a chilling phone call later that day from a man demanding $1 million. CBC News has agreed not to identify the victim due to his safety concerns. Police have confirmed the business was targeted in an extortion incident. It was among at least 50 extortion-related incidents in Abbotsford, of which 11 were shootings, since November 2023, according to Abbotsford police. However, police say there is something different about this case - the gunshots came without any warning.

"People come out with a threat of violence and then follow up with the level of violence. In this case it was in reverse," explained Sgt. Paul Walker, media relations officer with the Abbotsford Police Department.

But just hours after the shooting, the victim said he first received a text message, a video of the shots being fired at the business and then a phone call demanding the money.

Two days later, the business owner said, the man called back, tried to negotiate a lower sum but the victim said he refused to pay and he hasn't heard from the caller since.

Since the shooting, the front windows of the business have been boarded up, operational hours have been reduced by half, and the owner continues to live with uncertainty.

The tactic of shooting first and asking for money later, he said, points to a larger pattern that goes beyond extortion for cash to "creating a kind of atmosphere of fear and coercive control."

As public safety concerns grow in the region, the victim says he's even considering selling his business and leaving for India, hoping for more protection from law enforcement. He also wants to see stronger immigration policies to prevent criminals from entering Canada.

In early November, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) announced its work within the B.C. Extortion Task Force - including in the execution of search warrants - had led to the removal of three individuals from Canada and had sparked immigration investigations into 78 foreign nationals "who may be inadmissible to the country."

The CBSA has declined to say why the three individuals were removed, where they were removed from or moved to, and has also refused to name them.

Abbotsford police say no suspects have been arrested so far regarding this incident and investigators are looking into similarities with other cases across the Lower Mainland.

Expert links extortion violence to India – The Province, Nov. 14, 2025

Former RCMP chief superintendent says "majority" of shootings ordered by overseas criminals

A former senior RCMP officer says it has become "really apparent" to him that the continuing rash of local extortion threats and shootings are connected to India, but investigators are not making the same connection just yet.

The wave of extortion cases is continuing to rise in B.C. and any international connection makes the investigations quite complex, says Galib Bhayani, a criminology instructor at Kwantlen Polytechnic University and former chief superintendent with RCMP Metro Vancouver Operations.

When Bhayani first heard about extortion threats impacting business owners, it didn't strike him as much more than local criminality. But looking further at these cases, as well as others popping up in Alberta and Brampton, Ont., the criminology instructor and former RCMP chief suspects the crimes are international in scope.

He believes it may go back to then prime minister Justin Trudeau accusing India of being involved in the 2023 killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Sikh activist and gurdwara president in Surrey.

The lawyer is pleased to see a dedicated task force from multiple agencies investigating extortion threats and would like to see further progress. Bhayani agreed, stating that local police do not have the resources to investigate internationally linked crimes, especially when trying to intercept communications from overseas, which is how extortionists often contact their victims.

Bhayani believes most of the extortionists were sent to Canada by an overseas government, and was happy to see the removal of several individuals while investigations are pending for nearly 80 more foreign nationals. The Canada Border Services Agency has not disclosed where the foreign nationals are from.

But not all of the people committing the crimes, Bhayani said, sought out to do it.

"I think some come here with good intentions, and then … the economy is really hard for everyone, the cost of living is very high," he said.

"Seeing the vulnerability of people who are low income all of a sudden being offered extra money to do things that they would never normally do … and I think some have been sent here to do this."

Investigators nonetheless face complexities in these cases, he said.

"Our sharing of information is very limited, if any, with India, given our relationship with them, but also the whole nature of our justice system, and potentially the system they have in India, and how we would share information and know that it's secure," Bhayani said.

The justice system is slow, he acknowledged, and with that comes decreasing public trust.

Local extortion cases have reached the point where several injuries have now occurred. A woman was caught in the line of fire last month when a Surrey home was shot at in an incident that police have linked to extortion. Most recently, an individual working at a home was injured during a shooting at a mansion in Surrey over the weekend, which has since been shot at for a second time.

Surrey, B.C., family fears for safety after extortion task force raids home – CBC, Nov. 17, 2025

… 7 individuals charged

On Thursday night, CBC News hosted a town hall in Surrey that brought together politicians, law enforcement and community members to discuss the problem. Arora attended carrying a large sign in hopes of bringing attention to his concerns as an indirect victim of the violence.

According to task force officials, seven individuals have been arrested and charged with extortion-related offences in B.C., with more charges pending.

Last week, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) announced its work within the task force - including in the execution of search warrants - had led to the removal of three individuals from Canada and had sparked immigration investigations into 78 foreign nationals "who may be inadmissible to the country."

CBSA has declined to say why the three individuals were removed and where they were removed from or moved to. It has also refused to name them. None of the three were charged with any criminal offences, according to B.C. RCMP spokesperson Sgt. Vanessa Munn.