Evidence of meeting #16 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was removal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Just to clarify, while the public policy treatment of applicants who are without status is under the H and C umbrella, they're not treated in the same way as H and C.
4 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
No, no, that wasn't my question. I know that. We'll get that percentage.
In terms of the backlog of people you've tried to deport who have criminal records--15% per year--what's the backlog now?
4 p.m.
Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
Our current backlog is about 22,000--
4 p.m.
Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
The total backlog is 22,000, and of those, 6% are what we call high-priority cases. Those are the ones who pose a risk to national security, those involved in organized crime or crimes against humanity, and of course, criminals. That would be under 2,000. It's 6%.
4 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
How many Canadians do you think...? Ms. Kramer, you can try to answer this. I'm sure you wouldn't go and marry someone to make sure they are able to stay in Canada, and I don't think anyone here would do that. How many Canadians actually go and sign on the dotted line and say, my gosh, let me get married to you so you can stay in Canada? What percentage is that? Do you expect Canadians would actually do something like that?
4 p.m.
Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
Marriage of convenience is an issue. Because it is on our lower-priority scale for areas that we enforce, it's not an area we've put a lot of resources on, but it is an issue. We get complaints about that all the time.
4 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Stewart, why not just change the regulations rather than considering these applications under the H and C category, as you have explained? Why not just change the regulation and have them apply in Canada so that we are not into this whole rigmarole of 60 days or not, and removal? I don't know how much money we end up wasting trying to figure out how to make it fit or not fit.
Why can't you do that?
4 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I think that's a valid question, and presumably that is the purpose for which you are studying this.
I guess what I can say is that within the scope of the existing act and the existing regulations, there was flexibility to be able to act for this category of individuals in a relatively quick fashion to correct or address a perceived imbalance or inequity in treatment. So we used the existing flexibilities in a way that gave us the flexibility to be able to treat these people on an equal footing.
4 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Given that it's now a bit of a mess, in my mind, because 60 days, sometimes longer than 60 days.... And we do have time; there's no rush. I don't know, but I don't think there's any election coming.
So if you do have time, you are not vehemently opposed to changing the regulations so it can just be considered an inland application, so Ms. Kramer's outfit wouldn't have to proceed with all the removal orders and then applications for extension and all of that. And if they end up getting removed, then you have to start all over again.
4:05 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
That is an issue for which we'll want to go back to study the policy implications of making that kind of change.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
4:05 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
There are policy implications and the process implications of doing this. I can't sit here today and tell you that it would be a no-brainer to do this. My experience as a policy analyst tells me that you ought to do your due diligence before you make final decisions. What I can indicate to you today is that it is a suggestion we will take back and give consideration to.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Okay.
The last question is, why 60 days? Was it Ms. Kramer's CBSA, or is it CIS that says 60 days? Why is it not until the application is finished?
4:05 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I think at the point at which the decision was taken to use the flexibilities within the regulations to make this change through joint consultations, it was determined that 60 days seemed to be a reasonable amount of time, so as not to leave it completely open-ended but to provide sufficient time to make a decision in most cases.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Following up on that somewhat, I understand you weren't able to indicate how many beyond the 60 days were expedited, that you don't have that number. But would it be a lot?
4:05 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Unfortunately, our information base does not have that. I suspect it would be a very small number of cases, though, given the circumstances.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Of that small number whose cases aren't expedited, some of them would be deported, would be removed?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
Normally what happens when we have a spousal in-Canada application is that we would consult with Citizenship and Immigration beforehand.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
But if that number is small, the number who actually are removed would be yet smaller, would it not be?
4:05 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Indeed. I may have misinterpreted your initial question.
All of those cases that are subject to removal order, once we're notified by CBSA, would be expedited—all of them would be. As to how many of those we are not able to complete before the 60 days runs out, I don't have statistics.
Then, of those that we're not able to complete, there is a consultation about whether to continue the deferral or to act on a removal. I would expect that to be a very small number.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
So the number who are actually removed would be very small.
Of the number who get removed, small as it may be, when they apply outside of Canada, how many of that small percentage are successful in actually landing in Canada or getting permanent residence?
4:05 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I don't believe we have those figures either, because we don't track that.
