Afghanistan Committee on April 25th, 2022

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Again, when it comes to matters of national security, I use my common sense to rely on people who are experts in it. Our security screenings are typically valid for a period of 10 years in Canada. There might be individuals who, if they had a recent security screening, could potentially come into the program on that basis. Individuals with whom we've had no contact for a longer period of time might be required to go through the biometrics application.

In terms of the people we're dealing with—of the 40,000—who essentially have an expired security assessment or biometrics analysis, I don't expect we're dealing with a very large percentage of the overall numbers. The security screening writ large for the entire mission is very important, but I think the unique situation you've described probably doesn't impact a huge number of people.

Would our officials have information about the scope of that universe of people, by any chance?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Minister.

The time is up, but I will give the deputy minister time if she wants to respond.

[Catrina Tapley]

For those who are here, we would have to go back and look at what kind of screening was done at DND at the time. I think it would vary, depending on other things.

With regard to the families of interpreters who were resettled in 2009 and 2012, that definition of “family” in the program is extremely broad and includes siblings and their families and others. It's not just that we wanted to make sure we confirmed the identity of the principal applicant, but it would be for all of those family members as well. None of those family members would have been employed by the Government of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Deputy Minister, and thank you, Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I will move on to Ms. Kwan, the last speaker on this one, for two and a half minutes, please.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

First I'd like to ask the officials to also table the information I asked for previously, with respect to the two types of applications for Afghans that are in process. How many of them have received UIC numbers, how many of them are still waiting for the UIC numbers, and how many of them have been refused? Could I get that information?

Minister, around biometrics, I think you will understand this challenge. If you are in Afghanistan and you can't get to a third country and there are no in-country biometrics being done, then you have no hope of actually fulfilling all the requirements in order to get to safety. From that perspective, retired military personnel have said that the government can in fact do the biometrics in Canada.

That will go a long way to resolving the issue. Will the minister take that into consideration and change the requirement as it stands right now?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I take a different view of it, because I don't think that solves the problem of getting people here more quickly. Even if you have biometrics and you're in Afghanistan, safe passage is not guaranteed or necessarily made easier by the fact that you've completed biometrics.

The other piece that concerns me is that, if you were to do biometrics in-country, you would lose whatever benefit it provided from a security point of view. We have both domestic and international legal obligations that would prevent the refoulement of someone going back to Afghanistan if they were inadmissible to Canada for security reasons. I don't expect that this is going to be an enormous number of people we're dealing with, but when it's part of the security screening and approval process, I think it's important that we do it before someone arrives in our country.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On the question around refoulement, the government actually doesn't have any concerns with the safe third country agreement on refoulement. I'll just remind the minister of that and maybe he could keep that in mind when he's dealing with the safe third country agreement.

With respect to biometrics, it will go a long way. I think the minister will understand if people don't have documentation, there's no way they can go through all of the steps. They don't have the documentation because they've burnt them. What happens to those applicants?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Every case is very unique. Trying to find unique solutions for people who we think qualify for our programs is an immense challenge. You've hit the challenge on the head, I think. Solving problems for people who were inside a country you don't have access to is what's making this difficult. For the people who were outside—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, Ms. Kwan. Your time is up.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank the honourable—

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Yes.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'm sorry to do this right when you were wrapping up, but if you will give me 30 seconds, one of our officials, after a 36-year career in the public service, is attending what I expect will be her very last committee appearance before she retires in just about a week. I wanted to give a huge thank you and congratulations to my deputy minister, Catrina Tapley.

Catrina, it's been a pleasure to work alongside you and I wanted to honour you before you head out the door on us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Deputy Minister, congratulations and thank you for the great work you have done over the past many years. It's always wonderful having a deputy minister like you providing a leadership role.

On behalf of the committee members, I also would like to congratulate the deputy minister on her service to Canadians. Also to the honourable minister, deputy minister and the assistant deputy ministers, Jennifer MacIntyre and Nicole Giles, thank you for being here today. It's much appreciated. All the very best to you.

Ms. Tapley, did you want to say something quickly?

[Catrina Tapley]

Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the minister for his as well. This is indeed my very last committee appearance, so thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll move on to Mr. Chong's suggestion on committee business.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've consulted with several members of the committee in just the last couple of hours and I believe there's a consensus. I'm asking if we could change the plan for the May 16 committee meeting. Currently, you've proposed that we spend two hours issuing drafting instructions. What I think there's a consensus to do is to have two 45-minute panels with the witnesses who were to have appeared but were cancelled because of all of the rescheduling with the ministers that has taken place recently, and then to have half an hour for drafting instructions. Alternatively, if the clerk can so confirm, we could have two 60-minute panels with witnesses who were previously scheduled but had to be cancelled because of ministerial rescheduling, and have an additional half hour for drafting instructions.

We either have a two-hour meeting with two 45-minute panels and 30 minutes for drafting instructions, or we alternatively have two 60-minute panels with a 30-minute period for drafting instructions for two and a half hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

If that would work, that would allow us to have the two panels of witnesses who we were to have previously but were cancelled because of all of the movement around the minister's appearances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chong.

I want to clarify that I didn't say two hours for the drafting instructions. In fact, I put one hour and one hour, but we just wanted to say that we already had interpreters appear before us and now perhaps they could summarize their brief in writing. That was my intent.

To your question now, I would ask the analysts if they could please clarify how much more time they need for drafting this report on that day.

Is 30 minutes enough for you, or do you need more time on that day?

If nobody wants to respond, then I'll go to Ms. Damoff, who has her hand raised.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Miriam Burke]

Ms. Kwan also has her hand up, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff, and then we'll go to Madam Kwan.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

There's a terrible echo.