Evidence of meeting #44 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ircc.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

David Drake  Director General, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Intelligence Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Glen Linder  Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Gérald Cossette  Director, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
Terry Jamieson  Vice-President, Technical Support Branch, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Victoria Fuller  Director, Case Management, Consular Operations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Lisa Thiele  Senior General Counsel and Director, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Patrick Picard  Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

5:20 p.m.

Director, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC

The data is very relevant for the Canada Revenue Agency.

5:20 p.m.

Director, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada

Gérald Cossette

Yes. However, as I was saying, we ourselves need to establish that the threshold has been reached before the information is shared.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC

Thank you.

Given that the time is passing very quickly, I'll ask Mr. Linder a question on immigration.

On page 5 of your presentation, you said that you disclosed information on 64 occasions in one context and on six occasions in another context. However, at the end of the paragraph, you said the following:

IRCC has also been the recipient of information on one (1) occasion, information which has been used in an investigation for revocation of citizenship under the Citizenship Act.

The Security of Canada Information Sharing Act refers to national security. Is the information you receive used for this specific purpose, or have you used it for citizenship revocation even though that wasn't the main goal?

5:20 p.m.

Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Glen Linder

In order to do a revocation of citizenship, one of the aspects is whether the person meets the grounds for admissibility. As I mentioned before, citizenship can be revoked if a person has obtained the citizenship by false representation or fraud with respect to issues that could render a person inadmissible to Canada on grounds of security.

I fully admit that it's a bit of a complex formulation and the test in the act is a bit complex, but essentially what it means is that if there is fraud with respect to what the person said at the time they applied for citizenship, then, absolutely.... In this case, that fraud related to the grounds of admissibility, specifically to national security. The information that we were proactively given by another agency was to do with national security, was legitimately received under SCISA, and was helpful to our being able to make a determination as to whether or not to revoke citizenship in that case.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC

So, you conducted the test for security purposes to reach this finding. It was a national security issue.

5:25 p.m.

Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Glen Linder

That's correct.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

Okay, thank you, Mr. Dubourg. We're at five minutes.

We'll now go to Mr. Blaikie. Do you want an answer to the previous question you asked, or are you going to...?

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

I was going to look for that, but I just thought maybe I'd try not to use up all the time. But I think it's important because the nature of the question that I asked earlier about trust and what we can do to engender the trust of Canadians in these processes is, I think, if not at odds, certainly taking a different tack from some of my Conservative colleagues, who are asking if this is a good tool. There are lots of things that would be good tools for law enforcement but don't adequately respect the rights of Canadians and don't give Canadians an adequate amount of confidence in their security officials. Charter issues notwithstanding, warrantless search and seizure I am sure would be a great tool for law enforcement, but it's not therefore acceptable.

How do you think we could recommend either that we change SCISA or scrap it and come up with something else that would give you that operational flexibility but pay adequate attention? I know that you guys are concerned with these questions and you have your internal guidelines. Canadians are not part of that conversation. They want to make sure that the guidelines you're following are actually enforceable by a third party. How can we get that into the law without creating so many hurdles to the sharing of information that something bad may happen that ought not to have happened and need not have happened?

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

We can start on the left and go across the table.

5:25 p.m.

Vice-President, Technical Support Branch, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Terry Jamieson

To begin with, I think it would be important for the committee members to understand from the various agencies here today just what mechanisms they already have in place to ensure that there's proper use of the information. Certainly from the CNSC that test starts with relevance. We would only receive information if it were relevant to the continued assurance of nuclear security in Canada. We have internal mechanisms to oversee this. We have our audit and ethics group. We have our departmental audit committee. Where appropriate, we could use our independent commission tribunal—

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

I just want to ask about that. At what point is there any kind of external oversight? At what point does someone come in and say, “Given your own internal guidelines, are you following those adequately?” Who is that person, or what is that body, and when is that kind of external review triggered? Is there anything regular?

February 7th, 2017 / 5:25 p.m.

Vice-President, Technical Support Branch, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Terry Jamieson

For external oversight, perhaps all I can offer is that all decisions of the commission can be reviewed by the Federal Court, so ultimately there is that outlet.

5:25 p.m.

Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Glen Linder

No, I don't have much to add on that point. I hear what you're saying. I think that the review you're doing, the review that's being done internally within the 17 departments we're collaborating with as part of that review.... Ultimately, if there are improvements that we can make to the legislation, and there is a necessity to change the balance along the lines you describe, I don't have any concerns with that. But I do think it is important both to have the confidence of Canadians about their private information and to ensure that we are meeting the expectations of Canadians as well in ensuring that national security information is shared at the appropriate time with the appropriate people.

5:25 p.m.

Director General, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Intelligence Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

David Drake

Drawing on what's already been said, I don't want to repeat it, but certainly I think on our side we've done a lot to try to increase the robustness of what we're trying to do. We negotiated a specific agreement with CSIS. We've tried to communicate with our posts abroad to make sure everyone is plugged in and that we know what to do. There are very specific issues that we've tried to address. Certainly I think using that kind of experience and working.... For example, what we agreed and are trying to do with the RCMP and so forth are the sorts of things that eventually can be fed into that process, and we're making them available to you as much as we can.

I do think that not entirely correct that we're not subject to oversight. For example, when we share with CSIS, it has an oversight body. That oversight body certainly does not deal formally with us, but functionally it does because it deals with everything that CSIS deals with, and likewise with the RCMP.

So, those are a couple of points to respond to your question. Thank you.

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Thank you.

5:30 p.m.

Director, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada

Gérald Cossette

The Privacy Commissioner basically conducts an assessment of our privacy framework every second year. So far he has conducted two audits, and he is in the process, in fact, of finalizing his third one. On every occasion his conclusion has been that we never disclose information for purposes other than those provided for under the legislation. Therefore, I'm quite confident that this mechanism works well.

There are other things in our framework. People have access on a need-to-know basis and that kind of thing. So internally there are a series, if you wish, of mechanisms that ensure that the information is properly protected.

But as a third party, the OPC does that on a two-year basis.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

You got five and a half minutes out of your three-minute round, Mr. Blaikie, so you did well.

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

You're Liberal after all.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

If the committee will indulge me quickly for one second, I would like some clarification regarding a few things that arose. Witnesses have alleged that there is the potential for a breach of Canadians' privacy.

I'm just looking for a “yes” or “no” answer. Since its implementation, for those of you who have used SCISA, has there been any breach of Canadians' private information?

Mr. Linder or Mr. Drake.

5:30 p.m.

Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Glen Linder

At IRCC, there has not been.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

Mr. Drake.

5:30 p.m.

Director General, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Intelligence Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

David Drake

At Global Affairs—and I'm checking with both of my colleagues here—there has not been.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

Thank you very much.

I have one last quick question for you, Mr. Linder, if you'll humour me. In recent days a report was tabled in the House of Commons indicating that 310 foreign visas were rejected, seven due to terrorism-related activity, nine for espionage or subversion, 13 for subversion by force, 79 for people being members of terrorist organizations, 26 for posing a danger or threat to Canada, and 48 for war crimes convictions. As well, 1.4 million were rejected due to false information on the applications.

Are you aware of this report, sir?

5:30 p.m.

Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Glen Linder

I'm not personally aware of it.