Evidence of meeting #28 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was goods.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Okay.
I would like to ask about countries of exclusion. Do you coordinate with allies, with security services in other countries like the United States or the United Kingdom? Would they have exclusion lists of individuals they are choosing to exclude from their countries for certain reasons? Is that information made available to Canada to help us to make a determination as well, or is that information that we don't have access to?
4:10 p.m.
Acting Director General, Enforcement and Intelligence Programs, Canada Border Services Agency
We do have certain information-sharing agreements with certain partners, certainly with the United States. We also have access to high-risk traveller information. We have full access to U.S. criminal indexes at our front line.
With regard to overseas, perhaps my colleague from IRCC could speak about the information-sharing for the visa system.
4:10 p.m.
Director, Migration Control and Horizontal Policy, Admissibility Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Certainly often countries publish lists that are publicly available, so those would be available to any visa officer.
I just want to emphasize what Lesley was saying. We do have some information-sharing agreements with certain partners to support the administration of our immigration laws.
Sorry—am I missing parts of your question? Those are the things that come to mind immediately.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
It was more about the information-sharing and how those lists are shared with our officers on the front lines so they can make a determination. But listening to the conversation here, I had one question. When a person is excluded, say, from the United Kingdom or the United States, is that exclusion information then provided to Canadian authorities if someone, say Vitaly Malkin, had been at some point excluded from another country? I'm just using him as an example. Would that information on exclusion be provided to Canada?
4:15 p.m.
Director, Migration Control and Horizontal Policy, Admissibility Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It depends on the country and whether we have an information-sharing agreement. For example, if someone makes an application to enter Canada and applies for a temporary resident visa, and we have an information-sharing agreement with the U.S., they can advise us on information they have that would support the administration of their law. I'm speaking rather generally because I don't know the specifics of U.S. immigration law.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Okay.
Thank you, Tom.
For the committee's information, I'm very interested in understanding the difference between the freezing of assets of corrupt foreign officials and their public duties as an official. Freezing their assets is one area that we focus on. Does that cause an individual to be inadmissible to Canada for official work, or is there flexibility under the immigration act to allow a minister of a foreign government who might be on the list to continue to do their duties, even though their assets may be frozen because of your work?
4:15 p.m.
Director, Migration Control and Horizontal Policy, Admissibility Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
As Lesley previously explained, we have our inadmissibilities, which we certainly apply on a case-by-case basis. In the case of individuals who have been listed pursuant to the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, there are potential inadmissibilities, for example, with respect to true criminality or organized crime.
As I previously mentioned, my minister has this authority, which we call the negative discretion authority, and we have publicly available guidelines that lay out categories that might attract the attention of our minister. When we developed those guidelines, we certainly consulted with other departments, because just being listed, pursuant to the regulations under the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, doesn't make you automatically inadmissible, as Lesley explained. We wanted to support the tools we already have so my minister could potentially on a case-by-case basis consider whether he wanted to use his negative discretion authority for an individual who has been listed pursuant to those regulations.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Director, Migration Control and Horizontal Policy, Admissibility Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Okay. Let's assume that Canada decides to add ten more foreign officials who work, and Mr. Kent was alluding to this to some extent. They're not automatically inadmissible to Canada in their duties working for that particular country. They're put through some sort of review structure, and they're looked at case by case. Is that correct?
4:15 p.m.
Director, Migration Control and Horizontal Policy, Admissibility Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
That is correct.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I want to pick up on that point, especially the point of flexibility, and I want to get a better understanding of temporary resident permits. In 2014, 10,000 TRPs were issued to foreign nationals who were inadmissible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Two of those people were inadmissible for human or international rights violations. Can you please explain how a decision comes about to issue a TRP?
4:20 p.m.
Director, Migration Control and Horizontal Policy, Admissibility Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The authority to issue a TRP is given to officers, and as you've heard before, each decision is made on a case-by-case basis. In issuing the TRP, the officer would consider the reason for the visit, the circumstances around the visit, as well as potential risk to the safety and security of Canada, and they would make a decision based on the balance of those considerations.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
This is what I don't understand. If 10,000 people are deemed inadmissible, how is it that they're okay to enter the country then? Is there a criteria issue or is there something else? I'd like to know why the number is so large.
4:20 p.m.
Acting Director General, Enforcement and Intelligence Programs, Canada Border Services Agency
In most instances TRPs are issued for very short periods of time for very bona fide reasons to enter the country. An example might be an entry to attend a funeral in Canada. Many of these are issued at the border to Americans who have minor criminality convictions, such as driving under the influence. The officer makes a risk assessment with the individual in front of them, who's been very transparent about their criminal history, and renders a decision around the issuance of a permit. Very few are issued in relation to serious inadmissibilities, such as human rights violations. I think you cited two permits issued in those circumstances.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Acting Director General, Enforcement and Intelligence Programs, Canada Border Services Agency
I couldn't speculate, but I certainly would think that decision called for a very senior level of decision-makers in order to issue those permits. I would posit that those individuals are current members of government.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Acting Director General, Enforcement and Intelligence Programs, Canada Border Services Agency
I'm not familiar with those cases.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Director, Migration Control and Horizontal Policy, Admissibility Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
We generally don't speak to specific decisions, so I don't see how we could provide details without getting into potential privacy considerations.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Okay.
You mentioned something else called “non-discretionary authority” that the minister has. If the Minister of Foreign Affairs determines that someone is inadmissible because of economic sanctions or targets someone, does the Minister of Immigration have the authority to supersede that decision? Am I understanding that right? If someone is determined by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be inadmissible, then the immigration minister has the...?
4:20 p.m.
Director, Migration Control and Horizontal Policy, Admissibility Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
If I understand you correctly, the Minister of Foreign Affairs lists someone under SEMA or FACFOA, and you're wondering whether the Minister of IRCC would do something to allow that person to enter Canada. Is that your question?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal