Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 7th, 2019

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

We'll now have an opportunity to continue with ministerial officials on the questioning we've just had with Minister Blair regarding part 4, division 16 of the budget implementation act, 2019.

I believe the first opportunity to ask questions of the officials is Mr. Sarai's.

Mr. Sarai.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you once again for being here and giving your time.

My first question is about something I perhaps wanted to ask the minister, but I'll ask you.

There's a new authority to issue an order in council to stop processing TRVs. I think it's clause 304. It gives the Governor in Council the authority to issue orders regarding applications for temporary resident visas, work permits and study permits if foreign governments are unreasonably refusing to issue or are delaying the issuance of travel documents.

I'm just curious if this is a common practice. If so, in how many countries is it prevalent? Do you think this tool would be essential to solve that problem?

[Paul MacKinnon]

Mr. Chair, I can say a few things on that. I do know that the United Kingdom follows a similar process. The concept is a fairly straightforward one to assist our colleagues at CBSA in receiving travel documents. The government feels that two things could perhaps be helpful: positive incentives to work with those countries on things like the integrity of their documents—their passports—but also perhaps, in certain cases, to decide that the government should pause or stop the visa issuance for all nationals, or a particular cohort of nationals. That decision would be made, Mr. Chair, at that time, specifically looking at the broad bilateral relationship, not just the visa issue and the removal issue.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Is there an epidemic right now? Are there certain countries that are giving us a problem with their travel documents so that we felt the need for this?

[John Ossowski]

There are some, but it's a very dynamic environment, I would say. You have to situate it in terms of the broader bilateral relationship at any one point in time. This would be just another useful tool for us to use. I would emphasize Paul's point about trying to have a positive relationship with these countries in that broad sense, and to recognize our interests in returning these people back and working with them to make that happen as smoothly as possible.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Regarding the new directions for determining if refugee claimants are eligible to be referred to the IRB, the first step, when a refugee claim is received in Canada, is an eligibility examination. The three-day deadline prior to referral to IRB would be removed now. How much time do officers currently need to assess eligibility?

[John Ossowski]

Certainly, from our side, when they present themselves at a port of entry, it could take up to eight hours to go through a claim. It depends on the complexity, how big the family unit is, and what we find during that process.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Why the need to remove these three days? Is the point that they'll be done more quickly, or they may take longer? I'm trying to figure out the intent of this change.

[John Ossowski]

I think it's really just so that we don't get pressed artificially not to have the time to do our processing properly. When there's a period of larger volumes, it will allow us to maintain the integrity of the process without an artificial deadline hanging over our head.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Previously, how often would the three days be exceeded?

[Paul MacKinnon]

We can get those figures for you, Mr. Chair. It really happens during times of significant influx at the border. If you go back to the summer of 2017, when there were a number of people coming in, a portion were outside the eligibility period. We'll get the figure and share it with you. I don't want to take your time.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Sure.

I asked this of the minister about clause 306 of Bill C-97, which is to make an individual ineligible to make a refugee claim if he or she has made a claim in another country, one of the Five Eyes countries that we have sharing agreements with. An individual in this situation would be permitted to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment. If this provision were implemented, what effects do you foresee it having on the volume of pre-removal risk assessment applications received by IRB? I know currently the minister had said about 3,000 or 3,500 as to the irregular...but would this also affect those who fly in or perhaps those people whom we potentially see in terms of the DACA deadline that's looming in the U.S., who have made claims in the States? The States may otherwise deem them ineligible for the U.S., but they have made claims there.

[Paul MacKinnon]

Yes, I guess the best proxy we have, Mr. Chair, to figure out what's going to happen moving forward is looking back, and that's the 3,500 figure that the minister shared with the committee. A significant portion of those 3,500 would be irregular claimants. This applies not just to irregular claimants, as you know, but also to all claimants coming in. We're anticipating and planning for that 3,500 over about a two-year period, but it's challenging prospectively to know exactly what that number could look like.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

How do you plan to deal with the inflow if the capacity rises? Are there measures to deal with this efficiently and quickly so it doesn't become a backlog on its own?

[Paul MacKinnon]

We're funded for the figures that we're assessing, so it's around that 3,500, but I think, Mr. Chair, much like we've done during the past couple of years, we would look at how to manage certain influxes, as we've done at Roxham Road—and the president of CBSA has realigned work, so we would look at how to do that. We don't anticipate that kind of influx in this cohort.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

You had stated earlier.... It's not very clear in what's available now, but in terms of doing a PRRA hearing, will transcripts be done so that they're available for appeals? Will they have the right to a lawyer there? Will it be in person, or are these made simply on a paper application?

[Paul MacKinnon]

Maybe I'll just say a few words on the role of counsel, because I think that's part of your question. Counsel is allowed to assist the applicant in preparing for the hearing, to clarify questions and assist with responses, but is also able, at that hearing, to help clarify or correct information that comes up during that hearing process.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

Thank you, Mr. MacKinnon. Maybe someone will give you an opportunity to finish the answer.

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

It seems to me that the three main bodies involved aren't talking to each other. I say that because of the Auditor General's finding that the information management systems of the IRCC, the CBSA and the IRB are largely incompatible. I wonder if any of you have any comments with respect to that. If my assumption is correct, how's that going to be resolved?

[Lori MacDonald, Acting Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the things that we put in place last year was a board called the asylum system management board. This is a board where the heads of the departments—Mr. Ossowski here, I and IRB—come together about every six weeks. The purpose of that board is to discuss those issues where we have information-sharing types of concerns or we're putting new initiatives in place where we want to be connected collectively together so that, as we go forward, we are in fact talking both from a person's perspective but also from an IT perspective.

One of the things that the recent budget investments gave us was $36 million to invest in new IT. One of the things that we've been challenged with is that we have very legacy types of systems from an IT perspective and so they don't talk to each other. Going forward, what we want, obviously, is to be able to be connected in terms of information sharing from an electronic perspective as well. We actually are using the board we have now, where we meet regularly to talk about those issues: how we actually project manage this and how we actually implement those systems, both from a communications perspective and from a technological perspective, so in fact, the systems are actually talking together.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

How often do they meet?

[Lori MacDonald]

Right now we're meeting approximately every six weeks, but there are times where we may come together more frequently than that to address specific issues. As an example, with the budget investments, we pulled together a board so that we could talk about how we will collectively implement these initiatives, so that we do that either without being in each other's way or collectively so that we actually are in lock step and don't inadvertently go off online.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

That's your answer to the Auditor General's comment. You feel this management committee is solving the issue.

[Lori MacDonald]

That would be one example, but under the management committee, Mr. Chair, as well, we have an entire governance structure.

As an example, we have a number of director general working groups who collectively work together on a number of the policy and operational implementation issues. We work with other government departments such as Global Affairs, Public Safety, our counterparts in RCMP and CSIS, Public Services Canada, as an example, and Shared Services. Those collective groups are working together so that we actually impact the entire system in terms of both information sharing and communication, so that we can move the system forward in an integrated way.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I'd like to refer, Mr. Chairman, to clause 301. I'm wondering if any of you could comment why it was necessary to add clause 301, which states, “to maintain, through the establishment of fair and efficient procedures, the integrity of the Canadian immigration system”.

My question is what prompted the addition of this clause.