Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 10th, 2016

[Catrina Tapley]

We have looked at the question of secondary migration in the formula a number of times. As the deputy has said, our experience has been that, with few exceptions, people generally stay where they have landed for the first couple of years. Then, if they choose to move on at that point, they are usually past the point where they want to avail themselves of settlement services. We continue to review the funding formula.

Although, as the minister said earlier, there has been no reduction in the overall base amount of the formula, we may be spending slightly less in some areas because of how we allocate resources. That also means we are spending slightly more in other areas. That reflects where we believe the immigrants have arrived and settled in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Your time is up.

Mr. Ehsassi, go ahead.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I was wondering if we could take advantage of the appearance of members of the IRCC to ask a few questions regarding the protection of classified information for the purposes of immigration proceedings. As you know, the Anti-terrorism Act of 2015 very much amended the procedures when it came to the use of sensitive and confidential information as it related to appeals in judicial reviews.

I understand that both the IRCC and your department are seeking additional funding for the use and protection of such classified information. I was wondering if you could kindly explain to me what specific challenges the department wishes to address by obtaining such additional funding.

[Anita Biguzs]

The funding that has been identified in these estimates is for staff, and we have, I think, about 25 FTEs associated with this. It really is to ensure that we are providing the necessary protections for classified information we receive from security partners that help us make decisions on admissibility, on whether or not an individual should come to Canada, either for temporary or permanent resident purposes.

We need the staff support to receive the information, manage the information with all the necessary safeguards around it, and then support that in terms of the decision-making.

It is also used to the extent to which we have any kind of litigation or legal requirements where there may be challenges, for example where decisions that have been rendered are challenged by individuals, and these decisions are based on the classified information we have received, which has to be protected for purposes of national security.

As I say, it is really in relation to making sure we meet the requirements of safeguarding that information.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

How much of that extra funding is really necessary specifically because of the amendments to the Anti-terrorism Act? Is all of that amount due solely to the changes and amendments?

[Anita Biguzs]

Not really.

[Dawn Edlund]

This is funding for staff that has been in place for several years, when amendments were made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act under division 9, back in 2008 or 2010.

We have had staff doing these functions, but they have been temporarily funded, year over year. This is an extension of that same amount of funding for the staff who have been doing that function for a while. It is not new things they are doing in relation to the Anti-terrorism Act.

To complete what the deputy minister said, it is not just national security cases. It is cases where there may be organized crime issues or serious criminality. If we have received information in confidence from our security partners—and it can be from other governments as well—we need to make sure we can protect that information from disclosure when we rely on it in decision-making.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

I'd like to follow up on my previous questions with the department officials.

It's been almost four years—June of 2012—since the legislation passed allowing for biometric data to be collected. The RCMP, as we've heard, is the agency that has this database. With the passage of time, we should now be able to have, or I'd like to request that we be provided with, the data, year by year, on how many individuals were put into the database and how many people, once they became Canadian citizens, were removed from the database.

As well, I have no issue, although some may, with sharing data with the United States, as you referenced. During the testimony, we also heard that we've standardized this process of biometrics with 70-odd countries. Could we be provided with the list of the 70 countries? We obviously wouldn't have issues with our allies in Europe and other allies, but perhaps we could see whether or not we're sharing data and who we've shared this data with. We want to make sure we don't end up with another Arar nightmare by sharing data potentially, especially in this case of the Syrian refugees. We don't know what the future holds. We do know that with police departments, once they have information, there tends to be a cultural reluctance to eliminate that sort of that information.

It would be good to have the information, not just how they eliminate it once these are Canadian citizens, because the legislation clearly was intended only to gather information on those who are entering the immigration process, not on Canadian citizens. Perhaps we could get a list of that information year by year, the 70 countries that were referenced that perhaps we are sharing this information with, and the number of individual cases where we've shared information with those particular countries.

[Anita Biguzs]

Mr. Chair, I would begin by clarifying that in fact we're collecting biometric information from 29 countries and one territory. We are not sharing biometric information with those countries. We have an agreement with the United States government. In that case, on a query-based approach, we actually share and exchange information with the United States and not with 70 countries. I would just clarify that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Just on that, when we share that information with the United States, what are their protocols about sharing information with third countries? Could you clarify that for the committee?

[Anita Biguzs]

Our protocol with the United States government in fact protects the management of that information. That's certainly the understanding that was negotiated, and that we have with the American government.

With regard to your request for data, we can certainly have a commitment to get back to you on that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank the department officials for coming before the committee today. We look forward to getting all the information from the various undertakings that have been made.

I would now like to move to votes on the estimates.

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Vote 1c—Operating expenditures.........$24,945,653

Vote 5c—Grants and contributions..........$25,191,000

(Votes 1c and 5c agreed to)

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD

Vote 1c—Program expenditures..........$1,485,620

(Vote 1c agreed to)

Shall I report the votes on the supplementary estimates to the House of Commons?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Just before we adjourn, at the next meeting, March 22, as I'm sure you're aware, we will be considering the draft report on refugees from Haiti and Zimbabwe. Between 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m., we'll be meeting with the High Commissioner for the UNHCR.

Thank you so much. We are adjourned.