Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 5th, 2017

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you

My next question is related to the IRCC document entitled “Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and danger to the security of Canada”. In the event that someone who is seeking or has already received asylum protection commits an egregious act against the safety of Canadians, this document outlines how the minister can exercise authority to designate that person as a public risk and subsequently order that person's removal from Canada.

With regard to this document, I request that you and your officials table with the committee the number of times since November 2015 that the CBSA has advised clients that it will seek the minister's opinions on the basis of paragraph 115(2)(a) or paragraph 115(2)(b), or both, of IRPA. I also request that you table how many removal orders have been issued subsequent to reviewing these opinions, as well as the number of outstanding deportations associated with the removal orders.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

We are happy to table that document with this committee.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

My question is then subsequently related to the information-sharing agreements and processes related to that process and other processes between hearing asylum claims and ensuring the safety of Canada.

The current law stipulates that institutions can share information if it's “relevant to the recipient institution's jurisdiction or responsibilities under an Act of Parliament or another lawful authority in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada, including in respect of their detection, identification, analysis, prevention, investigation or disruption”.

My understanding is that if Bill C-59 comes into force, Government of Canada institutions will be permitted to share only information that contributes to the recipient institution's carrying out of its responsibilities.

Has an analysis been done on how Bill C-59 will affect the minister's ability to carry out the responsibilities outlined in ENF 28?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

All of the implications of existing and proposed future legislation have been very carefully analyzed.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Could you table that analysis with the committee?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

I'll ask the department to....

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Specifically, I'm asking for the analysis on how Bill C-59 will affect the carrying out of duties in ENF 28. Will that be tabled with the committee?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

I will examine what's available and get back to the committee, Mr. Chair, with....

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I will remind you that you do have an obligation under Bosc and O'Brien to provide the committee with information requested here.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

I will do my very best to respond fulsomely, as I always do.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Happy birthday.

I'll turn this over to Mr. Maguire.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

The CBSA target stated that 80% of the failed asylum seekers would be out of Canada within one year. The departmental performance report, though, shows that 53% of those failed asylum seekers are still in Canada past that particular time frame.

Given this failure and that these failed asylum seekers are still in Canada and haven't been removed or have been left on their own, how many of these failed asylum seekers have slipped through the cracks and whose current whereabouts the government has no idea of?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Cloutier, can you offer some perspective on the removal process?

[Jacques Cloutier]

Thank you, Minister—

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Pardon me. We know what the removal process is. I just wonder if the government has any idea of where these people are.

[Jacques Cloutier]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Generally speaking, we do everything we can in order to effect the removals as quickly as possible. That is our obligation under the law. There is a series of factors that would impede this, including our ability to obtain travel documents, to receive confirmation of other factors, to make arrangements with countries—

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Can you table the number for those whose whereabout you might not know or who have slipped through the cracks? We know the process and that sort of thing on this side. We just want to know if you've determined where all of these people are at the present time. Could you just table that information for us?

[Jacques Cloutier]

Mr. Chair, we will provide a document outlining our approach to this.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

But can you give us a number as to how many you don't know the whereabouts of?

[Jacques Cloutier]

Mr. Chair, I understand the question that's being asked. I think in order to answer that question properly, we need to go back to the way the system of removals works. We have, at any given time, a removal inventory of about 15,000 people. Our priority is always to deal with national security concerns, to deal with people with serious criminality, and the second tier—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, again, to cite Bosc and O'Brien around the requirements of witnesses to answer questions, my colleague has asked a very specific question. According to the department's performance report, they have not met their target for deportations, and he is asking for the number of people whose whereabouts the government is not aware of. He is asking for that information to be tabled to the committee.

I would just ask that you remind the witness that, under this particular clause, he is required to submit this information to committee.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Chair, we're just working off the government's own report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Yes, and obviously witnesses are required to answer all questions that the committee puts to them; however, witnesses may object to the questions asked. The committee may decide whether or not to force an answer.

It is not my opinion that the witness is not answering the question. What I've heard is that they will present a report in response to the question. At that time, I believe, the committee could decide whether or not the report has satisfied the request of the committee.

I would now move on. We're over your time. We've balanced to have the same time that the Liberals had, so I now move to Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Ministers and officials. Thank you for your presentation.

I would like to expand a bit on the safe third country agreement. I know that the government's perspective and the minister's perspective is that we should keep the safe third country agreement in place.

However, the minister must know that we had a situation where an asylum seeker, Mr. Seidu Mohammed, came through in the dead of winter. He crossed over and in fact advised that in the U.S. his claim was rejected. He cited immigration detention and the lack of access to legal counsel as major factors related to his claim, in how his claim was being rejected in the U.S. He came to Canada, lost digits in the dead of winter, made an application, and was successful. Canada found that he was a valid asylum seeker and granted him the status to stay.

That's one case that shows that the safe third country agreement is not working—at least not for Mr. Mohammed.

The other situation that has been brought to our attention by the IRB is that some 300 applications now have been processed. A little over 50% of the 300 successfully got an asylum claim here in Canada, so I would argue that the minister should look at this carefully and intensively. Canada has a legal obligation in the international world to play our part with respect to asylum seekers. Frankly, many people, including experts, are saying that the safe third country agreement is not working.

I'm going to park that with the minister. I'd like to get a quick response from the minister, specifically related to Mr. Mohammed's case. How can you then say that the safe third country agreement is working for people, when in fact it didn't, at least not for him?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

The challenge of taking one case and applying it to an agreement as old as the safe third country agreement, which has many components, I hope you can appreciate.

You are asking me to comment on a specific case with a specific set of circumstances, and to then apply it to a general agreement that has, quite frankly, been very good for Canada in terms of management of asylum seekers between Canada and the United States.

On the larger point, you made a really good point about expertise and international law and so on. The expert body on domestic asylum systems of countries is the UNHCR, and they continue to—