Evidence of meeting #116 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was court.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I think someone on the English channel is speaking French.
I'm sorry, MP Kwan, for interrupting you. Please go ahead.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Okay. No worries.
Turning to this current situation, according to the news report, the individual was in court. It's correct to say that he was actually home and had an electronic ankle bracelet. He was under strict conditions while he was waiting for his sentencing on a guilty plea back in February 2023 on account of breaching the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for his role in smuggling a Sri Lankan national from the U.S. into Canada in 2021. He was indeed, according to the media report, forced to surrender his passport to the RCMP back in 2021 as part of his release conditions. Later on, he was further intercepted.
At that time, as part of that court decision, according to the media report, he was forbidden from applying for any travel documents. I'm going to pause here because there is a big question in my mind. Once the court made that decision, how was it communicated to the relevant departments? Was it, in fact, communicated?
The relevant department would have been the passport department, which processes applications. Does it have that on record, or did anyone communicate that information to it? Did the court even communicate that to it?
One would assume that someone would have undertaken that responsibility, because you can't expect the IRCC or the passport office to know that there is this court order in place. When the court made that decision, who within that system took up the responsibility of ensuring that the relevant departments were aware of it?
Those are the questions that we don't have answers to. It seems to me that it would be the RCMP's responsibility and public safety's responsibility, and maybe even HUMAN. Technically, the passport operation is under that ministry. Who failed to ensure that their responsibility was followed up on?
There are also public safety questions in my mind. Why is this matter not being studied at public safety? To me, it's a big public safety question. In this instance, it's this person, but there may be other instances that have not made the news and that we're unaware of.
I was looking at the passport process. Incidentally, I just applied for an adult passport for my son, who turned 16. He now has to go through that process himself. At 16, he's not quite an adult, but he's deemed to be an adult, according to the passport application forms. At least when I filled it out with him and when I looked back at the application form, nowhere does it talk about criminality or anything. It doesn't ask if you have any travel restrictions in place as a result of a court decision or anything like that. It doesn't ask for that information. What the document asks for is primarily verification of your citizenship.
On page 1 of the document, it seeks personal information. It asks for things like your last name, first name, date of birth and all that personal information you're supposed to provide. In the next piece, you're supposed to provide a declaration of a guarantor. That's somebody who verifies that you are who you say you are. The third section talks about previous Canadian travel documents. The fourth section talks about proof of Canadian citizenship. This is where you're supposed to provide citizenship cards, if you are an immigrant, or, if you are a Canadian-born individual, your birth certificate and government-issued proof of citizenship documents.
It goes on to ask for documents to support your identity. It lists what those documents are to prove it. It then moves on to talk about how long you want your passport to last. It could be four, five or 10 years. There's additional information, which talks about your employment and where you've been in the last 10 years. In the case of my kid, he's been at school. It then asks for references and, finally, an emergency contact.
That's the sum of the application process. Nowhere in the document did I see it ask about issues related to criminality or, more particularly, if there is a court order or decision against you such that you are not allowed to obtain travel documents. That, to me, is a fault line in this instance. That, to me, is a major concern and a failure in communication, I would assume, from the courts to the passport office so that it is aware of the situation for the particular individual.
Mr. Chair, it seems to me that it would be important for the public safety committee to study this. Before I make a decision on where I go with this motion, I have a question. Do we know whether or not this matter has been brought up at public safety? Do we know whether or not public safety might be undertaking a study on this? Do we have that information?
I'm just going to pause and see whether or not we can get that information, because we should be fully informed about this before we move ahead.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
MP Kwan, the clerk and I have no information about whether this is being studied by any committee other than this one.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Okay, so we don't know.
Seeing as this actually came from the Conservatives, it's curious that they aren't making sure this matter is brought up at public safety—and the Bloc as well. The Bloc co-signed the letter. Why wouldn't they...? Maybe they have. Maybe they can share this information.
Maybe I can pause and they can let committee members know whether or not this matter is also being brought up at public safety.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
At MP Kwan's request, I would ask if the Conservatives or the Bloc want to respond.
Mr. Kmiec.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Yes. It's simple. The responsibility for Passport Canada falls within IRCC and the Minister of IRCC, not directly with the Minister of Public Safety. The issuance of passports is the responsibility of Marc Miller and his department.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you.
I gather the request was not made to public safety.
It's true that the issuance of passports is done by Public Safety. However, the court decision related to travel documents did not come from Passport Canada or IRCC; it came from the courts. There is a real question about the failure of that system in ensuring that the responsibility is taken care of and that there is communication. It would appear in this instance that there wasn't.
Aside from having the public safety minister—the motion includes having the minister show up—I think officials from Public Safety should also show up because it would be important for the committee and for Canadians to know what system we have or don't have in place, not just in relation to this case, but in relation to other situations as well.
Is there regular communication? If so, how is it done? If there isn't regular communication about court decisions to relevant departments in relation to travel documents, why isn't it in place and how long has it not been in place? Is this just a Liberal failure, or has it always been like this, for decades of successive Liberal and Conservative failures? I'm very curious to know and learn about that as well, Mr. Chair.
To that end, Mr. Chair, I would move an amendment to this motion to add that officials from Public Safety also be invited.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Is there any discussion on the amendment moved by MP Kwan?
Mr. Bittle, go ahead.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I'm not opposed to it, but my understanding, from reading the motion, is that it is in there because it's the ministers and senior officials from the RCMP and the CBSA. Those are Public Safety officials. It's redundant, but we won't oppose it if it speeds up the matter.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you.
Before I go to Mr. Redekopp, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, do you have your hand up? No. Okay.
Mr. Redekopp, you're speaking to the amendment.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Thanks.
I agree with Mr. Bittle. I'd be okay with adding it in, just to make it crystal clear. That would be fine.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I just want to add my comments. In the way I read the motion, I took it to mean that those officials were IRCC officials because the request for Minister LeBlanc came in a separate clause. I think it's very specific to have the officials from Minister LeBlanc's office, outside of the CBSA, because it's not just the CBSA that might be responsible for this; it is the court system.
I want to be very clear that it's the court system's failure, and we need to make sure that those officials are here.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
If we're looking at officials from the court system, under the Constitution, the administration of the courts is a provincial matter. Public Safety has no jurisdiction over the administration of the courts. If Ms. Kwan is looking to get that information, Public Safety won't have it.
Liberal
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I would love for the minister and the officials to come and say, “Hey, it's not me, man. I have no information. Oh, and by the way, with respect to the issuance of passports, for decades, we've never bothered to find out and we've never bothered to make sure that the court talks to its provincial counterparts so that this information is being passed on with respect to the issuance of travel documents.”
Let's just hear that from officials and the minister.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you.
Is there any more discussion on the amendment? I don't see anyone else.
(Amendment agreed to)
Now we are back on the motion as amended by MP Kwan. Is there any more discussion on that?
You had your hand up earlier, Mr. Maloney.
November 21st, 2024 / 11:55 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
I'm not talking if we're going to vote on the motion. I'll gladly withdraw my name.
Liberal
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I appreciate Mr. Maloney taking his name off the list.
I want to say thank you to Mr. Kmiec for bringing forward this motion. This is fundamentally important. This is how Parliament is supposed to work and it's how Canadians want us to be engaging on these types of issues. When there are serious flaws and serious issues that need to be addressed, they want all parties to come together to find the answers.
To clarify my remarks, Ms. Kwan, I think the provincial court system...that's a question that needs to be asked. At what level did this information not get into the hands of Passport Canada? Did it have the information? Where did this break down? At what level did it break down?
It's fundamentally important that we come together to find those answers, so I want to appreciate the members for bringing this forward. I'm disappointed I won't be here for the study as I'm not a usual member, but thank you so much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you.
Before we vote on the motion, I just want to bring to your attention that when we brought the motion forward, it said, “possession of a Canadian passport, issued in 2021”. Instead, it should read “2023”. Is that correct?