Public Safety Committee on Aug. 28th, 2024

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Ms. Zafar, as we discussed earlier, when a person arrives at the Canadian border from a safe third country, in this case, the United States, the safe third country agreement requires that they be turned back. They don't even set foot on Canadian territory. Am I wrong?

What exceptions are there for allowing someone coming from a safe country to enter?

[Aiesha Zafar]

I thank the member for his question.

With regard to the safe third country agreement, as my colleague mentioned, the agreement does have some limited exceptions through which an individual, if they were to arrive in the U.S. first and then try to claim asylum in Canada, would be permitted to claim asylum in Canada.

In the case of a family exemption, as my colleague from the CBSA discussed earlier, if an individual who arrives first in the U.S. and then comes to Canada to claim asylum has a family member in Canada who is a citizen, a permanent resident or a convention refugee, or who in some cases has a pending refugee claim, they are permitted to claim asylum in Canada. My understanding is that this allows families to be kept together when they're seeking protection.

With regard to any further exemptions in the STCA, it's not my area of expertise.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

If I understand correctly, Ms. Zafar, in the case that interests us, the son apparently entered Canada because the father was already here. However, when it comes to letting an individual from a safe third country into Canada based on having a family member in Canada, is no due diligence done again to investigate the situation of the family member in question? Is no check made to determine whether it's someone who committed acts of terrorism or violence abroad, as in the case here?

[Aiesha Zafar]

A chronology was provided to the committee earlier today, and I can't speak to any further details about the cases. However, the son did come to Canada, according to the chronology, at the Fort Erie land border on February 17, 2020. If we look at the chronology of the father, in 2020, the father was already a convention refugee in Canada.

With regard to security screening in general, all in-Canada asylum claims—this would be considered an in-Canada asylum claim because it was made at the border—are subject to 100% comprehensive security screening. As to what that comprehensive security screening comprises, I can turn to my colleague at the CBSA for further details.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Zafar.

[Aaron McCrorie]

One of the other documents that were shared with committee members has, I think, eight steps that outline the kind of security screening we go through [Technical difficulty—Editor] from a visa application point of view. In the case of asylum applicants, they get 100% comprehensive security screening, and that is done by both CBSA and CSIS. I'll talk a bit about what CBSA does.

When we do a comprehensive security screening, we're trying to understand who the person is, their travel history and where they're coming from. We don't look at every file exactly the same way. We have experts based on geography, which mirrors what our colleagues in other agencies do, and they have a good understanding of where somebody is coming from, what we need to look for and where to look for it. We do open source searches on the net. We also run names against aliases and run any other identifying information we may have against our own internal intelligence and enforcement databases. Based on what we find there, we may go further and seek information from domestic security partners and, if need be, international security partners. In some instances, that's a fairly rapid process. In other instances, we need to do a request for information, which takes some more time, but we do take the time to do it.

We do a very thorough review. We're always looking to either negate concerns that might be identified or confirm them. If we reach the “reasonable grounds to believe” threshold, we'll provide a recommendation to our colleagues at IRCC—sorry, this is asylum, so it would go to the Immigration and Refugee Board for a decision. Our colleagues at CSIS will do a similar process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

We'll go now to Mr. MacGregor for six minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you you very much, Mr. Chair.

We've covered a lot of ground in today's meetings, and I don't think there are many questions left to be asked that haven't already been covered extensively by several members from different parties, but I will say this. I suppose that by virtue of the fact that we had a successful arrest and had good coordination among our policing services, both local and RCMP, and the fact that these individuals are now behind bars and court processes are ongoing, those facts can be chalked up to success.

I do want to echo colleagues in thanking the members of the CBSA, of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, of the service and of the RCMP. Many of your members work in communities like mine. I've been at this committee long enough to sincerely appreciate the efforts that your members put into their jobs every single day. I know it can be a thankless task, and I know at times that they are very much the unsung heroes. Many times the public isn't even aware that you are doing this work, but I know enough to know that your members are working hard every day on our behalf. Hopefully, on the committee's behalf, I'd like to thank them.

Here's the little asterisk, though, in my statement. It is of concern that this plot was in the advanced stages that it was and that these two suspects were in Canada in the first place. I hope that all of our witnesses can appreciate today that Canadians are taking this seriously, and this committee is taking this seriously. I sincerely hope that you will conduct your internal investigations with haste and with thoroughness because we absolutely do want to make sure that a situation like this never occurs again.

I sincerely look forward to when we return in September because we will all be submitting the names of further witnesses to continue the study. Hopefully, this committee will be able to produce a good report and recommendations not only on what the executive branch should be doing, but also on policy tools, changes needed or changes to the legislation and whatnot.

Thanks again to the witnesses for being here today and to all the members of their respective agencies for the work that they do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

I'll also offer you the opportunity to respond, if you wish.

Go ahead, Mr. McCrorie.

[Aaron McCrorie]

Mr. Chair, I'd just like to assure the member that we do take this seriously.

In terms of the review that we've talked about, it will be a thorough review. The minister has been very clear that he wants it as soon as possible. Again, if there are changes required, we'll make those changes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

That wraps up round one of this second hour.

I think we can go into an abbreviated round two, which would probably end with Mr. MacGregor.

If that's okay, we'll carry on with Mr. Caputo for five minutes, please.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair

Thank you again, everybody, for being here. This is my first round with this group here.

Ms. Lloyd, thank you so much for being here the whole day. It's probably getting a bit tiring at this point. We do thank you for that.

We are thankful as well about the fact that what we saw here, what's been widely reported and what's culminated in criminal charges.... We're obviously very happy that our security and law enforcement personnel foiled what would have been a catastrophic act. We're very thankful for that.

At the same time, I echo what my colleague Monsieur Fortin said. I wrote down that we got the answers, but the answers don't feel all that reassuring. To look at this, I'm trying to take off my hat as a lawyer or even as a parliamentarian. I try to look through the lens of my father, for instance, so I'm looking at this through the lens of the ordinary Canadian. For instance, with you, Mr. McCrorie, when you started out, you said, “I'm not sure there were any failures.” You talked about the robust process. With all due respect, I'm not sure that satisfies the average Canadian. I'm not sure that satisfies my father, so I'm going to go through each of you.

Ms. Lloyd, can you see how, given what we know.... This is what we know. This person came into Canada in 2017. They were granted a permanent residency and were granted citizenship in 2024, despite there being evidence online of acts, active acts, with ISIS. Can you see how the average Canadian is not comforted by this notion of reassurance?

[Vanessa Lloyd]

Mr. Chair, I think the way I will response to the honourable member's question is this. I think Canadians in fact should be very reassured by the comments that I and my colleagues have made here today. We take our security screening responsibilities very seriously. We have intelligence professionals and officers at each of our three agencies who do their work on a daily basis with rigour and professionalism. They made the best decisions available to them on the information that was available to them at that time as it relates to the security screening responsibilities they had on this and any file.

Most importantly—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I'll just stop you there, because I do want to ask the rest. I'm not trying to cut you off. We do have limited time.

I'll turn to you, Ms. Gill.

I'm not asking whether Canadians should be reassured, based on what you said. What I'm asking is this: Can you understand how Canadians have serious questions here? Perhaps Canadians are justified in not seeing this as a situation where there were no failures. Can you see how the average Canadian would see that?

[Pemi Gill]

I'll defer this question to my colleague Madam Zafar. Thank you.

[Aiesha Zafar]

Mr. Chair, we came to the committee today and disclosed documents. We did so with the effort and intention of being able to meet the committee's objectives of understanding the immigration security screening process and also maintaining the confidence of Canadians in the immigration security screening systems. I understand that there are still outstanding questions. However, due to the ongoing criminal proceedings and other protections that we have outlined in the chronology, we aren't able to go into further detail.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I'm not asking about that. I'm saying that somebody came here in 2017 and they were this close to committing a terrorist act.

Will nobody on the panel acknowledge that Canadians are justified in being afraid, that Canadians can still have questions and that perhaps this isn't a situation where there were no failures? Is there anybody on the panel who will acknowledge that?

[Aiesha Zafar]

Mr. Chair, the system we have in place is an ecosystem. The statement was made earlier that there is no one single point on which we rely for the safety and security of Canada. It starts with the initial touchpoint that we as IRCC have with an applicant. We have the “before Canada” piece. We've talked about CBSA and their ability to then use any additional information before an individual boards an aircraft, and the point of entry, if there's additional information that has been received where CBSA would be able to identify those threats. Then we have the domestic network as well.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I understand the processes. You've been through that very clearly. That's not what I'm asking about. For the last four minutes, I've been asking about how the average Canadian should see this, and the lens through which they should be looking at it, and whether the average Canadian...or whether you”can see. With all due respect, you're here with the security apparatus—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Caputo—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

—just one moment, please—and the average Canadian is on the ground. I'm not sure they should be satisfied with this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

Do you have any last response? No. Okay.

We go now to Mr. MacDonald for five minutes.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to echo some of the sentiments of my colleagues in regard to the job that the witnesses do each and every day to keep Canadians safe. There's not a job out there that we can't improve that any of us do at any point in time in our lives. We'll continue to strive for excellence. This is part of the process.

Ms. Gates-Flaherty, can you talk a little bit about the greater Toronto area integrated national security enforcement team that actually made the arrest? Can you give us an overview of that team?

[Jennifer Gates-Flaherty, Director General, Canadian Criminal Real Time Identification Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Mr. Chair, I'm here in my capacity as the director general of Canadian criminal real time identification services. I don't have in-depth information about those teams, but I certainly could come back to the committee in writing with information about the work of those groups.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Can anyone else on the panel speak about the greater Toronto area integrated national security enforcement team? No. Okay. I'll move on.

I just want to be clear on something else as well. This is on the trilateral agreements with each department. On the process of the trilateral, CSIS and CBSA provide security advice to IRCC. Is that correct?