Public Safety Committee on Sept. 19th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

My general practice is to give the witness a chance to answer. If you run out of time right at the end of your six minutes, I will generally give the witness—whoever it is—an opportunity to answer whatever question was last posed.

I will hold the members to their six minutes or whatever the time frame is in the particular instance.

Within that rubric, it is your time. However, I think with Standing Order 18, it's a matter of respect to give people an opportunity to respond properly to the questions you ask, so I will try to adhere to that as well.

We're looking for fairness—a fair question and a fair response. If a question is asked, the witness should be able to answer the question to the best of their ability.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mrs. Zahid, go ahead, please.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I asked the question.

Minister, you can respond.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Chair, through you, I echo the sentiments of MP Zahid. We would not want aspersions cast on the entire Pakistani community because of the alleged actions of one or another individual—or on the Egyptian community, for that matter. It would be lamentable for that to be the case.

This is a question of some detail, so I will pass over the rest of my time to Aiesha Zafar to answer it, Salma.

[Aiesha Zafar, Assistant Deputy Minister, Migration Integrity, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you for the question.

The security screening process is a trilateral program. IRCC is definitely the first line, where we look at individuals before they enter Canada. We screen 100% of all applicants who come into Canada. We have the risk indicator packages we talked about before. I'm happy to go into further detail on those.

Those risk indicator packages are not just for individuals who may be engaged in terrorism. They refer to all serious inadmissibilities in IRPA. Those would include our security inadmissibilities, such as terrorism and being a danger to the security of Canada, or someone who may have engaged in acts of violence that would threaten Canadians. It also includes espionage and subversion of a government, for instance. Other serious inadmissibilities include human or international rights violations, war crimes, or organized or serious crime. The risk indicators cover all of what we call “serious inadmissibilities”, of which terrorism might be one.

Our officers are trained on these risk indicator packages. If they notice a risk indicator on an application—again, that risk indicator is like a clue for the officer that there might be more investigation that needs to be done—they refer it to CBSA and CSIS for comprehensive security screening.

Once CBSA and CSIS complete their screening, they will provide back to IRCC a recommendation from a security screening perspective. That recommendation could be favourable—which means they have not identified a serious inadmissibility—non-favourable—which means they have—or inconclusive. An “inconclusive” requires the officer to gather more information until they can be satisfied and make a final determination.

Thank you.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Zafar.

Would it be right to say that IRCC is responsible for identifying risk indicators, and at that point it is passed to Canada's security services?

[Aiesha Zafar]

The IRCC has risk indicator packages developed by CBSA and CSIS. The officer is responsible for determining whether or not a referral for a comprehensive security screening is required. Then the IRCC officer is responsible for the final decision on that application.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

What steps are being taken to ensure that violent extremists, particularly those linked to international terrorist organizations, do not exploit our immigration system?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Before I answer that question, I want to say, for the record, that the individuals in question had no connection to the Syrian refugee program. If you look at the timeline, it's nonsensical that they would be connected to it. This would have been quite obvious, had people examined the chronology in detail.

I think what has been stressed, and particularly in testimony given to members here by Minister LeBlanc, is the tight and intimate co-operation, security sharing and discipline we have with our security partners—most notably Five Eyes—and our ability to seamlessly get information and act on it quickly. Confidentiality and trust in partners is also capital. The resources within each member that comprises the Five Eyes and our other partners are key to acting quickly.

In this case, things worked. Our security agencies worked. For that, I thank them. There is a reason we have a threefold approach to security in this country: outside the country, at the border and inside. In this case, it worked, and we should be quite proud of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mrs. Zahid.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for being here.

I would like to welcome back our colleague Ms. Dancho.

I missed a few committee meetings on the subject, unfortunately, so I don't know if the topics I want to bring up have already been discussed. Whatever the case may be, it will be the first time they will be addressed in your presence, Mr. Minister.

You said that the purpose of today's discussion was to determine whether there had been any failures in your department throughout the process. If we look at the chronology of events, we see that there were risk indicators at certain times with regard to the father. I think this is the kind of red flag that can be raised in an immigration process. In some cases, no further investigation was conducted, even though a risk indicator had been raised. Earlier, Ms. Zafar said that normally, when there is a risk indicator, a more in-depth investigation is conducted, but that doesn't seem to have been the case a few times in this matter.

When you look at the chronology of events, do you feel that there was a failure in those areas? Should there have been more thorough investigations at certain points in the process? There was more than one risk indicator on more than one occasion. That could have raised red flags.

What is your assessment today, when you look at the chronology of events?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

That's a very good question.

First, you will hear the findings of our internal review in a few weeks. If there were breaches, you'll know then whether they were systemic in nature and what corrections need to be made, if any.

Second, it's very important to point out that a red flag isn't automatically an indicator of terrorism. It may be something that can be remedied or a question that can be answered. It may not be a risk per se.

What I do know is that, at the time of the decision, the officers hadn't received any information indicating that this person could not be admitted to Canada. Far be it from me to question that conclusion. Obviously, we're here today for a reason. Checks need to be done, and that's why the deputy minister, Harpreet S. Kochhar, is conducting an internal review. We take that very seriously.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

I'd like to raise another relevant point. I don't know if you can tell us about the normal immigration process in Canada. Let's take the example of a person from outside Canada applying for a visitor visa. Most of the time, does the person claiming asylum do so immediately upon arrival at a Canadian port of entry? Is that a consistent practice? Can they claim asylum a few months later, when their visitor visa expires?

What's the current standard for this type of immigrant?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Mathematically speaking, as you can imagine, the standard is that the vast majority of people who come here do so legitimately, in accordance with the grounds they've submitted to the officers and to our government.

Some practices are increasingly common among asylum seekers, whether they make a claim at the airport or later. These days, people who claim asylum at the airport do so mainly at Montréal-Trudeau International Airport or at Pearson.

That said, these aren't exclusively cases where people come here and immediately claim asylum. One example that's been in the media is when students come here to study for a year and then make a refugee claim. They can do so after a few months of reflection. The timeline is sometimes questionable, especially when the person is well established here and suddenly makes a refugee claim. Despite everything, under the current legal system, these people are entitled to a fair process, and that is what we're doing.

The trend we're seeing these days is that people who are here on a visa, regardless of what kind of visa it is, are claiming asylum from Canada. This is happening more and more. It may be because they are in a precarious situation, because their visa is expiring or for other reasons.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I ask because, as you say, it can be questionable when a person claims asylum a few months after arriving in the country. In this case, that's exactly what the father did. He didn't claim asylum when he arrived at Pearson airport.

I was talking to my colleague who is the immigration critic and who knows a lot more about this than I do. After looking at the chronology of events, he told me that this element would already have been enough to raise a red flag: Why is this person claiming asylum a few months after arriving?

I don't know if you can give us an answer, but has anyone in your department asked any questions? There are probably too many files for you to know about, but I know this one is of particular interest to you. When you look at the chronology of events after the fact, and you see that a few months separate the time of the individual's entry into the country and the time of their asylum claim, do you think that perhaps something irregular should have been seen at that time?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

In the normal course of events, it's the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada that decides that. Obviously, it has to do with human behaviour. The people who review these files look at the context in which the request was made. That can certainly change their decision-making.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

We'll go now to Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. MacGregor, go ahead, please, for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing before our committee today to help us answer some questions on this particular and very serious situation.

This is similar to what was just asked of you with respect to the chronology, and I know you are awaiting an internal investigation, but I'm curious. When you have your conversations with Minister LeBlanc in his role as Minister of Public Safety and you look at these timelines, thank God CSIS, the RCMP and the CBSA acted when they did. The fact that these individuals were apprehended, that they are in custody, I guess to some extent shows that the system worked. When you're having your conversations with Minister LeBlanc, there's also the fact that they got into Canada.

When you're taking the totality of that chronology and the fact that it did end in success, are you satisfied that the system worked? Are you satisfied that this is an overall success? Can you opine for the committee on what your initial findings are between you and the minister?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

The responsibility that Minister LeBlanc and I have is almost unimaginable. At times we are privy to information related to the national security of our country that most Canadians aren't. Obviously, I'm never satisfied. I am happy that the men and women in uniform were able to apprehend these individuals and were able to act quickly on the information that was shared with them, like they do when they share information with people abroad about activities that may come under their eyes again. We can't speak to it.

Clearly, when we do see a chronology like this, when information is imparted to us on a confidential, secret basis, we do ask a number of questions. We don't simply take stock in the fact that these people were caught. We look at the process and what went right and what could have gone wrong. Again, it requires facts. Hyperbole is fine, but it doesn't solve the problem. There's no magic wand in this case to apprehending an individual. It's multilayered. Ideally, you apprehend people before they even come into the country, assuming there are no activities that turn them into different people in the country. These are all assumptions that we have to deal with, and to get to the heart of that, we actually have to get the facts.

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

Are you finding that these individuals are obviously motivated by an ideology to commit these crimes that they were in advanced stages of planning in some cases? Overall, is your government finding that this radicalization is happening abroad, or is it happening after they've come to Canada, or is it a bit of both? Is there anything you can speak to on that? I think deradicalization efforts are also an important part of the parcel here.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

I'd say, speaking very generally, it's probably a bit of both. We shouldn't think that radicalization doesn't occur in Canada. Terrorist networks and criminality networks work together. They use these as tools to perpetrate horrible crimes on innocent people. We've seen increased hate—anti-Semitic and Islamophobic hate, particularly in the current context—and that does impact behaviour, sometimes of younger cohorts of the population as well, as we've seen in some other apprehensions. To answer your question quite succinctly, it's a bit of both.

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

I just want to get in one more question, if I can.

I think you're lucky that I'm speaking to you here today and not the person who does casework in my office, because our office has a lot of frustration with the immigration and citizenship file. We're certainly very familiar with how long it can take to do a security check, and I understand the necessity of that.

However, there are probably a lot of families who are looking at the situation, who have gone through all of the formal procedures, done everything correctly and played by the rules, and are still waiting. They see this happen. As a minister, this is your chance to take accountability, and what would you say to those families?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

We're seeing, MP MacGregor, an unprecedented volume of people who want to come to Canada. It's not a right, it's a privilege. For those who successfully go through the comprehensive screening process, for whatever reason they're coming to Canada, whether it's just a visit or to become a permanent resident and eventually a Canadian citizen, they do have to go through these processes, and we take them quite seriously.

This is a service delivery ministry, and when things go slowly, it's frustrating. When we're not in current processing time, it's frustrating. I can act sometimes in my role to see what's going on in individual files. Indeed, with your interactions with my team, you've seen that we're quite responsive.

However, the one thing we won't compromise on is the security checks. We will never get involved in fettering or waiving the work of our trained professionals to screen these people. They have limited resources, and when there are limited resources and there is the volume that we're seeing, it does take time. It's immensely frustrating for people who perhaps have no issues with their files, but I really can't fetter the discretion of our well-trained agents.