Certainly. Thank you.
In regard to the number of social insurance numbers assigned under section 90, IRCC does not accept the proposed amendment, as we have no purview over the issuance of social insurance numbers and, therefore, cannot report on their issuance.
This authority rests with the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which may register a person to whom the Minister of IRCC has given direction per IRPA section 9, and the Canada Employment Insurance Commission may decline to issue a SIN to any person who is not eligible.
As it pertains to the number and category of documents varied or cancelled and the percentage of persons whose documents were varied or cancelled who subsequently departed Canada, IRCC does not accept the proposed amendment. Reporting on the number of people who departed Canada after a cancellation or variance would be misaligned with the intent of the authorities, as the use of authorities does not result in a loss of status or removal from Canada.
The proposed amendment does not limit the reporting requirement to mass authorities; therefore, we would have to report on other existing cancellation authorities, such as CBSA authorities to cancel immigration documents when a removal order is made against a foreign national, and IRCC authorities to cancel immigration documents on a case-by-case basis under certain circumstances.
The proposed amendment would also exclude reporting the number of documents suspended as well as of applications that have been terminated or suspended. If the government would like to report on the use of mass authorities in the annual report to Parliament on immigration, IRCC could report on the number of documents cancelled, suspended or varied and the number of applications suspended or terminated as part of an order in council made under all the subsections.
Thank you.