Minister of Foreign Affairs appearance before the Standing Committee On Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) on the government's response to the final report of the special committee on Afghanistan

Thank you very much for the question—I appreciate it—and thank you for the letter you sent me this past summer.

The issue that you.... First, the preamble to your question touched on whether there was an emergency evacuation strategy that was available and not used in the instance. No. There was an effort made in that instance to move people as quickly as possible, through the use of these facilitation letters. It's worth exploring, perhaps in a separate question, what we should do going forward to build surge capacity to respond in emergencies.

The facilitation letters you're referring to were issued by the government at the time for people who were intended to come into the program.

Thank you. I appreciate your giving background. I'm wondering if your investigation into my letter ever determined whether any of the department officials or political staff advised any third party, including parliamentarians and other political staff, to issue these facilitation letters.

No. The investigation internal to IRCC concluded that the letters at issue did not come officially from the Government of Canada. There was no information that I received as a result of that investigation along the lines you've suggested.

Senator McPhedran asserted in the other place this week that she issued these visa facilitation letters in coordination with the former chief of staff to the defence minister, George Young, and a group of persons who included former cabinet minister Maryam Monsef.

Did your investigation ascertain whether or not her allegation in the Senate was true?

No. However, it's important that we understand that IRCC is very good at detecting the use of documents that are unofficial. We don't have functionality built into this department to be investigating political staff and parliamentarians. That's why, when we concluded that the letters at issue were not officially offered by the Government of Canada, we shared that with law enforcement—not to make an allegation, by the way, against any particular individual, but to put the documents in the hands of someone who had the ability to investigate as they saw fit.

You mentioned that IRCC has the capacity to detect inauthentic documentation. My office was in coordination with your department as early as August 2021, showing them copies of this documentation. Why wasn't it detected that it was inauthentic until after I wrote you the letter in July of last year?

The cases that you raised with me regarding your constituents helped inform some of the process. The reality was that we first became aware of a media report about this time last year—late January, I believe—that started asking some questions tied to a particular organization. That's when we started the investigation. It took a number of months to reach the conclusion, but your outreach actually helped to facilitate the investigation.

Thank you.

As part of your investigation.... There are numerous media articles talking about how Senator McPhedran's letters helped facilitate getting people into the country. How many persons gained access into Canada using Senator McPhedran's letters?

I'm not aware of any. I think it's important to understand that the facilitation letters were used only to allow people to clear Taliban checkpoints and move throughout Hamid Karzai International Airport. Even people who received legitimate letters from the Government of Canada still had to go through the ordinary application process to qualify for the program.

I'm not aware of anyone who accessed Canada on the basis of these letters.

Ms. Christiane Fox (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration):

The letter I'm in possession of states that the person it was granted to has been granted a visa to enter Canada.

Ms. Fox, has your department begun an investigation into how many persons were granted entry into Canada using an inauthentic letter issued by a parliamentarian, or anyone else Senator McPhedran raised in the Senate last week?

(1650)

I would say that there were none. The facilitation letters were just that: facilitation letters that had the word “visa” in them. However, these were to get through checkpoints. Visas were issued to our clients.

Should I have been issuing fake visas to get my constituents into Canada? Do you believe the people who now have these letters should be allowed access into Canada?

It is really important that when the department issues official Government of Canada letters, the letters are used officially. Therefore, any time we get a suggestion that there is an inauthentic letter in circulation, we have to conduct a review.

Minister, do you realize the message this sends? All of us here had constituents trying to flee war zones. They didn't have the luxury of getting these letters. I worked with a family for a year, trying to find out what was going on.

Do you believe the letter Senator McPhedran used...? We know, through media reports, that there are people who got into Canada using these letters. Do you believe people holding them in Afghanistan should be allowed access into Canada? It sends the message that the system is so broken that we should be issuing fake visas to get people into the country.

Madam Chair, I see time has run out. I would be happy to respond. I'll take—

The Chair:

Perhaps you'll get an opportunity to respond in the next round.

Ms. Rempel Garner, I would be happy to respond, should you have more time, because I think this is a very important issue to deal with.

The Chair:

We will now proceed to Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you will have six minutes.

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey—Newton, Lib.):

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, Minister, I want to thank you, Deputy Minister Fox and the other associates for appearing today. One thing the honourable members on the other side will agree with is that you are very accessible. Any time we have asked you to come to a meeting, you have promptly responded and been here. I want to commend you, and I hope you will continue to do that.

Afghan issues are very near and dear to me and other members of the Special Committee on Afghanistan, and to many of my constituents as well.

You mentioned that nearly 28,000 of the 40,000 expected Afghans have already arrived in Canada. Are you confident we will meet our target of 40,000? If so, what more needs to be done to ensure the target is met? You also mentioned that this is one of the largest and most difficult efforts we are making. If you had to identify or summarize them, what are some of the key bottlenecks, in terms of reaching the 40,000 personal target?

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal. I'm happy to make myself available. I think the work this committee does is extremely important.

Yes, I'm confident we can achieve the goal of resettling at least 40,000 Afghans by the end of this calendar year, but there are challenges that keep me up at night.

Securing safe passage for people who are still inside Afghanistan is extremely difficult. The shifting landscape we experience on the ground poses challenges that would have been beyond my imagination before I had the privilege of sitting in this position. In particular, we're dealing with people who are being hunted, persecuted every day and targeted by the Taliban on the basis of having tried to do good for their community, or by virtue of their service with the Canadian Forces or the Canadian government.

The challenges that exist, which are unique beyond this kind of persecution, include the changes at the border. After we had worked to secure a pathway for some of those destined for Canada—to make their way towards Pakistan, for example—the Taliban responded by insisting on exit documents that prevented people from leaving.

There are challenges for people in third countries who are unable to access the documents they need to leave, and for which we need to work with international partners. I've learned of families inside Afghanistan.... Some family members have a passport, but they don't want to leave without other family members who have not yet secured those travel documents. If you place yourself in the shoes of these families, of course they have reservations about approaching the Taliban to access a passport, given the fact that it's their persecutor who has the authority to issue those passports.

There are challenges at every turn. The biggest challenge I see is securing safe passage for people who are deep in the approval process but can't access a safe pathway to move throughout and outside Afghanistan.

Whatever the scale of the challenges, we're not giving up on these people. We're going to do everything we can to provide a pathway to Canada. It's a commitment we made to them and one we intend to make good on.

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal:

Thank you.

Minister, many groups and settlement agencies here in Canada, some of them in my constituency of Surrey—Newton as well, are doing some great work when it comes to helping the most vulnerable who come to our land. What are you doing to ensure that Afghan refugees have the support they need to succeed when they start their new lives in Canada?

(1655)

First of all, let me take this opportunity to say thank you to the people who are engaged in settlement work across Canada. They are heroes, dealing with people who are often experiencing severe mental health needs and who have been through traumatic experiences. The level of support they need is extraordinary, in many instances.

We work with settlement agencies to ensure that they have the financial resources necessary to provide the services that they are expert in providing. Of course, there are programs that provide things like income support and temporary accommodations for people as they become established in Canada. It's going to take a long time for a lot of families to feel safe and whole in their new communities. I find that some of the best supports come not only from government or settlement agencies but also communities. Look at the role that private sponsorship has played in both the Syrian and now Afghan refugee resettlement initiatives. When we see Canadians coming together to provide support for our newest community members, it's extraordinary what personal benefits accrue to families who have that kind of wraparound support.

It can be challenging. I'll tell you that the capacity of some of the organizations we're dealing with is stretched pretty thin. They're doing so much heavy lifting, helping not only Afghans but also Syrians who continue to arrive, or more recently Ukrainians, who've been granted access to settlement services. It's not easy, but by contributing financial resources to help settlement agencies that are providing support directly to families, and continuing to assist Canadians who want to provide support for those they sponsor to come here, we can set people up to have a good chance at success here in Canada.

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal:

Minister, you mentioned Ukrainians. There has been a lot of confusion among the public when it comes to the difference between the situation of people who are trying to leave Ukraine and those attempting to leave Afghanistan. Could you briefly explain some of the differences?

Sure. I think I've given you a sense of some of the challenges from a resettlement perspective and the safe passage perspective that are unique to Afghanistan. The situation in Ukraine is also horrific for so many families who are facing a war of aggression, with missiles being dropped on their neighbourhoods. For many Ukrainians who sought to flee, they had access to the western border. They could access transportation networks once they got into other European countries. Within a day they could be in one of many countries where they were permitted to travel. Many of them had access to commercial flights, which they could access on their own.

There are parts of Ukraine where moving throughout the country is extremely difficult, there is no question, but when you saw—

The Chair:

I'm sorry for interrupting, Minister. The time is up for Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ):

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair:

We will now proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you have six minutes. Please begin.

[Translation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the minister and the people from the department for being with us today.

Minister, you may be expecting the question I'm about to ask you, but you are fully aware of the fact that Canada's Criminal Code currently has restrictions on Canadian humanitarian aid in Afghanistan. We spoke about this in committee and I introduced a motion on this matter that requires unanimous consent, which was blocked by your colleague Mr. David Lametti, the Minister of Justice.

Everyone appears to acknowledge a problem that needs to be dealt with. It's been a year now. Why has it not been dealt with and what are you planning to do for it to be settled by tomorrow morning?

I understand your question, but before answering it, I need to report that there's a problem with the volume on the interpretation channel.

Madam Chair, can I have my speaking time back so that I can ask my question again?

[English]

The Chair:

We will stop the clock. Go ahead, please.

[Translation]

We'll start over.

[English]

Madam Chair, the issue is that the volume is just spiking on and off in my ear.

[Translation]

I nevertheless understood the question and thank the member.

The question is a very important one. I'd also like to thank the committee for its recommendation concerning the Criminal Code.

[English]

It's an important issue, as my colleague Minister Sajjan indicated previously. The government intends to advance a legislative solution to overcome some of these barriers, which I think will be important.

It's important as well that we recognize the unanimous nature of the endorsement from this committee to include such a recommendation. My hope is that when we come forward with legislation to solve this issue, it maintains the support of all parties.

[Translation]

I've been given the same answer for a year, Minister. But there is a problem with Canada's bureaucracy. The United States changed their legislation, as did European countries. The UN voted resolution 2615 to address the issue, and in the meantime, Canada has continued to give me the same answer: we're working on changing the legislation.

Do you believe that Canada's Minister of Justice is more powerful than the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and citizenship when the time comes to assist destitute people in danger?

(1700)

[English]

No. I think it's important that we recognize that ministers all represent the Government of Canada. We all work on behalf of the Government of Canada. When I advance a particular measure, it's not a measure of my own ministry exclusively, but a measure that's supported by the cabinet and government.

We need to move forward to clear whatever bottlenecks exist to provide humanitarian assistance and to potentially move people throughout Afghanistan as well.

[Translation]

Everyone is in agreement, but no one is taking action. It's unbelievable.

That's not true.

It's a good way to fuel cynicism.

Minister, with respect to managing the crisis in Afghanistan, the processing of many current files was put on hold at IRCC he because 15% to 25% of staff were assigned to processing Afghan crisis files. Needless to say, these had to be dealt with, because people's lives were in danger.

The Bloc Québécois made a proposal to the government last June, and it is also among the recommendations in the report. It was to establish a permanent emergency mechanism in the event of international crises like armed conflicts or natural disasters.

Are you going to implement this recommendation? Can you tell this committee that the emergency mechanism will indeed be established in the near future?

[English]

I support notionally the idea of the creation of some surge capacity within the department. I think getting the details right is going to be very important. This issue is going to be one of the subjects that we address as part of the strategic policy review that's just getting under way, which we hope to complete by May, to understand how we can protect surge capacity if we're going to continue to respond in real time to migration crises.

One thing that I have come to understand in this position is that Canada's system and, in fact, global refugee resettlement systems have been designed over many years to respond to protracted refugee crises to resettle people who've often been displaced for many years after they were first displaced.

There has been a change in approach over the past number of years. We are now trying to respond in real time to crises as they unfold, and I very much like the idea of building in permanent capacity to respond. Over the course of the next few months, we're going to be consulting Canadians to understand how to design such a system in the right way.

[Translation]

Fantastic. It just goes to show how the Bloc Québécois is a party of proposals.

Thank you. It's a good idea.

In connection with the Afghans file, following the tabling of the committee report, an article in La Presse reported on a situation in which some applicants found themselves, in countries like Pakistan and Uzbekistan, waiting for so long for their application to be processed by Ottawa, that their visa expired and they were returned to Afghanistan, where they are currently facing retaliation from the Taliban.

What do you or the department plan to do for these applicants whose visas have expired because of problems at the department?

[English]

One of the challenges I see with responding to these crises in real time is that you're often reliant on third party partners who have their own rules about visa policy.

[Translation]

I don't want to know what happened, but just what you plan to do about it now.

We are working closely with our international partners to deal with situations like this.

[English]

We work with Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan when we're dealing with people who are destined for Canada. We are usually able to receive assurances or find solutions to make sure that the people we made a commitment to who are in our program will be able to come to Canada. It can be difficult in some instances, but we will not give up on a single person that we have made this commitment to.

[Translation]

So you are reassuring people whose visa has expired. You are stating today that you are going to do everything within your power to reactivate their visas so that they can come here. A yes or no answer please.

[English]

Depending on the arrangement, we can reach them with a third party partner. In some instances, people never had a visa to begin with because, as they fled, they crossed in an irregular way, but we still try to receive assurances from their host country that we will be able to take them to Canada. We expect and hope that they will treat them with compassion and respect along the way.

[Translation]

About two weeks ago, Minister, you were telling us that there was no categorization of applicants benefiting from Canadian programs. And yet we know full well that interpreters and people who worked at the Embassy are separate categories in terms of selection. I have a list of 65 Afghan judges who were not selected.

When I hear things like that, I ask myself whether the department is really making an effort…

[English]

The Chair:

I'm sorry for interrupting you. You will get an opportunity in your second round. Your time is up.

We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have six minutes. You can please begin.

(1705)

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP):

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the minister and officials for coming to the committee today.

On the Afghan file, I would first like to touch on the issue around the cultural interpreters. They've been excluded from the program, and it requires legal counsel representing the families to take the matter to court. I think that, just before we started this meeting, one of the cultural advisers spoke with you about the lack of action from the government.

From that perspective, why is it that cultural advisers are excluded? I know there's work in place to try to include them, but there are still extended family members who are excluded, who are being targeted and hunted down by the Taliban because of their work for Canada.

Will the minister confirm that the extended family members of the cultural advisers will be brought to safety?

Ms. Kwan, thank you for your advocacy.

Obviously, there are people who are facing very vulnerable circumstances. I want to be careful commenting on any specific cases, particularly when there may be legal proceedings involved. I don't want to breach confidentiality and I want to protect the integrity of any legal proceedings that may be at issue with a specific—

Maybe I can just interject here.

I am not asking about any specific case, but about a class of people. As you know, there is a class of people who are excluded and who are taking legal action against the government. It shouldn't have to come to that. I hope the minister realizes that.

Now that this issue is before us, the question here is, what is the minister going to do about it? Will you ensure that those family members are brought to safety, including their extended family members?

There are just a couple of things.

We made a decision on certain categories for bringing extended family members here. We've expanded the definition of “family” across many aspects of this program to recognize cultural differences whereby people who may not be a nuclear family still consider themselves to be a family unit.

We rely on referral partners to place people into our programs in most instances, based on their contribution to either the Department of National Defence or Global Affairs Canada. We accept their referrals, but people can be referred into the program based on vulnerability, through private sponsorship or government-assisted programs.

I see that you want to take this in a different direction.

Well, actually I want to get to the crux and to the answer, and not this background, which I already have. I have only six minutes. I don't have that much time to get to you on direct questions.

My question here is this: Going forward, will the minister take action to ensure that these family members come to safety?

In addition to that, you have a limit of 40,000. With that limit, the reality is that the maximum number has been reached, which means that a lot of the family members have not been processed through this system and are not going to be able to get to safety.

I have spreadsheet upon spreadsheet of people who served Canada, and their family members, who have been left behind and ignored. They are in hiding and being hunted down by the Taliban. Some of them are in Pakistan, where their visas have expired and the police are knocking on their doors because of the expiry of their visas.

This is very real. If you don't lift the 40,000-person quota that the government has set arbitrarily, which is preventing Afghans from getting to safety, you are handing them a death sentence. That's the reality. The only reason they are in danger is that they served Canada.

My question here is twofold: Will you help to bring those families to safety—change the policy if that's what's required—and will you lift the quota?

I want to be careful not to make guarantees to people whose files I may not be fully aware of, because people often hang on to every word I say.

I am open to flexibly applying definitions of “family”, as we have for other programs throughout this process, to bring more people here. We have made a commitment to welcome at least 40,000 Afghan refugees. I am always looking for ways to continue to do more to help more vulnerable people get here.

The reality of the situation is that I know there are people who are vulnerable because of their work with Canada. We've created these programs to try to bring more of them here. I am happy to work with you and others, and members who want to speak to me, including the gentleman who spoke before this meeting began, to understand the situation and how we can improve policies to support more vulnerable people.

Minister, I appreciate that. You've offered that before. I have raised these questions before. I have submitted letters to you. I've written to you. I've sent the spreadsheets to you. I have brought them to your staff for attention. Do you know what? They all just sit there, saying that there is nothing to move forward on. There is no progress and nothing has moved.

I have another situation, in which a family member of one brother was left behind. Supposedly they applied under the wrong stream, so that was being corrected. Since then, there has been no progress. We don't know what's happened to that family. I don't even know if they have been approved under a new stream.

You can understand the anxiety that the families feel. I feel the anxiety, and that's only one-thousandth of how they feel. That's the reality of what they are faced with.

I appreciate the offer, but the reality is that there is very little follow-up. What do we do with that?

What we're waiting for and what I would like to see is a policy change and a public announcement. It shouldn't be just one-offs that we're working with.

I think the situation that my colleague, Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner, raised might be exactly the problem. There is this situation whereby some people got preferential treatment. I don't know how it is that some people got facilitation letters and others didn't.

I also had spreadsheets of people who needed to get to safety and never got one. Nobody told me that there were these facilitation letters you could get. How do you get them?

(1710)

Madam Chair, do I have time to offer a response?

The Chair:

You have 20 seconds.

There was a lot built into that question, obviously.

If the question is how people got facilitation letters, they were issued to people who were being brought into the program for a time-limited purpose during the evacuation of Kabul. The ones that were officially offered by the Government of Canada were limited to individuals who were supposed to be coming through part of our resettlement effort.

I'd be happy to chat further if we have an opportunity for follow-up questions in a subsequent round.

The Chair:

Thank you, Minister.

We will now proceed to Mr. Redekopp.

Mr. Redekopp, you have five minutes. Please begin.

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC):

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister and officials, for being here.

I want to pick up on that question about the Human Rights Tribunal case. I know you can't comment on the case specifically.

I was reading in the Star about that. The individuals are alleging that you neglected your role as Minister of Immigration, that you're letting families swing in the wind, that you have settled two of the cases—which implies there is some agreement you have with that—and that there are two more cases yet to go.

Part of what I read is that IRCC will be publishing a new public policy related to the language and cultural advisers and their families. Where is it and when will it be made available?

It will be published online very soon.

I can't speak, obviously, to the details of the settlement. It's important, before we publish anything that might have revealing personal information, that we be very careful that we don't put people at risk.

Very soon is....

I'll turn to our officials, in case they have a better sense of the precise timing.

I would say within the next couple of weeks. We're just finalizing the details.

Okay. Can you forward that to the committee once it's published?

Yes.

Thank you.

Also, I want to pick up on what Ms. Rempel Garner was speaking about.

I have a quick question, Minister. Do you agree that it is illegal for anyone other than officials delegated with authority by you under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to act on your behalf?

I'm not here to project legal conclusions about what people may have done for what reasons. I can tell you there were particular documents that were authorized from the Government of Canada. The letters to which Ms. Rempel Garner referred were not officially offered by the Government of Canada.

If I were to issue a document that purports to be from the Government of Canada on this issue, you would say that was wrong and I shouldn't be doing it.

Look, the context, I think, depends greatly on what you're sending, to whom and for what purpose. I don't think it's advisable for me, at this committee, to start reaching conclusions about the illegality of a fictional example.

You're aware, though, of these fraudulent visas that Senator McPhedran was sending to individuals. Are you aware of whether IRCC had any instrument of delegation of authority to the Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan, anyone employed by the Department of National Defence or the senator in question to issue these documents?

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Could I ask the member to repeat the question? I had an interruption with the audio, and it was hard to hear.

The Chair:

Mr. Redekopp, please repeat. I've stopped the clock.

Are you aware of whether IRCC had signed any instruments of delegation of authority to the Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan, anyone employed by the Department of National Defence or the senator in question to issue any documents on your behalf?

There was some authority given to the Canadian Armed Forces on the ground during the airlift. To my knowledge, if you're asking about whether there were third parties who were authorized at a political level or amongst parliamentarians, no such authorization to issue facilitation letters was given by IRCC.

Okay. Regarding your exempt staff, and I'm thinking in particular of your former chief of staff, Olga Radchenko, and others, did they give written or verbal permission to anybody to bypass the minister's authority and authorize the issuance of these travel documents by the senator in question?

Not to my knowledge, and out of respect for people who have been responsible for saving as many lives around the world as any Canadian I have met in the last number of years, I would ask us to be very careful about attributing malice without evidence to any political staff.

Not to my knowledge.... I don't believe anyone in my office has given such direction or assurances.

(1715)

I agree totally with you on that. I think it's a bit of a shame, though, that the policies of your department and the slowness of bringing Afghans to Canada caused somebody to do something that may have been or was outside the norm. I think that's what the concern is. If the department had been working more efficiently and if these people had been coming, maybe that situation wouldn't have had to arise. What do you think of that?

Look, I disagree with your characterization, respectfully, of course. At the time—and of course, I don't have personal experience, because I came into this position shortly afterward—it was apparent that it was a chaotic situation as the Taliban closed in on Kabul. There were many people who were trying to save as many lives as possible.

Where I have some serious concerns is about the idea that someone may have been given the indication that they would be permitted to come to Canada without the person giving it having the authorization to give such direction. It's very serious, because if you look at the potential for a few hundred people, plus an average of eight family members per person, the idea that those people should somehow displace others who have been referred into the program based on their vulnerability is something I think we need to take seriously.

Exactly.

I don't want to make allegations about a particular person's behaviour under what may have been a circumstance in which they were trying to save lives.

Yes, that's fair enough.

Do you think Canada owes anything to the people who received that documentation, who thought they were coming to Canada?

I think we need to have a full understanding of the expectation that was created by the Government of Canada in these instances.

It's really important that we don't substitute an official process that was designed to bring people based on their vulnerability with one that would allow some people, based on a relationship they may have, to access the program. All the permanent residency programs we're dealing with have a finite number of people, including refugee resettlement. I think it's very important we respect the integrity of the process.

The Chair:

Thank you, Minister. Time is up for Mr. Redekopp.

We will now proceed to Mr. Ali.

Mr. Ali, you will have five minutes for your round of questioning. You can please begin.

You are on mute.

There are some audio issues to figure out. Mr. Ali, we will come back to you. I'm proceeding to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for two and a half minutes.

[Translation]

The Conservatives nevertheless asked some interesting questions.

Do you think that it's reasonable that ple should have to circumvent the rules because your department is unable to guarantee that they will get to Canada quickly?

If they circumvent the rules to save lives, then estly, I'm not going to hold that against them.

Should people really have to break the laws of their government to succeed in saving lives?

[English]

First, I want to be careful to say that I've not made a conclusion or assertion that people are out breaking laws.

[Translation]

That's not what I said.

[English]

There is nothing normal about what happened in Kabul. There was a chaotic situation in which the Taliban was closing in to overtake a city that had not been under its control. Thousands of people's lives were saved during that phase. About 3,800 or so from that initial evacuation are actually now living safely in Canada.

I don't think anything about the effort of evacuating a city as it's being overtaken by a listed terrorist entity can be described as normal. There were many people involved who were trying to do their best to help some of the world's most vulnerable people in that moment.

[Translation]

In short, you think that's all right. Great.

Two weeks ago you told us that you would not be operating on the basis of categories. At the same time, interpreters and people working at Canada's embassy in Afghanistan were taken care of.

I mentioned 65 Afghan judges. In fact I'm going to send your department the list I received from an NGO. You may already have it, but I'll send it to you again.

How can you say that were selecting interpreters and people who worked at the embassy, and then at the same time claim that there are no categories?

Isn't that a paradox?

[English]

No. I appreciate the nature of your question, but if you'll indulge me I can explain.

There are certain categories that we developed to target people either based on their contribution to Canada's effort in Afghanistan, or based on features about them or their activities in life, before the Taliban takeover, that made them particularly vulnerable.

When it came to people's contribution to Canada, we relied on referrals from the Department of National Defence and Global Affairs to identify the people they wanted to refer into the program.

We also created a program for an additional 5,000 extended family members of previously settled interpreters. The other categories that exist include members of the LGBTQ2 community, human rights defenders, journalists and others who are vulnerable—

I'm sorry. Go ahead, Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe.

(1720)

[Translation]

I only have 10 seconds left.

You have discretionary power. In the past, your predecessors used this power for Kosovo and Syria, among others.

Why haven't you used it for Afghanistan, Minister?

[English]

There are certain exceptional examples. I know there are some that you and I have spoken about before, where we needed to use some elements of discretion.

Developing the response to Afghanistan involved a great deal of discretion across the creation of new programs that did not exist. We have innovated to bring new referral partners to welcome certain vulnerable communities. We've created new programs that allowed government departments to refer people into our refugee resettlement program in a discretionary way in order to respond to particular needs—

The Chair:

I'm sorry for interrupting, Minister. Your time is up.

I'd be happy to carry on the conversation off-line.

The Chair:

Mr. Ali, you can begin, please. You will have five minutes.

Mr. Shafqat Ali (Brampton Centre, Lib.):

Thank you for being here today, Minister, to share the progress of your work on the Afghan plan.

Minister, over the past few months I have had the opportunity to greet Afghan newcomer families arriving at Toronto Pearson Airport on chartered flights from various locations. Could you share with the committee the successes and challenges of providing support for the journeys of vulnerable Afghans from third countries and information about the assistance provided by various organizations?

I received a similar question from one of our other colleagues earlier in this conversation. I think I canvassed some of the challenges of moving people throughout Afghanistan. There are unique challenges for those who find themselves in third countries.

The kinds of challenges people run into sometimes depend upon the circumstances under which they entered that third country. I think about people who may have travelled to Pakistan, for example, who had a valid visa, versus people who crossed in an irregular way; both categories potentially qualify for Canada's immigration programs. The uncertainty that some people have if they don't have a legal immigration status in a host country on their way to Canada creates extraordinary concern for them and their families. We have other unique challenges when it comes to working with international partners to secure the ability to allow safe passage from Afghanistan into those third countries.

With regard to the second part of your question, I think that some of these supports that organizations provide.... There are so many heroes living in our communities. I think about Fariborz in Calgary, which has been responsible for providing services welcoming thousands upon thousands of vulnerable Afghans. There are people who are dedicating their lives to the well-being of some of the people who are fleeing unimaginable circumstances. We work with them to help fund the settlement activities that they provide, and we work with them to better understand the unique challenges that people who are living in these communities are now facing.

There were quite a few elements to your question. There's no shortage of challenges, but the successes, to me, are apparent when I meet people in communities. The real mark of success I think we'll observe half a generation from now. When I'm long retired from politics and I see a generation of girls who get to go to school, that's when I'll be able to celebrate success.

Mr. Shafqat Ali:

Thank you, Minister.

We know from the Special Committee on Afghanistan's study and report that there are unique challenges to the Afghan resettlement effort, specifically regarding finding ways to help people exit Afghanistan. What has the government been doing to work with neighbouring third countries to ensure safe passage out of Afghanistan?

The safe passage issue requires partnerships not just with states in the region, although it obviously requires that as well. It also requires work on the ground inside the country with third parties that can help move people through the country. This is an enormous challenge. We do not have a military or diplomatic presence on the ground in Afghanistan; moving people through the country remains the biggest obstacle to success, but we have the ability to work with third parties.

I hesitate to speak too openly about some of the current conversations we're having for fear that we may shine a light on some of the strategies we're pursuing, which could jeopardize the potential for success of those strategies. When we're looking to work with partners to facilitate not just the travel of vulnerable individuals to those countries but permission for them to stay long enough to complete whatever process may be remaining to secure chartered flights that may bring people from a third country to Canada, all of this requires constant conversations with countries in the region through which safe passage could be possible.

We have not put all our eggs in any one basket. If there is a state partner we can work with on the international stage in the region, we have been taking calls with them, taking meetings with them and working continuously in partnership to secure opportunities for vulnerable Afghans, not just to flee Afghanistan but to be safe temporarily in a third country before their onward travel to Canada.

(1725)

Mr. Shafqat Ali:

Thank you, Minister.

Can you tell us if there has been any progress made by your department on the recommendation of the Special Committee on Afghanistan with respect to allowing Afghans to use other pathways, such as study permits, the economic mobility pathways pilot and economic immigration streams, without assessing their intention of returning to their country of origin?

This is an extraordinary opportunity, in my view, to do good for additional vulnerable people. In fact, last night I was meeting with a group involved in private sponsorship that is trying to help us scale up the EMPP program. What's unique about this program, for those who aren't familiar with it, is that it provides a pathway to permanent residency for people who happen to be displaced, on the basis of their economic migration.

There are more recommendations that I want to dig into, including the potential to examine opportunities through the study permit system, but I'm out of time, Shafqat. Perhaps we'll get an opportunity to discuss that in greater length soon.

The Chair:

Thank you, Minister. We will now move to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have two and a half minutes. Please proceed.

I'd like to go to back to the cap of 40,000. It's clear that they are people who served Canada, and they and their family members are at risk and in danger. They are not part of the system at the moment, because of the cap. Knowing that, will the minister lift the cap so that those applicants can get a chance to get to safety?

I don't have an announcement on a new target to make at today's committee hearing. To the extent that we can find complementary pathways that allow us to do more good, of course I'm interested.

Any time we're dealing with permanent residents who come to Canada, it's essential that we plan as part of our annual immigration levels plan or specific decisions that are taken through an official process of the government, so that we can work with settlement agencies toward capacity.

Thank you, Minister.

Of course, the minister knew—or should have known—that there are these Afghans who served Canada and who, with their family members, could not get to safety before this moment in time. The minister has known this for a long time now. I have certainly written enough letters to the minister to fill a cabinet drawer full with respect to that. This is not new to the minister. That information was there before the minister, prior to the immigration levels plan that was released.

I bring this to the minister's attention because people's lives are at risk. Until it happens, these people will not get to safety—that is the reality—and the Government of Canada is giving them a death sentence. That's also a reality that they will face. I'm sorry to say that, but that's how people are being treated on the ground.

On a different question, I asked officials for information regarding biometrics. I have the information back to indicate that “3,486 unique applications, representing a total of 10,568 persons, have at least one person on the application waiting to have their biometrics completed as of December 23, 2022.” That means they can't get their biometrics.

Because they cannot get those biometrics, will the minister consider alternatives so that they can get to safety? Can they not do that outside of country and, for some of them, actually in-house when they arrive in Canada?

Let me address your first point briefly, and then answer your question directly.

One of the things that's important when we're talking about the number we're trying to resettle is that we have received expressions of interest from more than a million people who want to come to Canada—

I'm sorry, Minister. They're not expressions of interest. I'm talking very specifically of people who served Canada and their family members.

(1730)

I understand, but I think it's important that people understand the scale of interest from people who are seeking to take part in this program.

On your question about biometrics specifically, we've actually implemented a different security screening process that starts with enhanced biographic screening. We allow people to move through that process and complete their biometrics in a third country. We are now seeing that biometrics and security screening are not the bottleneck that they were a year and a half ago in this mission. It's proven to be somewhat successful, in my view. It ensures that we can have a rigorous security screening process pre-arrival, but it doesn't compromise the ability of a person to go through the process while they're still inside Afghanistan.

It remains that 10,568 people are still stuck in the system, so—

And nearly that many are actually still in Afghanistan—

The Chair:

I'm sorry to interrupt.

We will now proceed to Ms. Rempel Garner for five minutes.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm looking at an article that was originally published in the Edmonton Journal in November 2021, entitled “Afghan impostors cutting into line”. It talks about the special immigration measures the government put in place to evacuate persons out of Afghanistan, particularly persons who have had a relationship to the Government of Canada, and says that there may have been many people who were on the evacuation flights who actually were not approved under this program.

Has your department, Ms. Fox, done an audit of how many people were on these evacuation flights who had not been authorized through the special immigration measures?

Of course, as the minister has described, this was a pretty volatile environment. We can confirm that as we provided facilitation letters for our clients, the people we had relationships with, we contacted them about the purpose of the letter, the objective of the safe passage and their entry into obtaining a visa and getting on a flight—

That wasn't my question. My question was, have you audited the people who got on the flight against the people who you asked to apply for this special immigration letter—

Yes.

—and whether or not they had that authorization?

Yes. A full assessment occurred when they got here, and they were on flights with visas issued by the Government of Canada.

Okay.

In this article, it talks about how.... This is a woman named Lauryn Oates, who is an NGO director. To give credit to her, she did a lot of work to get people out of Afghanistan, but she talks about a family of 14 people who were on an evacuation flight, who were not authorized.

Did you have any indication of something like this occurring?

I don't know the specifics of that case, but I think, as I indicated, we did a full evaluation of who was on those flights, and they were clients through the SIM program.

The same article says, with regard to.... She doesn't name a particular senator, but she goes on to talk about how a senator was.... This is her quote. “People she”—the senator—“didn’t know were writing to her and saying ‘You gave a letter to these people, can you give a letter to me?’ And she would just issue a letter to anyone who would ask.”

How many instances of letters issued by Senator McPhedran has your department come across?

What we were able to determine is that we know exactly how many letters the department issued, but—and this is why we did the internal review—we then referred the matter to law enforcement, which is looking at the next steps in this process. Given the fact that we did not issue the inauthentic letter, it would be impossible for me to determine exactly the numbers that are circulating, but we are aware of cases that are circulating.

Can you table a copy of the results of your internal review with the committee?

Yes, we can do that.

Thank you.

Also, can you table a copy with the committee of what an authentic facilitation letter looked like during this?

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you.

I'll cede the floor to Mr. Redekopp.

For what it's worth, I think it would go with the obvious caveat of not revealing the personal information of someone taking part in the process.

Of course.

On the issue of numbers, I have many people in my riding who are trying to sponsor people to come to Canada from Afghanistan. There's an organization called Nest that's tried to sponsor four different families. Everybody is waiting longer than what's there. Nest, for example, got a letter saying that the allocations are full, yet we are not anywhere near 40,000. You, even today, said “at least 40,000”.

I'm curious. Are the allocations full? Why aren't we continuing to process people so that we can get to that 40,000 number?

Thank you.

I think what's important to understand is that even though.... There's a significant majority of people who have now arrived. There are close to 28,000 of at least 40,000 who we will be seeking to bring to Canada, but of the remaining spaces, we can talk about approximately 8,000 people who are deep into the approval process who are still in Afghanistan.

We can look at some of the allocations that have been given to sponsorship agreement holders. From the federal government's point of view, the spaces may be allocated to the organization that will be helping to facilitate the travel of someone here, but it may not be the case that the organizations have allocated each of their spaces to every individual who may be coming.

I appreciate that it's a bit of a nuanced explanation, but it's important to understand that we know most of these spaces have been allocated to organizations that will help refer people into the program, even though not all of the people have arrived yet in Canada.

(1735)

I want to go back into the investigation for a minute.

You said earlier that you didn't have the resources to investigate parliamentarians. Do you have reason to believe that there should be some additional investigations done into parliamentarians, or others, to look more widely for some of these false documents?

When this issue first came about, I wanted to make sure....

Madam Chair, can I take 20 seconds?

The Chair:

Yes, please.

Mr. Fayçal El-Khoury (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.):

We wanted to make sure we dealt with this in a responsible way. The department conducted the internal investigation, which was the appropriate first step. When it ran its course and got to the end of what the department is capable of, sharing the information with law enforcement was an appropriate step, so that they can determine whether a further investigation is warranted and, if so, how it should look.

I don't think it's appropriate for the government to necessarily be doing it in a way that is not independent. To provide documents to an organization that has that independent status is, I think, important so that it can determine the next appropriate steps.

The Chair:

Thank you, Minister.

We will now proceed to Mr. El-Khoury. We will end this panel with you.

You have five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Translation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for always being so generous with your time on behalf of our committee.

Could you take a few moments to finish answering the question that Ms. Kwan asked about biometrics?

[English]

Honestly, I'm interested in the two-step process you mentioned before.

Thank you.

When I was first appointed to this position, Afghanistan quickly became the initiative on which I spent the vast majority of my time. One of the biggest bottlenecks to having people move was the lack of ability to conduct biometric assessments to understand and assure that the people who were coming to Canada passed the ordinary security screening process. The lack of a presence on the ground made that exceptionally difficult.

We came up with an alternative plan that gathers whatever information we can find about a person—we call it an “enhanced biographic screening”—to allow them to move to the next step in the process. That will get us to a position where we can allow a person to move outside of Afghanistan, should they have the ability to do so. We can then complete the biometric screening process there, so we don't compromise on the security screening. It also doesn't delay the ability of a person to come through the process and to exit Afghanistan, which they're so desperate to do under extraordinary circumstances.

[Translation]

Thank you, Minister.

We know that the issue of third countries is a very thorny one for our western allies, who tend to close ranks on the Taliban and help refugees who are still in Afghanistan. The report mentions that the operational context remains complex and dangerous.

Could you give us further details to explain the problematic situation?

[English]

Mr. Fayçal El-Khoury:

Yes, and just to put it into perspective, I deal with not only the partners we seek to assist us in our resettlement efforts but also the partners who are conducting similar efforts so we can share best practices and understand common challenges.

The challenges for the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia and others who were participating in it around safe passage reflect precisely the same challenges Canada is experiencing: the difficulties we're encountering around safe passage, around the lack of access to travel documents for people seeking to flee, and around the challenges for people who made their way into the third countries, whether through ordinary or irregular ways. These are common for all countries that have resettlement efforts.

We're working together as an international community to share these understandings so we can improve the quality of our resettlement process. However, it's not easy. We're dealing with a territory in which the Taliban, a terrorist organization as per our laws in Canada, is in control. There are no easy strategies here, but we're going to continue to co-operate with partners to overcome these barriers.

I want to save time, because I don't know if the committee would allow it, but our colleague, Ms. May, has shown up, and if time allows after Mr. El-Khoury finishes, I would be happy to extend my stay by a moment or two should committee members allow it.

(1740)

[Translation]

Minister, recommendation 22, on the hiring of additional staff, states that IRCC was working to hire 1,250 new employees by the end of the fall 2022. We are now in 2023.

Have you reached that number?

If you haven't, do your targets remain the same? Are you getting close to meeting them? If there are problems in doing so, could you tell us about them?

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser:

We have now hired more than 1,250 staff and are continuing to add more staff. We've seen the expected increase in productivity, with a reduction in wait times across various immigration streams. This was a big part of the strategy to overcome some of the challenges that the pandemic and our humanitarian responses placed on our system.

We have planning to do in the years ahead to develop that surge capacity that Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe raised in one of his questions. To answer your question directly, yes, we've completed that hiring initiative and continue to add more staff now.

Mr. Fayçal El-Khoury:

Did you see some positive results that improved the service provided by our embassies around the world by hiring those people? To what degree would you say that was the case?

Hon. Sean Fraser:

It depends on which immigration stream you're talking about, but the progress we've seen has allowed us to return to ordinary service standards across most immigration streams, whether family reunification, express entry.... Work permits are shortly going to be back to the service standard we enjoyed before the pandemic. Study permits are more or less there now. We have a bit of work left to do on visitor visas.

Now the bottleneck to having people arrive in a timely way is really impacting the programs for which the bottleneck is the number of spaces available annually, given the extraordinary demand in certain programs, rather than the processing capacity of IRCC, with the exception of visitors' visas, which we expect this year will be back on track.

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC):

The time is up for Mr. El-Khoury.

The minister mentioned Ms. May. I've checked with the clerk. Either one of the members has to give their time, or we need unanimous consent from the committee members to have her ask a question.

Do I have unanimous consent from the committee?

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal:

On this side, we are fine.

No.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP):

We don't have unanimous consent, so with that—

One of the members was willing to give his time, I believe.

He took his whole time. Mr. El-Khoury took his whole time. His five minutes are done. I have to go with the way the rules of the committee are.

With that, I would like to thank the minister for his appearance before the committee. On behalf of all the members, I would really like to thank you, Minister.

We will suspend the meeting for two or three minutes, so that the minister can leave, and then we will go into the round of questioning with the officials.

Thank you.

(1740)

(1745)

The Chair:

I call the meeting to order.

We have the officials with us for the second round, and we will go directly into the round of questioning.

Ms. Rempel Garner, you will have six minutes. You can please begin.

Thank you. I'll ask my colleague to time me.

Ms. Fox, on Thursday of last week, Senator McPhedran gave a speech in the Senate, which outlined some pretty serious allegations. In it, she said that there was.... I'll read it to you:

Key within the kinds of communications that were happening day and night was a small circle of high officials into which I had been invited by Minister Monsef, and I asked to bring in a consultant who had been working with me for a number of years because she was a member of a national team here in Canada. I had been asked to help hundreds—many more—athletes than I was already trying to help parliamentarians and human rights defenders, and I just didn’t have more hours in a day. That email circle—I have every email. They are dated and stamped. The authorities are named within them. I can tell you here tonight that template that we used to try and help—and we have succeeded—and when I say “we”, I mean a network from Denmark to Zurich to Australia to Canada to the United States, everyone doing their best. But we used what’s called a visa facilitation letter.

With regard to this, do you have any evidence, or have you investigated whether then minister Maryam Monsef was involved in producing the facilitation letters that Senator McPhedran described?

First, I would start by saying how, because of the Government of Canada's efforts and because of the time on the ground to get people to airports, the facilitation letters issued by IRCC and GAC to our clients helped get 3,700 people out. That's an important fact to raise at the committee. We needed to use those letters—

I'm asking if you have any evidence of whether then cabinet minister Maryam Monsef was assisting in issuing facilitation letters.

What I can tell committee is that I looked at the organization, IRCC, in terms of the review of whether or not any inauthentic letters came from our department. I can say that as a result of that investigation we have found no evidence that any inauthentic letters came from the department. The next step was to refer the matter to law enforcement agencies, and they take it from there.

Okay, so you haven't reviewed some of the claims that are in here that the then minister of defence's chief of staff was helping to produce these inauthentic facilitation letters. Is that correct?

(1750)

That's correct. We've only reviewed IRCC internal.... Our investigation was limited to our department.

Are you aware of any investigation into whether or not the allegations that Senator McPhedran made are true as they pertain to then chief of staff George Young and then cabinet minister....

Actually, I'll ask a different question.

Do you have any documentation or awareness that Senator McPhedran, then cabinet minister Monsef or George Young had contacted IRCC to perhaps expedite certain cases?

Did Senator McPhedran ever reach out? Do you have documentation of her reaching out to IRCC, saying please help this list of people? Did Senator McPhedran attempt to do that?

I do not have any evidence that she sent any documentation to IRCC staff.

Ms. Jennifer MacIntyre (Assistant Deputy Minister, Afghanistan, Department of Citizenship and Immigration):

Okay. You have no record, within your department during this time period, of Senator McPhedran asking IRCC for facilitation letters or assistance with certain cases.

Maybe, Madam Chair, what I would just add to what the deputy has said is that many members of Parliament, including senators, were reaching out to IRCC to see how they could help.

One of the honourable members has mentioned today that lots of folks had lists. Certainly, in terms of whether IRCC co-operated to help with facilitation letters, the answer is no, but we did talk to lots of members of Parliament during the crisis.

Okay. Thank you.

Why was this referred to the RCMP before there were questions?

In your internal review, did you ask Senator McPhedran what happened personally? Did you have conversations with her?

I did not.

Did anyone in your department?

Not to my knowledge, no.

Okay.

Why was the decision made to refer this to the RCMP as opposed to discussing this with Senator McPhedran or anyone she may have alleged was involved?

I think that when a matter of the use of inauthentic letters surfaces in a department, it is important to take the next steps. In our view, the next steps were to refer the matter to law enforcement in light of the fact that the use of inauthentic letters can lead to very difficult outcomes for the government.

Finally, my office was in contact with IRCC for over the course of a year with these letters. I'm just going to be really blunt. They fooled me. I've sat on this committee for years. I never once thought they could be inauthentic.

At any point in time when my office was corresponding with you on my file, when you reviewed this particular case, did anyone flag that these could potentially be false?

Ms. Jennifer MacIntyre:

Maybe what I could add, Madam Chair, is that inauthentic letters started to pop up in the system—

The Chair:

I'm sorry for interrupting, but time is up for Ms. Rempel Garner. You will get an opportunity in the second round.

We will now proceed to Mr. El-Khoury. You will have six minutes. You can please begin.

[Translation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank those with us today for having agreed to appear before the committee and answer our questions.

My first question is for Ms. MacIntyre.

In your response to recommendation 3, which was to create an emergency mechanism ready to be deployed in the event of future humanitarian crises, can you tell us more about any of IRCC's findings in its review of these emergency measures and crisis management?

If if not, could you give us some details about what will be looked at later?

I'm going to answer that question, Madam Chair, because the organization of the department is managed by the deputy minister.

To begin with, thank you for your recommendation Mr. El-Khoury.

I also pointed out that we were experiencing lots of crises at IRCC. There were the recent responses to what has been happening in Afghanistan and Ukraine; not so many years ago, there were crises in Syria and Haiti.

We closely reviewed the committee's recommendations to see whether we were properly organized and equipped to respond to the crisis. While looking at your recommendations, we told ourselves that there might be lessons to be drawn not only for the department, but also for our work with other partners: Global Affairs Canada, the Privy Council Office, the Department of National Defence, etc. We are looking at our structure, and what's needed in order to have a team with the right experience to get the job done.

Every crisis will have its own specific aspects and require a particular response; at the same time, some factors are common to all crises. The question is knowing how we can organize ourselves, as a department, to do a better job of responding to a crisis.

A review of options was carried out. There was some brainstorming within the department ensure that we would be in a better position to respond to crises and learn lessons from what we experienced.

That period was extremely difficult and chaotic. It's hard to compare our Afghanistan response to how we responded to other crises in different circumstances. The fact that the Taliban invaded and took control of Kabul made people's movements extremely difficult. It's still difficult. That's why working with partners in the region continues to be extremely important.

All of which is to say that we are examining our organization in order to be in a position to respond to crises, while continuing with the operational work of the department at a pace that will enable us to continue our efforts.

Thank you very much for your question. It was very apt.

(1755)

You said that you had appreciated our work. Thank you for that. The report is the outcome of several months of effort on the part of this committee to come up with our recommendations.

You mentioned the difficulties involved in getting to neighbouring countries. Do you call upon services from our allies, like Qatar or the United Arab Emirates? Based on your experience, what could facilitate the task of getting the people we want out of there?

Thank you very much for your question.

We are working closely with our partners, not only those in that region, but also in the United States as well as our federal departments. One very important point is that to leave Afghanistan, people need a passport. To leave neighbouring countries, exit permits are often required to take a flight to Canada or another country. That means that it's very important to have discussions to establish ties, partnerships and agreements that will truly facilitate transportation for them.

Since the tabling of your report in June 2022, 43 flights have been organized, with approximately 13,000 arrivals from Pakistan and Tajikistan. We have certainly made serious efforts since the tabling of your report.

Now, the real problem is finding ways of reaching people who are in Afghanistan. We need to work with our partners in the region, because it's not easy.

Thank you.

I can tell you that your work is certainly appreciated by everyone: the international community, members of this committee and the government. We are exceedingly thankful.

I have some other questions. The response to recommendation 15 says that one of the few options for the safe passage of Afghan refugees through a third country is to maintain ongoing cordial diplomatic relations with that country to keep the exit routes secure. You clearly explained the situation earlier.

Can you tell us more so that we can determine whether it has been working successfully, and to what extent? If not, what are you thinking about doing?

Thank you for your question.

Neighbouring countries are in fact becoming an important factor for the safe exit of Afghans. It's also important not to forget the key relationships we have with international groups like the United Nations and the International Organization for Migration. These partners…,

(1800)

[English]

The Chair:

I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Fox. The time is up for Mr. El-Khoury. We will come back in the second round, if you want.

We will now proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for six minutes.

Please begin.

[Translation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'd like to point out in passing that I'm very proud of the structure of the emergency plan I proposed, and which I've been promoting for some time. It made its way into the recommendations that were taken into consideration. I understand that you are in the process of establishing this plan.

The plan was needed because a gap had to be filled. It should have already been in place. It must have had an impact on crisis management in Afghanistan and on IRCC management during that time. That's my understanding of it. Otherwise, a plan of that kind wouldn't be under development now.

Thank you very much.

There was outstanding teamwork in several departments on introducing a crisis management structure, one that made it possible to go and retrieve the most vulnerable people from Afghanistan.

When a new project is undertaken, whether to create a new program or to deal with a crisis, I think the responsible thing to do is remain open-minded and identify what has worked well in the past and where things can be improved.

I am in no way implying that the efforts were inadequate. I'd rather say that there's always room for improvement. International trends around the world are changing and as deputy minister, it's my role to learn from the international response and to apply lessons learned in any future crisis.

Would you agree with me that if there had already been a plan like the one you are now formulating, the approach to managing the crisis would have been different? That's only to be expected. It's not a matter of assigning blame. I'm simply saying that's the reality.

What I'm saying is that the teams met to implement a crisis management plan, one that yielded tangible results we can learn some lessons from.

That wasn't my question, but thank you. I didn't get you to say it, but at least I tried.

Did you have discussions with other departmental offices? Did you have cross-departmental discussions when analyzing reports, or did you work in silos?

No, we worked closely with our colleagues in other departments.

That's great.

So there were discussions with deputy ministers or your counterparts in other departments on reports like the one on the crisis in Afghanistan.

Yes.

All right.

Did you discuss recommendations 9, 10 and 11, about how the Canadian Criminal Code should be changed urgently, with your colleagues in other departments? I believe the report was released in June.

Can the words "on an urgent basis" be interpreted loosely in the various departments, or are they understood to mean what my fellow citizens and I think they mean?

Yes, we had conversations with our colleagues about all the recommendations, not only in connection with our response to the report, but also for coordination purposes. We had to decide on who would undertake the various aspects of follow-up action.

Where do things stand on recommendations 9, 10 and 11?

Yes, we discussed them. In connection with the Criminal Code, we discussed legislative options that would enable us to work with non-profit organizations on the ground.

What's your definition of the word "immediately"?

It could mean different things, depending on the circumstances, but I think it means making changes once all aspects of a file have been studied and the consequences and implications have been understood.

In that case, I'll give you some context by reading out the following sentence: "That the Government of Canada act immediately to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 2615."

How would you interpret the word "immediately" in this context?

I interpret it within our working context, in which the work is done across several departments in a parliamentary system. It therefore means as quickly as our parliamentary system allows.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2615 was adopted on December 22, 2021. I remember it because it's the date of my parents' wedding anniversary. Six months after the adoption of the report and almost a year and a half after the adoption of the resolution, it still hasn't happened.

Do you believe it's reasonable for a G7 country to be unable to simply act upon a resolution adopted by the UN?

(1805)

I'd say that we are working closely with the departments to make the changes required to allow us, on the ground, to do whatever we have to do to help the most vulnerable Afghans.

Are you aware of the fact that the NGOs on the ground who are trying to help women, girls, and destitute people in Afghanistan, are unhappy about this response, which I've been hearing for over a year?

This answer, about how you are working to make changes, is the same one we've been fed for a year. Other countries around the world have managed to change rapidly, even though they too are democracies with parliamentary systems.

In your discussions with other deputy ministers, is there anyone who is getting impatient? Or at least tell me that some departments are unhappy about the inaction of the Department of Justice. Are you telling me from on high that everything's just hunky dory, and that these delays are only to be expected?

Everyone is working on this and we're working with some key partners as well. The conversations you've had are also the conversations we've had with them. They understand our desire to resolve the problem.

What's preventing you from solving the problem?

[English]

The Chair:

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. Time is up.

We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan for six minutes.

Ms. Kwan, please begin.

Thank you very much.

To begin, can I ask officials to provide a briefing document to the committee on these facilitation letters? I'm looking for basic information. What are these facilitation letters? Where did they come from? Who issued them—i.e., which ministry is authorized to issue them? Who is authorized to distribute them? Who received them? What evaluation and eligibility considerations were given to the people who were in receipt of them? If the media's report is correct, how is it that, for example, a senator would have gotten hold of a facilitation letter for distribution, or that a former political aide got a letter for distribution?

You may or may not have these answers. I'm asking these questions just so that we know what the lay of the land is. You mentioned earlier that you know how many facilitation letters were issued from your department, and yet there are so many other ones that are out there. Could we get those numbers as well, so that we can have a sense of what is going on with respect to that?

These are just some of the questions I'm asking. If you could provide to the committee any other relevant information relating to the situation of the use of these facilitation letters, it would be much appreciated.

Okay. Maybe I can start.

The facilitation letters—

I'm sorry. Could I get that in writing to the committee? I have six minutes, and I have many other questions that I need to get into. This is just background information, really, that should be provided. It sounds like you already have the information at hand. Can you get this information to the committee by the end of next week, if that's reasonable?

We will definitely give you the information. I will check with the translation and other measures to make sure, but I think next week sounds reasonable. I will confirm with the committee clerk.

That's appreciated. Thank you very much.

The Chair:

Just as a reminder to the members, all questions should be addressed through the chair. Thank you.

I would like to actually go on to the next question.

On the issue around Afghans who have been stranded, we know that some of them are in Pakistan. Some of them have visas that have expired. Since the end of December of last year, the Pakistani government has been actively pursuing people with expired visas.

Since that time, how many Afghans have we brought to Canada to safety? Have any of them had expired visas from Pakistan? As well, how many flights are being put in place to continue to bring Afghans to safety? If you could give us a general average of how many flights we can anticipate are coming out, that would be appreciated as well. It would be useful to know how many flights and how many seats.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Arrivals to date from Pakistan are 9,806. As I noted, about 43 charter flights have been organized since June 2022, but it's not limited to charter flights. We also have commercial flights. That's not just from Pakistan, but from Tajikistan and other neighbouring countries.

In terms of how many flights are being organized going forward, I think it would be very challenging to have specific data, as these details are still being worked out.

(1810)

Can we get in writing to the committee the breakdown of those numbers of how many of those have actually come since December 31, 2022? If you have the breakdown of those, how many of them were from Pakistan? I am particularly interested in whether any people made it out of Pakistan, for example, with expired visas.

Is the department entertaining bringing people to safety with expired visas or even invalid visas, for whatever reason?

Ms. Jennifer MacIntyre:

Madam Chair, I might just jump in to add a couple of things regarding the question of visas and Pakistan.

The Government of Pakistan, like those of every country, has exit requirements, which have to be met by all foreign nationals who are departing. A valid visa is very important.

We're working very closely with the Government of Pakistan, through our high commission, to have streamlined processes for IRCC clients who have expired visas, so that we can facilitate having a renewed visa for them, which will facilitate their departure from Pakistan.

Individuals on the ground are telling me that if people who have an expired visa at the moment are caught, they would have to come up with money to renew their visa. On average, that is $700 U.S. per person. That is only for a short-term visa; it's not for a full year. If they have to look for a full-year visa, they are looking at over $1,000—like $1,200 or $1,500. Sometimes they are faced with a situation in which they have to pay money that is not authorized towards the visa.

People are faced with a lot of challenges, and of course they don't have money. These are people who are in hiding and have not been working. Coming up with that kind of financial capacity is almost impossible. Consequently, people are in real dire situations.

In the discussion with the Pakistan government and authorities, where there is some special dispensation being allowed for those whom Canada would bring to safety, how do you ensure that those without visas are not going to be caught out, and that they will be included?

Do you have a list of those people? Do you provide it to the authorities in Pakistan to ensure they are not going to be faced with challenges?

The Chair:

I'm sorry. The time is up for Ms. Kwan. Maybe you will get an opportunity when we come back in the second round.

Maybe I can get that in writing, then.

The Chair:

We will now proceed to Mr. Redekopp.

You will have five minutes. You can begin, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to return to Ms. MacIntyre.

You were answering a question from my colleague, Michelle Rempel Garner. It was: Did anyone flag that these visa letters could be fake?

You had just started answering and then the time ran out.

Ms. Jennifer MacIntyre:

Madam Chair, just to back up a bit, I would say that IRCC and Global Affairs, as we all know, were issuing facilitation letters, but these letters did not confer status on any person who received them. A full eligibility and admissibility assessment was done on all individuals before they would come to Canada.

It's just a protocol of IRCC. When an inauthentic document of any sort pops up in the system, there are multiple protocols in place to be sure that such documents are not being used in a way they're not supposed to be. For example, these letters were not meant to facilitate boarding a flight to Canada. They were not meant to be a visa to Canada.

When you see any document that someone has attempted to use for a reason that is not intended, there is a flag in the system. That's just a protocol.

Recommendation 26 of the report speaks to the role of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and specifically asks that IRCC waive the requirement for Afghanistan.

We heard testimony during our backlog study about the UNHCR and its ineffectiveness in dealing with certain religious or sexual orientation minority groups in countries such as Pakistan. In the government response, there is an acknowledgement of the ineffectiveness of the UNHCR program when it comes to Afghanistan.

Has IRCC engaged in talks with representatives of the UNHCR, either here or in Canada, about efforts to reform this organization, Ms. Fox?

(1815)

It's important to the question around how do you effectively respond. Through the humanitarian stream of our programming, we have been able to work with a number of organizations that have secured the safe passage of LGBTQ2+, journalists, politicians, etc. We are in very close contact with the UNHCR for a lot of our work. We continuously try to improve the work that we do together in a partnership.

The answer to your question is yes, we are in touch with them, and yes, we are always looking at ways to be more nimble and to be more responsive to a particular crisis.

I'm going to talk a bit about some local groups.

I mentioned to the minister the group called Nest Saskatoon. They're working to bring Afghans to Canada. They submitted applications. They were told that the slots had been filled. They sent out applications the very next day, on October 17, 2022.

Was there a quota for approved applications for each province and territory?

It was not a quota by province or territory. We definitely have data in terms of the settlement efforts by province or territory.

What I would also note, as we have done, is that we continuously look at innovative ways to respond and pivot. That's something the department has done continuously. One way we have done that is through the groups of five sponsorship, where 3,000 places were allocated to people for whom we waived the requirement for an UNHCR refugee determination. That allowed a little more flexibility for groups who wanted to take part in welcoming Afghans.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I will cede my time to Ms. Rempel Garner.

The Chair:

You have one minute and 15 seconds.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2):

the committee extend the total number of meetings currently allocated to the current study regarding the government's response to the final report of the Special Committee on Afghanistan by a minimum of three meetings, to be held prior to March 31, 2023; and
Senator Marilou McPhedran, MP Marc Garneau, Minister Harjit Sajjan and Minister Marco Mendicino be invited to appear separately before the committee prior to March 31, 2023, for two hours each, to discuss matters related to the current study; and
Dr. Lauryn Oates, of the Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan group, be invited to appear individually before committee prior to March 31, 2023, for one hour, to discuss matters related to the current study; and
summonses do issue for the appearances of former minister for women and gender equality, Maryam Monsef; Laura Robinson; and George Young to appear separately, for two hours each, at dates and times to be fixed by the chair but no later than March 31, 2023, to discuss matters related to the current study; and
summonses do issue for the appearances of senior departmental officials from the Department of National Defence to appear before the committee, at a date and time to be fixed by the chair but no later than March 31, 2023, to discuss matters related to the current study.

I have sent this motion to the clerk in both official languages. This motion is in scope, as it relates to the current matter that the committee is studying.

I will begin my rationale for this motion by stating that I am certain Senator McPhedran acted from a place of good intent in issuing these facilitation letters.

I ask my colleagues to listen to my rationale carefully. I'm not moving this out of political motivation, but out of a very human face that I have been acquainted with for over a year now. I believe we should have rescued more Afghans than the government did.

I want to explain to this committee why I believe that this motion should pass, by sharing the story of my constituents. The letters that were issued by Senator McPhedran put the family of one of my constituents in danger and later stymied their efforts to come to Canada. I think it's important to put their case on the record. I will not be disclosing their identity, due to safety and privacy concerns. I am sharing information that I have previously received permission to disclose from them.

On August 23, 2021, a constituent contacted my office on behalf of her cousin and his family of nine, who are Afghan nationals. She relayed to my office that her cousin was a member of an NGO that was supported by the Canadian government. He was able to provide IRCC with contribution agreements between the NGO and the Canadian government that substantiated a working relationship. She explained to my office that her cousin and his family had been trying to flee Afghanistan to Canada because their lives were at risk due to their work on democracy, equality and freedom of speech in partnership with the Government of Canada. They were being threatened by the Taliban.

My constituent contacted my office because of confusion as to why her family wasn't being assisted in resettling to Canada and issues with communication with IRCC and GAC officials. She requested that we inquire about these issues and assist in providing closure to her case.

Upon this request for assistance from my office, we asked for my constituent's cousin—who I'll refer to as Mr. X—to consent to our inquiring about his status. We were provided with consent forms, third party authorization and documentation of the applicant's connection to the Canadian government.

When my constituent began communicating with my office, she sent us an email that Mr. X said he received from the IRCC department in Islamabad on July 27, 2021, suggesting that he apply for a temporary public policy to resettle Afghans to Canada. He provided my office with the emails he said that he sent to IRCC to apply for this measure within the time constraints outlined therein. This application was submitted to the IRCC department in Islamabad by Mr. X on July 29, 2021, as per instructions he said he received in the above-referenced email from department officials.

My constituent was also able to provide evidence that he had in fact provided services to Canada. He was in possession of a Government of Canada service contract with an NGO he was affiliated with, and documentation—apparently issued from that NGO—of his relationship to the work that was the subject of that contract. They were also able to provide evidence of the Government of Canada officials who were working with them.

In August 2021, Mr. X's family was also corresponding directly with Senator Marilou McPhedran on Mr. X and his family's potential passage from Afghanistan to Canada.

(1820)

My constituent made my office aware of this correspondence with the senator after the federal election on October 15, 2021. She told my office that Senator McPhedran and her office had directly provided Mr. X with letters of facilitation, which stated that a visa had been granted to certain members of Mr. X's family and could facilitate their passage to Canada.

Until this point, my office was acting on the assumption that Mr. X's family had received some kind of official documentation directly from Canadian government officials in IRCC or GAC. These documents, which include the Government of Canada logo and a seal bearing the appearance of a Government of Canada department, appear to be sent to Mr. X and his family via email by the senator and her office on August 26, 2021. The email also suggested that the family present themselves at the Hamid Karzai International Airport, specifically at Baron Gate, and not discuss with anyone that they had received this correspondence.

My constituent told my office that upon receiving these documents, and based on advice contained in the above-referenced email from Senator McPhedran and her office, Mr. X's family attempted to reach the Hamid Karzai International Airport on August 26, 2021, but were faced with extremely unsafe conditions and were forced to turn back.

She also expressed to my office that having been in receipt of these documents, and having applied for the temporary public policy to resettle Afghans that was outlined in the email from IRCC Islamabad, my constituent told my office that she and her family believed they were able to gain passage to Canada, but were unclear as to why they were unable to get assistance to leave.

Between August 2021 and June 2022, my office has corresponded with GAC and IRCC over 30 times through email and telephone calls to determine the status of Mr. X's family resettlement status. Throughout, we continued to update IRCC and GAC on Mr. X's family situation in Afghanistan, which they expressed had significantly deteriorated and had included Taliban interviews and harassment.

My correspondence with my constituent began during the middle of a federal election, when the government was in caretaker mode and there was little clarity on what processes or documentation the government was using to evacuate persons. Given these roadblocks, and upon receipt of this correspondence, my office began trying to understand why Mr. X's family resettlement process was delayed, given the efforts they had already undertaken and the documentation in their possession.

After multiple inquiries, IRCC was not able to confirm with my office that it was in receipt of the application submitted by Mr. X on July 29, 2021, for the temporary public policy to resettle Afghans, even when presented with documentation my constituent forwarded to my office, corroborating her family's claim that an application was submitted within the time constraints allowed. IRCC would not confirm that such a referral was made to Mr. X in late July 2021, even after IRCC was provided with documentation that seems to corroborate the same.

While the documentation provided to my office seemed legitimate, and corroborated that Mr. X's family actually applied in July 2021 for this temporary public policy, IRCC never acknowledged it was in receipt of this application, or that it had taken any action on it.

Subsequent to Mr. X's application to the measure outlined in that email, the government announced an additional immigration program to resettle Afghans. To me, there seemed to have been a lack of coordination between the temporary public policy contained in the email that Mr. X initially responded to from IRCC Islamabad and this new program, which in turn seemed to have led to much confusion in Mr. X's family. They thought they were already engaged in one valid application stream for assistance in evacuating to Canada, and they made assumptions that their application was still in process. My office certainly didn't hear otherwise for some time.

The lack of resources for Afghan evacuation and direction in IRCC at the time of the initial application to the temporary public policy measure, coupled with the fact that the government was in caretaker mode during a federal election, is a matter of public record.

After some time of trying to ascertain the status of Mr. X's original application, an IRCC official gave advice on January 18, 2022, months later, for the family to apply again, this time to the special immigration measures program for Afghans, and with a service provision relationship with Canada. They did so on February 5, 2022.

Several months later, on May 27, 2022, they received a decision on this application. They were informed by IRCC that while Mr. X and his family may have been eligible for the special program, IRCC was not moving forward with their application, citing program space constraints.

I have to wonder if they had known that these documents were inauthentic, and if they could have actually made it into the country under this program.

(1825)

Additionally, during these interactions with GAC and IRCC, my office was never able to substantiate the official status of the so-called letters of facilitation and instructions Mr. X's family had received on August 26, 2021, from Senator McPhedran and her office. My office had begun this process by trying to understand why some of Mr. X's family had been granted documentation, but not others.

Again, when my constituent began corresponding with my office, they were operating under the assumption that they were in possession of some sort of official documentation issued in the haste and chaos of the Government of Canada's efforts to evacuate certain persons during the fall of the country.

Many of the traditional abilities that my office would normally use to verify information in casework weren't readily available in this instance, given the opacity of government processes for evacuating Afghanistan and the fact that Canada was in the middle of a federal election and the government was in caretaker mode.

My office became aware only in October 2021, after the federal election had concluded, that Mr. X's family had obtained this documentation directly from the senator and her office as opposed to direct correspondence with GAC or IRCC officials. This caused a significant amount of confusion for my office as, after initial discussions with my constituent, our correspondence with GAC and IRCC was to try to understand why only a few of Mr. X's family had been issued documentation to travel, as opposed to all of them.

Since discovering that Mr. X's family had received these letters from the senator and her office, we went back and forth with GAC and IRCC, trying to ascertain their official status.

After speaking to multiple officials with IRCC and GAC for months, no officials confirmed to my office that the documents and instructions sent to Mr. X by Senator McPhedran and her office were actually issued by any official in any department of the Government of Canada.

After Mr. X's reapplication to the special settlement program was formally declined, citing space constraints, in May 2022, I spoke directly with Senator McPhedran in early June 2022. This was the first and only time I have communicated with the senator regarding this matter.

During this call, she verbally confirmed that she had indeed corresponded with Mr. X. I did not ask her where she had obtained the documents that she and her office sent to Mr. X during this call, because my office had not received a definitive answer from IRCC or GAC on the status of the documents. Typically, we get clear answers on these situations. We assume the delay in getting confirmation was that it had been unclear to my office what processes and documentation the Canadian government was consistently using, if any, to facilitate departures during the chaos of the evacuation that occurred in August 2021.

I had reached out to see if there was something I had missed in the file and to reaffirm the validity of my constituent's claim. Never once did I think that a sitting parliamentarian would have issued inauthentic documentation.

I had no reason for concern until, subsequent to my call with Senator McPhedran, I was made aware of an article published in the Edmonton Journal, asserting that an unnamed Canadian senator had been directly issuing documentation to Afghan nationals from their office, and that formal diligence may not have been undertaken to ascertain the veracity of claims of some persons for whom these letters had been issued.

As such, my office redoubled efforts to press IRCC and GAC to determine the actual origins of documents sent to my constituent's family, as they expressed they had material influence on Mr. X's family's efforts to leave Afghanistan. When I received no response and had no further recourse, I wrote a letter outlining the situation to Minister Fraser. I received a response from Minister Fraser to my letter of July 7 on July 27, which outlined that he had undertaken an investigation, that the documents were deemed to be inauthentic and he had referred the matter to authorities.

Subsequent to this response, in September 2022, The Globe and Mail published an article entitled “Canadian senator sent documents to Afghan family that weren’t authentic, Ottawa says”, which outlined allegations that Senator Marilou McPhedran had issued inauthentic travel documents to Afghan nationals.

Last week, on Thursday, February 2, Senator McPhedran rose in the Senate and delivered a speech. She alleged that, while she did in fact issue what she referred to as visa facilitation letters to certain Afghan nationals, she did so in coordination with the former minister for women and gender equality, Maryam Monsef, a consultant and “a small circle of high officials”, including unnamed persons in other nations.

(1830)

In this speech, Senator McPhedran also alleged that hundreds of potentially inauthentic letters may have been issued that had allegedly been provided by template documentation that bore the appearance of official Canadian documentation by George Young, then chief of staff to the then minister of Defence, Harjit Sajjan. Senator McPhedran made these allegations under the cone of parliamentary privilege afforded to her in the Senate, and none of these allegations have yet been proven.

A subsequent article was published on February 3, 2023, by the Toronto Star, entitled “A Canadian senator helped save Afghan women. The immigration department called police on her”. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada stated, “In order to facilitate the evacuation of vulnerable Afghans, the Government of Canada sent letters directly to Afghan nationals who were eligible to come to Canada in order to help them clear checkpoints on the way to and at the airport in Kabul. IRCC did not authorize any third party to issue these facilitation letters on [their] behalf.”

Therefore, we have a problem, colleagues. The public assertion by IRCC that it did not authorize anyone, including persons named above, to issue travel documentation for Afghan nationals raises numerous questions that our committee should be considering. This situation is extremely concerning and involves very serious allegations.

It raises questions about whether, among unknown others, a Canadian parliamentarian, a consultant she retained using tax dollars, a sitting cabinet minister and the chief of staff to the Minister of Defence purposely issued inauthentic documents to Afghan nationals, which may have resulted in their evacuation or, in other cases, consequences resulting from being led to think that they were in the possession of official documents, when, in fact, they were not, as was the case with my constituents.

It raises questions about who within the government knew about this issue, when, and what, if any, remedy has been taken yet.

It also raises questions about why a workaround, inauthentic process may have been used by senior persons in the government to evacuate Afghan nationals, as opposed to official processes.

It also raises questions why this process wasn't made public or wasn't made available to more parliamentarians.

It also raises questions about the integrity of the government selection process for Afghans with connections to Canada and the impact the issuance of inauthentic documents would have had on an untold number of Afghans who wished to come to Canada, should have come to Canada, but were not able to.

It raises questions about queue jumping, identity verification and, most importantly, the equity of our immigration selection process.

The 2021 fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban created a dire humanitarian crisis that precipitated an immediate response, even though the government had called a general election. I myself had the experience of watching my Afghan veteran husband see this news and knowing we were in a position where we could respond.

Every member of our committee has members of their community who are affected by this crisis. Many members work to address devastating cases of family members who were left behind and still lived in hiding under constant threat from the Taliban while struggling with a government in an election-necessitated caretaker mode.

We all desperately want these persons to be afforded a safe haven in Canada, but none of us issued fake visas. Parliamentary figures, be they members of Parliament or senators, are not legally allowed to independently make these decisions. They are not part of the executive branch of government unless they hold an active appointment to the same. Similarly, ministers or their staff do not all hold the same powers and authorities. As such, these persons do not necessarily have the automatic power or authority by virtue of their own legislative office to do things like issue visas or bind the government to action on their behalf. This is true no matter how well intentioned the person is, as I'm sure Senator McPhedran was, or how dire the circumstances are.

Doing otherwise could have massive negative implications, including circumventing the necessary non-political, arm's-length nature of things like Canada's immigration systems, which keep our processes safe for everyone, impartial and fair. These things can and should only be done by appropriately empowered officials, by the executive branch of the Canadian government or by officially legislated and regulated processes.

This doesn't mean the government shouldn't be held to account when the system fails. In fact, the role of parliamentarians in these situations is to inquire about processes and to hold the government to account to ensure processes are properly functioning, especially during times of crisis. This is what Senator McPhedran and then cabinet minister Maryam Monsef should have used their powers to do. If these processes aren't working, it's Parliament's role to further hold the government to account and press for change.

It's not our role to do things we are not duly authorized to do. It's not our role to use back channels through the government to do things like this. In fact, the government has a responsibility to prevent such back channels from existing. This brings me to the substance of the motion, and I will close.

(1835)

Given the potential significant consequences and implications of allegations outlined within Senator McPhedran's speech and in multiple media articles, I believe it is of urgent importance to explore the extent and veracity of these claims and to ensure that the appropriate remedy, if necessary, is taken by the government.

My constituent, I found out today coincidentally, had a happy outcome. The American government helped him. Even though he had more of a connection to Canada, he is now in the United States. I wish I could have helped him. I wish I could have written a letter off the corner of my desk instead of spending a year spinning my wheels with government officials who weren't telling me what was going on while my constituent was under attack from the Taliban. That's what we're dealing with here. This isn't a joke.

Why are summonses necessary? There are summonses in this motion. This government has taken Parliament to court over a parliamentary order to issue documents. I have little faith that these types of officials will appear before this committee on a matter of this seriousness without a summons. That is why I included Department of Defence officials on a summons, because they cancelled a meeting that was supposed to happen in front of this committee on Monday after this story broke. Why all of these officials? These are the officials that Senator McPhedran has levelled allegations against in the Senate, and I would like to give them an opportunity to either clear their name or explain why they chose to engage in a workaround inauthentic process, instead of pressing for change as the position that they hold affords them.

The bottom line here is we can change the system. That is what each of us can do. I know each of us tried to bring people into the country by trying to change the system. I know that even Liberal colleagues were likely pressing the government in the middle of an election to do better. I know that. This is not a partisan issue. I know that everybody was well intentioned here, but at the end of the day, the rules were broken and it hurt people. It hurt a lot of people, and it affected the integrity of our immigration process.

I think we need to bring more people here. I think the government shouldn't have gone to an election without a plan to deal with this.

We need to examine what happened here as Parliament. This is why this committee exists. We need to know how the system failed, why this was allowed to happen and what happened, so that we can recommend recourse to the government and so that the government can effect change.

For the sake of any outstanding casework that you have with Afghan nationals, for the sake of Afghan nationals who have not received a response from IRCC, we need to understand why the best bet for somebody to get into Canada was to have a parliamentarian, a senator, issue a fake visa to them off the corner of their desk.

Thank you.

(1840)

The Chair:

Thank you.

Ms. Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Orléans, Lib.):

Thank you, Madam Chair.

With all due respect for my opposition colleague, I am extremely disappointed and saddened. We worked very hard to have the minister and four senior officials from the department to be here today, and I know that several of you had prepared questions. That's what we had agreed on.

Yet again, things got derailed on an important topic. It is indeed important to continue to discuss things and that's exactly what we had intended to do today.

[English]

Madam Chair, I would ask to adjourn this debate.

[Translation]

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair:

Ms. Lalonde has requested to adjourn the debate. It's a non-debatable motion. We will have a vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

The Chair: The debate is adjourned.

Ms. Kwan.

Thank you.

I know we're out of time, because I'm told we lose this room at 6:38. However, that said, I note that I and my colleague Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe lost our opportunity for a second round of questions to the officials. I would like to submit written questions, through you, Madam Chair, to the officials, so those questions can be answered.

The Chair:

Would the officials be okay to do this?

The Chair (Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey—Newton, Lib.)):

Yes, Madam Chair.

The Chair:

Thank you.

I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of all the members, to thank the officials for appearing before the committee.

Thank you for all the work you do on behalf of Canadians. I know it's not an easy file.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.

Annex E: Off-the-shelf summary and speech from Minister Joly’s Appearance before AFGH on Monday, May 2^nd, 2022

Special Committee on Afghanistan (AFGH)

Monday, May 2, 2022

6:32-8:32pm

Report Prepared By

Josie Arruejo, Eileen Young, Cabinet and Parliamentary Affairs Division, Global Affairs Canada  

Topic of Meeting

Situation in Afghanistan

Witnesses

18:30-19:30

Mélanie Joly, P.C., M.P., Minister of Foreign Affairs

18:30-20:30

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Cindy Termorshuizen, Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
Heidi Hulan, Assistant Deputy Minister and Political Director, International Security and Political Affairs
Peter MacDougall, Assistant Deputy Minister, Global Issues and Development
Paul Thoppil, Assistant Deputy Minister, Asia Pacific
Julie Sunday, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Consular, Security and Emergency Management

Meeting Summary

The committee met to hear from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mélanie Joly. This was Minister Joly’s first appearance before the committee.

In summary, members of the committee focused their questions on Canada’s humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, Canada’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, ongoing immigration/refugee issues in the context of Afghanistan, and the operational difficulties non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are facing in Afghanistan due to the status of the Taliban under Canada’s Criminal Code.

First Panel

CPC questioning focused on multiple topics, including Canada’s evacuation efforts in August 2021 and their timing, and issues locally engaged staff (LES) have been facing regarding their 2021 taxes. Notably, MP Chong began his time by inquiring about a follow-up from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs (FAAE), and when the Indo-Pacific Strategy would be made public.

LPC members asked the minister about the rights of women and girls, the ongoing food insecurity in Afghanistan, and coordination between like-minded countries in the context of Afghanistan.

Both the NDP and BQ members raised the issue of NGOs in Afghanistan and the difficulty they are facing providing services in Afghanistan due to the status of the Taliban under the Criminal Code. Specifically,

MP Brunelle-Duceppe (BQ), referred to UN Resolution 2615 (2021), Enabling Provision of Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan as Country Faces Economic Crisis, asking if Canada is upholding this resolution. Both

MP Brunelle-Duceppe (BQ) and MP Kwan (NDP) asked if the minister or the minister’s office have asked for, or been offered, legal advice from Justice Canada regarding the possibility of amending the Criminal Code to ensure Canadian aid work is not in violation of Canada’s anti-terrorist laws.

MP Kwan (NDP) focused her other questions on immigration-related issues, asking if the minister or her office been offered assistance on biometrics by like-minded countries and, if so, why has Canada not accepted these offers. MP Kwan also asked about the special immigration measures, and if the minister’s office keeps track of the cases being processed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Finally, MP Kwan asked what work has been done with Pakistan to ensure Pakistan will accept/recognise documentation so those authorized can leave Afghanistan via Pakistan.

Second Panel

MP Genuis (CPC) focused his questioning on the Criminal Code provisions. Regarding the legal constraints of the Criminal Code, MP Genuis asked officials what options exist to remove barriers for Canadian organizations providing aid to Afghanistan. He also inquired about the clarity of the Criminal Code and support available for organizations to better understand its requirements.

MP Baker (LPC) focused his questioning on global food insecurity, asking about the impacts of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on the food supply of countries around the globe, specifically Afghanistan, and what measures are available to address a potential global food shortage.

MP Brunelle-Duceppe (BQ) began by drawing attention to the recent Islamic state attacks on minority groups and asked officials whether Canada would recognize the Hazaras as a persecuted group. His remaining questions focused primarily on immigration-related issues. He also referred to the Syrian crisis in 2015, noting that biometrics were completed upon arrival on Canadian soil by CBSA officers and asked officials to elaborate on the distinction between the Syrian crisis and that of Afghanistan in 2021 and Ukraine in 2022. He also focused on what Canada is doing from a feminist lens to address the rights of women and girls. Finally, he asked officials whether an emergency mechanism could be put in place to be leveraged by GAC and IRCC in times of crises, similar to the Emergency Measures Act applied for international conflicts.

MP Kwan (NDP) began with a focus on bilateral and multilateral engagements with Pakistan and other allied countries. She sought clarity on Pakistan’s refusal to recognize Canada’s documents such as the single journey travel documents or the letter of acceptance from IRCC including a G-number. She also inquired about discussions with Pakistan and other allied countries on the provision of assistance to Canada regarding the collection of biometrics or the operation of mobile offices. Again, on the same topic, she asked if the government had considered utilizing ex-military to collect biometrics. She concluded on the topic of referrals, and whether GAC continues to accept referrals for the Special Immigration Measures and would officials support IRCC expanding the referral groups to include Amnesty International.

MP Ruff (CPC) invited officials to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of interdepartmental coordination and communication that occurred during the evacuation. He then noted that a lead minister was not assigned for the evacuation, asking officials which department ought to have led. He then inquired whether the department had completed a lessons learned exercise, whether results would be made public and, if so, when.

MP Sidhu (LPC) focused on Canada’s multilateral work with Pakistan and other bordering countries to ensure Afghans can leave.

MP Chong (CPC) referred to the impact of economic sanctions, particularly the fertilizer tariffs that are

affecting Canadian farmers. He asked officials if there are plans to waive the tariffs on fertilizer purchased before March 2022 and what is being done to ensure that there is a replacement for synthetic fertilizer from sources other than Russia. His remaining questions focused on immigration-related issues, asking officials to provide details on the referral process for the Special Immigration Measures Program, the criteria for the referral and how the applications are assessed.

MP Sidhu (LPC) spoke about the unintended consequences of ongoing sanctions imposed in Afghanistan on the Taliban, the challenges with getting funds to Afghan beneficiaries as part of Canada’ humanitarian efforts, and the current status of women in Afghanistan.

Follow-up items

MP Chong inquired about the status of a follow-up from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (FAAE) regarding the consular case of Huseyincan Celil.
MP Kwan requested the department table documentation regarding special immigration measures, specifically:
- How many GAC referred individuals were submitted to IRCC?
- How many were issued a G-number?
- How many arrived in Canada?
- How many of those referred to IRCC do not have a G-number?
- When was the first and last referral made to IRCC from GAC
- Have Afghan women athletes applied to GAC for referrals and have any of these athletes been referred to IRCC?
- MP Brunelle-Duceppe requested a follow-up response on Canada’s recognition of the Hazaras as a persecuted group.
- MP Kwan requested the department table documentation regarding the last discussion held with Pakistan regarding Afghanistan and to provide a progress update on when the next discussion is expected to occur.

Recognized Members/ Membres reconnus

Organization	Member
LPC	Sukh Dhaliwal (Chair) Pam Damoff   Faycal El-Khoury Maninder Sidhu Salma Zahid
CPC	Jasraj Singh Hallan Erin O’Toole Kerry-Lynne Findlay
BQ	Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Vice-Chair)
NDP	Jenny Kwan (Vice-Chair)

Annex F: Transcript from Minister Joly’s Appearance before AFGH on Monday, May 2^nd, 2022

Number 011

1^st session

44^th parliament

EVIDENCE

MONDAY, MAY 2, 2022

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

(1835)

[English]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 11 of the House of Commons Special Committee on Afghanistan, created pursuant to the order of the House of December 8, 2021.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. I would like to remind those present in the room to please follow the recommendations from public health authorities, as well as the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on October 19, 2021, in order to remain healthy and safe.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me. We may need to suspend the meeting for a few minutes, in order to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.

I will briefly go over committee business before we go to the minister. For the meeting on May 9, the Minister of National Defence is scheduled. For the meeting on May 16, we will begin in camera for drafting instructions. The analysts will be providing a detailed outline for consideration prior to the meeting. Nothing is in stone until the committee considers and adopts the report, but, given our limited time on May 16, it is my hope that the document can help focus our discussions. Following the drafting instructions, we will resume in public on May 16 for two panels of witnesses of 45 minutes each. Then, on May 30 and June 6, we will consider the draft report. That will enable us to complete our work in time for presentation in the House on June 8.

If there are no questions from the members, I will proceed to the witnesses.

I would like to welcome, on behalf of all committee members, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Mélanie Joly. Accompanying the minister are associate deputy minister of Foreign Affairs, Cindy Termorshuizen; acting assistant deputy minister, consular, security and emergency management, Julie Sunday; and assistant deputy minister, Asia, Paul Thoppil. Joining us online are assistant deputy minister, international security and political director, Heidi Hulan; and assistant deputy minister, global issues and development, Peter MacDougall.

I understand, Minister, that you will be joining us for the first hour and that your officials will be with us for the second hour. Is that correct?

Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Foreign Affairs):

Sukh, you're always right.

The Chair:

Thank you, Minister.

I would like to thank the minister and her associates, and to give the floor to the minister for five minutes for opening remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Good evening, respected colleagues.

I am pleased to be joining you today.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to speak to the terrible situation in Afghanistan.

The Afghan people have endured decades of conflicts and instability, and it would be hard to overstate the difficulties they have been dealing with since the Taliban took power.

Although I was not the Minister of Foreign Affairs when Kabul fell, I can tell you that my predecessor and all members of government, including our public servants at Global Affairs Canada, invested tremendous efforts in an extremely difficult situation to evacuate Canadian citizens, permanent residents and their families, as well as Afghans.

Those efforts continue to this day. My colleague Minister Sean Fraser talked to you about this in detail when he appeared last week. By the way, I would like to commend him on his hard work in this very important file.

[English]

I will start with the evacuation. The period leading up to the fall of Kabul last summer was a time of growing insecurity and uncertainty. By mid-July, a full month before the evacuation, all remaining allied military and intelligence assets in Afghanistan were confined to Kabul. Canada's embassy staff were also preparing for the prospect of a temporary closure of our mission in Kabul, as the Taliban moved towards the capital.

I want to underline the complexity and challenges of this task and the work that our foreign service, immigration and Canadian Armed Forces personnel undertook to make it possible. In July and into August, Canada implemented an immigration program for Afghans who were most at risk and undertook a large-scale evacuation.

We want to thank Afghanistan's neighbouring countries, such as Pakistan, Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar, for their support in welcoming the refugees. We remain in close contact with allies and partners in the region to help get as many people out as possible.

(1840)

[Translation]

While recognizing the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, our government committed to resettle at least 40,000 Afghan refugees through special immigration measures. Interest in those programs has been unprecedented. So far, we have welcomed over 12,000 Afghan refugees, and more flights are arriving every week.

You have heard from witnesses who appeared before your committee that it is not easy to get people out of Afghanistan. Among the most difficult obstacles to overcome are the inability to find safe, secure and reliable ways to leave the country, the lack of stability in the country and exit requirements that are constantly changing at checkpoints and international crossings. We are working with local partners and neighbouring countries to overcome those obstacles and find solutions for Afghans who want to come to Canada.

[English]

Before the fall of Kabul, Afghanistan's humanitarian situation was among the world's worst. The Taliban takeover has only worsened the situation. It threatens to wipe away decades of progress. Afghanistan is today on the brink of universal poverty. We are particularly concerned about the growing food insecurity throughout the country and the backsliding of women's and girls' rights. My colleague, Minister Sajjan, is working hard to ensure that Canada is supporting humanitarian partners who are providing life-saving assistance in Afghanistan.

So far this year, Canada has committed more than $143 million in humanitarian assistance to help people in Afghanistan and Afghans in neighbouring countries. We'll continue to call on the Taliban to ensure that aid workers, including women, have unimpeded access to those in need.

I now want to speak to an issue that is very close to my heart.

While we continue to press the Taliban to respect international humanitarian law and human rights, particularly the rights of women and targeted communities, we have seen a significant step backwards in recent months. The situation that Afghans are facing, and particularly these vulnerable groups, is absolutely terrible. We're deeply concerned by the growing reports of violence and human rights abuses. Civilians, journalists, human rights defenders, government employees and former members of the Afghanistan National Defense and Security Forces are also being targeted.

We continue to call on the Taliban to honour its promise of amnesty. I cannot overstate our condemnation of the Taliban's decision to reverse their commitment on allowing all girls to return to school at the secondary level. Because of their actions, prospects for a better life are being denied to girls. Access to education is a human right to which every woman and every girl is entitled. Canada has been an advocate for a coordinated effort by the international community to pressure the Taliban to uphold human rights.

We're also exploring how to concretely continue our support to Afghan women and Afghan human rights defenders.

I've talked to David Sproule, our special envoy to Afghanistan. I've raised this matter with my counterparts across the globe, including Tony Blinken of the United States, many times, but also to the European Union, Germany, the Netherlands, Indonesia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, Pakistan, Norway, Finland and Sweden. My deputy minister has also travelled to Pakistan, Qatar and Kuwait.

Obviously we've raised this, as a country, at the UN. In this area, Canada welcomes the strong human rights mandate of the UN mission to Afghanistan, following the Security Council's renewal of the mission on March 17. We also welcomed the appointment of Richard Bennett as the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Afghanistan.

The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan has had profound implications for regional stability and for global security. The Taliban is a listed—

The Chair:

Could you please wrap up? Thank you.

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC):

Yes, of course.

We know that the Taliban is a listed terrorist entity under Canadian law. Because of this, coupled with a security situation on the ground that is difficult, we have no longer a footprint in Afghanistan. I know that you will have questions for me on this very issue, and of course, I'm pleased to answer them.

Thank you so much.

The Chair:

Thank you, Minister.

Now we will proceed to the honourable members for the first round. Starting the round is Honourable Chong. Please go ahead for six minutes.

(1845)

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for appearing.

I have a quick request, a quick question and then some more substantive questions. Officials from your department said they would provide us with a written answer about when Canadian officials last made representations to the Chinese officials about Huseyin Cilil. We did receive a written answer, but it wasn't an answer to the question. I'm wondering if the officials wouldn't mind following up with a written answer to us on this issue, because it's important for constituents.

It's not linked to the committee, but yes, of course we'll provide that information.

I just wanted to follow up for the foreign affairs committee.

I know this is tangentially related, but do you have an update as to when the Indo-Pacific strategy will be completed?

Are you acting as a member of the foreign affairs committee right now or the committee on Afghanistan?

Afghanistan is arguably—

But it's okay, Michael. I'll answer the question.

Yes, we're working on the Indo-Pacific strategy. Paul is working day and night on this—but you have to work more, Paul.

Yes, we will obviously present an Indo-Pacific strategy. That's one of the reasons we, together with others, went to the Indo-Pacific. I was in Indonesia and Vietnam.

Do you have any sense of timing? Is it weeks, months, six months from now?

I'm an impatient person in general.

Okay. Thank you, Minister.

I have a question regarding the National Resistance Front. Have you met recently with representatives from the front? What, if anything, is the Government of Canada doing to provide moral or material support to them? Have there been discussions with allies regarding the National Resistance Front in Afghanistan?

I know my department has been in contact with the National Resistance Front. I have not met with them personally, but we know they do important work.

At the same time, David Sproule has been also very much apprised of the issue. He is our special envoy to Afghanistan. That's good news, because he had an interim posting, and we recently announced that he would be permanent in his position, because obviously we're very concerned about what's going on in Afghanistan. He's still based out of Doha, but we want to make sure he continues to do his work.

The government is broadly supportive of this organization. Is that a safe...?

We are in contact with them.

Okay, so the government's in contact with them, but doesn't have a formal position—

Not yet....

—on them.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that answer.

I'd like to raise an issue that was brought to the attention of this committee recently. There are about 40 signatories to a submission that we received. These were locally engaged staff on the ground in Afghanistan. They were given severance payments and pensions for the work they had done for Canada, but when they filed their 2021 taxes, they were hit with taxes as if they were Canadian residents.

It seems to me there's a question of fairness here, because the work they had done was in Kabul and in Afghanistan and not here in Canada, and the work was done before they were permanent residents of Canada, and residents of Canada for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. While the Canada Revenue Agency may be following the letter of the law, it doesn't seem to be consistent with the spirit of our commitment to Afghans who had a significant and enduring connection to Canada.

I'm wondering if you are working with your colleagues to seek a resolution to this matter.

I was made aware of this situation recently, and yes, we are looking into it, because obviously we want to make sure there's a level of fairness that is being met when dealing with this issue. I also will follow up with my deputy minister on this issue.

Okay.

This is more of an open-ended question. This is your last appearance in front of our committee before we go into drafting instructions to report back to the House as they have ordered us. We would like to include recommendations in that report to assist future governments in the execution of their role.

What advice could you give to this committee about what we could have done better in evacuating Afghans from Afghanistan last August, particularly Afghans who have an enduring and significant connection to Canada? It seems to me that some of our allies did a better job than we did. We evacuated some 3,500 Afghans by the end of the August. If I look at the United Kingdom, they evacuated 11,000 people. NATO allies, particularly the U.S., evacuated over 70,000 people.

What lessons can we learn from this that we could include in our recommendations to assist future governments?

(1850)

Your question is definitely valuable, Michael, because the goal of this committee is to do better in a difficult situation, to be able to provide recommendations and to always do better in difficult situations.

I would say not only Canada, but also the world and, particularly, NATO allies, took note of what happened in Afghanistan when dealing with other issues, including Ukraine.

That being said, you have to compare oranges with oranges. As you well know, Canada left Afghanistan in 2014. We didn't have a very strong military presence on the ground, which was obviously different from the Americans and other NATO countries. That limited our capacity to get people out. That being said, we were able to work with some of these like-minded countries to get people out, while our presence was already limited.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20. At the time—and I was not minister—

The Chair:

I'm sorry to interrupt, Minister.

Ms. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.):

I can continue to answer.

The Chair:

It's a big stop at seven minutes.

Now we'll proceed to Madam Damoff for six minutes. Please, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, thank you so much for being here today. You touched on this briefly in your remarks, but I wondered if you could just expand a bit.

One of the things that has troubled me deeply, which Canadians are not talking about, is what's happening to women and girls in Afghanistan. I don't know that Canadians are even aware of what's happening to girls. Schools are being closed. Women can't travel without a male escort. Secondary schools were closed. I'm not sure if they've reopened or not, but the curriculum has been changed to put a focus on religion, rather than academics.

What is Canada doing to speak out about this, Minister? Will these actions of the Taliban make it more challenging not only for Canada, but for other countries to engage with them?

Thank you Pam. That's a really good question.

Obviously, one thing that Canada from can be proud of is the fact that for two decades, and with successive governments, we were able to help educate women and girls in Afghanistan. This was a priority. The backsliding of women's and girls' rights is extremely preoccupying. When I say “extremely preoccupying”, it's that we're indeed seeing that they don't have access to secondary-level school.

Pam, you also mentioned the question of free movement. They are extremely limited in their movements. They are also being restricted in terms of their dress and the type of clothing they can wear. We know that they cannot have access—I mentioned free movement—without a male escort. These are just examples.

It was part of the amnesty negotiation conditions at the time, whereby women's and girls' rights needed to be respected. Ethnic communities needed to be respected. Overall human rights needed to be respected, which included the fact that public protests could be respected. Now we're seeing people being arrested and detained. Also, it was clear in the amnesty negotiation that there would be no retaliation against the people who were part of the former regime, but we've seen that more than 500 have been killed since the beginning in August.

Clearly, the situation is Afghanistan is even worse now than it was in August. Obviously, one of the biggest tragedies is what is going on with women and girls, but the overall human rights issue is a problem.

Now, what are we doing? We are raising it directly. Every time David Sproule, our special envoy, meets with the Taliban along with other ambassadors and special envoys, they raise it. We've obviously raised it at the UN and with many multilateral organizations. I've raised it bilaterally with many other countries, particularly the EU.

(1855)

Ms. Pam Damoff:

Minister, can I ask about that? You've raised it numerous times. I know that, like myself, you're very passionate about this issue.

Could you raise it more here at home? I think if Canadians actually knew what was going on, they would be as outraged as we are. I think they're just not aware of how far things have gone backwards since August.

I will do that, Pam. Thank you for asking the question.

I hope the journalists watching us right now will actually raise it as well.

Ms. Pam Damoff:

I agree. Thank you.

You mentioned David Sproule. I wonder if you could expand on his role and on what he is doing on the ground for Canada and with our partners.

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ):

David is actually representing Canada, but he is based out of Doha. Many of the special representatives are based in Qatar right now because no country in the world has recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government.

Many of our like-minded partners are there. Along with countries such as Australia, Norway, the U.K., and even the U.S., our special envoys have been meeting in groups with the foreign minister from Afghanistan when he comes to Qatar. It is our way to engage without recognizing the legitimacy of the Taliban government. For us, recognizing the Taliban regime is a red line that we don't want to cross.

Ms. Pam Damoff:

I have four seconds left, so I'll just leave it there.

Thank you so much, Minister.

The Chair:

Thank you, Madam Damoff.

We will move to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for six minutes.

Please, go ahead.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you very much for joining us today and for giving us some of your precious time for this very important study. We are extremely appreciative.

You said earlier that the Taliban is a listed terrorist entity and that, for this reason, Canadian non-government organizations, or NGOs, were struggling to do their work on the ground in Afghanistan.

According to the United Nations, or UN, Security Council resolution 2615, humanitarian assistance and other activities for meeting the essential needs of people in Afghanistan are not a violation of the sanctions regime targeting the Taliban and intended to freeze their assets.

Is Canada implementing UN's resolution 2615 in the Canadian context?

There is definitely an issue with the way the Criminal Code is being interpreted, as that limits the humanitarian assistance Canada can provide in Afghanistan. Of course, everything was developed when the events of September 11 took place, when the reality was completely different.

We are now in a situation where any form of indirect assistance, including the payment of humanitarian organizations' taxes, for instance, would be a violation of the Criminal Code. So I am very interested in finding out what solutions the committee will come up with and what recommendations will be made.

(1900)

Why is Canada one of the only countries that has not quickly changed its approach when it knows what is happening, it is familiar with the Canadian Criminal Code and the situation of NGOs, and considering that those organizations have been asking for this for a long time?

I even moved a motion for unanimous consent in the House of Commons. Your party is the only one that voted against the motion, Minister. It is difficult for us to understand this decision because NGOs are asking us for this. They were actually very disappointed by the Liberal vote.

We would like to know when your government will do something about this issue with the Criminal Code. Right now, we are not seeing or hearing anything, and nothing is happening.

That is why the work of parliamentarians here is so important. So thank you for raising the issue. I think that any kind of recommendation from the committee on this matter will be relevant because Canada must play a humanitarian role.

Why does the government need to wait for a committee to make a recommendation when it knows about the problem?

You yourself brought it up. So why are you waiting for a recommendation from the committee? Everyone agrees that this makes no sense.

We will be happy to work with other parties on the matter, and I am open to solutions.

I am very happy to hear you say that. I am also happy that journalists are listening, as you said, because your party voted against the motion that was proposed.

I will share with you an email from an NGO that would prefer to remain anonymous, understandably. I received this email yesterday, and it made me a little sad. This may put a bit more pressure on the government.

The email's authors say that failing to implement resolution 2615 in the Canadian context considerably limits the work they can do because they cannot invest any government money in Afghanistan if they do not get an extension of the contractual agreement they previously had. Had the government implemented that resolution or done anything at all to read down section 80.03 of the Criminal Code, it would have been able to provide them with funding to do their work in Afghanistan.

The email continues in the same vein for several paragraphs. People from the NGO are distressed. You have said how much Afghans were suffering. Afghans are suffering because the government is unable to modernize the Criminal Code to reflect the current situation.

There are various aspects to your comment.

First, we have provided assistance to the NGOs working in Afghanistan. I already said that $145 million was provided.

Second, we are ready to receive from the committee any recommendations and solutions it wants to propose. However, a line must not be crossed, which is essentially the recognition of the Taliban's legitimacy as a government.

I don't think NGOs are complaining for no reason.

I think we can talk and find solutions. It would be my pleasure to work with you, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, and with the Bloc Québécois, of course.

It would be my pleasure. You know how quickly I answer my telephone when you call me.

Mr. Thoppil, you were at the meeting of April 4, 2022, and I asked you a question you did not answer. When I looked over the list of guests for this evening, I was very happy to see that I would have an opportunity to put the question to you again.

I asked you whether your department had provided a legal opinion on amending the Criminal Code, as requested by NGOs.

This is very simple. If a legal opinion was provided, you can answer me with a yes, and if no legal opinion was provided, you can answer me with a no.

I yield the floor to you, Mr. Thoppil.

It will be my pleasure to answer for my colleague.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, if you have recommendations on the issue, it will be my pleasure to continue the discussion with you and take note of the Bloc Québécois' position.

If the Bloc Québécois essentially says it is prepared to amend the Criminal Code so that the Taliban regime would not be recognized and if it finds a mechanism to do so, I am ready to discuss it with you.

I have understood.

The question was about whether a legal opinion was provided by the department.

Generally speaking, I can tell you that we respect our legal opinions. However, as this is related to security issues for the cabinet, my colleague cannot answer this question specifically.

How is national security affected by whether or not a legal opinion has been provided?

Ultimately, the most important thing to know right now is whether we can help Canada change things on the ground in Afghanistan.

Has a legal opinion been provided or not?

Any opinion sent to the minister is necessarily secret, as my colleague knows very well.

I hope the journalists are listening to this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

[English]

The Chair:

Thank you very much, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Now we'll go to Madam Kwan for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

(1905)

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister and her officials for coming to our committee.

Has your office received any legal briefings from Justice on how Canada can ensure those doing humanitarian aid work are not going to be deemed to be in violation of Canada's anti-terrorism law?

You're essentially asking questions similar to what Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe asked me in French, Jenny.

My answer would be similar to what I said in French, which is that if it's the position of the NDP, in the context of this committee, regarding the fact that there should be an amendment to the Criminal Code, which doesn't have an impact on—

Thank you, Madam Minister—

I'm sorry. I just want to finish my answer—

I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt.

Mr. Chair, I'm just going to interrupt for a minute. I don't need to get the answer in English, because I heard it through translation, Mr. Chair.

No, Mr. Chair. I will finish my answer.

The Chair:

Could I take a moment, please?

It is my time, so I would like to actually ask questions—

I will just finish my answer—

The Chair: Please—

Hon. Mélanie Joly: Yes, please go ahead, Mr. Chair.

The Chair:

I'm sorry. From now on, I would ask all honourable members to go through the chair so that I can control this better. I would love to give time for the minister to respond. If a member has to interrupt, then they should come through the chair and let me be respectful of the time.

Please go ahead, Madam Kwan.

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to get clarification with you, then. I asked the minister a question which was basically a yes-or-no answer. I don't need the minister to tell me in English what she said in French, because we have fantastic interpreters who are doing that job. I am wearing my headpiece and I can understand the answer.

I'm actually seeking an answer, not a repeat of the answer. If I could direct the minister to answer the question, Mr. Chair—

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.):

I have a point of order, Chair.

The Chair:

Go ahead, please.

Chair, I think the issue here is just that the member asked a similar question and the minister was giving a similar response. I think that if the member didn't want a similar answer she shouldn't have asked a similar question. I also think it's important to be cordial. Literally three seconds into the minister's response, the minister was interrupted. I just don't think that's respectful.

Chair, I just think that the minister should be given at least a few moments to respond to the question, basically, before the member jumps in, whether it's through you or otherwise.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, that really wasn't a point of order, though.

I would appreciate actually an answer. It was a different question.

The Chair:

Madam Kwan, let's stop it here.

Madam Kwan, if you could give me a few seconds now, as you know, I have always been respectful. I've never intervened when you've had direct conversation, but for the sake of argument, let's talk through the chair, and then I will make a decision.

Even if the minister takes a few seconds longer, I will make sure, Madam Kwan, that your time has been compensated. I have stopped the watch, okay?

Okay.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the minister as well for understanding.

Madam Kwan, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just looking for a yes-or-no answer from the minister, but not an explanation and a repeat of what she already said.

The Chair:

Thank you.

Minister, do you want to respond?

My answer is, if it's the NDP position that the Taliban regime should not be recognized in the Criminal Code, or if it's the position of the NDP that the Taliban regime should be recognized by the...mentioned in the Criminal Code, but at the same time that there's a mechanism for humanitarian aid, I would love to know it, so I'm looking forward to working with her.

Thank you.

The Chair:

Thank you, Minister.

Go ahead, Madame Kwan.

I would urge the minister to read Hansard, then, because I'm on record with respect to what my suggestion is in dealing with this issue.

Can the minister advise if she or her office have been offered any assistance by allied countries with biometric collection?

Thank you, Jenny. That's a really good question, because I've reached out to many countries to find ways to be able to have safe passage in Afghanistan, including the EU directly and Germany. Also, obviously, we had conversations with Qatar, UAE and Pakistan.

The issue is definitely the question of biometrics and making sure that the security of the biometric facility is ensured.

My question was: Has the minister or the minister's office been offered this assistance by allied countries, yes or no?

(1910)

We've reached out proactively, and I have reached out proactively.

Is the minister saying that she and her office have not been offered assistance by allied countries for biometrics collection?

I've had many conversations with many countries, including Pakistan, UAE and Qatar on this, like I mentioned. Our goal has always been to make sure that biometrics could be done and could be done safely, and we wanted to work particularly with NATO allies on this issue.

It's been brought to my attention that the ministry, GAC, has been offered by allied countries to do biometric collections for Canada in their offices or in mobile offices. That was back in January, to my understanding, and yet, to date, this has not been taken up. Why not?

We have clear security concerns that, because of the fact that there are terrorism groups in Afghanistan and in the region, any form of presence can be targeted, and therefore there's a security issue.

That's been the challenge of the Government of Canada, Jenny. It's how we can make sure that there are biometrics and people brought to Canada, and meanwhile, not create a security issue for Canadian diplomats on site.

It sounds to me that the minister is saying that allied countries are not capable of doing biometrics, which is concerning.

A group of 35 lawyers, Shajjan & Associates, was hired by the ministry of Justice to represent the embassy and many Canadian departments with interests in Afghanistan. They worked for the embassy for nine years. They all applied for the special immigration measures. GAC gave them a verbal confirmation that they would be provided an invitation to apply, but, to date, no invitation has arrived.

I wrote to the minister about this, both this minister and the minister of Immigration.

Does the minister keep track of the cases referred to IRCC for processing?

The Chair:

You have thirty-five seconds.

Definitely. I work with my colleague Sean Fraser. Obviously I've seen your emails, and I've answered all of them with great pleasure. At the same time, it is important for us to follow up, and this is definitely something that IRCC is in charge of.

I raised that with the Minister of Immigration, who seemed surprised and said, “Oh, I haven't heard that”. Of course, I have a list of these individuals who have applied, and it has gone nowhere. I did receive responses from the minister acknowledging receipt of these letters, but no real response.

It would be great for the officials to table any documentation to the committee to show that they have, in fact, followed up with IRCC, what the expectations are, and what will happen with GAC with these individuals who are being left behind.

The Chair:

Thank you very much, Madame Kwan.

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC):

We will do so. Thank you.

The Chair:

Thank you.

Now we'll go to the second round. I will start with my own member here. We have 17 minutes, and five minutes go to Madame Findlay.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you to the minister, it's our understanding that no arrangements were made with any of our allies to assist with the IRCC mission either before or after the fall of Kabul. Why is that?

Before the fall of Kabul, I would not have known. I am not aware. After the fall of Kabul, until my appointment, I have no information in that regard.

Why did Canada leave Afghanistan two days before all of our allies, who were still actively evacuating people from within the country?

As mentioned, I was not privy to that information. I know my colleagues, Mr. Garneau, Mr. Mendicino and Mr. Sajjan, were working 24-7 on this at the time.

I think that Heidi Hulan, who is on Zoom, could provide some information on the intelligence that we had at the time.

The Chair:

Madam Findlay, do you want Heidi Hulan to respond?

(1915)

Ms. Heidi Hulan (Assistant Deputy Minister and Political Director, International Security and Political Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development):

Sure, if she has a quick answer.

The Chair:

Okay.

Please, go ahead.

I can't speak to the question of two days before. I believe that we have some of our colleagues from—

Thank you very much. If you can't answer, never mind.

My next question is, during the fall of Kabul, Ukraine sent a C-130 and took out of Afghanistan one flight full of people who qualified for a special immigration measures and brought them to their country for safe passage to Canada. Ukraine then stopped, because Canada would not make the commitment to get them from that country.

Why did Canada not make arrangements to continue in this fashion with Ukraine?

Why are there Afghan families who would qualify under the SIMs still left in Ukraine?

Different countries took different measures. What we did was work with the Americans, but also with Pakistan. At this point, we are at 12,000 refugees who have come to Canada.

I must say, because I've had many conversations about this issue over the last weeks and months, we're one of the countries that has received the most Afghan refugees. Every time I raise the issue, from my conversations with Blinken to Baerbock in Germany, to Borrell at the EU, or even Truss in the U.K., they recognize the leadership of Canada in welcoming 40,000 refugees. This is clearly not the case in these different countries.

We appreciate those efforts. The problem is that a lot of those were already out of the country before the fall of Kabul. In this committee, we are trying to understand what happened around the time of the evacuation and since.

In Ukraine, Afghans who were evacuated were not offered any accommodation. In Pakistan, accommodations were only offered to a select group. They are hard to access through IOM.

Why has Canada still not addressed the accommodation issue that is plaguing this response?

We have had several conversations with Pakistan. My deputy minister went to Pakistan. Pakistan decided to take in Afghan refugees without any form of papers—undocumented refugees—until November. Afterward, they decided to change the course of their approach. They decided to ask for these documents, which has been a challenge, because passport issuance in Afghanistan has been an issue.

We've been working with the Pakistani government. Again, two days ago, another chartered flight of 336 Afghan refugees arrived in Canada. We will continue that. We will continue to engage with other countries that have Afghan refugees within their own jurisdictions.

The Chair:

You have 10 seconds.

Mr. Fayçal El-Khoury (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.):

I have 10 seconds.

Thank you, Minister.

The Chair:

Thank you very much, Madam Findlay.

Thank you, of course, to my own member.

Now, we'll go to Mr. El-Khoury for five minutes. Please, go ahead.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for joining us. I can tell you that all Canadians are extremely appreciative of your work. We are seeing you travel from country to country to help the people who need it and to project Canada's image internationally at the same time.

What do you think the food challenges in Afghanistan are?

I want to focus on that country's food insecurity.

The situation in Afghanistan is terrible. It is worse than it was in August, as I said a bit earlier in my answers. Poverty is rampant there. It is exacerbated by a bad government, which is doing a poor job of taking care of its population and is not recognized by any country in the world. Afghanistan is in breach of a number of international law obligations and certainly human rights obligations. So it is very difficult to deliver international assistance to the country.

That said, we have provided $145 million to a variety of UN organizations, including those related to food, such as the World Food Programme and UNICEF, which provides assistance for children. We are also working with a number of other organizations.

However, I would like to come back to questions asked by our NDP colleague Ms. Kwan and our Bloc Québécois colleague Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe about the fact that the Taliban is considered a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code. I want to mention that this is a major concern for the government because it limits NGOs' ability to provide assistance directly on the ground. This is a personal concern for me, and I would really like to know what the committee's recommendations are.

It would help the Afghan people if we were able to depoliticize the issue and have a non-partisan approach.

(1920)

You say that our special envoy to Afghanistan, David Sproule, is doing amazing work.

Do you think that, if an agreement was reached with the Taliban representatives, they would respect their commitments or are we wasting time negotiating with them?

The Taliban absolutely do not respect their commitments.

Our special envoy was supposed to obtain a commitment from the Taliban in the meetings held in Doha with Afghanistan's “minister of foreign affairs”. I am using quotation marks here because we do not recognize his legitimacy. The few bilateral meetings that were held pertained only to the consular services requested by Canadian citizens. That is the kind of commitment Mr. Sproule has managed to obtain.

We are also generally in contact with UN Special Rapporteur, Robert Bennett, our ambassador to the UN, Bob Rae and our Department of Foreign Affairs officials.

How would you describe Canada's coordination efforts with the international community concerning the situation in Afghanistan, from September to today?

A lot of effort has been made. However, not all of it has led to solutions, and that is the problem. I am being very honest with you.

The Taliban do not respect their amnesty. So the burden certainly falls on their shoulders rather than the shoulders of countries like Canada.

I understand the impatience and the frustration of committee members, who have been considering the situation for a while. I share that frustration as minister. However, you should know that the situation in Afghanistan is a problem for all the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and for many countries around the world.

Just recently, I was in Indonesia with Mr. Thoppil, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs talked about her concern over the situation in Afghanistan because it is creating instability in the region.

For you, as a woman, Minister—

[English]

The Chair:

Thank you very much, Mr. El-Khoury. Your time is up.

We'll go to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for two and a half minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am a person who doesn't often give up, so I want to come back to the question I asked you before, Minister. It is difficult for me to understand, as some are talking about ministerial privilege, while others are talking about national security.

I am actually under the impression that this is about politics. You don't want to answer the question because, if you tell us that an opinion was provided, you must tell us what it consisted of and, if you tell us that an opinion was not provided, we have to tell you that you are not taking the matter seriously.

You don't want to answer the question for political reasons, isn't that right?

(1925)

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, I think we are really getting into the details. At the end of the day, what is important is to find common ground together so that we can provide humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan. That is the question the committee is asking and the question I would like to be able to answer.

The question I am asking you is not complicated. Has the department provided a legal opinion?

The idea is to determine whether or not we can send money and whether the Criminal Code is problematic.

We can talk to each other.

I think this is the question the committee is asking, and I look forward to hearing your answer because I look forward to finding solutions with you.

It's not complicated, Minister.

Government departments produce legal opinions by the hundreds. If the opinion has not been produced, it means that you have not asked for it and that your department has not done the work. For weeks, we have been asking that, at the very least, a legal opinion be requested and produced . If you tell me that no legal opinion has been produced, that means that you are not doing your job. If you say that, yes, a legal opinion has been produced, we would like to know what it says.

I can assure you that I am still doing my job, as you say.

So a legal opinion has been produced.

My objective here is to ensure that Canada's interests are protected and that we can improve the situation on the ground. I think and I hope that we can work together because it is indeed difficult to provide humanitarian aid in Afghanistan right now.

You don't even have to wait for the committee's recommendations. We could do it right now, if you want to save time. Make your choice.

My aim is not to save time. My aim is to depoliticize the issue so that there can be broad unanimity on it. If we can work together, if you can talk to the Conservatives, if you can work with the NDP, we will find a good solution.

If you wanted unanimity, you could have just voted for the unanimous consent motion that I put forward. The Liberals were the only ones who did not vote for it.

I look forward to continuing this conversation with you.

[English]

The Chair:

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, thank you very much. Your time is up.

We will go to the last honourable member for two and a half minutes.

Madam Kwan, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to just follow up on the last question.

Could the minister advise what action she will take to ensure that GAC will refer people who have applied to Canada but still not heard from IRCC...that they will receive an invitation and in fact receive the information before the quota, the number of the allocations, runs out?

We will make sure to follow up with IRCC. GAC has definitely been the bridge between the people who have applied at the beginning...and then they're processed through IRCC. We know that a lot can be done and must be done, and that's what we'll do.

I'm very concerned. With each passing day, people's lives are at risk, because they're in hiding.

I know that some applications were submitted eight months ago. They have been GAC approved, in terms of the referral, and are sitting on IRCC's desk somewhere collecting dust. I hope the minister will motivate IRCC to get the job done. Otherwise, it makes you look bad, which is not I think what they want to do.

On a different question, with respect to Pakistan—because part of the issue is Pakistan not moving forward with the recognition of documentation—could the minister advise what work she has been engaged in with Pakistan to ensure that the accepted documentation, such as single-journey travel documents from Canada...so people can exit Afghanistan?

Well, I think you've heard it from my colleague, Sean Fraser, who wants to make sure that biometrics are made. This is clearly an issue, because we obviously want to make sure that Canada's security is protected.

To go back to your former question, because I didn't fully answer, you asked me whether we received offers of biometric services from allied countries. I want to let you that's not the case.

That's interesting.

With respect to allied countries, and for Pakistan to recognize our documentation, will the minister ask allied countries if they will collect biometrics on behalf of Canada, or operate on the ground, seeing as they have boots on the ground to do mobile offices?

(1930)

Hon. Mélanie Joly:

That's exactly what I was trying to do with the EU and Germany. We thought that was something that could be done. At the same time, we're still in conversations. I hope this will continue to move in the right direction. I must say that the security situation is such that it is difficult for us, and it is difficult for the EU and Germany. I won't talk for them and put words in their mouths, but this is a collective problem. It's not only a Canadian issue.

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC):

Thank you very much, Madam Kwan. Your time is up.

Now, on behalf of the committee members I want to thank the honourable minister for her appearance. Ms. Joly, thank you. The very best to you.

Now we will suspend for a few minutes to allow the minister to intermingle with the members and leave. We'll continue with the officials shortly. Thank you.

(1930)

The Chair:

We are now going to proceed with the round of questions.

I would request, honourable members, if you are asking a question to a particular person, please name them so that the honourable official can respond accordingly.

We will start with Mr. Garnett Genuis for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the officials for being here. It's an honour for me to be subbing at this committee.

I serve as the point person for international development for our caucus. I want to focus my questions on that issue, picking up on some of what's been already discussed.

I really appreciate the challenges here. We have a very dire humanitarian situation. We want to do all we can to make sure resources don't end up in the hands of the Taliban. At the same time, I think, Canadian organizations, Canadians individually, and all of us here feel the imperative to see what we can do and if we can do more to help people who are in a really challenging situation.

I think one of the problems is that we have legal constraints that apply to Canadian organizations that may not apply to international organizations that we are funding. It seems to me that in these kinds of situations, Canadian organizations have constraints that relate to the possibility that any of their resources will end up in the hands of hostile actors. Large, multilateral organizations that taxpayers are also funding are not subject to the same constraints.

I'd just like to hear a bit more from officials about what they think can be done specifically to remove the impediments that we're hearing about from stakeholders that make it harder for them to confront this really dire humanitarian situation. I'm sure you're hearing about it as well.

The Chair:

Go ahead, please, officials—whoever wants to take it.

Ms. Cindy Termorshuizen (Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development):

I'm happy to start.

It's a really important question. I think like all of the members of this committee, we're really seized by the seriousness of the humanitarian situation on the ground, and it is growing worse. I'm glad you asked the question.

Our preoccupation is getting aid and support, particularly humanitarian assistance, to Afghanistan in a way that complies with the Criminal Code. I know that all of the members are very familiar with that issue.

I should also mention that four multilateral organizations that are operating in Afghanistan and using funds that we supply also work very hard to ensure that funding does not go to the Taliban, through taxation, for instance, that Canada has provided.

Maybe I'll turn the floor to Peter MacDougall, who is our assistant deputy minister responsible for this area to follow up further.

(1935)

Mr. Garnett Genuis:

I would like to hear from him in a moment.

Can I just clarify this? I think it's important that people hear what you said. Although UN organizations may, we hope, do their best to not see money end up in the hands of the Taliban, at the end of the day those Criminal Code provisions that do apply to Canadian organizations do not apply to them. Is that correct?

Ms. Cindy Termorshuizen:

What we do as the Government of Canada is work with those organizations to design our contributions so that Canadian funding does not go, for instance, to taxation to the Taliban. We are stringent upon ourselves, because the Criminal Code does apply to Canadian officials who write those agreements. It's incumbent upon us, even working with multilateral organizations, to ensure that we are compliant with the Criminal Code.

Mr. Garnett Genuis:

Right, so it applies to you and it influences the way you engage, but it does not apply to them insofar as if we're providing funding for core funding and things and they're using it at their discretion or—

Ms. Cindy Termorshuizen:

That's right. It applies to Government of Canada officials.

Mr. Garnett Genuis:

All right. Thank you.

I'd love to hear from the other gentlemen on this as well.

Ms. Cindy Termorshuizen:

Peter, it's over to you.

Mr. Peter MacDougall (Assistant Deputy Minister, Global Issues and Development, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development):

Yes, we have taken a number of mitigation measures.

Just to clarify, we're working primarily with UN institutions, as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross. We use a variety of [Technical difficulty—Editor]

[Translation]

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe:

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Our guest's microphone is not working properly and it is difficult for the interpreters to do their job. Since we know that they are working very hard, I would like us to help them.

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Miriam Burke):

We'll check.

Madam Clerk, could you check?

I have stopped the watch, Mr. Genuis.

Could you suspend for a moment, please, Mr. Chair?

The meeting is suspended for two minutes.

(1935)

The Chair:

Let me call the meeting back to order.

Mr. Genuis, go ahead for two minutes please.

Mr. Garnett Genuis:

For the witness, I wonder if you can clarify if you think the current Criminal Code provisions as they apply are clear, or if they are challenging to understand and navigate. My sense from civil society is that it's the provisions themselves, but it's also the sense of “if you put a foot wrong, then you're violating the Criminal Code”, which is obviously very serious.

How can you help private organizations that are operating in this space to really understand how to navigate within the circumstances?

(1940)

Peter is really the expert on this, but I'll do my best to channel him.

I think that our civil society organizations clearly want to do their job and do it well. I know that we have conversations with many of our civil society organizations to explain to them as best we can the situation and the Criminal Code provisions.

This is obviously a really difficult area. I really can't say much more about how they interpret it and the challenges they're facing, but we know that they have come to us and have spoken to us about them. I have spoken with some of these organizations myself. We know that it's a difficult reality for them.

Mr. Garnett Genuis:

Yes. Maybe I would just invite some of the civil society organizations to submit briefs to this committee to inform us of their ongoing work.

I hope that you'll continue to look for options in terms of clarity around that legislation: how to make it work and work well, and possible changes to the legislation or clearer information. It's a huge problem, and I don't think we're where we need to be in terms of actually getting the support to people in this dire situation.

Thanks.

The Chair:

Thank you very much, Mr. Genuis.

Yes, and we are definitely looking at options.

The Chair:

Okay. We appreciate that.

Now we'll go to Mr. Baker for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our officials for being with us today, in person and virtually, and for your service to our country on the issues related to Afghanistan and otherwise.

I'd like to ask you about the food shortage in Afghanistan. The minister, in response to one of my colleagues from the opposition, spoke a bit to this issue.

What I'm concerned about in particular—I want to build on what the minister was talking about—is that there are concerns that Russia's invasion of Ukraine could spark a global food shortage, in part because many countries in Africa and the Middle East rely on Ukrainian food exports, particularly wheat, but other food exports as well. Also, of course, the World Food Programme is reporting that since the Taliban has taken over Afghanistan, 50% of Afghans as it is are not receiving enough food.

How do you see Russia's invasion of Ukraine impacting countries around the globe in terms of the food supply, and specifically Afghanistan?

We still can't access Mr. MacDougall, is that correct?

I'm happy to respond to the question.

I think you've raised a very good point in terms of the serious impacts we are beginning to see as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

As all of the members know, both Russia and Ukraine are important food providers. Russia is also a major provider of fertilizers, so the impact is likely to be very significant. Some countries are much more dependent on exports of food items from Russia and Ukraine than others. In various countries in the Middle East in particular, we see a very heavy reliance on those exports. Lebanon, some countries in North Africa and some countries in South Asia are very heavily dependent.

This is a real concern. Minister Joly and many of our senior officials in the department have been working very closely with allies to look at what we can do to address this to make sure that there is as good a food supply as possible. We're looking at providing extra supports to some of these countries that are particularly affected.

With respect to Afghanistan, I am not sure what the percentage of dependence is that they have on, for instance, wheat from Ukraine. As Minister Joly mentioned, the food security situation in Afghanistan was already quite serious prior to the takeover by the Taliban in August last year. There was a lot of concern with respect to a drought. Those conditions—the impact of climate change and an ongoing food security situation—continue.

All that is to say the Government of Canada is intensely engaged with other countries around the world and with international organizations, particularly within the UN system, to look at anything we can do to ensure that those impacts are mitigated.

(1945)

Thank you.

Just to build on your answer, what are some of the things Canada is doing and what are some of the potential measures out there to address the potential for global food shortages or even famines related specifically to Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

I'm concerned about the impact on Afghanistan, but I presume that the impact on Afghanistan will be similarly felt in other countries. What are some of the measures...? You can't suddenly just supply.... Are there food reserves that can be tapped? How does that work? What can be done?

As I mentioned, we're working very closely with the World Food Programme and with other UN institutions looking at how we can ensure that supply chains remain resilient.

We're also identifying those countries that are particularly vulnerable because some countries are much more vulnerable than others. Some countries are dependent on Ukraine for 70% to 80% of their wheat and clearly they will not be getting that amount of input this year. We're really working with those countries to identify where those gaps are and what we can do to assist in filling those, and ensuring that the World Food Programme and other organizations are able to work effectively in those places.

A lot of international coordination is ongoing.

Thank you.

I don't think I'm going to have time for another question, Chair, so I cede the rest of my time.

The Chair:

Thank you. You still have 40 seconds, but if that's the case—

I'll just take this opportunity to thank our officials for being here and for all of their work both in Afghanistan and on issues around the world.

Thank you.

The Chair:

Thank you, Mr. Baker.

We'll go to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses who are with us this evening. We are grateful for their time and for the answers they provide. These are extremely important for the upcoming draft of the committee's report and recommendations.

Ms. Termorshuizen, if I ask you the same question I asked the Minister, I imagine I might get the same answer.

Am I wrong?

[English]

I think that's probably correct.

[Translation]

Thank you.

In recent weeks, the Islamic State has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks that targeted members of Afghanistan's Shiite minority, particularly the Hazaras.

There is a Hazara community here in Canada that is putting on a lot of pressure and doing a tremendous job. We have to help the Hazaras who are over there now. We are being asked to recognize them as a persecuted group, and so far that has not been done.

Do you know what is holding us back from recognizing the Hazaras as a persecuted group?

[English]

Maybe I'll start with that question and then pass the floor to my colleague Paul Thoppil. My colleague Heidi Hulan can also speak on the security situation.

We've also noted with real concern the growing number of attacks. As you've rightly pointed out, a lot of them have been targeted towards minority groups, like the Hazara—

(1950)

[Translation]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I haven't had access to interpretation since you started speaking, Ms. Termorshuizen.

Mr. Chair, can we start from the beginning without me losing time?

[English]

The Chair:

Sure. I will give you 20 seconds extra.

Like you pointed out, we have noted the growing number of attacks by the Islamic State Khorasan Province, in particular. Some of those attacks have been claimed by them. Some, we think, have been perpetrated by them. Many of them, as you point out, were targeted against minority groups, particularly the Hazara, but not only the Hazara.

It is definitely an issue we are noticing an uptick on. Even just this weekend, in advance of Eid, over 50 people were killed in a mosque in Kabul. It is a very serious matter.

Maybe I can pass the floor to Paul Thoppil.

[Translation]

The question is mainly about recognizing persecuted groups.

[English]

The Chair:

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you can hear from Mr. Thoppil for a few seconds.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Thoppil (Assistant Deputy Minister, Asia Pacific, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development):

Of course, Mr. Chair.

[English]

The Chair:

Assistant Deputy Minister, please go ahead.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the question.

We are in discussions with our international law colleagues at the ministry with regard to that. It's taking some time just to get the jurisprudence in terms of the way forward, but it is definitely top of mind. We have been tracking for some time the persecution impact, particularly on the Hazara community but, quite frankly as my colleague has noted, broadly ethnic communities at large in Afghanistan. While the Hazaras have been the most noteworthy, it's not just them.

That's why David Sproule, together with like-minded special envoys, has been trying to encourage the Taliban to foster a way forward on inclusive governance that respects what is a country that is significantly diverse in terms of ethnicities, notwithstanding the fact that the Taliban, based on its Pashtun background, is the dominant. As we've seen through the ages, there are more than just Pashtuns in this country.

For a sustainable country going forward, we need a way forward for governance whereby all the ethnic minorities see themselves as part of that governance decision-making. That's what we are advocating for through the UN, through David and together, as the minister said, with many other countries.

[Translation]

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[English]

The Chair:

Go ahead. You have two minutes.

[Translation]

Perfect.

I just want to point out that this is really a very important request from the Hazara community here in the country. There should be a follow-up.

Ms. Termorshuizen, has your department received lists of people taken in by refugee networks led by Canadian organizations?

[English]

Maybe I'll pass that question over to Paul Thoppil.

As the minister noted, since the fall of Kabul in that very fluid situation, Global Affairs stepped up to be a focal point in what was a dramatic increase in the volume of inquiries. We have received over one million inquiries through our intake mailbox, with more coming in still to this day.

What we have is a due diligence protocol within the department that triages them and ensures that the bona fides of that request related to whether they have a significant and/or enduring relationship to the Government of Canada under the special immigration measures has been achieved. Once we have done that assessment, we turn it over to IRCC for processing.

[Translation]

Thank you.

Canada has a policy on international aid that is, by and large, very feminist. I think that's where the emphasis lies. In fact, the United States announced the cancellation of talks with the Taliban in Doha at the end of March because of the ban on girls' education in schools.

What are we currently doing about the feminist component of international aid in Afghanistan?

What is the department doing, what is Canada doing in this regard?

[English]

The Chair:

Thank you. Your time is up.

Please answer briefly, Ms. Termorshuizen.

(1955)

As the minister said, this is something we're engaged intensively in with allies, and with the Taliban through our representative in Doha. I would also say that we're working very hard with humanitarian partners to ensure that our humanitarian assistance is actually getting to the most vulnerable, including some of the minorities you mentioned, but also women and girls.

[Translation]

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair:

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

I will now go to Madame Kwan for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the officials.

In Mr. Thoppil's last appearance at this committee, he indicated that things were going well with Pakistan, in terms of bringing Afghans to safety. Then things changed and evolved, but were still kind of going.

Can officials clarify for me whether Pakistan is now refusing to recognize Canada's documents, including the single journey travel document or letter of acceptance from IRCC and G number, which was something they had done previously?

The Chair:

Go ahead, Mr. Thoppil.

Mr. Chair, we have no defined sustainable protocol with Pakistan at this juncture. It's ad hoc-ish.

What we're trying to do, through our head of mission in Islamabad, is engage constantly with the Government of Pakistan to see whether they would re-engage in a sustainable protocol at the Torkham border gate and allow single travel documents to be accepted. This is a concern for Pakistan right now, in part because they had, as you know, millions of refugees already, pre-fall. They stopped in November, as the minister said, because they are worried about continuing to be a draw for those who have received documentation from Canada or like-minded countries...for more Afghans to come over their border.

That's why, from Pakistan's perspective, it's a challenging situation—responding to many countries' requests to accept documentation from Afghans who would like to cross the border.

When was the last discussion GAC had with Pakistan on this issue?

As the minister said, the deputy minister went to have high-level bilateral consultations in the late fall, whereby these issues were put forward. I can't tell you, at this juncture, when our high commissioner last had an interaction with the Pakistan government, but Global Affairs headquarters has charged her to make these types of issues the top priority.

If officials could table documentation with this committee advising us on when that last conversation took place and when they expect the next conversation will continue the discussion, that would be much appreciated. Just give us a sort of progress update, if you will, since November, because I hope that work has been done since November. It sounds as if it has, but getting that update would be much appreciated.

We would be pleased to do so.

Thank you so much.

Similarly, on the question of biometrics and allied countries, the minister indicated that there's been ongoing discussion with respect to that.

When was the last discussion with allied countries regarding them assisting Canada in collecting biometrics in Afghanistan or operating mobile offices?

Perhaps I'll start and then pass the floor to Paul.

I think it's fair to say that we probably have conversations about biometrics on a weekly basis. As the minister said, the issue of biometric collection, particularly inside Afghanistan, is a real challenge. We can collect biometrics in other countries, which we're doing in Pakistan, but the inside-Afghanistan piece is really difficult. None of our allies has cracked this nut because, as the minister said, the ability to collect biometrics in Afghanistan securely, given the security situation some of your colleagues have noted, is challenging.

Let me pass the floor to Paul.

Mr. Chair, reach-outs were happening with the EU and Germany in January or February, through what are almost weekly conversations with like-minded...to take a pulse on what is happening on the ground and where there may perhaps be movements others have discovered. As my colleagues have suggested, we're trying to find a way forward because we all desire.... Whether it's Canada's 40,000 commitment or certain countries that still have former locally engaged staff trapped in the country, we're all trying to find a way forward to extract them from what are very challenging circumstances.

(2000)

Has utilizing ex-military to collect biometrics been considered?

Mr. Chair, I think the issue becomes what is Canada's duty of care to any party, whether it's ex-military or not, based on the security situation on the ground. That still has to be triaged. Whether it's Government of Canada personnel or it's through some sort of arrangement, that legal obligation of duty of care still rests on the Government of Canada, from a legal exposure perspective. That is one issue.

The other issue is, how do you move forward in a way that also respects the Criminal Code? There needs to be a legal review of that undertaking, I think, hypothetically.

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC):

Just raising—

The Chair:

Thank you very much, Madam Kwan. Your time is up.

We'll go to the second round now, and we'll start with Mr. Ruff for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

Thanks, Chair.

I'll start by going back to some of the testimony we heard throughout this committee, and that I've heard first-hand going back to the evacuation, about the lack of coordination between Global Affairs Canada, IRCC and DND during the evacuation.

My question to the officials is, how would you assess the efficiency and effectiveness of interdepartmental coordination and communication during the evacuation?

Ms. Julie Sunday (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Consular, Security and Emergency Management, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development):

I'd be happy to start, and then I'll ask my colleague Julie Sunday to jump in. Both of us were very much engaged during the actual evacuation period.

There are maybe two points that I would make. One is that the collaboration between National Defence, IRCC and Global Affairs Canada was excellent. We had at Global Affairs Canada, embedded in our emergency watch and response centre, officials from National Defence, CAF individuals were there, and IRCC. We had an integrated team.

The challenge really was the situation on the ground. It was utterly chaotic. We all saw the images of the airport, which was the only way to get out. Being able to effectively conduct an evacuation in such a difficult situation was really the issue, rather than the collaboration between departments.

I'll maybe ask Julie if she wants to add anything.

I would add very quickly that we met daily, and of course in the emergency watch and response centre, where we had our teams, we had IRCC and DND embedded with us.

The week of the evacuation was a huge operation. On the 25th, for example, we had almost 250 staff surged in there to support the evacuation. That week was, as my colleague mentioned, very chaotic, but we also were in a context where the security situation at HKIA, in Kabul, was deteriorating rapidly. Of course, there was the attack on the 26th at the gate of the airport, so—

Mr. Alex Ruff:

Thank you for that. I appreciate your opinion on how it was. It does contradict very much what we heard first-hand from many of the military personnel on the ground, including former colleagues of mine.

Previous large-scale evacuations utilized a lead department or a lead minister. Why wasn't there a lead department or minister assigned in this case for this evacuation?

What I can say with respect to ministerial engagement is particularly around Global Affairs Canada's minister's engagement. I have to say that I and Mr. Thoppil, Ms. Sunday, as well as other Government of Canada officials, briefed the minister at the time, Minister Garneau, on a daily basis. We had a four corners meeting with the Privy Council Office and other departments on a daily basis. There was intensive coordination between departments, and engaging ministers and the centre, throughout that period.

(2005)

Mr. Alex Ruff:

I appreciate that there was coordination going on. It unfortunately doesn't seem to fall out with the necessary coordination from everything that we've heard on the ground.

It's been successful in the past—if we look at Syria—when a lead department is put forward. In your opinion, what department should have been the lead during the evacuation?

Maybe I could just make a point about the comparison with Syria. I think one of the issues that helped us enormously in the Syrian situation was that all of the individuals we were trying to bring to Canada were already outside of Syria. It wasn't the kind of context that existed in Afghanistan.

I think the member is absolutely correct to say that it was chaotic on the ground. Even with coordination back in Ottawa, trying to do things effectively on the ground was really challenging. That is a very fair point to make with respect to the context around the airport in those days of the evacuation.

The Chair:

You have 15 seconds.

Mr. Alex Ruff:

Thanks, Chair.

That didn't really answer the question. I want to know which department should be the lead.

My final question—and I'll accept that they can submit it in writing afterwards, Chair—is this. Has a lessons learned exercise or after-action review been conducted by Global Affairs Canada? If so, will it be made public? If not, when will it be done?

Maybe I can go back to the last question the member asked. In terms of a lead department, Global Affairs Canada does have the lead for international consular situations and emergencies like this. There is a lead established under Canadian law.

In terms of lessons learned, we always do lessons learned on large consular and other emergencies of this nature.

The Chair:

Thank you, Mr. Ruff.

We'll go to Mr. Sidhu.

Go ahead for five minutes, please.

Mr. Maninder Sidhu (Brampton East, Lib.):

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First off, I'd like to thank our wonderful team from Global Affairs Canada for your incredibly hard work and for joining us tonight. It's not easy work, and the added number of variables and challenges make your job even harder. I just want to say thank you for that.

Our committee has heard about the difficulties that Afghans have faced fleeing Afghanistan and making their way to neighbouring countries before coming to Canada. As you are aware, Pakistan has welcomed a significant number of refugees. There are always humanitarian concerns with refugees fleeing areas of conflict.

Just the other day, 336 Afghan newcomers arrived at the Toronto airport from Pakistan. I was at the airport earlier, a few weeks ago, with Minister Fraser to welcome over 300 Afghan refugees from another neighbouring country.

Can you speak to the work Canada is doing with Pakistan and other countries bordering Afghanistan to ensure that Afghans are able to leave?

Sure. I'll start and then pass it once again to Mr. Thoppil.

As Minister Joly mentioned, there has been an enormous amount of engagement with neighbouring countries. Of course, Pakistan has played a particular role because of the long border between the two countries and the fact that there are a fair number of flights that go between the two countries as well.

Paul, could I ask you to respond in more depth?

It's a really good question. Notwithstanding a previous response whereby we don't have protocols in place now, we do need to commend the Government of Pakistan for what it did in terms of response during that very pivotal time after the fall of Kabul until November. They acquiesced to our advocacy in terms of what we could provide and identified lists of vulnerable individuals who we knew were going to be crossing the border and then having them ensure that their border guards were apprised of those lists and making sure that those documents were recognized in order to cross over. A significant deployment of personnel went into our High Commission in Islamabad in order to then go with the next up, once they had crossed the border, in terms of them proceeding with biometric screening and, once the processing of those individuals was assured, arranging charter flights, which is why there are now over 12,000 individuals from various parts coming through into Canada.

It's been a significant lift.

(2010)

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair:

Yes.

Mr. Chair, the bells have started ringing. I suggest that we sit until 8:30 p.m. That still gives us an additional 10 minutes to get to votes.

I ask that you seek the consent of the committee to sit until 8:30 p.m.

The Chair:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chong. That is an excellent suggestion.

I hope I have the unanimous consent of the committee?

Okay, thank you. We'll continue and finish this round.

Mr. Maninder Sidhu:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Deputy Minister Thoppil, can you share with the committee the multilateral work that is being done with Canada's allies to support the people of Afghanistan? We did touch upon Pakistan, but just generally in the region....

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As the minister noted in her remarks, there have been significant reach-outs beyond Pakistan. Qatar comes first to mind, because they played a pivotal role in staging, aircraft and logistical supports during that time, as well as Kuwait for the air bridge that the CAF had put into place. I think we also need to acknowledge that there have been myriad pathways for Afghans who have found their way out regardless of whether they had the right documentation. We have been trying to ensure that these countries are apprised of Canada's commitment to return them and ensuring that there is time for our embassies to engage with these individuals, to go through the screening and the application processing and, therefore, once approved, to then organize those charters beyond just Pakistan but from the different countries where Afghans have found themselves and have been trying to find a way forward if they have met the application process requirements in order to come here.

That has resulted in not just those countries in the region, but many countries where Afghans have been, beyond essentially the Persian Gulf.... That also has been further supplemented by the intelligence conversations that we have been having with our like-minded allies, who all have the same challenges going forward.

So it really has been an international diplomatic engagement that has been beyond the norm in order to share information and to understand what is succeeding and what is not working, and adjusting advocacy methods as we engage with a multitude of countries to ensure safe passage where possible.

The Chair:

Thank you very much, Mr. Sidhu.

I will go to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for two and a half minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the witnesses for being with us this evening. I think that this is the last time I will address them today.

Ms. Termorshuizen, you alluded to the Syrian crisis in 2015. During that crisis, Canada Border Services Agency officers collected the biometric data of Syrians arriving on Canadian soil. Through their union, the officers confirmed that this was indeed the case.

Why did we allow the collection of biometrics from Syrians on Canadian soil during the 2015 crisis, and not from Afghans during the 2021 crisis, or even from Ukrainians during the 2022 crisis?

What is the basis for this disparity?

[English]

I'm afraid I wasn't involved in the details of the Syria effort at the time. I'm not quite sure how the biometrics were done at that point, so I can't speak to that, I'm afraid. If the other officials on the line can, they'd be most welcome to jump in.

The Chair:

Do any of the officials want to respond, please?

Just so that you're aware, Mr. Chair, the comparison I was making was in terms of the safe passage issue.

[Translation]

I understood the difference, but I was just establishing a link that way.

This may be a shortfall at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, as well as at Global Affairs Canada, or GAC, but there doesn't seem to be an emergency mechanism that these two departments can call upon during an international conflict such as the ones currently taking place in Ukraine and Afghanistan, or during a natural disaster. The devastating earthquake in Haiti comes to mind.

Would you be supportive of us implementing a contingency process that IRCC and GAC could use during an international crisis?

This would allow you to exercise some form of leverage. It would be a bit like the Emergency Measures Act, but it would apply to international crises or conflicts.

In your opinion, could this be a worthwhile solution?

(2015)

[English]

I guess what I would say, Mr. Chair, and I'll ask my—

The Chair:

You have 20 seconds.

What I would say is that we actually have a mechanism like that already. We have an emergency watch and response centre set up at Global Affairs Canada, and this is the point where we coordinate the response to international emergencies. We stand up an emergency response team when a major crisis happens and we bring in the partner departments that we need to—

[Translation]

This would not apply to IRCC, but only to Global Affairs Canada.

Is this correct?

[English]

The Chair:

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, thank you very much for your time.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, everyone.

[English]

The Chair:

We'll go to Madam Kwan for two and a half minutes.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

I'd like to clarify with the officials what documentation I'm looking for. Specifically, I'd like to get the officials to table how many GAC-referred people were submitted to IRCC and how many of those have been issued a G number that they are aware of, and how many have arrived in Canada.

As well, I'd like the officials to submit to us how many do not have a G number among those people referred to IRCC—among the GAC referrals—and when the first and last referral were made to IRCC from GAC.

Also, could the officials advise us as to whether or not women athletes have applied to GAC for referrals, and if GAC has made any of those referrals to IRCC?

The Chair:

Thank you.

I will go to the associate deputy minister. Please respond.

I'll pass the floor to Mr. Thoppil, if you don't mind, Mr. Chair.

The Chair:

Sure. No problem.

Mr. Thoppil, go ahead please.

Mr. Chair, we would be very pleased to provide answers to all of those questions.

Just based on data that I have in front of me, just to be helpful to respond to the member's questions, I would note that it's a fluid situation and that the numbers of Afghans coming here are always increasing nicely—perhaps not as fast as we would all like, for sure. But recently, we had—

I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you. I'm just running out of time and I've got one more question. If I could get that information submitted to the committee through the clerk, that would be great, as we could then share it with everyone.

I would like to ask very quickly if, in the ongoing work on this file, GAC is still accepting referrals at this point in time, and would you support having IRCC expand the referral groups to, let's say, Amnesty International?

The Chair:

You have 13 seconds.

Mr. Chair, as I may have said, we are still receiving inquiries every day through our GAC intake box. But the answer to the question is really the prerogative of the minister of IRCC, and it's that minister who really should be here to respond to that question.

The Chair:

Thank you.

We'll go to Madam Findlay for five minutes.

Mr. Chair, I think Madam Findlay passed her time on to me.

Yes, I did.

The Chair:

Okay, go ahead please, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Madam Findlay.

I have a question about agriculture. I think it's safe to say that the largest humanitarian crisis in the world today is in Afghanistan. Mr. Baker was talking about the impact of the war in Ukraine, one of the world's great breadbaskets, on global food production and on the situation in Afghanistan.

Canada is one of the great food or breadbaskets of the world. Half of our global food production, many argue, comes from natural gas through the Haber-Bosch process, which produces the synthetic nitrogen that has allowed for significant increase in crop yields in recent decades.

A lot of the fertilizer we use in Ontario is Russian fertilizer produced through natural gas. The department is responsible for the tariffs that were recently announced, the sanctions on Russian fertilizer, of 35%. This is causing a lot of Ontario's farmers to raise alarm bells about the spring crop going into the ground. Many of these farmers purchased the fertilizer last year before the war in Ukraine broke out and they are asking the Canadian government to waive the implementation of the tariff on nitrogen fertilizers that were purchased before March of this year in particular.

I have two questions. First, are there plans by the department to waive the tariffs on fertilizer purchased before March of this year? That is an urgent question considering that spring planting is taking place as we speak. Secondly, what is the government doing to ensure that going forward, we have a replacement for synthetic nitrogen fertilizer from sources other than Russia?

(2020)

The Chair:

Officials, please go ahead.

Mr. Chair, I'm afraid that this is probably more in the purview of the Minister of Agriculture. This is not my area of expertise.

I apologize. I don't have the answers to those questions.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

Honourable member Mr. Chong, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to flag this as a concern. We seem to be seized, at the top line, about the potential food shortages that we could be looking at this fall, but we don't seem to be reacting to farmers on the ground in this country, who, through provincial and national organizations, are raising alarm bells about the huge tariffs being imposed on nitrogen fertilizer.

This is directly impacting farmers as we speak. The land is drying out. Wheat, soybean and corn crops are going in. Farmers are making decisions, as we speak, about what to do. The price of fertilizer, if it's 35% higher, particularly for purchases they made before the war started, will have a direct impact on how much they apply and how much yield they're going to get. Compound that with the fact that only about 20% of the corn crop in northern Ukraine has been planted and we could be looking at an intersection of a number of issues here that could have pretty devastating consequences for the people of Afghanistan and for people in other developing countries later on this year.

I have two questions concerning the process under the special immigration measures, or SIM. What is the process for someone to receive a referral from Global Affairs for the SIM program? Perhaps you could quickly describe that. What are the criteria for the referral to the SIM program? How are applications for referral assessed?

The Chair:

You have 45 seconds, please, to respond.

Thank you, Chair.

I believe I may have responded to that earlier, whereby we're trying to be very much consistent, given that significant volume, as I had articulated earlier, of over one million inquiries. They're not all the same. The challenge is to go through the duplicates, but then go through trying to track what are individual bona fides and what are linked to others in terms of a family dynamic.

Then we go through the identification through records that we may have, based on what we have available at HQ and what may have come back from our mission in Kabul, and then, from DND's perspective, what records they have in terms of former military interpreters. From our perspective, for the GAC ones, we then ensure that we do that check related to the criteria reference. Do they pass the test of the significant or enduring relationship to the Government of Canada—employee, former employee, contractors or so on?

Once we have enough information to validate that...that's only when we go over. It's a very methodical one. We're being very consistent. The challenge is that it does take time. It's very manual.

(2025)

The Chair:

Thank you very much, MP Chong. Your time is up.

Now we'll go to the last honourable member.

Mr. El-Khoury, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. We're very pleased to have them here.

Ms. Hulan, an analysis of past situations published by the International Peace Institute shows that sanctions can have unintended consequences. For instance, transactions may be delayed or curtailed because of administrative and legal complexities, or because financial institutions and companies want to avoid taking risks in the context of a sanctions regime.

What details can you share with us on this subject?

[English]

The Chair:

Assistant deputy minister, please go ahead.

Ms. Heidi Hulan:

Thank you very much.

Could I just clarify that the honourable member is referring to the sanctions that are currently ongoing in Afghanistan?

Absolutely.

Ms. Heidi Hulan:

Okay. Thank you. Ukraine was mentioned earlier.

Mr. Chair, we are always concerned about unintended consequences of sanctions. I think that is fair to say. There is no doubt that in Afghanistan, sanctions on the Taliban, which remains a listed entity under the Canadian Criminal Code and also under UN sanctions, two sets of sanctions that are applied by Canada but that relate to one another as well, are having an impact on not only on business but also individuals and the ability to travel into the country and to deliver humanitarian assistance.

That is why we are working so hard with the organizations that we are supporting, as my colleague Peter MacDougall would have spoken about, in terms of our ongoing humanitarian assistance, to find mitigation measures to make sure that our support can continue to get into that country. Those mitigation measures can include contractual provisions and various forms of assurances and operational arrangements. In some cases, Canada's funding can support ongoing activities of those organizations outside of Afghanistan to free up extra money for them to use inside Afghanistan. Those are some of the mitigation measures that we have put in place.

Mr. Chairman, the reality is that although sanctions in Afghanistan are having a very serious effect, the Taliban has taken over as the de facto government of the country. It remains a terrorist group under Canadian legislation. Those sanctions remain in place and remain very important.

Thank you.

[Translation]

My second question is for Ms. Termorshuizen as well as Ms. Sunday.

In our humanitarian efforts, what do you see as the main challenges in getting funding to Afghan beneficiaries?

In your opinion, what more can you or Canada do to improve the status of women in that country?

[English]

The Chair:

You have one minute to respond.