CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 20, 2001

• 0907

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues.

The purpose of the meeting this morning is to start to write a report. It might come as a surprise to some of you, but I don't have a draft report ready. I believe we ought to create one ourselves, collectively. Hopefully, we'll start to do this with a little brainstorming session this morning on what are the issues we heard, what we believe are issues, then start to develop possible recommendations and see if there's consensus among the group as to the various recommendations.

I'd like very much to talk. Rather than doing formal sorts of things, let's just talk among ourselves about what the issues are we heard about, what the witnesses told us about, and what we've learned. Then with the issues we can start to look at possible recommendations, at which point we will allow our researchers to go and do some additional work for us.

I should tell you first and foremost, there's going to be an introduction piece, obviously, to state the purpose of what this committee's trying to do. We may have some reference to Bill C-11 in this report. It's also important to share with Canadians where we went, what was said, who our witnesses have been, to in fact be candid and open about what was actually said so people can understand where the committee was coming from.

Now I should point out to you that a lot of the material you've asked for is here or it's coming. This big stack here has some things for you that we have collected on our trip. There's material from the International Bridge and Tunnel Operators in the Windsor and Detroit area and from the Detroit and Canada Tunnel Corporation. There's a report given to us by Citizenship and Immigration Canada in Lacolle and Philipsburg and one entitled “A Regional Outlook: Prairies and Northern Territories Region”. We also have a presentation for the visit to Windsor and a report on immigration enforcement by CIC at the Port of Vancouver and on the intelligence section of B.C. and the Yukon.

I want to make sure all committee members have everything that everybody else might have so we all have the same information.

In addition, you will remember that when the department was here the week before last, there were a number of questions asked of the department that we needed some additional answers to. I've just been given the stack. Jacques is going to have to put it together, but it covers a number of the issues we asked about. One is the response to the issues arising from the testimony heard by the committee on November 6 concerning the pre-removal risk assessment. There were some questions as to how this PRRA is really going to work. I have a paper for you on this.

• 0910

I also believe there were some questions asked on CIC population statistics. Let's get to the numbers. What are we really talking about in terms of applications for refugees, for immigration, for visas, and so on and so forth in terms of real population statistics? That report is here for us.

The other one we were asking for is on the tools and initiatives developed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada to address the pressures at certain ports of entry from an administration standpoint. This report is also there for you.

In addition, we asked what the estimated costs for a refugee claim really are, because there have been numbers all over the place. You will remember some people said it cost $50,000 to process a refugee claim and so on. Well, we have a report on the real cost of an application.

The only thing we don't have today from the department—hopefully we'll get all of these things to you by the end of today—is on the issue of human resources—how many people and how many additional resources...

Paul, you were asking about those submissions that had been made by the regional offices of CIC to the head office asking for certain resources to do their job, not only under Bill C-11, but also because of September 11. I've been assured that this information is coming to us and will be here hopefully today or tomorrow so we will all have it.

Having given you all of that information...

Do you have a question, Inky?

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC/DR): The notes taken during the round-table discussions on our visits, will they be part of the report as well?

The Chair: Yes, I will have those ready. They're being compiled now. They're in very rough form. We will also have those to give us a collective recollection of what was said.

But today let's just talk about what the issues we heard about are, the issues we learned about and want to address in this particular report, without starting into speeches or recommendations at this point. What are those issues—resources, technology? Do we have to change the refugee bill? Do we have to change the administration? Let's put on the table all the ideas that come to mind, and then we'll start to work through them. As I said, let's not do the formal stuff; let's just start.

Paul, go ahead.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): I was looking through the part III from the department. There's a chart in there showing a tremendous increase in demand on the department in the last four years, a tremendous pressure, and of course that's a cost pressure.

Certainly this drives the Minister of Finance and the budget people absolutely crazy, because it's very hard to budget for things Canada cannot control. Instead of the department outlining clear targets and budgeting for them so that Canada decides what we're going to do, we're subject to a lot of international pressures, such as people showing up in our country, or Canada having to respond to things outside our border—cost pushes for which we can't budget. The department then has to scramble and innovate, trying to muddle through or do the best it can with the circumstances it's facing.

The aspect I'm wondering about is how in a larger sense Canada can better exercise its sovereignty to control more of what's happening to the department, instead of saying it needs more people to respond to what's coming. Let Canada decide instead of others, whether they're people smugglers or economic migrants or whoever. Canada is more in charge even for the cost factor of...

Looking at that chart from part III, I could see all the vectors going up; the pressures are there. It's like we've lost control of the world situation. The more we're challenged, the less of a quality job we're able to do because the money will never keep up to what we're facing.

The larger issue is how we can turn things around so we are more able to exercise our control of what we're doing from a budget, personnel, and policy point of view.

• 0915

The Chair: Yes, that's a good point. The CIC population statistics might be helpful if we need some additional information with regard to an international context, what those international pressures are and how they affect Canada. I take it at the end of the day you really get into the number one issue, which is human resources, or technology, as it relates to being able to deal with that demand side.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes. That's why I asked the question, certainly. What are the regional managers asking? That's not necessarily the given number, but it is an indication of the pressures they feel they are under to deliver their legal mandate.

But as a committee we say okay, that's the pressure they feel; that's what they're asking, but we have to ask the larger question about why they're feeling so pressured. What can we do, in an international perspective, to try to get control of this situation? We have some basic standards of security that we want to meet, and we're not going to meet those standards if our overall system continues to be swamped and there are cost and people pressures from outside that are beyond our sovereignty.

The Chair: Okay, we'll get that for you. But it's a good point—international pressures.

Again, we'll just go back and forth, throw out ideas, and we'll keep coming around the table. We have two and a half hours, or whatever you want.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I'll just go point form without going into any detail. It's not a comprehensive list, just some ideas I think we need to deal with.

First of all, there's the perception versus the reality of how some of the Americans feel about our border. We saw a big difference on the ground. About 40% to 50% of our refugees come from the United States. That means they're in the U.S., a safe third country, with permission, with a visa of some kind. I'd like to see us focus on coordinating the visa-issuing requirements of both countries, whether it's—

The Chair: That sounds like a recommendation to me, but the issues are perception and reality, and coordinating visas.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes. There are some issues around visas, for example, if they're in the States with a visa, but they don't qualify to come here, or if they're here with a visa and they don't qualify to go there.

In terms of HR and technology, it's my view we shouldn't micro-manage this thing, and I like some of the recommendations from the Detroit and Canada Tunnel Corporation.

Regarding the safe third country issue, I think we should pursue that.

There's also an issue around detention and the adjudication process, how that's working at the grassroots, including training at the grassroots and the fact that a lot of our people are not aware of what authority they might have. I think we should really focus on the differences between airports and land ports, because it has an awful lot to do with goods versus people, and with the detention and adjudication issue. I would submit they're very different. The lines get cloudy and muddied and pushed together. Someone will be talking about a land crossing and all of a sudden launch into something that relates only to our major airports.

The Chair: Those are some good suggestions. I see the perceptions and realities. I agree we should probably put that somewhere in the introduction.

As far as human resources are concerned, I have a feeling we probably should have, because it's already been mentioned, one big section on human resources that might cover not only numbers, but training and a whole bunch of other things we might put into human resources. It's the same with technology.

Regarding the safe third country issue, you talked about our relationship with the United States, which may very well be a separate section in itself—Canada-U.S. issues. And then Paul talked about Canada internationally. So we need to do that. The issues of training and the differences at the ports of entry we might do.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I'd like to see the report framed from the point of view, topically, of movement of people, then look at the legitimate movement of people versus the illegitimate movement, and perhaps break that down into the problems we encounter in both areas. Really, when we look at the numbers, out of 120 million, the illegitimate ones, which take 99% of our time and discussion, are the very small numbers. When our economy is dependent on the movement of people, goods, and services, we need to deal with that too.

The Chair: When we talk about a national context, I agree, there are those pressure points that come from the legitimate migration of people, as opposed to the other ones—the 200 million people or so who cross the border, for example, as opposed to the 40,000 refugee applications we deal with.

• 0920

Are there any other ideas?

Mr. Inky Mark: I think we could do a huge service to this country by coming up with solutions to streamline the system so goods, services, and people move expediently back and forth across our continental border, certainly, and with the global economy and the world we live in, I think that applies to the world trade situation as well.

The Chair: We'll talk about efficiency at the border as it relates to people and goods, okay?

I see Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): What is most important in a report is what is said at the beginning. It might be interesting to specify, if that is our vision, that Canada must absolutely maintain its responsibilities as a land of hospitality, notwithstanding September 11.

In other words, it would be unfortunate if September 11th forced us to change our vision, and I think that we have to state it very clearly because, like me you must be receiving all sorts of requests from citizens who have their own perspective and who would like nothing better than to see us lock the door and throw away the key. So, I think we have to articulate our vision very clearly, if I am not the only one who thinks this way, of course. I hope I am not alone.

Among the interesting points I would like us to remember, and which were raised repeatedly in the east, and certainly in the west is the fact that customs officers and immigration officials should be, accountable to a single entity, basically. I think that is one thing that merits our close consideration, and that we should perhaps suggest implementation as quickly as possible.

[English]

The Chair: I like the idea of being able to put our report in the context of what we did with Bill C-11, in the sense of what we believe in, in terms of immigration and refugees, our Canadian vision. I think that ought to be part of the report.

David.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We talk an awful lot about new technologies. We should look at new technologies, not necessarily the high-tech ones, but some of the pilot projects going on right now, the combined U.S.-Canada border crossings. There are some already out there, and we should be looking at how they're working. From what I hear, they're working quite well. We should be looking a lot more at that type of thing, particularly for our remote border crossings. I think we should be looking at how the IDENT system the States has could work with us, how it could be combined.

Our shared databases are not necessarily high tech. It's just a matter of sharing. That's sharing within Canada as much as it is with the States.

The Chair: Okay. That'll be under the technology piece. We could do that as well as the combined Canada-U.S. thing. I think we should have a Canada-U.S. section. That might be one of the recommendations we'll get around to.

Mr. David Price: I want to emphasize that the data sharing is not just with the States. We have to share more our own internal... whether it be the RCMP, CSIS, and so on. There are a lot of data that tend to be held back.

The Chair: Okay.

Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): I think there are a couple of issues we may not have covered. Many of them have been. You did mention technologies. I assume then you wrote it on the list, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I have technologies, yes.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Our efforts at increasing staff abroad and prescreening people before they get on planes and come to this country is another issue I didn't hear mentioned. I believe that's one we should be looking at.

I think there is a possibility of looking at some of our agreements as they stand. There may be things that are basically an international convention that we can't handle as a country, but there seems to be some feeling about dealing with some of those issues. One that was mentioned is being able to turn people back to the United States. That's a third-country issue.

• 0925

I believe there are other issues surrounding the refugee questions. I think an inordinate amount of time was spent discussing the refugees in comparison to all others, but that seems to be a high-pitch question. It seems to be one the media are focused on. It seems to be one that everyone else has spent a very large amount of time focusing on, and as a committee we have to take that as an issue and deal with the facts versus the fiction on refugees. That's number one.

Number two, we have to look at strategies that had best be implemented in Canada to make us, as Madeleine said, a safe, welcoming country but at the same time a secure country. I think those are very important.

Number three, even though it goes outside the immigration area—and I think Inky referred to it—there is the seamless border issue. This is really important for at least Ontario and trade in Canada, concerning as it does things like special lines for cargo going through at major ports—

The Chair: Streaming.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: —things like NEXUS, and whatever we can do to facilitate the best flow of goods and people we could possibly have. We have to look at the recommendations concerning land border-crossing points.

I would further suggest that every border point has different characteristics. I believe that Vancouver has very different characteristics as opposed to the prairies or Ontario. According to some discussions with my colleagues who have been in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada, there are different characteristics there.

It's not just the land-based and air-based dichotomy. I think we have to look carefully at territorial concerns and issues. For instance, in western Canada there are 17 crossings. In Manitoba there are hundreds of kilometres where anybody can drive a car over the border. So are we being realistic when we look at an issue in Windsor the same way we look at that issue in western Canada? I don't think so. Are we being realistic when we spend a whole lot of time on container boats coming into the port of Vancouver, yet almost anybody could go across the Canada-U.S. border just by driving a four-wheel-drive vehicle across a farm field? There are regional issues—I think I would put it that way—we need to look at in very different ways.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Those are good points.

Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I just wanted to mention the suggestion on air manifests—I don't know if it's in the regulations or not—and the one on combining the customs and immigration staff so they are reciprocally trained to be able to cover each other's duties.

Then there's the iris of the eye idea, as opposed to other forms of identification.

Going to one-year refugee claimants or those reclaiming refugee status instead of... The bill has gone to six months. Some would like to see it go back to a year. They thought it was better than going to just six months.

Definitely, detention is a very big issue. I'm sure we're going to address that.

There was a thought that perhaps we should examine the Frankfurt immigration thing. Since they detain more frequently, they have had fewer refugee problems, and it would be something worth looking at.

Next, we should treat a hearing with a refugee claimant much as they do a bail release in court, where the people have to have an address to go to or have to undergo a background check first. There should be more investigation of the refugee claimant instead of just taking the necessary data, the first data they give, and then letting them out on the street. This is what we've heard. They're let out, and we don't hear from a lot of these people again. Perhaps that has to be extended to something more like a bail hearing. They have to have an address and there has to be some sort of further background check made on them.

I think there was some concern about sharing information, which everyone has mentioned. Those are some of the things.

The Chair: Whether or not we need a separate section... perhaps we do on detention as well as the enforcement areas—

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Facilities.

• 0930

The Chair: Yes. From what I think of those detention facilities... Who we detain and when we detain I think were some of—

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: And the facilities. Can you even detain for...

The Chair: Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think we should say clearly at the outset, in the beginning of the report, that American security depends first and foremost on American authorities, American monitoring, and then try to counter the image created by certain statements that may have led some to believe that Canada may have been remiss in some situations.

It is, thus, the United States' responsibility to monitor its own borders, and it is a responsibility to which we can contribute, to which we want to contribute through exchanges of information, simplified procedures, better technology, and vice versa. Canadian security, more than American security, has to be our concern, I imagine, within this mandate.

Finally, we should specify what that mandate is exactly. Are we trying to bolster American security or Canadian security? I think it is Canadian security we seek. It also depends on the controls we exercise and for these we count on the co-operation of American services. It seems to me that we should say so clearly, since there is a little bit of ambiguity on these issues, as was mentioned often, particularly by our colleague Steve Mahoney.

Beyond all of this, Mr. Chairman, I would invite you to include a paragraph or two or a page, explaining why there have to be border controls between the two countries. When you travel in Europe by land you can go from one country to another without even realizing you have done so, for all intents and purposes. You don't see the borders. For some years now, there have not been any border controls in Europe. You go from France to Germany, to Italy, to Spain, and no one asks you any questions. No one opens the trunk of your car. No one makes you fill out a form. All of that has been done away with. And yet, these are countries that are thoroughly independent and proud to be so, and who claim to control their own territories.

Why do we need this type of border control here, between Canada and the United States? I think this merits a little explanation, a little justification. After that, we can explain our respective responsibilities. But I would like to see an explanation as to why here, between Canada and the United States, we who are so integrated economically and whose populations are so close, still need this whole series of border controls. How is it that the Europeans can live in a context where they have eliminated controls, practically speaking, on the movement of people from one country to another?

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

I agree about perceptions, reality, and American security. Hopefully, we're still going to the United States. Before we write this report, it would be nice to be able to talk with our American counterparts about that, but there are still some logistical problems. In the event we can't, we'll take our report and go and explain what we think the issues are to them whenever we can get there. I can't give you an answer as to whether or not we'll have the American point of view, we'll be able to do this pre-education, or we'll at least have these discussions with the Americans before we write this report. We're still trying to get there.

Bob.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I must apologize, because I'm just filling in today and I never had an opportunity to hear your witnesses.

I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, if you have heard from any witnesses, particularly from CSIS or the RCMP, who talked about their investigations of either potential immigrants or refugees as to whether or not there are any laws in Canada that restricted the investigators from getting the information they needed. I refer to investigations that go beyond just looking at the individual, and I'm thinking about cases where they may want to look at who this individual is associating with. I want to know whether there are any laws within Canada now that restrict them. A while ago I talked to somebody who was concerned about that aspect of it.

• 0935

The Chair: Yes, I think we asked those questions. The RCMP and CSIS, who came here, talked about not only the existing laws they have but about Bill C-11 and some of its enforcement mechanisms.

Mr. Bob Speller: This was after September 11?

The Chair: Yes. With respect to the anti-terrorism legislation that had been tabled but not yet passed, I think the RCMP and CSIS indicated that it would be very helpful to them, as would new laws on organized crime and smuggling issues. I don't have the notes, but it was a good question, Bob.

There is a whole issue relating to security, intelligence, enforcement, investigation, and sharing of information we ought to consider in our report; all that law-and-order sort of stuff ought to be there. I think that's all part and parcel of it. That all comes together in making sure that we can assure Canadians, Americans, and everybody else that our security is sound. As Jerry said, we have a safe country, but we also need to make it much more secure.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, we did hear from CSIS, the RCMP, and so on. I have two points.

They talked about needing resources to be able to do their job. While they said, yes, we would like to have a better capability of being able to get the information we do need, they also asked, what happens to the warnings and the reports we already give? If what we're doing is already ignored by the department or the government, what's the point of you asking us to do more when you don't pay attention to the information we already give?

We never paid a lot of attention to the workings of the IRB per se. Often the media or the public response, when there's one more article about some questionable person being released... It's really kind of outside the mainstream immigration system. It's over in this independent, quasi-judicial body of the IRB and has to do with the functioning of it relative to security.

The criteria for release and so on are all available on their web page. They were reiterated very carefully in 1998 and were given to the immigration committee at that time. This was based on a committee initiative to really clarify what rules and principles the IRB was operating under so it would have an orderly standard of decision making with respect to release. I read through of all that material, and it looks good.

But then we see the practical application out in the community, and your point comes up again, Steve, about public perception versus reality and that whole dichotomy there. Especially in view of September 11, we need to look at, at least from the perspective of security, how the IRB is operating. Is it really doing its job? I might even want to get to where we ask, should the IRB continue to exist as an entity the way it is? Just because it's there doesn't necessarily mean that it should stay there. Maybe we need to think outside the box.

The Chair: I thought we did that when we passed some changes, but I agree that we may want to have that discussion. As to the effectiveness of the IRB and some of the things, I think Steve talked a bit about the adjudicators and their role in release and detention. We may want to take a look at that whole section. But as to the IRB and making it better, I think that's what we all tried to do. We'll get into that.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If I may comment briefly on that, if we want to examine the role of the IRB, in my view that should be a separate study we would conduct afterwards.

I think what we're dealing with now is entry security, border security, the relationship between Canada and the United States, and other issues like refugee flow and that kind of thing. Once someone gets to the IRB, they're fairly far into the process of being in the country and are either in detention or have been released into the community. I think the adjudication issue is the one I would like to see a stress on.

• 0940

I want to just touch on what Bob brought up. One thing we did see—and I think this has to be addressed—is that front-line people make statements that they can't investigate this or they can't give this information or they can't talk about this, because they have a perception that it's against some law. When you ask for details, it is very difficult to get any. In fact, the opposite is true, that the people in our immigration system and in the police investigatory system do have the right to investigate virtually anything they want if it will help them do their job, but they don't understand that, they don't know that. So there's a direct lack of information right at the ground level.

You hear these generalized statements, I would like to investigate this further, but the law won't allow me to do it; you ask what law that is, and nobody can answer the question. I'd like us to really address that. If there are laws that prevent our people from doing their job, we should look at those and perhaps recommend changing them, but I just don't know of any. They'll cite things like the right to privacy, and they're afraid of getting sued by somebody because they go too far in the investigation, so they back off, when they don't have to back off, according to my understanding.

The Chair: I think we're saying the same thing. Sometimes warnings are given in something like that, and there's no follow-up. But I would agree.

David, Inky, Judy.

Mr. David Price: You brought up a really important subject that I think we're going to have to address. He talked about the Schengen treaty in Europe, but a lot of talk has been out there about fortress North America or a North American perimeter. Mr. Chair, I know you've mentioned before many times that you consider our border starts when somebody gets on the plane, not when they get here. We're going to be questioned on this one way or another, and I think it should be addressed in the report.

The Chair: Are you talking about North American perimeter issues?

Mr. David Price: That's right.

The Chair: Let's not get hung up on a particular word. So far I hear sharing, cooperation, coordination, and so on and so forth, without talking about perimeter, but I'm sure we'll get into that at some time today.

Mr. David Price: I know. It's a touchy one.

The Chair: Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

From the point of view of safety and security at the border and for the people who work there, we noticed in our field trip a distinct difference between the tools that enforcement people use south of the border compared with those north of the border. Firearms are totally missing north of the border, except with the RCMP being put on call. We heard also from the front-line people who work as enforcement for CIC about the need to have the right tools. We're talking about sidearms. I think that need should be addressed in this report as well.

The Chair: Though I think in the report we may want to talk about tools or personnel training, there's a whole range of issues maybe under the human resources, but the safety and security of our own facilities or whatever I think is an important point.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I apologize for missing the first part of the discussion. I won't attempt to—

The Chair: It's okay, you're buying lunch.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —anticipate what was said.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Judy, the chair will be the only person here at lunch.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's like what they usually say to speakers: you can speak for as long as you want, but we're going for lunch in two minutes.

I just caught the tail end of the discussion. I guess what I would want to do is register a concern that we not, as a committee, do anything that represents a sudden change or reversal in our legacy as a nation of a relatively humanitarian approach and open door with respect to legitimate refugees. I just overheard the last bit of Paul's comments, and if we're looking at making recommendations for scrapping the IRB, rethinking that whole process, or even questioning the current definition of refugee, I think we've got some problems.

The Chair: Not necessarily. Madeleine did such a good job of saying exactly what you just said, but that's good.

• 0945

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The theme that came loud and clear to me throughout our tour and meetings has been the question of capacity as a system to respond to the demand. I think the most startling thing everywhere was the fact that people feel stressed out, under-resourced, and just not able to keep up with the kind of caseload that is not unreasonable, but we're just not equipped to handle. When you cut through some of the angst that was expressed to us, for example, at Emerson by the immigration officials, about how we should stop everybody at the border and turn back all undocumented cases, if you stop and you really have time to talk with those folks, they don't want to be hard-lined or arbitrary or uncaring; they want the resources to be able to handle that caseload.

Especially when we had the two big unions here with their testimony showing how far behind we are on an overall basis in terms of the needs, I think we have to make a strong recommendation around somehow identifying appropriate levels of resources to deal with what to me is the heart of the problem—resources, capacity, supports, emphasis on reversing some of the changes that were brought in when somebody was focused on balanced budgets and made cuts that we're paying for dearly now.

The Chair: Believe it or not, Judy, Paul said exactly the same thing. So this is getting really scary. So far, so good. Capacity was his issue too, in terms of human resources and international pressures and so on and so forth.

Okay, who do we have next? The second round, let's go.

Give ideas, and then we'll start to talk a little bit about various themes, categories, and maybe possible recommendations within the themes. I intend to take the full two hours, whether or not you like it. If you would like me to write the report after you leave, that will be fine by me too.

Jerry, go ahead.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I don't know that two hours will be enough.

The Chair: We'll be back on Thursday. We're going to be coming back a number of times.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: We need to take each one of the topics that have been thrown out in the brainstorming session here, if you call that brainstorming, and try to deal with those in a lot of detail.

Just as a general statement, after going across the country, thinking about what I've seen, thinking about the issue of Canada's safety and everything that has happened, I quite frankly believe that what CSIS and the RCMP said is very accurate. Canada is the safest country in the world. I don't know that we have the accumulation of problems. We can build a huge case on problems or we can build a huge case on working relationships. I think there is potential to improve, and I'm not speaking out of tune when I say yes, we have to deal with the moral issue and the training issue of staff. We have to deal with information issues that are critical and things that have been thrown around. But in general, I think our safety is very good, and we can't lose sight of that as a committee.

The Chair: Maybe that will be under perception and reality.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Secondly, people argue about Canada's sovereignty. It is my view that whether we argue the view of sovereignty or the view of family or the view of North America, we have greater interests with the United States because of trade, cultural connections, all of the issues surrounding our livelihood and businesses and entertainment, culture—everything. Canada very closely aligns with the United States. We have to look at the United States as our best partner. This is critical, whether we talk about American politicians for whatever reasons making suggestions or... I believe something different happened here. I believe after September 11 the Canadian media really took some gross giant steps, which were never justified. I believe people wrote stories that were not justified, and we, as a committee, must attempt to clarify the record of Canada's past experience.

• 0950

We have to work on the thought that refugees are important—protecting lives and so on. Immigrants are extremely important to Canada. I don't know that any of those messages have been done as well as they should have been done. But we've heard from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Arctic that immigration is the basis under which Canada must proceed in the future.

We cannot keep separated as a country from immigration. If people are not coming into this country and if our doors aren't open, we do have major problems in the future, because our birth rate doesn't justify the population growth that we need. There are a lot of other factors that immigrants bring to Canada in skills and so on.

Somehow, this report can't just deal with the negative. It has to talk about the positive relationships between Canada and the United States, about how we can work together to improve the North American trade and immigration system. I believe Mexico is a considerable part of this as well, and certainly other countries.

There's also the aspect that has been raised that people gain entry into Canada and the United States in different ways, and as a result, those who may have a destination to Canada that cannot get into Canada on the front line will go to the United States and come to Canada.

There are reasons to discuss what our equal relationship should be with the United States and Canada on border perimeters, entry opportunities. But we need to deal with that. Steve said it very clearly several times, and I totally agree with that, and many people have said it. Our media took the tack that it's the terrorists from Canada that caused the problem in the United States, but no link was ever found.

It is clear to me that we can't just flap at a media that is has been very negative toward refugees and very negative toward certain policies and head in that direction. I think we have to be cautious about what we do and how we do it. There are many good things that have been talked about here. I would really like to see us get into specific discussions on each of those issues, Mr. Chair, as you're outlining, and I quite frankly think that's a long time.

The Chair: If you will, we'll start right now. As to the Canadian vision, the introductory piece should set the tone that while September 11 happened, there has been some discussion as to what are the Canadian values. How important is immigration? What really has happened? But at the same time, September 11 and border security has caused us to rethink certain things, such as human resources, security, and everything else.

Okay, first round.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Who's doing the writing?

The Chair: Me. No, our researchers.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Which one?

The Chair: Both of them. Ben and Jay have done it.

Okay, first category: as I understand it, let's focus on Canada-U.S. relations, because everybody either has talked about it or thought about it or has made some point. David talked about sharing infrastructure—physical and human resources at remote areas. That's one. These are the kinds of ideas under that category of Canada-U.S. cooperation. Let's start, just throw ideas out.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Under Canada-U.S., there is the whole business of where the department is, where we are going on the third country bilateral agreement with the United States. Number two, there is the question of what we are doing about coordinating our list of visa countries—the list they require visas from and the list we require visas from—and that whole mutual confidence issue. Then there is the thing that came from across the table over there—the database information sharing.

• 0955

It's very interesting that we went to the border and they talked about how they cooperated, how they made local cooperative innovations, but there's no Canadian official who can go to an American terminal. They do it by friendships, through the relationships they get over lunch, by being in the same building, or whatever. They work out these systems. Our computer databases don't access theirs and they don't access ours. It's based more on a relationship, a local cooperative basis. So how can we fulfil, from a much higher level, making the sharing of information a much more formal and inclusive one, rather than a local innovative one?

The Chair: So far I have about four or five points there, but there's an awful lot relating to bilateral agreements and everything else.

The other one that was mentioned by Jerry that would form a part is the direct-back policy. If you're coming to Canada from the United States, and you obviously got into the United States legally, what are some of the provisions we can use? We can detain them or we can send them back. So that's the direct-back thing.

Bob, do you have any ideas on the Canada-U.S.?

Mr. Bob Speller: I want to respond to one point there. I'm wondering how we factor in... You're talking about similar lists. I don't know how the Americans will ever agree. We have Francophonie and Commonwealth lists. We constantly allow people in without visas. Is it really a question of where they come from, or is it a question of how secure they are and how much effort we put into making sure that—

Mr. Paul Forseth: The list of the countries they have versus ours is a big issue, and to analyse that... That is seen to be some of the security leak or the pressure box.

The Chair: The minister agrees with what we've just said. The minister has been talking with the United States with regard to visa coordination of lists, be they from Argentina or Mexico. As I understand it, the minister has indicated she and the department are prepared to work with the Americans on coordination of visa requirements. If that's something we have consensus about, that's fine.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I actually brought it up in thinking it was important, but I'm sitting here realizing if we get a safe third country agreement, we don't care what they do with regard to their visa policies because we have the ability to say, when they arrive at our border, that they're ineligible because they're already in a safe country. It would be a little presumptuous. If we're not going to get a safe third country agreement, then definitely that's an issue. I think our priority should be a safe third country agreement.

The Chair: Let's not get hung up on one particular recommendation right here. Researchers will tell you that the Europeans have a safe third country agreement and it's problematic. It's fraught with some problems, based on where you originally come from.

Anyway, the idea of visa coordination and safe third country agreements are on this list of Canada-U.S. relations. I'm just looking for ideas.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What are the problems with safe third country agreements?

The Chair: It's mentioned; it's in here.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What are they?

The Chair: Right now we're going to talk a little about some ideas for Canada-U.S... We'll get that information for you and some of the problems the Europeans have had with safe third country. Right now I'm just putting it on the list—a safe third country—as a potential solution between Canada and the U.S.

Any other ideas on Canada-U.S. shared infrastructure? Yes, Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I remember asking this question. If there is a crisis on this side of the border, where the Americans could come over and assist, perhaps we need to look at some kind of relationship where they can transit the border without getting into all kinds of legal problems.

Just after Emerson, remember when I said if there was a crisis on the Canadian side of the border—

The Chair: American law enforcement officers...

Mr. Inky Mark: —would the Americans come over and help? And they said they can't do that. They used to do that, but they can't do that any more because of—

The Chair: Are you talking about border transit access for law enforcement people?

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, let's put that on the table.

Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I think talking about moving cargo in various ways—busy customs points like Detroit's Ambassador Bridge... I think there are different problems at Emerson, where we have potential questions about immigration and customs on the front line, tool box potential, about working together there more carefully.

The Chair: One was streaming customs, commercial and also people. You're talking about additional what?

• 1000

Mr. Jerry Pickard: There may be some places like Fort Erie, where you get a huge number of people coming across the border at that point, where we might want to see more immigration on the front lines, rather than just customs people. Or it could be the training of the customs people to have the same skills as the immigration people and be familiar with that. So it's a joint effort.

The Chair: Okay, and we'll cover that training or resources or whatever under the human resources.

I have Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The safe third country concept has been raised on a number of occasions. Before discussing the fact that this could be a solution that would please some, I think it is imperative that we examine what it means and if there are agreements that exist elsewhere, that we take a close look at what they mean in practice.

There are people who think they are refugees, who ask for entry and are refused in the United States. If the fact that they are turned away by the United States prevents them from going to another country, I think we have a problem. Before we make a decision on this, we should study this whole issue very carefully.

[English]

The Chair: Why don't I get the paper? I think there is some information that will cover safe third country as it relates to international conventions, experiences. We'll get that for the committee.

Mr. David Price: I would like to follow up. I think it was Inky who mentioned the problem of bringing people from one jurisdiction back and forth to the other. One of the places we visited was St. Stephen. The border patrol and the RCMP were working together there, riding in the same vehicle actually. So there are some test cases under way.

One of their big problems there is they have a large river area to patrol, so that tends to be a common area. Perhaps we could discuss that on a more formal basis with the Americans.

The Chair: That goes back to Jerry's point, to a certain extent, where every border point is unique. Around our area of southwestern Ontario it's not necessarily the bridge, but it's the Indian reserve and the waterway that make it very easy for people to smuggle in something.

Mr. David Price: It gets to be more neutral areas.

The Chair: No, the airports are a little different from the land borders. The port of Vancouver and other ports are a little different from the airports. The idea of streaming or flexibility at the local level from Canada to the U.S. could be rather creative and unique. Leave it to the local people to be able to do that if in fact that's the kind of solution we think is important.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Related to the movement of goods, which is perhaps a little more of a customs issue, is getting at the issue of not looking at and documenting goods twice. And then there are drivers or whoever involved in the movement of those goods. And getting a commonality on perhaps recommending the NEXUS system for the drivers of both commercial trucks and passenger vehicles and getting one system everybody can be happy with can be supported.

I see the latest figure of our trade with the U.S. is some 87%, so when we move goods people are involved in the moving of the goods. There are systems of pre-clearance of both goods and people to facilitate that trade, because it's in our economic interests.

The Chair: Okay. People move goods, so pre-clearance, NEXUS, CANPASS—there are all kinds of things through that.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I want to pick up on Steve's comment on what's wrong with a safe third country approach. I think there are problems practically and philosophically with it. Before we make a final recommendation as a committee, we'd better get some more information on what it is, what kind of impact it would have in terms of refugees coming into Canada, and what some of the key refugee support groups and organizations feel about it. I think this is a new issue. It's a major policy decision. This isn't tinkering with the existing system to try to improve issues around security. It's a major issue and it needs a discussion.

The Chair: We'll get that information.

Judy, Canada came very close to signing the safe third country agreement with the United States about five or six years ago, and it was the Americans who balked at it. So from a governmental standpoint it has been government policy to try to negotiate a safe third country agreement.

• 1005

I already indicated that I intend to get some information for you as a committee so that we can truly understand what it is, how it works, and what are some of the experiences in other jurisdictions. Then we can all be satisfied that's exactly what we're talking about.

There are other ways of being able to achieve some similar things, such as to direct them back from the U.S to Canada as opposed to a safe third country. We already have that in our legislation. It's a matter of enforcing it or saying we're going to do it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It seems to me that it's being raised as a panacea for a problem we don't want to grapple with, which is resourcing at the front-end screening and at the deportation end.

The Chair: I don't want to get into a debate on one specific recommendation or else it may tie us up for the rest of the morning.

Right now I'm just looking for ideas, and we're on the Canada-U.S. section. So far safe third country has come up three or four times with both pro and against opinions. I'm not getting into that debate. I want ideas relating to Canada-U.S. So far I have about ten and maybe there are some more.

Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: There's one other that I believe we heard about. I'm not on one side or the other, but I think it has to be discussed. In Windsor I heard that “hire a cop” is being done at the tunnel. I heard there aren't enough RCMP to secure our own employees at certain points. We heard comments about bulletproof glass at some crossings. We heard comments about safety and carrying weapons. All of that is part of what I heard from across the country. I think we need to place fact against fiction and deal with that in an open discussion as well.

The Chair: Inky brought that up. It's okay. I'm going to put it under the Canada-U.S. section, especially at those land points—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I think it is at the land entries that there is a problem.

The Chair: It's security of our own personnel and facilities and whether or not that is a concern. I've put it down.

Are there any other ideas? Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I don't want to put this on the list, but there is another issue around differences between the two countries on policies on visitors' visas. Sometimes, given the open-door policy in the States with regard to visitors' visas, that puts pressure on our system. We always look at it the other way, in terms of Canada causing the problems, that we're letting these people in and then they get into the system and we lose them. But what about the other way? What about all the casework we get in our ridings from visitors who have been approved to come to the States and want to come into Canada, but they're not allowed or our rules are different, but they're in the system?

The Chair: Visa coordination, again that's a broad issue, and it's fraught with all kinds of problems, sovereignty and other stuff. But there's no doubt that bilateral agreements between governments as to how we're going to have common policies and laws... If that assists in making us a safer North American continent along with the Mexicans, I think that's going to be broad.

The devil is always in the detail. Do you let the Mexicans into the United States by way of a visa? We don't require Mexicans who wish to come to this country to have a visa, but the Americans do. The Argentines are a little different. So you can see that it's fraught with all kinds of problems. I think as a global principle we say that Canada and the U.S. need to work on these issues, and that may very well be a recommendation.

That was Canada and the U.S. Let's look at Canada and the world, so to speak. If we believe that the border might start where a person purchases a ticket, as an example, from London, Frankfurt, or China... We talked a little bit about Canada and the U.S. and the unique recommendations we might need. How about Canada and the world? I should tell you that there has been a lot of discussion about whether we need additional international control officers or immigration officers to do a lot more interdictions. So I'm looking for those kinds of ideas as it relates to Canada and the world, not necessarily the U.S.

Jerry and then Paul.

• 1010

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I think that pre-screening and training of extra people in various regions of the world seem to have a tremendously positive impact on our strategies. I think somehow we can get into the technologies we have on that as well and get an interchange of CSIS information with everyone and the means by which we can work agreements with other countries on easy access.

Whether we should have, as Yvon suggested, a more open policy with other countries, as the Europeans do, or be more cautious is a debatable point, and I'm not sure we've had that. The screening and looking at the legitimacy of people applying to come to Canada from abroad are things we need to do big time. I think it would involve huge cost savings for us. Maybe we're not putting the resources there that we need to.

The Chair: I know that Lynne mentioned something about airline manifests being given to us beforehand.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Looking at the data from the Vancouver situation and improper documents that were Canadian, number one was passports, number two was visas, and number three was the IM 1000 document. It was very close.

Looking at interceptions of Canadian documents, there were 2,200. The interceptions of documents of other countries totalled 6,100. So it's a one-third Canadian problem versus two-thirds for others. We're looking at the source countries of Greece, France, U.K., and the Netherlands.

So there appears to be, first of all, a big requirement to do with the security of the kind of passport we use and the new replacement card. Currently, in our offices around the world they're still cranking out the IM 1000 document. It's still happening, and it's going to continue to happen for a long time.

The Chair: Those are people who have already been given landed status. I don't mean to cut you off, but the next section might be about what we can do internally. It's Canada and the U.S. and Canada and the world. What are some of those things? That takes in the card and the IM 1000 document.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Those are some of the issues I'm talking about.

Then we look at improperly documented arrivals' last embarkation points. Way out in front was London, then Paris and Amsterdam. Obviously, there are a lot of practical things we have to do to harden the target so that we do this pre-screening we're talking about in London, Paris, and Amsterdam.

They go through those places, but where are they coming from? Their prior point is Istanbul, New Delhi, Teheran, or Karachi. So we have to look at the data and say, we could effect a tremendous difference if we were to apply resources and do a few things, such as the manifest, requiring the pouching of documents, foreign service officers, and all the rest of it at some of these hot points.

The Chair: That's what I'm looking for. You mentioned foreign service officers, pre-screening, and more resources in certain places based on information we have as to these source countries or problems with forged documentation and so on.

You also mentioned the pouching of documents by the airlines.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It doesn't cost a lot.

The Chair: Next is Judy, followed by Inky and Jerry.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You're not going to like my suggestion again, Mr. Chairperson, because I want to raise something general. I don't have any specific issues around travel documents from wherever.

The Chair: You're still getting tuned in.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Jerry's point is an important one. Until we deal with this whole issue or apply the minister's words about opening the front door so that you can close the back door, we're not going to really play a meaningful role. I think the fact that our numbers on immigrants and refugees aren't going anywhere this year is key to this whole discussion. We're stagnant. There's no movement to get us any closer to the 1% of our population. We're at 226,000 this year, and there's no sign that there's going to be an increase next year. So we're not doing anything to deal with that huge volume of people lining up at the offices internationally, trying to get into this country legitimately. They go to the back door and look for other ways to get in because they have to. Until we deal with that, I'm not sure I'll—

• 1015

The Chair: It's proper to deal with it now. One of the things we were going to do as a committee, before September 11 happened, was look at Bill C-11 as it related to our ability to market to the world and attract the best and brightest, and get those 300,000 people.

I'm not suggesting this document has to be so fixated on security that you lose sight of what everybody else is saying. Let's not lose sight of the fact that we have an open door for people who are trying to legitimately immigrate here, and legitimate refugees.

There's nothing wrong with saying that. I've put it down, Judy. You have a good idea.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: One problem that has to be addressed that Canadians have a difficult time understanding is even though we make air carriers responsible for the passengers they carry, we continue to hear about undocumented entry into this country via air. We've heard over and over about people getting on aircraft with documents, and by the time they get to the other end they've disappeared. We have to find a solution to deal with that problem.

The Chair: When we travelled and talked about pre-screening, those disembarking teams were very effective. They've been tried as pilot projects, so we actually knew which airplane people got out of before they went down to the big room and met customs and immigration. We had CIC people right at the plane to make sure there was documentation and we knew exactly which plane they were getting off, so we could make sure the airline was totally responsible for sending them back eventually, if they were here illegally.

Mr. Inky Mark: It's not working, because Joan said right in this very room that they cannot turn them around.

The Chair: I thought she said they could turn them around. We'll get into those other aspects of detention and whether we can or cannot.

Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Where we come to different ports of entry, people from other countries come to our airports. That's where the vast majority of them come. So if we're talking about people coming in from other countries, airports have to be a focus. I strongly believe the heaviest training of people receiving guests from other countries, or people coming in as immigrants or refugees—our front-line people—should have the highest priority in immigration, because I think that is what the airport is.

On the customs side of it, they're not carrying large amounts of goods. It seems to me we're very effective using small dogs, in customs. I look at Toronto airport, and the dachshunds there identify thousands of parcels every couple of weeks—those kinds of things. Technologies may not be different—

The Chair: Is there any particular breed of dog you want to mention?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Yes, it's the Fontana variety. However, I choose not to be too specific.

The fact is—not necessarily with one type of dog—a dachshund does not pose a threat and is not unwelcoming. It's kind of an accommodating little animal with a good ability to identify.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I kind of like a dachshund for security.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I believe we often focus too much on customs and not enough on immigration at airports, and it should be the reverse. Airports should be focusing on immigration, and customs can be secondary.

Customs officers can wander around in crowds of people identifying goods that may be smuggled, particularly drugs and food products we are trying to keep the country safe from. It's very clear dogs would be the easiest answer for that.

The Chair: Agreed. Canada and the world—looking for ideas.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I don't know if this is the right category, but somewhere we need to deal with the issue of consultants who are preying on people desperately trying to come here, no matter what.

The Chair: That was in our report before, but I agree.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I know it came up again at the Senate hearings.

• 1020

I just want to be clear I'm not raising non-profit church-based organizations that legitimately help refugees do the proper documentation and interview practice to get here. I'm talking about profit-making consultants who are there to rake every penny they can from vulnerable people trying to get refuge.

The Chair: What about smugglers? Nobody mentioned smuggling, but does that fall under the same category? I know we heard from the RCMP that there are people smugglers. I take it that's not only Canada-U.S., but Canada-world. You were talking about consultants and I immediately started thinking about smugglers. Are there any problems with mentioning that? I think Bill C-11 does that in a very big way.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The pilot project we saw in Dorval deals with separate lines. It just started, in fact, the Monday after we were there. There are separate lines for people coming from overseas who have visas. They can be work permits, student visas, visitor visas, or whatever. These are people who have been approved. Take them out of the system.

I think that pilot project should be evaluated as quickly as possible, and if it works nearly as well as it seemed to be working, it should be expanded across the country.

The Chair: We heard that Vancouver was trying to do that a little, but I think you got a better—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: At Dorval they even built a separate line, a separate room. They have customs and immigration working together. You sit down with your immigration officer and slide down the table to deal with your customs officer. It is one-stop shopping—out the door and you are gone. Remember, these people were all approved in an embassy overseas, so it takes a lot of the red tape away.

The Chair: It's streaming of people. We've heard about it at land, now we're hearing about it at airports. It doesn't matter if it's the U.S. or the world.

David.

Mr. David Price: I'm not sure just what this fits under, but I think it's something we should take a look at. It's the exit controls the U.S. are using. That could go under all three categories.

The Chair: It might be under enforcement. There are other categories we want to talk about in terms of enforcement, so exit—

Mr. David Price: The exit controls, basically—

The Chair: Don't go there, but that's beside the point.

Mr. David Price: But in our Canada-U.S. relations, if you look at it in that sense, or Canada-world, the U.S. is pre-screening people coming into Canada, in a way. An arrangement between the two, which they were talking about, would reduce the workload on our guys, and in reverse they would do that. They would get certain types of checks.

The Chair: Just to give you an idea, if 150 million people are using that border and you start talking about exit controls, do you think you're going to need staff to deal with what we've got? It's going to be... Or bridge congestion...

Mr. David Price: But as I mentioned, in this particular case they were suggesting, if the Americans were doing an exit control here, we wouldn't have to do an entrance control there.

The Chair: I'll put it down. On Canada-world, are there any others?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Did you put staffing down under overseas offices?

The Chair: Yes.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I would support what David just talked about, in terms of exit and entry. You can travel the world with your Visa card and all it takes is a swipe for them to know whether you've got money in your account.

In we're facilitating the movement of people, we have the technology in place. Certainly with our border, when we talk about 99% of the people being legitimate, it makes a lot of sense. Plus you'd have a record of the people who were moving back and forth. I certainly support that.

The Chair: I'm not sure if David supports that. At least he launched the idea of a scud missile right in the middle of this thing, but that's okay.

Madeleine, go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Among the refugees who come from countries other than the United States, there are always some who had papers when they got on the plane or the boat who brought them here and who no longer have them when they get here. We have to come up with procedures for such cases. Documents could be photocopied and sent along to the port of entry. Very often, refugees who arrive and no longer have their papers have made those papers disappear because this has been suggested to them as the thing to do. We think that it is a very bad idea to lose those papers. It puts them in hot water. If we are convinced that this is the case, there must be some way of coming up with a solution that would be feasible without being excessively time-consuming. On a 300-person flight, there aren't 300 refugees. There are a lot of people who are Canadian citizens, for whom you don't need any special procedures, or American citizens.

• 1025

[English]

The Chair: Okay, I think we might have exhausted the Canada-world thing. How about if we start to talk a little about contentious issues such as enforcement?

When I talk about enforcement or programs, it means how many people we want to direct back, send back, it means detain, detention. I'm talking more about policy issues and administrative issues, as opposed to those that are CIC-related.

As an example, Jerry mentioned this a couple of times: Do we perhaps want to make immigration people more prevalent at our airports than at our land borders because we're dealing more with people in our land and we're dealing more with people and goods?

Yet I've heard two or three people mention that perhaps we ought to have joint customs and immigration playing a greater role at a border, however you define that, and then I heard about sharing resources. I'm talking about enforcement and programs, really, enforcement and program delivery. It's a pretty wide category, for lack of a better word right now. Maybe we can just throw out some ideas as to what we think might be the enforcement side of things and program delivery kinds of things.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I think the first thing required is probably the breakdown in terms of deportations, even in terms of the numbers that are already out there. There are 27,000 that we've heard about, but it's just a number. We need to break down exactly what those numbers mean and where they actually occur across this country so that we can have some idea of the real picture.

On the enforcement side, I would revisit the whole issue of equipping our enforcement people with the right tools, both on the CIC side and the customs side, so that they can do the job. The fact is that they are doing the job of peace officers, like members of the RCMP, by going into high-risk environments, and I think we need to consider their safety.

The Chair: I think we'll get to those people, or we should, at least with some of the statistics with regard to what are those deportations and removals that have yet to be done in terms of priorities for our law enforcement people in immigration. That comes right back to this whole issue of capacity in the system if you have immigration people having a backlog, I think, in terms of removals and deportations, right?

I've noted that, as well as some tools. Is there anything else on the enforcement program side of things?

People mentioned detention. I can't remember who mentioned detention facilities.

Lynne, it was you. Do you want to expand a little bit on that one?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: That's what they said they were lacking at Dorval.

There is also the fact that detaining people seems to send a message that this country doesn't take lightly their landing and claiming refugee status. They think that if we try to send a message through detaining people it might be a model to start to discourage people.

For instance, another example I was going to bring up earlier was that people from some countries land here with the same story. Soon a pattern of abuse is seen, and the people think that those countries should probably have a visa restriction imposed on them. I can't remember who or what other ports have mentioned this, but I think that maybe the Caribbean was one. I can't remember from what country right now people are coming in with the same story, which is that they are going to visit Niagara Falls for a holiday, and soon they're a refugee claimant.

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think we should be very careful about making recommendations around broad, sweeping powers of detention for undocumented, unprocessed refugee claimants.

If we're looking at trying to find the most effective way to deal with backlogs and waiting lists, then we need to put the money into the front end in terms of staffing and to process and do the front-end screening.

The costs of detention, I understand, are enormous. Here is one of the figures I have. If we suppose for a moment that we receive 3,500 to 4,000 refugee claimants a month, and, based on a previous stat, roughly a third of these are lacking proper documentation, that means you're looking at about 1,000 detainees a month, at a cost of—and this is really conservative, sorry about the word—$200 a day each. Even if a complete security check could be done in 72 hours or three days, which is unlikely, we're looking at a cost of, what, $600,000 per month, minimum, just to maintain these people in custody without any of the capital expenses.

• 1030

I think you're looking at just an exorbitant cost for an idea that isn't consistent with our notion of due process in this country. I think we tend to overreact because in the U.S. they don't have due process. They detain everybody who doesn't come in with proper documents. They're either detained or sent back. We have a different way of doing things in Canada. While there's a problem, I think there are other ways to handle the problem rather than going down this path.

The Chair: I'll put down detention, and I'm sure that's probably one we're going to be debating. Right now I'll just put it down. I'm sure there are going to be pros and cons on either side, and there could be certain variations of detention, based on what our policies and our administrative structure will be.

Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: On detention, I tend to think that the information we heard from the minister is relatively significant in this case. First of all, I don't think we can build detention facilities at every point for coming across the border. If I were looking at the issue from an immigrant point of view or from a refugee point of view, I would try to cross at a place where there's no detention centre so I could get through. Now, we could build crazy systems, and I think we have to be very cautious about how we spend our money on detention centres and doing that type of thing, although we need some.

Steve, the minister and many people on this committee have said that where a person is not cooperative and doesn't have documentation, detention is possible until that person changes his or her mind on cooperation.

Do we really have a problem statistically? Is there information we can look at to determine if this is a greater problem? Or is it a concept that may not be one we should spend a lot of time on?

The Chair: We'll get that information for you.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Yes, I think this is critical to the debate, and as long as we sit and talk and we don't have that specific information it's difficult to make any assessment as a committee.

The Chair: The only thing I can say is that—I've put it down—because documentation and cooperation are key to whether or not we detain someone, Bill C-11 in fact has strengthened that argument. Now it says that if a person is undocumented and also uncooperative then the front lines do have the ability to detain. Whether or not they do it becomes another question, a question of capacity, of whether or not there are facilities and so on and so forth.

We'll get the information on some statistics that you asked about.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: On this, too, I just want to take one further step. I believe that the seamless border for goods is critical, and therefore in this whole process it may be relevant to bring in the point that in regard to people coming back into Canada, a line for Canadians coming through may be a reasonable answer. For everybody who is from Canada and coming back through a Canada line, we could move them as quickly as possible back into the country. If customs wants to deal with them, fine, but it's not an immigration problem and our immigration people don't have to deal with previous Canadians or people who have Canadian citizenship.

Secondly, on the pre-clearance of goods and so on, to clear more of that border congestion I think we need techniques to clear it so that we have a clear line of those people we need to have an immigration officer deal with. I really think that can speed up a lot of the process.

Some of the ports don't have that much travel back and forth, so it may not be critical. I'm talking about the heavy, dense ports that have a lot of people coming back and forth. There is Fort Erie and there are some in Ontario that seem to pull in the most. I think we really have to focus on those and divide lines, do certain things and do the job in a different way.

The Chair: Steve.

• 1035

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The information I would like, and we didn't actually see this, is what is the capacity of our detention facilities inland. In Montreal, there is an inland facility. We didn't go there, and I regret that we didn't, because the argument at the airport is... What do they have, three rooms that they could detain in. They're obviously not even remotely comfortable. They're just stark, and you sit on a bench. So before we decide whether we need to build more facilities, I'd like to know what facilities we actually have inland.

I'd also like us to take a look at increasing our enforcement capabilities when a deportation order is given. The department has a list of priorities. At the top of that list, of course, would be criminals, people who are known criminals who have somehow got in the system and have probably played the game for a couple of years. We finally get a deportation order against them. I think we go fairly seriously after them.

Then there's further down the list. You have people who come here. They're not criminals. They've been issued a deportation order, but we don't place enough emphasis on actually executing that deportation order, because they're not necessarily a security risk. I think if the situation is serious enough that someone has been issued a deportation order, then frankly we should do everything we can as an enforcement agency to execute that order and remove them from the country.

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Just one point on the whole issue of detention facilities: I think the detention topic should be perceived as another vehicle for pre-screening. I don't think we want to establish another jail system for this country, but at the same time Canadians are concerned about the lack of detention for people who may pose a security risk to this country. So I think we need to have a sense of balance there.

I agree with Steve—

The Chair: Are you talking about using it as a deterrent?

Mr. Inky Mark: As a pre-screening vehicle, to ensure that security risks are going to be detained.

On the other point that Steve made, and I think that's very significant, this whole issue of deportation orders is valueless unless we deal with it, not only on the serious criminality side, but even on the visitor side. When people come to this country, breach their visitor's visa over and over again, end up getting married in this country, they are basically creating problems for our immigration system. You can't have two or three systems ongoing at any given time, and they become legitimate because of use. I think we need to deal with that.

The Chair: What you are talking about is making sure of the integrity of the system, which means doing what we're supposed to be doing now.

Mr. Inky Mark: Right.

The Chair: I think Steve asked a question in terms of priorities. Where are those deportations and removals? There's serious criminality. There are other people, and then obviously there are people who are abusing the system. And if you stay long enough, we're probably going to forget about you, or by that time we might even allow you in.

Mr. Inky Mark: It's a question of order.

The Chair: Yes, okay.

Judy and then David.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My point was along the same lines. We deal with the backlog in terms of people waiting to be processed and we deal with the number of people who have been rejected, and we don't have the resources to make sure they're moved out. Until we deal with that, you can't just deal with enforcement.

The Chair: I've put it on the list on the back.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I just want to raise a suggestion in that regard. The backlogs are so significant. What was it? The union officials said 26,000 in terms of refugees waiting to be processed.

The Chair: Well, we don't know.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, we should look into that.

And then there is another, what, 10,000 a year. So they used the number of 37,000 sitting there right now—people waiting to be dealt with just in terms of processing.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: We need some facts first.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So we need some facts. But then we need—

The Chair: We need some facts and then we need Steve Mahoney's amnesty proposal.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —to look at a solution that fits the facts. One solution is obviously enough resources to deal with the backlog. Or the second is, which we haven't talked about lately, whether or not amnesty makes sense, given the significant size of the...

• 1040

The Chair: I put it down—backlog and how we deal with the backlog. I'm not going to get into it right now. I just mentioned it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I've got one point on the security thing.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: This is where the adjudication issue needs to be really hammered in, because we're talking about whether or not we should detain more. What we heard on the front line is that they don't even bother detaining, if they don't think they can convince an adjudicator 48 hours later to uphold the order.

We need to make sure there's a message from the ministry to the adjudicators that is clear in terms of them doing their job, because we heard they are releasing people—at least at Dorval. The guy who is in charge of all the front-line investigators made it very clear that they're prepared to detain more aggressively, but there is no point, if 48 hours later, after they have to do all their homework and make a presentation in front of an adjudicator, they just turn them loose.

The Chair: That's like trying to tell a judge to do their job, but we're going to try.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes. I think this is the area where we really need to stress that.

The Chair: Okay.

I had David, and then we'll move on to another section if we're going to keep to our timeline for eleven o'clock.

Go ahead.

Mr. David Price: I have just a follow-up, actually, on where Steve was going. As far as Dorval, for instance, somebody comes in there and is refused entry into Canada. They're turned around and they're popped on a plane and away they go, and there's a full record of all of that.

The land borders are quite different. What we heard at the land borders is the person comes to the immigration officer and states their case. The immigration officer says you're not going to be able to get into this country, so why don't you just turn around and go back. There's no file, there's nothing, and it's totally forgotten. What bothers me about that is that there's no record of that anywhere. So this person keeps popping along until they can find a border they can get in... probably.

The Chair: Yes. That's direct back...

Mr. David Price: They should open a file on it. Then they have to go through the whole system, and that's what they don't want to do.

The Chair: We'll probably get into those kinds of details a little later.

Now I'm just going to move on to another section. Based on what people have said, do you want this specific section for refugees? I know that we've covered it off with Canada and the U.S., and Canada and the world, yet I've heard some people say that perhaps we're talking too much about refugees, as opposed to the 200 million people who are crossing our border and the immigrants that... I mean, there are certain things that have been said that are specific to refugees, but I just want to know whether or not you want a special section with regard to how we will deal with refugees that are not documented properly or whatever. Do you want to, or are we going to just keep it encompassed under those other broader contexts? I just ask that because I want to move on to human resources and technology, if I could, because those are going to be very big pieces.

Everybody wants to comment on that one. Okay. Madeleine first.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, since September 11, a lot of people think that refugees are the problem. I think that if we highlight any particular point concerning refugees, we will be giving credence, to some extent, to that perception by the population. Our responsibility is to set things straight. What happened on September 11 involved security, not immigration and refugees.

So I would have some serious reservations about including a chapter on refugees.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I would say keep them in the areas you're going to discuss, whether it's harbours, land entries—

The Chair: Water.

Mr. Inky Mark: —airports, because they're all different.

The Chair: All right.

Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I was just going to say if you're going to talk about perception, that seems to be where we're getting blamed for terrorism, through our refugee system.

The Chair: We may cover that off in the perception and reality intro sort of thing.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Interestingly enough, as long as we do that, I guess that would be fine. But I don't think it would hurt us to have a short, separate section that deals with the refugee problem from a point of view of perception versus reality.

The biggest surprise in our trip east was when we saw that we had 5,000 refugees coming from the United States at Lacolle and only 58, I think it is, going the other way. If anything, the American perception that we're seeing on CNN and, I'm afraid to say, CBC is one of some terrible flow and leaky border, and it's just not true.

• 1045

So if we want to say it strongly in the preamble in that regard, perhaps using the example of Lacolle or others, then it's fine with me. I don't think we should duck the issue, because the perception is that there's a problem here. We know it's not true, and the onus is on us to make that clear.

The Chair: If there is such a section, it should be on the positive side to dispel the perception and talk a bit about reality, as opposed to the reverse. I understand that. Whether we do it in the preamble or have a special section, we will do it.

Okay, big ones, because I want to spend a little time on something everybody talked about. We need to talk about the issues of human resources and technology; those have been mentioned very frequently. I want to list where we might talk about human resources and technology.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chair, I really hesitate on this, but I would like to make a comment on the refugee issue too, because I strongly endorse having a section on refugees.

My reason is that the press and the public have been so ingrained in their thinking that “refugee” means terrorism, “refugee” means bad, and I think we have to stop this. This committee has a responsibility to make sure we comment on the refugee system in a positive way. It's not a matter we're ducking in any respect.

Until we deal publicly with the refugee question, we'll never resolve some of it. Front-line people are there too, and they are no better informed than the public is. My comment is not somewhere in the beginning, somewhere here; I think we have to put it on the table.

The Chair: Yes, I agree, and I thought we had said as much, but if you want to highlight it from the standpoint of perception, information, and education, that's fine. We'll test it out.

On the human resources side, there has been a lot of talk about capacity and people internationally on our borders, where technology... There has been a lot of discussion. I'm sure everything you've said is probably someplace else, but we ought to have specific sections on human resources and this technology side of things.

Let's get some ideas on this and then we're going to break for lunch. Hopefully on Thursday we'll have a draft, some paper for you to take a look at as we start to create this great document that we can sell to the world and whatever.

Who has some ideas on human resources and technology? I heard already about more ICOs, more international people. It's come up in some other sections, but we want to highlight it here—more international people.

What do you think, Lynne?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I wondered about going back to more local offices instead of concentrating them in two areas, Mississauga and Vegreville.

I don't know where this comes in, but interpreters are another issue. This didn't come up on our tour, but one woman in particular said that sometimes when they're doing an interview they have to find an interpreter, which made me wonder about why what Dorval has done isn't done across the nation. At Dorval they have an on-call interpreter at home who they can call at any hour. This way there is no need to pay an interpreter the three hours to come in and do the work, and they can always be reached.

I would think this would be a given, that you wouldn't have to try to get hold of an interpreter; one would always be available. Interpretation only came up once, at one of the border crossings, and it wasn't a big issue.

The Chair: We heard the same thing in Vancouver, and we were told there are interpretation services available. How readily or how quickly I don't know, but I've put it down.

Who has some comments? Inky?

Mr. Inky Mark: I have one point to make. All the manpower and technology will not work unless the system is integrated on both the manpower and technology sides. This was one of the shortcomings we found in our field trip. On this side of the border, organizations didn't work together. They were forced to work together because of Sempterber 11. On the other side of the border the same phenomenon occurred: they didn't work together either. They're all busy protecting their own turf. Technology has to be integrated so people have access to all the available data, and the people have to work together as well.

The Chair: That's the issue of working together, integration of people and integration of technologies on both sides. Okay.

Who else did I have here? David.

• 1050

Mr. David Price: A small point, but probably a touchy one, is the pay scale between customs and immigration. There's a difference, and it's a sticky point when they're having to work on the front lines, particularly at the land crossings.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: And responsibilities come up as well. It's about time immigration pulled its weight. This comment was also made where there's not an immigration officer on schedule. This is just a comment to go with the previous one.

The Chair: So I take it that under human resources you want to see more immigration officers.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: For them to be more equal or integrated.

The Chair: And, David, you were talking about recognizing that the different pay scales cause some difficulties.

Mr. David Price: Because they're working together, doing basically the same job.

The Chair: Okay.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm not sure I understand.

We're recommending, David, that—

Mr. David Price: No, we're just discussing it. It was a touchy point.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Because they don't do the same jobs.

Mr. David Price: No, but we're losing some of the people in immigration who cross over to customs in order to get better pay.

The Chair: Does anybody else have comments? Yes, Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: It's clear that more cross-training for our front-line people is important. Information sharing is extremely important. Within the system you may often have one section of management with a good view of policy that the workers may not have. We're not getting enough up-and-down flow of information in the departments, and we really need to improve it. I'm not criticizing; I'm just saying a major effort has to be made to talk to employees about implementation of policy, about what we're doing.

Bill C-11 is a good example. We heard so many different views on Bill C-11, some from middle management, some from front-line workers, some from senior management, and their views seemed to vary. A huge effort has to be put into making sure our people have the best communication flow, on a seamless basis, up and down the scale. Concerns need to be dealt with up front and quickly with our front-line people. They need to feel they understand very well whatever is being implemented.

That video was another issue we talked about, the potentials of technology. As a general statement, having the best technologies possible for identification and communication is really important.

The Chair: Paul, you've been awfully quiet. You are making me nervous. Do you have anything to add?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Well, to get back to this positive statement of “refugee” and so on, Hassan Almrei—the person the Federal Court has said probably has a link to Osama bin Laden—was granted refugee status. Here's one more case. Here we go. So despite—

The Chair: Yes, but he's going to be deported now. Once you catch him and you know there's a criminal connection—

Mr. Paul Forseth: I did bring up the issue of the PLO terrorist we've been trying to deport for 12 years.

We have to deal with the reality of some of these cases. We don't want to get focused on the individual cases, but they reveal or are case examples of how the system works or doesn't work. We have to learn from them. Instead of concentrating on the person, we need to find out how Mr. Almrei got refugee status. What is it about the confidence in the system? The claim was made that he got refugee status because his dad was a terrorist and Mr. Almrei pleaded sympathy. That was the basis of his argument.

Looking at this, the public will ask what kind of a system we have.

The Chair: I know, but I want you to deal—

Mr. Paul Forseth: That was in response—

The Chair: —with human resources and technology. I know during our travels you had a lot to say about human resources capacity. You asked for the regional reports in terms of how many people we actually need. I'm on the human resources and technology issue. You mentioned in some of your earlier comments that we need to make sure we have the best technology and it's all integrated, and more intelligence...

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth; I'm just trying to recap where we are.

• 1055

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's right.

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: About 15 days ago in the newspaper Le Droit, there was an article alluding to the fact that among Immigration Canada's personnel abroad there are some immigration officers who are not Canadian citizens. Thus, they are immigration officers who hold local citizenship. I have some questions about this. I wonder whether it would be worth checking to see whether it is true. How many immigration officers abroad are not Canadian citizens? Shouldn't we give this some thought?

[English]

The Chair: When the committee started to deal with it, you will remember that right at the beginning, when we talked about the Auditor General's report, some of those issues were covered there. But that might be something that comes back to training. What more presence do we have in the international context, because these are foreign workers who work in Canadian embassies, and what's happening there? I've put that down because I think that was part of the whole thing.

We have to move on. Ray is here, the chair of the other committee.

Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: As a quick response to Paul, I don't mean to be negative on your point, Paul, but—

The Chair: I don't want to talk about this stuff right now.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: One second. If I look at a ten-year period, we have 370,000 refugees coming into Canada, and if you can find one or two bad examples... I would challenge you to give me any group of people in society, 370,000 of them, and I'll find some bad examples. I don't think it's different. I really think it's difficult for this committee to deal with one or two bad examples out of hundreds of thousands. That's a problem. If we focus there, we're wrong.

The Chair: That's what I mean. When we discuss that refugee thing, I'm sure we will want to emphasize a number of points.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think we have to be pretty clear in this report, whatever shape it takes, that there is a staffing problem. There's a shortfall of staffing resources.

The Chair: It's all over the place.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think there needs to be that recognition.

In terms of numbers, Paul didn't say anything today, but in the past he gave us a figure for one region, which, if translated for the country, probably means somewhere in the neighbourhood of—

The Chair: We're getting some additional information with regard to numbers from the different regions, as to capacity and everything else.

In terms of whether or not our committee report may want to talk about numbers, how precise can we be? Should we say 100, 200, 1,000, or 1,200 people? Do we want to get that specific, or do we want to say we think you need more people locally, more people overseas, more people at the airport, at the port, certain things?

We can get into those specifics. I've put it down as one of the areas of capacity in human resources, and we're going to get some additional information.

Having said that, here's—

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: My apology, but I'm wondering about videoing interviews when these interviews are done, because you hear sometimes that they think the officers are going to abuse their position or refugees will get off on some connotations made. I think a video of the interview would be quite safe for everybody.

The Chair: Yes, I think in some cases they were doing it, and in other cases there wasn't the technology.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Jerry alluded to them. I'm not sure if he meant interviewing—

The Chair: The other thing is that we found in terms of human resources and technology, surely everybody should have the same standard. You can't have one border point being really good in technology and somebody else not having anything, because essentially that's fraught with problems.

I'll tell you what we're going to do. All your ideas that have been put forward, Jay and Ben will put down in a point-form draft report or a first draft, in various categories, some of the areas and some of the suggestions you've made, so that we can talk. As well, we'll create an introductory piece as to why we're doing this, and maybe a little bit on Bill C-11. For your information, I will make sure that you have what all our witnesses said, in some version, so that you can reflect again on what they've said and whether or not our report reflects that.

I think what we'll do is meet Thursday morning, because we have a lot of work to do. So we'll get that done for you. Some of the information you have received now and some of the information from the department I'll make sure you get today or tomorrow so that you'll have it before Thursday morning. Thursday morning let's take two or three hours and see if we can start to flush out the—

Mr. Paul Forseth: Are we going to have a very rough draft document on Thursday?

• 1100

The Chair: Yes, a very rough draft. The following week we may be in Washington, and we'll create another document, no problem. When I say rough, it might be just point form.

A voice: Will we be completing a report by the end of next week?

The Chair: Yes.

Okay, thank you. The meeting is adjourned.