CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 18, 200l

• 0906

[English]

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

Let me first of all welcome our guests, Commissioner Zaccardelli from the RCMP and Director Ward Elcock from CSIS. I want to welcome both of you to our committee.

On behalf of the committee and hopefully the Canadian people, let me from the outset thank each and every one of you and your men and women who are dedicated to protecting Canadians for the fine work you are doing. Obviously since September 11 the situation has caused you more concern and more work.

Our committee, as you know, has passed Bill C-11, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We believe this new act will strengthen Canada's resolve to ensure that illegal refugees or immigrants don't come to this country, but at the same time will ensure our front door is open to immigration and to immigrants who have helped build this country.

Of course Canadians are always concerned that our systems, resources, and information and intelligence gathering are such that we can protect our borders from those who would want to cause our country harm. That's the purpose of what we want to do today. We believe Bill C-11 had some very strong security and front-end screening measures. We want to discuss with both of you as to how we can assure Canadians that we are on top of the job, that we are prepared to make the changes, both in human resources and technology, to ensure that our borders are in fact secure, and second, that we address the concerns the U.S. and Americans may have with regard to general border security along the longest unprotected border in the world. This committee will be travelling to Washington in the next week or two to talk with our counterparts about ways we can both work together to protect our common borders.

I want to welcome both of you and thank you very much for taking the time to be here. But more importantly, I want to thank the men and women who are part of CSIS and the RCMP for their hard work each and every day in protecting Canada.

Perhaps I could start with you, Mr. Zaccardelli, and ask you whether you might want to make an opening statement, and then, Mr. Elcock, the same thing.

What I'd like to do is hold this meeting as much as possible in public. But I want to reserve some time towards the end of the meeting because there may be certain matters that should be dealt with in camera. Therefore, if at any time one of the questions may in fact be of a nature that you think should be held in camera, then perhaps we will hold over the answer to that particular question to the latter part of the meeting.

• 0910

We do have between nine and eleven o'clock, so maybe we can take the last half hour or 40 minutes in camera to ensure that we don't compromise totally our security measures and those of others. While it's important to reassure Canadians that we're on top of the job, we don't need to telescope what we're trying to do in order to deal with these security measures and with terrorism.

We'll start with perhaps some opening statements by both of you and then we'll get right to questions.

Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli (Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I don't have an opening statement to make. Having testified before committees previously, I know how much the members fight for time in terms of questions, so I would like to limit my opening comments and go right to discussion to inform you as best as I can, and I'm sure Mr. Elcock can, in terms of the issues you want to discuss.

I would like to take a minute first to thank you for those kind comments about the men and women of law enforcement, of security services—CSIS and the RCMP—of other federal agencies, and of other police forces in this country and around the world who have been dealing with the aftermath of the tragedy of September 11. As you said, I can assure you from a police and RCMP perspective, this country is well looked after. We still live in the safest country in the world, and it's important that be kept in perspective.

In terms of the bill, you've made reference to two key factors—the improvements in the screening process and also the very substantial fines and prison terms that go along with certain activities, such as smuggling and so on, that people who prey on the misery of the weakest people in the world are involved in.

We are very pleased with those provisions. We are committed to working within the law to ensure we make this country as safe as possible and to ensure that those bogus people and the people who are committing criminal offences are kept out of this country. We do that on a daily basis working with CSIS, with the immigration department, with other federal departments, and with other law enforcement agencies in Canada and around the world.

I'll restrict my comments to that, and obviously I'm available to answer all the questions from all the members.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Zaccardelli.

Mr. Elcock.

Mr. Ward Elcock (Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service): Mr. Chairman, just as the commissioner, I don't have a statement to make. I'd be happy to try to answer the questions the members have.

As the commissioner said, let me also thank you and the members of the committee for your comments in respect of the people of the service. They've worked pretty hard over the last several months, and they'll be grateful for the thanks.

The Chair: Thank you.

By the way, to both of your respective agencies, I know you were witnesses as we deliberated on Bill C-11, and I'd like to think that some of the information you shared previously with us has found its way into the bill, such as those security measures, criminality, increased penalties, and those other tools that we were told you needed in order to do the job. So I want to thank you in advance for that input into Bill C-11.

We'll go to Art Hanger. This is a 10-minute round.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before the committee.

Security matters have always been of interest to me. I know that I've spoken to not so much the RCMP commissioner before, but certainly Mr. Elcock on matters that relate to security.

I'm curious about the opinions that both of you would have in reference to the refugee determination process as it stands—where you see the shortfall in the present system and how you anticipate, when Bill C-11 comes online, that's going to be fixed.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the commissioner would have pretty much the same view, but certainly in terms of our involvement in the refugee process, we have a process that's legislated by Parliament, that the government has decided to implement. Essentially we provide a service to immigration regarding the things we do for immigration in terms of providing information, in terms of providing clearances.

• 0915

At the end of the day, we're simply executors of certain parts of the policy that are ultimately set out in the bill. I wouldn't say to you that I've never had any views on the bill or on the legislation or how it works, but to the extent that I'm an adviser of anybody, I'm an adviser of the government in respect of the matters. Frankly, for me to discuss my opinions, my opinions are only interesting to the government. My opinions on those matters are really not things that I can provide publicly as part of any process. In fact, my ability to provide government advice really depends on my being an adviser only to government.

Mr. Art Hanger: I'm a little bit disturbed by that answer, because this committee represents a good part of what the government is all about. And unified, I would have to say, would be the concern about what is wrong with the present system from an expert such as yourself. You feel, obviously, very uncomfortable to deal with the specifics of what is wrong with the system, and that's disturbing to me.

Mr. Ward Elcock: I don't feel uncomfortable about it, Mr. Chairman. It's just not my role. I'm not, in fact, the policy adviser to the government on immigration policy. If I have any views, those are views that I provide to the government itself. I don't really have any views that would be of assistance to the committee in that respect.

The Chair: Why don't I do this? Perhaps during the in camera session, Art, I'll ask you to ask the same question. Are you okay on that one?

Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Chairman, the matter of security is of importance to everyone on this committee. I'm still surprised at Mr. Elcock's unwillingness to address the issue. It's a very simple matter.

I'll put another question to you this way, Mr. Elcock. If I were to give you information about a certain individual who was known in a certain circle to be a potential threat to Canada's security, what would you do with that information?

Mr. Ward Elcock: Regardless of the source of the information, Mr. Chairman, if we get information from anybody, we set out to try to make sure the information is accurate. We don't accept information from anybody as being accurate. The first thing we'd have to do is try to determine whether in fact that information was credible and useful.

Mr. Art Hanger: And if it were credible, where would it go?

Mr. Ward Elcock: It would go into our database and it would ultimately provide a basis against which we would assess any requests for clearances or vetting that we received.

Mr. Art Hanger: And if it were found to be of substantial importance, what would you specifically have done with that information? When I say that, trace it out for me as to the route it would take.

Mr. Ward Elcock: First we would have to, as I said, determine that it was accurate and credible.

Mr. Art Hanger: It's accurate and credible.

Mr. Ward Elcock: If it's accurate and credible, as I said, it would go into our database. Then the question is what is it about. If it is information warning about an attack tomorrow, then obviously you treat that information differently than if it is a piece of information about an individual, which, while it may be credible, may not give you any grounds to act against that individual. It may not be a criminal offence. It may not allow anybody to make any particular kind of inquiry. It might not even be enough to get a warrant to do an investigation involving intrusive means. It depends upon what other information you have in the database—what other information you can find that allows further investigation.

If you have additional information that allows further investigation, then ultimately a number of things can happen. I won't try to catalogue them all, but there might be cases where we would determine that indeed there was some information about criminal conduct we could pass to the RCMP or to another municipal service across the country. Or we might determine in some cases that there was sufficient information and sufficient cause to begin a process—a 40.(1) process—with the aim of deporting somebody from Canada. There are different processes, depending on—

• 0920

Mr. Art Hanger: What I'm trying to get from you is.... We'll get a little more specific as to the nature. The man has questionable connections to either an organized crime figure overseas or a terrorist organization. If you receive the information from me, or from a very reliable source, and determine it to be credible, what is the route that information takes? Does it go from CSIS over to the RCMP, or does it go to the Privy Council? Who filters it after you see it?

Mr. Ward Elcock: Nobody filters it. All the information we receive goes into our database until we have some basis upon which we can provide information to somebody. In some cases it may be the RCMP. In other cases, if it were a warning of a specific event, then obviously it would go into a threat assessment and be provided to a number of departments around the city, probably including the Privy Council Office. But it depends upon what the information is. If it's simply another bit of information in a puzzle that allows you to determine that a specific individual is a member of a terrorist organization.... And rarely does one get a whole picture from any one informant. You get a little piece of the picture that you have to add to the rest of the picture, or you have to find the rest of the picture that fits with that piece.

An intelligence service rarely receives enough information to have a sudden coup. Usually what happens is we receive information over a very long period of time, which ultimately allows you to build a picture and ultimately, to take some additional action.

I'm not trying to dodge your question, but the process of collecting information, putting it all together, and then putting it out.... There is no filter in the process. It goes into our database with the ultimate aim that we would like to be able to assist somebody in Canada, or outside of Canada, to detect a terrorist, to detect espionage activity, and in some cases provide criminal information to the police so they can act.

The Chair: This is your final question.

Mr. Art Hanger: Who conducts the threat assessment?

Mr. Ward Elcock: In respect of terrorist issues and so on, we do a threat assessment.

Mr. Art Hanger: Who's “we”?

Mr. Ward Elcock: CSIS.

Mr. Art Hanger: CSIS alone determines a threat assessment?

Mr. Ward Elcock: At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, we probably have the most expertise of anybody in terms of terrorist groups in Canada, their activities, and whether indeed there is or is not a threat.

The Chair: We'll go to the next round, Art.

Jerry Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming today.

In the last month and a half we've been looking very carefully at what needs to be done. I know there's been a tremendous allocation by the government to put into effect major changes in the way we do business. When I look at $35 million put in for enhancement of intelligence sharing and operations of technical support, the technical work on forensics, which are all in place.... As you said a few moments ago, Canada is the safest nation in the world. With these extra services added to it, I'm assuming it's not only adding additional work, additional manpower, but it's also enhancing our safety dramatically.

Can you give me a clear idea of some of the steps that are now presently either planned or being implemented to increase that safety? I think we have to send the message, not only to Canadians, but also abroad, that Canada is a safe nation and we are moving in a direction to improve and enhance the safety of all Canadians.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: That's a very good question. I'd like to start by saying before September 11, Canada was one of the safest countries in the world, and we have very good measures in place to protect Canadians. That is mainly because of the capacity and the competencies of the various agencies at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels. There are very good working relationships and cooperation. Basically, the men and women who work in all our agencies—CSIS, the RCMP, and other agencies—were deployed to respond to the threats as we knew them at that time. September 11 did change things, and the government has responded, as you said, with new resources. They've also made it very clear that this is the first step. There are needs for more resources, and the government has clearly indicated its intentions.

• 0925

Now, this equipment, this technology, will enable us to do a number of things much more quickly. For example, we'll be able to verify certain fingerprints at the border in real time. There won't be the gaps or delays that existed before at the airport. We'll be able to much more quickly exchange information or intelligence between law enforcement agencies and so on.

We have looked at how we operated—CSIS, the RCMP, the other agencies—and we said, well, we're doing a pretty good job, but what can we do better? So we've worked continuously to improve the relationship, the sharing of information, not just in Canada, but also outside of Canada. We've put together a number of joint forces, multidisciplinary teams, and task forces that have been dedicated full time to enhance our presence at the border—for example, law enforcement agencies getting intelligence from CSIS when that information or intelligence is available, and sharing it with customs and immigration in a way we weren't actually doing before. We've enhanced our presence and our cooperation at the border.

We've also put together teams that are able to respond...not at the border, but if something happens at the border, we're much more able to respond to an emergency that happens there. These are resources that were reallocated from other areas of law enforcement and are now dedicated to this, because this is the number one priority in Canada, as everybody now knows.

We've made serious redeployments. These units have been strategically deployed in critical areas throughout the country. Law enforcement in this country is cooperating in a way that before September 11 didn't exist. It was a good cooperation, but they have responded to this new threat.

Our relationship with the Americans, for example, is also changed. We now have joint forces with Americans who are actually working with us at the borders in a way they weren't before. They're able to respond much more quickly. The sharing of information and intelligence is going back and forth a lot more quickly. That's also been extended to our allies and key friends around the world. So those are some of the steps that have been taken.

In the RCMP, I can tell you, we have between 16,000 and 17,000 law enforcement officers, men and women. We have redeployed over 2,000 of these men and women in various capacities to respond to this. That is a major redeployment, all aimed and geared at trying to enhance the security of this country. And that's been done in a collaborative effort with CSIS, Immigration Canada, CCRA, Transport Canada, and other law enforcement agencies at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels.

The Chair: Mr. Elcock, would you like to add to that from a CSIS standpoint?

Mr. Ward Elcock: I understand, Mr. Chairman, there likely will be some announcements in terms of money for CSIS, but it hasn't yet been announced. I understand we'll probably get some money from that package.

The Chair: Well, perhaps that might be a question for a little later on—how much money you're asking for, how much money you think you need to do the work that Mr. Pickard just asked Mr. Zaccardelli about.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: The second part of this question has a lot to do with different agencies carrying out similar tasks and working in cooperation.

I know Canadians are in a situation where if we do not have a seamless border for industry, for our business operations.... We've been hearing about this in news stories right across this country ever since September 11, that we must make sure our seamless border allows industry to move ahead in the most expedient way.

For instance, if you were living in Michigan and you tried to drive across the border, right now the traffic is down 40% from what it was before, and still there are backups of a mile or two miles at that border.

I know it's not just RCMP, CSIS, or Canada Customs alone. I believe it's the initiative of all three agencies that is making sure our borders are secure. But the problem that exists is if a person from Michigan decided to go for supper in Windsor and they are delayed an hour going across the border one way and an hour going back—that's a two-hour delay—they'd just throw up their hands and say “I'm not going to go across that border. It's a waste of time for me.” As a result, some of our small industry, some of our business, our tourism, is taking a terrible beating, and I don't know how long they can survive.

On the second part, we're having—

The Chair: Ask the question, please.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Parts companies and others are having a problem. What can we do to make sure that seamless border continues and still maintain safer borders as best as we can?

Thank you.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: If that's a question for me, I'll try to take a stab at it. Obviously there are parts of that question I can't deal with.

• 0930

I can assure you that law enforcement and security agencies in this country are committed to working together in an integrated way. We are intelligence-led, so we are as effective and as efficient as we can be. I think Canada is an example to the world of how seamless and integrated we are, and how effective we are. We try to do that, so that's our contribution to ensuring that the border is safe and we're able to respond in an effective way to any threat at the border or elsewhere.

It's not simply the border; it's about having the capacity to respond, having the intelligence, and being able to gather the information, so we can be proactive and can prevent these things. We're doing that, and since September 11 we've made major advancements in improving our capacity to respond.

I know there are other issues you raised that are beyond my competency to comment on.

The Chair: Five minutes, Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming here today, Mr. Zaccardelli and Mr. Elcock.

On September 11, we all received collectively and globally an electric shock. As we were a little closer to the source, it is clear that this electric shock has had more impact on us, both on Canadians and on Quebeckers. In this perspective, I think that it is important to remember three basic elements which are called security, of course, but also justice and freedom. Before September 11, everybody was convinced that we were in a supersecure state. People like you very likely knew that we were at the mercy of events like those which happened.

You have a responsibility to enforce Canadian legislation in matters of security. I would like to know whether you apply a hundred percent what is written in the law or whether, because of a lack of resources, you have a mark of 60 %. I think that, namely at Immigration Canada, the resources are not sufficient, and this is the big problem. If we were to enforce the law correctly, how much money or how much resources would we need?

I imagine that you examined this matter and you will certainly be able to tell me about your requirements. This is linked to another question but I would like first to hear you on this. Then, I would have a second question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Giuliano Zaccardelli: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to answer this question. You raised a very good point.

When we say that we enforce the law 100%, it is not quite correct, because we never have enforced the law 100%. There is always a matter of discretion. When implementing a legislation, we always have some discretion as to how we are going to enforce it.

Even before September 11, the resources were limited. They will always be. It is a matter of balance. We have to try to determine, on the basis of the information we have, what are the threats we are facing. Based on the threats, our responsibility is to determine the priorities which we will be able to meet. When we are able to determine the priorities, we are going to enforce the legislation based on the description we have.

We apply the legislation but we never have the resources to respond to every threat. It is a matter of priorities. We received extra funds but we do not have all the needed resources. It is always a matter of assessing the situation and of determining what are the main threats.

For example, I said earlier that we had to deploy 2000 officers. Of course, there are now cases that we have shelved because we do not have all the needed resources. We have to concentrate on the main threats. It is always a matter of balance. We are very pleased to have received money from the government. There are some indications that we will be able to get some more but there will always be a question of balance.

The important thing is not only what we receive here at the federal level or in the RCMP, but also what we are doing collectively to be more efficient. We are beginning to integrate all the resources and all the departments at the three levels: federal, provincial and municipal. This is what we are doing, and I think that all the levels responded well to what happened on September 11.

• 0935

It is a question which keeps coming back every day. We have to reassess the threats and deploy the resources accordingly.

The Chair: Madeleine, do you have another question?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: If you were able to apply the present legislation in an optimal way, do you think that it would be sufficient to face the present reality or do we necessarily need to make additions? If yes, what additions?

Mr. Giuliano Zaccardelli: Well, this is another matter. We are very pleased with the changes we see in Bill C-11. We, in the RCMP, are pleased with the amendments to the act. We know that the Justice Minister tabled a bill before the House of Commons on Monday. These changes will help us, and we are very pleased.

Does this respond to all our needs? We are never sure of this, but I can tell you that as the commissioner of the RCMP, I am very pleased with this legislation. But it is very important to realize fully that the law will always have to be enforced within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is always necessary, without exception, to respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So, as commissioner, I am very pleased with this bill, which will help us to respond to this new threat. Each time there is a change in the environment, we must be able to respond to it. I am very happy that the government, in response to September 11, introduced a bill which will help us to do our job in order to better ensure the security of the people of Canada.

[English]

The Chair: David Price.

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

Thank you, Mr. Zaccardelli and Mr. Elcock for being here today. I think it's important that we have a chance and the Canadian public has a chance to hear some of the questions that are being asked.

Mr. Zaccardelli, I have seven border crossings in my riding, and also a large unprotected area of woods, with logging roads and that type of thing. There are many border crossings that aren't listed, let's say. We are lucky, because we've had very good cooperation with the RCMP and with our American friends on the other side. They have put in a lot of equipment, and those areas are protected. The big thing we seem to lack, though, is information. You've touched on it, but I'll go just a little further on it.

I was formerly mayor of the town of Lennoxville, which is a famous place for Hell's Angels. I had my own municipal police force. We had municipal police, provincial police, and RCMP, and the big problem we had was the exchange of information. People tended to hold back a certain piece and say “I'll crack this case. I'll hold this piece of information back, and I'll get the pieces of the puzzle.”, as Mr. Elcock said. They'd have the last piece of the puzzle. That part bothers me a lot.

You mentioned just now that you're having a better opportunity to tie this together because of September 11, but it never seems to be ongoing. We went through a period when we really cracked down on the Hell's Angels, and you did gather information as a group. But that stopped, all of a sudden. Now you're gathering it. How are you tying it together so it will continue on?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Thank you. Again, that's a very good question.

I would just like to correct what you said about tying together of information or intelligence. It does not happen sporadically. I am absolutely convinced that in this country we do it better than anybody else in the world. Is it perfect? No, it isn't perfect.

The events of September 11 forced us to re-evaluate how we look at that. I can assure you it is something we do on a regular basis. People like myself, as the commissioner, and Ward, as the director, talk about this constantly. We're always trying to ensure that our organizations, in collaboration with the other organizations, are maximizing the sharing of information and intelligence. On what you referred to with the bikers, I can assure you that is done on a regular basis all the time, and we insist upon that.

There are always some missing pieces. You don't always get them, but we have made great inroads. When we talk about integrated policing and proactive use of intelligence, it's not something we talk about; it is something we live every day. It's the stuff that keeps us awake sometimes at night.

• 0940

We're committed to ensuring that so that we can provide better security to Canadians. We do that on a continuous basis. We meet on a regular basis to talk about these technologies. This new technology that we're going to get is going to enable us to even enhance that. So it is something we are always doing, and as the commissioner, I can assure you that I insist and I hold people accountable. If that information isn't shared, if there's an example of non-sharing of information, there are consequences for people who do not do that. So as the commissioner and as a leader in Canadian policing, I can reassure you that this is done regularly, and we do the best we can.

The Chair: Do you have another question?

Mr. David Price: My other problem is the sharing of information with our American friends. There's no formal operation. I know what happens on my own border: the border guards get together over a beer and share information. That seems to be the only way they can do it, because we can't share databases back and forth. Are you making moves toward improving this?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Yes, well, that's one of the informal ways, and some of the informal ways are some of the best ways. There's not just one way; there are many ways of sharing information. We're sharing information here today, obviously.

You have to have a beer sometimes with your counterparts to get some information, but we also have linkages. We have technical linkages. Systems are linked. We have access to American databases. We have the equivalent of CPIC on the American side, which is managed by the FBI. Those are exchanges of information.

I believe we have to move to a higher level. I support that. I believe we have to create a truly global alliance of law enforcement. That's something I believe in, and a lot of countries, a number of our key allies, are very much committed to doing that. So we do have to move along this continuum of making sure we have the best possible information in real time so that we can respond to it.

I want to come back to your point on the border. You mentioned seven border points. It's important to have a presence on the border, but equally important is the fact that you're able to respond to what's going on. The border is an issue, but you have to have good intelligence so that you can respond proactively anywhere it happens. This notion that if we just put more people on the border, right across the board, it's going to solve our problems is unfortunately not the answer. In strategic locations, you have to have a presence on the border with good capacity, but you also have to have the capacity within our countries, in Canada and the United States, to respond, because they're not static. Organized crime and terrorists move. You have to be able to be mobile, and flexible and responsive. You do that by having the best information, the best intelligence from security services and from law enforcement, combined in an integrated way. That's when we're effective.

The Chair: Thank you. Well, it does help David in Stanstead, of course, when a bar might be both on the American and the Canadian side. Of course, the committee is going to be travelling to that infamous place, where half the town is in the United States and half is in Canada and an awful lot of informal information-gathering is had.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: We'll be drinking Canadian beer, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: It all depends on what side of the border I'm on. No, I always drink Canadian beer—Labatt's, from London, Ontario, of course.

Art, you have five minutes.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner, what is the current strength of the RCMP?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: It's in excess of 22,000 employees.

Mr. Art Hanger: Are they all police officers?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: No, they're not. Just over 16,000 are police officers. The rest are civilian members and support staff.

Mr. Art Hanger: What was the strength four years ago?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: It was a little bit less than that. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, sir.

Mr. Art Hanger: So you're saying the numbers have been increasing over the last ten years?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Over the last three years we've had substantial infusion of resources, after the freeze came off. We had some downturn in the numbers, and then, in the last several years, the government has given us substantial funds.

Mr. Art Hanger: What do you think it should be?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: It depends, of course, on what we're asked to do, our mandate.

Mr. Art Hanger: To do the job and do it well?

I can go to any police chief in a major city in this country and they'll tell me how many extra men they need. There isn't a police department in the country that doesn't need more men to do the job effectively. They're taxed to the limit, as it stands.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I like to get men and women, but—

Mr. Art Hanger: All right, I'm talking in generic terms.

• 0945

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I realize that, and I'm not making light of your question. It's a very serious one.

Obviously I could use more resources. I don't think there's anybody who would say they can't. We can always use more. Everybody wants resources. My challenge, my efforts, are aimed at ensuring that after I've made my best argument to government and I get the resources, I have the maximum utilization of the resources I get and I use them in the most effective and efficient way, not just within the RCMP but leveraging those resources with our partners, like CSIS and other law enforcement agencies.

So I can use more resources, but given what I've got, I'm ensuring that they're maximized.

Mr. Art Hanger: What is the budget allotted to the RCMP to meet these increased security demands?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: As you saw, there was a public announcement here last week, and we received in excess of $60 million. Also, we have been given authority by Treasury Board for certain expenditures in terms of redeployment of people, and we will be covered for those costs. So that is a substantial increase. So whatever expenses those 2,000 members, men and women out there, incur relative to doing security work, relative to this event, those costs are being covered by the government.

Mr. Art Hanger: How will you spend that $64 million?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I think Mr. Pickard referred to that: $35 million is being dedicated to certain technology, like scanners at the airports, and so on; $5 million will go to increased protection for VIPs and certain buildings around the country that have to be provided with more protection, and so on; and $9 million is a first-cut in terms of getting new people. That is going to be put in there. So those are some of the breakdowns. I don't have the total breakdown. That's just off the top of my head.

Mr. Art Hanger: So personnel is an issue, though, and really, if you look at the demands placed on the RCMP, there is a greater need for increased personnel.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I think the government has made it very clear that they—

Mr. Art Hanger: So $9 million is the allotment?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: No, as I said, it's over $60 million. I think it's about $64 million.

Mr. Art Hanger: I know, but I'm talking about the allotment for personnel.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Well, that goes specifically for personnel, and I've been given strong assurances that there is more money that is being looked at and discussed.

Mr. Art Hanger: What is the cost of one police officer, to put him on the street?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: It's expensive.

Mr. Art Hanger: Is it $100,000?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Actually, it's over $100,000.

Mr. Art Hanger: Is it $125,000, or somewhere around that?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but again, what I look at is not the one RCMP officer. I look at one RCMP officer working with Immigration, working with Metro Toronto, for example, working with a CSIS person at times. That is how we leverage our collective resources—and working with our American friends, and so on.

So it is not just the power of one. It is the power of many, when they come together working in that integrated fashion. I can't emphasize that enough, how that's the key, the integration and being intelligence-led. That's how we maximize our ability to protect Canadians.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson.

I appreciate the discussion and all the concerns around enhancing security. That certainly seems to be the preoccupation and of deep concern, given the events of September 11. I want to raise it from the other angle.

Since September 11, Canada has taken a bit of a bum rap. There were some pretty broad-sweeping, disparaging comments made about Canada and the suggestion that we are a safe haven for terrorists. I think that has been hurtful on its own, in terms of our multicultural society.

First of all, what measures are being taken by either CSIS or the RCMP to help dispel this conception or misconception that Canada is a safe haven for terrorists and criminals?

The Chair: We'll let Ward take the first question and give you a break for a second.

Mr. Ward Elcock: There really aren't any measures we can take, except by responding to the kinds of questions you are asking, at least certainly in the case of CSIS. We don't exactly run a large communications program, for obvious reasons.

• 0950

I think somebody originally took my words out of context and accused me of having said that we were a safe haven for terrorist groups. I've never said that. I said that our job was to prevent terrorists from finding a safe haven in Canada, which is a somewhat different conclusion.

The reality of all modern democratic states is that if you are going to be a modern economic success and democratic at the same time, you have to provide fairly free access. Like the United States, Great Britain, and other western democracies, we have historically provided that kind of access, including easy movement of money and relatively easy movement of people.

The reality is that there are groups in the world, people who are terrorists, who do seek to advance their causes by violence, and they do move and have been moving through all the western democracies for some years. That's an inevitable problem, and we're in no worse situation, I think, than anyone else.

Our population is probably more varied than any other, and in that sense we are perhaps more likely to have people wanting to come here. But other than that, we make the same efforts together with the police to ensure that people don't find a safe haven here, the same as they do in other countries. Actually, I think we have had quite a lot of success in doing that.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I totally support what Mr. Elcock has said. Even the word “haven” is a terrible word to be using because that implies that we somehow support or nurture terrorists and encourage them to stay in this country. That clearly is not the case. We are no different from any other western country. We face the same issues, the same problems, and the same challenges, as Mr. Elcock has said, with being an open society and still trying to protect the citizens as much as we can. I totally disagree with the notion that we are a safe haven. I think we should eliminate that word from our vocabulary in this country. Ours is no different; we face the same challenges as all western democracies, and we've responded very well.

The new legislative package clearly looks at that balance. Again, when you compare it to the American or the British legislative packages, they're basically very similar. There's a considerable amount of harmonization there, so it is really a rap that Canada does not deserve and does not merit.

The Chair: Okay. One final question, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.

I really appreciate the answers to my question from both witnesses. I think it's very important for helping deal with a very difficult climate right now. Many legitimate refugees are living with a lot of fear and anxiety because of those very unfounded, harmful statements.

As Mr. Elcock said, one way to deal with those wrong perceptions is to keep showing how effective our system is for responding in the face of threats. I have two questions—really short ones—on that. One is that I understand your objective is a 72-hour time period from when a threat is identified to finding that person and determining a security clearance. I've heard the timeframe of 72 hours bantered about, and I'm trying to get information on what that means. Does it involve profiling?

The Chair: Bill C-11 stipulates three days to ascertain whether there's an element of criminality.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Right. So I'm not trying to figure out how we accomplish that objective. Does it involve profiling?

My final question concerns the fact that you obviously have to rely on some surveillance measures within different communities. How do you ensure that the information you get from people within different communities is reliable and not based on personal biases or fears?

The Chair: Judy, I have to correct you so this is clear to both our witnesses and committee members as well as the public. The three days is essentially from the time of an immigration officer's first instance of contact with a particular person. They have three days to refer it to the refugee board to ascertain whether or not there's a legitimate refugee claim. The three days is from the time the person arrives at a border point to the time the immigration department has to refer it to the Refugee Protection Division for a determination. That's just to be clear on what the three days are.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay. I appreciate the clarification.

The Chair: It doesn't necessarily mean they have to get all that information gathered in order for the check to be in place. Ward or Giuliano may want to answer that.

• 0955

Mr. Ward Elcock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Your correction is helpful, because there isn't a 72-hour limit on what we're doing. The reality of what we are or will be trying to do will be to run those names as we do now for landed immigrants or people who are applying for status outside the country or from within the country. We run the names through our database, and we're basically looking for hits. We're looking for people whose names we know or whose contacts we know. In some cases we will be lucky and we will find those early on. In other cases it will take more investigation to determine whether or not there are any links. The easy ones will happen in 72 hours, and the others will take longer.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I had that other question on information that comes from people within different groups and the reliability of it.

Mr. Ward Elcock: We receive information from all sorts of sources. As I said to Mr. Hanger earlier, we don't assume that any information we receive is accurate until we've found some way to test it and have been able to determine it's credible. There are a number of ways of determining that. As I think the committee knows, we use polygraphs sometimes. We have information in our database that people don't necessarily know we know, so we can test what they have told us against that information. We have information from other sources. We have information from our operations abroad. There are ways for us to test information, and we're usually pretty good at that. That's what we do.

The Chair: Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been a long wait. I'll get used to it, I guess.

Anyway, thank you to our guests for being here today.

The Chair: You used to be at the front.

Mr. Inky Mark: I know. Someday I might be in the chair.

First, let me begin by saying that the Coalition supports the continued open door immigration policy. We understand that terrorists can certainly come into this country as visitors, as legal immigrants, as students, and as refugees. What we need to do is plug some of the holes. I think that's our intent and our concern as members of this committee.

What I'd like to do is quote from the Auditor General's report on the Immigration Refugee Board from December 1997. There are a couple of points I want to make. The report noted that “95% of claimants who were denied refugee status were still in Canada”. The other number I wanted to quote was that since 1993 “over 99% of the claims were judged to be ineligible”, yet these claimants were still given the necessary documentation and still stayed in Canada. The recent number that was given, though, by the department was that 27,000 warrants for deportation have been issued that are still outstanding.

In light of these numbers, my first question to you as a professional agency is what kind of risk does this pose to our security in this country? The second question is what is your organization doing about some of these realities?

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, we don't have any enforcement role with respect to refugees or any other part of the immigration stream. Obviously, our only concern is to determine what individuals in the country, from whatever stream they have come—and indeed there are people we look at who are in fact Canadians, not refugees and not immigrants.... What we're looking for is people who come within our mandate, who are either terrorists, spies, or whatever. With those people, we're looking for something that allows us at some point perhaps to deport them from the country if we can do that. In other cases we try to provide information to police so they can deal with them. In other cases it's simply a matter of knowing what they're doing so we can prevent them from doing something if indeed they are actually planning to do something.

The Chair: Mr. Zaccardelli, the same question.

• 1000

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Obviously, when we talk about numbers, the 27,000 and so on, a number of things have taken place. We've had discussions with Citizenship and Immigration Canada. They've come to us and asked for some more assistance in terms of trying to determine, first of all, who is here who shouldn't be here and the risks that are associated with potentially some of them. We've enhanced our presence, our collaboration with Canada Immigration and other law enforcement agencies, and we've created a number of new teams who are actively pursuing people who are here illegally.

This is something that is very much being looked at, and there have been a number of people who have been redeployed to enhance Canada's capacity to deal with it. So we're working with Canada Immigration, with the other police departments, and also with any information that CSIS may have that may be of assistance to us. So it's very much a collaborative effort, but there's been a much stronger concentration on trying to locate people who have to be dealt with through those warrants.

The Chair: Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Many of us have advocated the front-end screening vehicle over this past year. Could you take us through what this process really encompasses?

Mr. Ward Elcock: The front-end screening of refugees?

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes, of refugees.

Mr. Ward Elcock: To get a complete rundown on that you'd have to talk to the immigration department. Our only role in that will be to screen the names in that process to try to determine as early as we can whether in fact any of the individuals on the list that comes to us are people we know something about—individuals our database tells us something about, an inquiry with a foreign agency might tell us about, or individuals about whom an operation abroad might have been able to give us some information that allows us to say those individuals are indeed members of a terrorist group very early in the process. But this is essentially our only contribution to that part of the process.

The Chair: Inky, you may want to pose that question on how that process will work to the IRB, our next witnesses, or in fact the minister and the department next week.

Mr. Bagnell, five minutes.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): I want to get three questions in, so I'd ask you to make the answers very short.

Mr. Zaccardelli, you mentioned that we have increased international efforts. When I was at the NATO meetings I was astonished at how poorly all the countries of the world fund Interpol. Do you think, yes or no, that Interpol should have more funds?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Yes.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Secondly, as you know, when you have an emergency like this you get all sorts of wild claims, and you'd think we had a line at the immigration door that said criminals welcome and terrorists welcome, and that this is rampant, from what you hear from some people. Professionally you've said no. But with another hat on, as a family person—and you know more than any of us would about the situation—do you generally feel that your family is safe and that the border is not a huge sieve for all sorts of criminals and terrorists?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Yes and no. Yes, I feel safe, and no, it's not a sieve.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Mr. Elcock.

Mr. Ward Elcock: I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, the border is a sieve. I believe my family is safe, although I'd have to concede I have a little more security protection than the average citizen, but that's for other reasons.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Are there terrorist cells in Canada?

Mr. Ward Elcock: I think, Mr. Chairman, I've said before that there are in Canada, and the number I used was a snapshot at a particular point in time. It goes up and down, depending on who's here, who's gone away, who's not a problem any more, or who becomes a problem. So there is no specific easy number to use on any particular day. But there are people who do meet the descriptions in our act who we have the capacity to monitor and do indeed monitor because they do meet the terms of our act, which is to say that there are people in Canada who are members of terrorist organizations.

The Chair: It's the same question, and I think I'm going to reserve that also for an in camera session.

Commissioner Zaccardelli.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I agree with Mr. Elcock here. But I think one of the issues we have to remember is that until somebody does something overtly it is very difficult, because the rule of law is that you can think whatever you want, but it's when you commit an overt act that you then become subject to an investigation from the police side.

The Chair: Does the definition of terrorism as enunciated in the anti-terrorism legislation just introduced help you?

• 1005

Mr. Ward Elcock: I think the answer to that, Mr. Chairman—and ultimately it will be an issue for the police, not so much for us—is that at the end of the day the issue of criminalizing certain kinds of behaviour and certain kinds of activities, fundraising and so on, obviously will allow Canada to deal with some of the individuals who heretofore might have been undertaking activities that would be entirely within Canadian law but would be by most people regarded as a problem.

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell, one last question.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: You could save this answer for in camera if you want, but of those people who you've identified who are in Canada, if any of them came from outside of Canada, as you have more knowledge than we have, how did they get in?

Mr. Ward Elcock: In a modern world the people come in in all sorts of different ways. In some cases we know that they come in with false identities and on false passports, and sometimes those are extraordinarily well made, so it's not always easy for somebody at the front line to detect those things. In some cases they arrive in other ways. There's no one track that people use to get into the country if they want to get in.

The Chair: Thank you.

Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Being down the list, some of my questions have been answered already, but I have three different areas I want to touch on, and I don't know whether I can do it in five minutes.

The Chair: Yes, you can.

Ms. Anita Neville: My colleague across the way spoke to the issue of refugees and was very concerned that we are labelled as a safe haven. My concern is as much that refugees are labelled as terrorists by definition. I have some concern about that.

Can you expand at all on what you indicated to my colleague in terms of how you screen refugees without documentation and to what extent racial profiling is part of your activity? Let me put it in context. I had a fairly large meeting in my own riding with people who I was surprised to see come forward and I was surprised to hear their tales in terms of what they were now experiencing.

The Chair: Mr. Elcock.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, when we receive a name to run against our database, it's not in essence running it on the basis of a profile, we're simply running it against the data we have in our database, which covers a lot of organizations and a lot of people around the world and in Canada. And this allows us, we hope, in some cases, to pick up early on the connections between an individual who arrives and people in Canada already or organizations abroad that we're aware of.

We share information with a lot of people. It's a very big database. Will it catch everybody? No, it won't catch everybody, but it will catch some and allow the police and immigration and others to deal with those people earlier on than has so far been the case. But for us in terms of what we do in our process, it's not racially profiling or any other kind of profiling; it's simply running those names against the database.

The Chair: Mr. Zaccardelli, the same question.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I haven't got much to add to what Mr. Elcock has said. This question of racial profiling I know is a concern to many communities, and since September 11 I have given instructions throughout the country to have our senior people be engaged in talking to specific ethnic communities to reassure them that we don't racially profile. We investigate potential criminal offences, and who they are and where they come from is not an issue with us. This is very important.

I understand the concerns of people, given this new legislation. I know there are questions being asked about how the police are going to apply this new legislation, and I am going to be making some public statements on it. But the reality is a lot of the immigrants feel insecure.

I wasn't born in this country, and my father never thought I would get accepted in the RCMP. The reason he didn't think I'd get accepted in the RCMP was because, as he said, I wasn't born in this country. So in his mind he didn't think I would get into the RCMP, but I became the Commissioner of the RCMP.

The Chair: It's funny, my father complained that I didn't get into the RCMP even though he was a police officer.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: But you did better, Mr. Chairman.

• 1010

The Chair: But I did better, of course. Thank you, Commissioner Zaccardelli.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Can I just add a comment?

We do in fact do profiling, but we don't do racial profiling. There have been references to this profiling in the press on a number of occasions, and occasionally some of them have leaked out. What we do is provide to the immigration department, for example, profiles of individuals who would be of concern to us so that when they're reviewing the immigration stream in a mission abroad, they can look at that stream and select individuals we should interview or with whom we should have a more determined security look than others.

But those profiles are not racial. Those profiles are probably based on nationality or on membership in certain organizations. They're very broad kinds of profiles. It's frankly the only way you can indeed deal with the numbers of people who are applying to come to Canada. If you were to try to set out to interview everybody who came to Canada and did not rely on some profile basis you'd be increasing my numbers substantially.

Ms. Anita Neville: I'm going to ask two questions and the chair will let you answer according to his time.

First, can you can speak to the issue of the relationship between terrorist or alleged terrorist activity and organized crime and what the increased security measures have done in that area?

Second, Mr. Zaccardelli, I was struck by your comments about the integration of all of the police forces and the desire for an increased global alliance of information. What do you need for further integration, and what do you need for an enhanced ability for this global alliance of information? I don't think you can answer them in the time allotted.

The Chair: Both are very good questions, so I'm going to allow you both to answer both of those questions.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, on the first question, there is no question that in some cases there are terrorist groups that do rely on a certain amount of criminality to support themselves. In some cases I'm not sure that I would describe this as organized crime in the sense that we normally think of it. It is simply low-level crime dedicated to supporting themselves or stealing documents to assist their movement.

There are some terrorist organizations that have become more involved in what we would normally describe as organized crime, but that's frankly fairly rare, in my view. There are some crime organizations that do, from time to time, use terrorist rhetoric, but to be perfectly frank, I wouldn't see them as terrorist organizations, nor do I believe that it's anything more than a certain amount of rhetoric. So I think the links between terrorist organizations and organized crime are probably overrated.

The Chair: On the question of global connectivity, Mr. Zaccardelli and Mr. Elcock, do you have any comments?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I'll pick up on the first question.

I think the linkages are there. I think sometimes we may overstate them, but there are clear examples in certain cases where there are linkages and one supports the other—a criminal activity is used at times to support potential terrorist activities. It's a new phenomenon that I think has evolved here in the last little while, something I think has to be watched.

In terms of the connectivity, clearly you have to understand the environment and then you have to react. What I think will determine the success of this connectivity and creating this alliance is one of leadership and it is one of fundamental behavioural change, and I can't overemphasize that. We have leadership in this country. I think Canada is leading the world. Law enforcement in this country has really concentrated on this. And I must say that in the RCMP this has been a particular passion with me as the Commissioner of the RCMP, and I think we're doing it very well in Canada. We're reaching out around the world.

For me, what has to take place is there has to be a recognition, first of all, and then there has to be a fundamental behavioural change. It's been referred to here before in terms of at times we maybe tend to hold on to a piece of information or whatever. I think we have to instil a behavioural change in our organization. It does take time, and it requires strong leadership and a fundamental change in behaviour. But you have to recognize that the world has changed. If you recognize that the world has changed and that you actually can improve what you're doing by being more integrated, then you will move to that behavioural change. It is something that's taking place as we speak, and I see it being enhanced. Unfortunately, events like September 11 present opportunities to us, and now we are really moving ahead in this area, but there's still a lot of work to do.

• 1015

The Chair: Thank you.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee.

I know this is perhaps somewhat difficult. I notice in some of the questions that you're maybe really squirming in the chair trying to find the appropriate answer—

The Chair: No, we're not squirming.

Mr. Paul Forseth: —partly because this is not an in camera session, and we understand that. But the other issue may be the structure of independence from political interference.

I'll first talk about the RCMP. You'll recall there was a structural change concerning how the RCMP related to the government and cabinet of the day just a few years ago. I'm wondering if the RCMP would be prepared to at least present a plan to government for a government decision about satisfying the concern now out there in the public domain about the lack of political independence of the RCMP.

I would ask Mr. Elcock the same kind of structural question. Again in the public domain, there's conversation about whether you need to develop a foreign component beyond the listening posts that perhaps you have now, and I wonder if in the future you might also be presenting a plan for government consideration about expanding your services and going in that direction.

Those are two structural questions that I think have a lot of play today in our community. We talk about them because they relate to results and where we're going, especially in the present context.

The Chair: On the question of independence, I invite responses from both of you.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Mr. Chairman, I can categorically state here that I'm not squirming in my chair, first of all. I'm actually having a good time.

Second, the structure of the organization is such that I am the Commissioner of the RCMP and am accountable to the minister and to government through the minister. I am totally independent when it comes to investigations and operations. Not the minister, and not the prime minister, gives me directions or has ever given me any direction relative to operations. I am totally independent in that area.

Administratively, I am accountable to the minister, because I am not an elected official. In our parliamentary democracy system I am accountable through the minister. There is no question in my mind that I have all the independence I need, and then some, in terms of operations. There has never been any hint or indication of any attempt to direct me in that area.

The Chair: Mr. Elcock has the floor on both questions, one concerning independence and one the foreign component part.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, I think the role of the RCMP and the role of CSIS are distinctly different. We are not an independent law enforcement agency to the extent that the commissioner has just described; we are an intelligence agency that works at the direction of the government.

In point of fact, generally speaking the directions the government gives us are directions as to how we should carry out investigations rather than directions to investigate specific individuals or groups or not to investigate a specific individual or group. Indeed, there's never been such a direction. But at the end of the day we are in a different situation from the RCMP.

Respecting the second question there is an enormous amount of confusion, and I sometimes don't understand quite why there is the confusion, although it may have something to do with the wording of section 16 of the CSIS Act, which says that the service may only collect foreign intelligence inside of Canada. I think some people rely on the dictionary definition of what foreign intelligence is and assume that section 16 means we cannot collect intelligence outside of Canada, period. The answer to that is that it is unfortunately a misinterpretation of the legislation.

What section 16 really says is that CSIS may not collect information that is “nice to know” anywhere but in Canada. When I say “nice to know”, I mean information of assistance to the Government of Canada that has no threat-related component.

Section 12 of the act is very clear. Section 12, which deals with threats to the security of Canada, allows us essentially to carry out any investigation anywhere in Canada or in the world, and indeed we do so.

• 1020

The reality of foreign operations is that they are by definition expensive and often riskier, and you have to be sure that you're going to get bang for your buck if you're going to do that kind of thing. But the reality is we do operate abroad. We do conduct inquiries abroad and we do conduct covert operations abroad. In that respect, and in respect to threats to the security of Canada, we have essentially the same powers that I guess the agency would have in the United States.

I don't mean by this that we're the same size as the agency or have the same capacities and resources, but our mandate is essentially the same.

The Chair: Paul, one small question.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Perhaps then you're explaining that the conversation in the media about that foreign component is really a mistaken one, that really, in essence, you don't have any legal mandate structure withholding you from doing everything you feel you need to do. Is that the case?

Mr. Ward Elcock: Certainly in the context of investigating threats to the security of Canada there is no legal impediment to my mandate. But at the end of the day the issue of what you do abroad is obviously.... In an intelligence organization, you're managing risks, and you manage them by putting your resources and your people on the investigations you consider the most important. When you've decided what you're going to investigate, then you decide how you're going to investigate and where you can get the best access to information.

The reality is, in respect of some groups or individuals, the best place to do that is not Toronto or Vancouver. There may still be a threat to Canada, and to Toronto and Vancouver, but the best place to investigate it may be, in fact, in another part of the world. If we come to the conclusion that we can and should do that, then we have the legal mandate to do it.

The Chair: Okay.

Yvon, one question.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I represent a constituency where the office has to deal with a rather considerable and constant number of applications for immigration and refugee status claims.

I would like to tell Mr. Elcock about the perception or the feeling we have and ask him to correct that perception, if needed.

If the case has little importance, we are being told that this is normal that it is not given priority treatment. So, it can wait for a rather long time. If the case is very important, which is to say that the person has studied in a country, or traveled in two others or had to travel quite often, it may be a quite substantial case. So it is normal that it takes time. We are told that if the services find some indications, it is normal that it takes some time to test and to check everything; and in some cases, we are even told that if no piece of evidence is found, it is because the person is smart enough to hide what she did. So, it is normal that it takes time. It is always normal that it takes a lot of time. This is the perception we have. And when we go and ask for information to the minister of Immigration or to the Solicitor General, they tell us that they cannot do anything, that they do not know what is going on there.

Could you tell us how you manage priorities and the time required, so that we can give some answers to the persons who ask us for information and who have sometimes to wait for a very long time, although the case is perfectly clear at the end of the day?

[English]

The Chair: I think that's a very good question. In fact, most MPs would want to know why it takes so long to get some of that information back, because some of our caseloads in our constituencies consist 30% or 40% of immigration matters. So thank you for asking that question, Yvon.

Mr. Elcock.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, there is a much bigger immigration process than CSIS, so in some cases it may have absolutely nothing to do with us.

The Chair: But the security check does, doesn't it?

Mr. Ward Elcock: In a lot of cases the security check is not necessarily the reason. Somebody may have said it's the reason, but in a lot of cases it is not necessarily.

The vast majority of security checks we do very quickly, Mr. Chairman. Most that are done are essentially routine. The number turned around quickly is, I think, in the 90% range and over. I don't have the number with me today, but it's high.

The reality of our business is that there are some people on whom the checks are going to take longer. In some cases it will be because those people are determined not to be checked very adequately and are anxious to hide a lot of information. It may take us a considerable period of time to determine something about those individuals. In other cases, it may be very hard to check certain information. They may come from parts of the world where governments have disintegrated, filing systems are non-existent, or where government response times are even considerably longer than they are in Canada.

• 1025

The reality is there are a number of reasons why in some cases there will be what are perceived to be delays, but certainly if people have concerns about that, there are mechanisms. Those individuals can appeal to SIRC, and in many cases do so, and in some cases they're found not to have put forward an adequate claim and in others they may find that there has been some delay.

The Chair: Okay. Last question.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have a second question. We understand that CSIS has to work with Interpol and with some foreign security and intelligence agencies. This is how the gathering and the control of some information are done.

I would like to ask you what are the criteria you apply to decide whether or not there is a risk for the security of Canada. I am going to use test cases only because, if I use particular cases, I am going to be told that this is not the place to answer such a question. These are test cases but they are quite frequent.

A young man has taken part in a demonstration against torture or for democracy in a country which is considered as a dictatorship, say in the Middle East, when he was 15 or 17 years old and he was a student. Today, he is 30 years old and he wants to emigrate to Canada. It is being checked at and it is mentioned that this guy has been arrested, put in prison, with or without judgement—in some countries it does not matter—, that he has a file that goes up the information chain, and it is considered that this guy, who is 30 years old now, is a risk to Canada because at the age of 15 or 17, he took part in a demonstration and was caught and put in prison or because his cousin, who has the same family name, was part of the same organization, a grass-root movement, a pro-democracy movement, a movement against torture or any other movement in a dictatorship, 10, 15 or 3 years ago. If he is a member of the same family, he is a security risk.

Do you take into account this information which comes back to you from the information chain, giving it a face value, or do you interpret it with some good sense, in the light of the Canadian democracy in which those acts would have been perfectly legal?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Elcock, can you answer the question with regard to the security risk? What's the criterion or the assessment or definition by which you...? Based on the example Mr. Charbonneau just gave you....

Mr. Ward Elcock: The test for us, in terms of contributing information to the immigration process, as distinct from our own legislation, is the test in the Immigration Act. We work to the test in the Immigration Act. If it meets the test in the Immigration Act, then we would provide advice to immigration as to it having met that test. We receive information from.... We don't work with Interpol. Interpol is a police organization, but we have relationships with some 250 intelligence services around the world and collect our own information in many cases.

It's a question of taking that information, evaluating its credibility. That can involve assessing what we know about the particular service and its attributes or the way it operates—the way it conducts its business. It involves testing it against other information we would have in our database.

While the gentleman you're describing may not have lied to you, in some cases the individuals will have lied to you and they will have not given you all the information. We will know additional information that will allow us to come to a different conclusion from what you might have come to on the basis of the information you're given. But in the cases you're describing, if that were the only information, I doubt very much whether we would have sufficient grounds to do anything—to provide advice to the immigration department that somebody should not receive status or was not a legitimate refugee.

The Chair: Okay. I would like to ask a follow-up, if I could, because I think it's a supplemental to this.

• 1030

Mr. Elcock, you just said something with regard to the Immigration Act. As you know, in Bill C-11 we strengthened those matters that would help you assess the risk even of a refugee, permanent resident, foreign national, visitor, and so on. It mentions committing an act outside of Canada that is referred to in sections 4 and 7, crimes against humanity, the War Crimes Act, questions of criminality, and human rights violations.

The new act, Bill C-11, gives you a broader risk assessment or criteria by which you've indicated that you would assess that particular individual for the purposes of immigration. Is there anything more in this act that you needed in terms of definition? It even mentions, and I don't have the act right in front of me and I wish I did—I think one of our members has it—that in fact being a member of an organization.... In fact this committee had an awful lot of debate around that particular clause, because one could have said that had we used this definition back 15 or 20 or 25 years ago, Nelson Mandela, as an example, might have found it difficult to come to this country. Yet after sufficient debate, we in fact wanted to put a provision in there that indicated.... I'll find it and I'll come back, if I could.

Madeleine, go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Last week, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced the relatively early implementation of an ID card for permanent residents, which will contain information stored on a tape.

Have you been consulted on the appropriate information to put on this tape? If not, what is the information you think necessary, in a perspective which, of course, complies with the Charter of Rights, while meeting basic security standards?

[English]

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, although I'm a lawyer, I try never to play lawyer. From my organization's point of view, I don't honestly know whether we were consulted, but I suppose we probably were, and we would probably want to have the maximum amount of information on such a card as possible. The decision as to what would go on such a card would really be a decision for the immigration department and its lawyers and its experts in charter process who would make that decision, not CSIS.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: What I understood is that you want a lot of information. But what kind of information do you want? I understand that the decision is going to come from Immigration Canada, but what information do you want? You do not have to tell me but when you are saying “a maximum amount of information”, I presume that it does not only mean the colour of my eyes or my height. Maybe you also want to have my body mass or, I do not know, my pedigree, or you want to know what I have done in life since I was born, what my parents were doing? I would like you to tell me because this of great concern to me anyway, and I am sure that I am not the only one around this table and in this Parliament, to be concerned about that. And if you refuse to tell me what you find essential, you give me a ground to think that I have perfectly good reasons to be concerned.

[English]

Mr. Ward Elcock: I'd rather not contribute to your sense of concern.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I am going to have a heart attack, right here.

[English]

Mr. Ward Elcock: Nor is it my intention, and frankly the name of your masseuse is not of particular concern.

I would simply say, as I said before.... Frankly, I don't know what discussions have gone on, nor do I know precisely what information we might have suggested beyond there, if indeed we did, nor frankly do I have any particular view about what ought to be there. My guess is that as an organization we would propose to put more on. It is for the lawyers, for those experts in charter matters, and for the Department of Immigration to decide what is reasonable, what is appropriate, and to implement a card of that kind. My guess is they will do that in a very balanced fashion.

• 1035

My job is simply to collect information and try to monitor people who are of concern in Canada. In that context, I like more information rather than less, but that's just because of the nature of my job.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Right. I can understand.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Tony.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two quick questions. A lot of questions have been asked, and I want to thank you for coming before the committee this morning.

With respect to border issues, I want to look at this from an economic perspective. Security really is the underpinning of a strong economy. We've seen the impact of September 11. There's a wide range of options we can look at. Some say simply strengthening and coordinating our immigration and security policies will be sufficient. Others say we need a continental security perimeter. Do we need one?

Secondly, not only do we need to secure the border, but I think we need to be seen to be securing the border. The Chamber of Commerce has set up a working group. A whole bunch of organizations have this sense that the number one priority for us now is to dispel the perception that we are not securing our border, that we are an access point for terrorism.

I understand you've taken some measures, and you have made comments to that effect, Mr. Elcock, but you mentioned earlier that you don't have a communications budget to get out there and talk about what you're doing. Do you need a communications budget? Can you stand shoulder to shoulder with your American counterpart and say Canada's not the problem—I understand what Mr. Elcock is doing, and I support that, and in fact we are doing the same thing—our borders are not a problem?

That's a major issue for our economy and for our sense of security and the underpinning that we require to continue to prosper with our largest trading partner. So can we have some comment on that?

The Chair: In other words, Mr. Elcock, maybe you should start having more news conferences, and the same with Mr. Zaccardelli, just like the CIA and the FBI, essentially, in terms of communication.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Some may chuckle about that. I think that is a possibility and something that you should consider, because we need to get the message out there that we are doing our job.

The Chair: Mr. Elcock or Mr. Zaccardelli?

Mr. Ward Elcock: In terms of the perimeter issue, others would have to comment on that. For us, it isn't an issue of enormous relevance, in the sense that, as an intelligence service, our cooperation with the intelligence portion of the bureau and the agency is enormous. We share enormous amounts of information between them and among ourselves, and then with the police when that's appropriate, in order to try to ensure that the North American space is indeed protected. It doesn't mean we don't have an interest in the border. We provide information to customs and others, and to immigration at the border as well.

But the reality is, in terms of how we operate, we're really operating with the Americans, with NSD and with the agency, in order to protect the Canadian and United States space. So in a sense, for us, the issue of perimeter is already there. That's how we operate. It's a different issue for organizations that are functionally responsible for the border and have to deal with the border on a day-to-day basis. As I said, we share enormous amounts of information with them.

I'm missing the second part of the question.

Mr. Tony Valeri: The second part of the question was to dispel the perception that we are, in fact, still a problem, and what actions you may take to—

The Chair: Obviously a meeting like this is helpful, but perhaps, as Mr. Valeri has indicated, a little more proactive communications on behalf of CSIS or the RCMP....

Mr. Ward Elcock: The reality is that there are lots of people who have that responsibility, whether it's immigration, or.... I know the commissioner does a lot more publicly than I do.

But the reality is, I'm running an intelligence service, and I could run out of things to say very quickly in press conferences, for obvious reasons. So I generally don't give them.

There have been occasions, indeed, when the director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, the previous director of the FBI, did in fact say those things, and they received good news. It rarely ever receives a lot of commentary, so they didn't receive a lot of notice, but he has indeed, and he has said that he did in fact say some of those things in the past. I'm sure the new director will say some of those things in the future. They don't always get covered, unfortunately.

• 1040

The Chair: Mr. Zaccardelli, with regard to perception.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I'm really disappointed to hear that members of the committee haven't been watching me on TV during my news conferences, because I think I've spoken quite a bit about this. I say this in all seriousness. It's a bit of a joke, but I often get accused by some of my other colleagues in government that I take too much airspace.

You make a good point. It's important that we reassure Canadians. As you know, right after September 11 I did a news conference, and I was on TV talking about that. I believe that is an important role I have, as Commissioner of the RCMP, and a role other public officials have.

I think I've done that. Can I do more? Yes, probably; I can always do more. But it's important to keep doing that. So I understand your point. We have to be out there, talking to people.

As I said to one of the earlier questions, I'm making plans to talk with a number of ethnic communities about some of these issues. That is something I continuously do. I know that's part of my role, as commissioner.

On the question of the border, from a law enforcement perspective, obviously we respect sovereignty and jurisdiction, but more and more in law enforcement, as we move toward this global alliance of law enforcement and policing, we are in effect operating to protect all the citizens of the countries affected by this. So we respect the border and jurisdiction, but we really operate at times as if there isn't that border—not because we don't know it's there but in terms of exchanging information and working together collaboratively so that we protect the citizens on the continent here.

The Chair: A final follow-up.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Commissioner, I just want to follow up on one part. I've watched you, and you've done an excellent job conveying the message that we are doing the right things. The challenges is, can you engage your American counterpart and get his or her support that we are in fact doing the right thing? That's the piece that's missing.

We are saying it, as Canadians, and you, as the Commissioner of the RCMP, are saying all the right things, doing all the right things. It's connecting with that American counterpart so that you're standing shoulder to shoulder, much like the Solicitor General did in the United States at a press conference. That would convey an enormous level of comfort on both sides of the border and speak directly to the challenge we face in terms of the flow of goods and flow of people.

The Chair: Maybe we'll take Mr. Alcock and Mr. Zaccardelli with us to Washington when the committee goes.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Really, Mr. Chairman, that's a good point. I don't have to speak for Ward, but I know both he and I have received much feedback in terms of the excellent cooperation and collaboration. You've heard the American ambassador, Mr. Cellucci, talk about the excellent cooperation. They thanked us I don't know how many times for what we've done. We have stood shoulder to shoulder.

We're also agencies that have to work on the ground and do our work. I have to manage a 23,000-person organization. I'd love to spend more time with the mike and so on, but I have to manage this organization.

So it's about balance. We can do more, and we have to do more. I can assure you, we're very conscious of that.

Ward and I have been down to Washington in the past, and we have done some news conferences. We probably could do more.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'm going to go to two final questioners, and then I do want to have an in camera session. There are about two or three questions I'd like to deal with in camera. We'll take one question from Art, one from Inky—I don't see anything else on this side—and then we'll go in camera for about half an hour or 15 minutes. Then we have to get to our next witness.

Quickly, Art and Inky, on the last questions.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I really believe that what Mr. Valeri has brought up at this meeting is a very important aspect of what is presently occurring. With regard to the viewpoint of Canadian people, perhaps as it reflects on our immigration system and our security system overall, I believe there is a view out there, and a very strong one, that there are some serious flaws in the process.

That was the reason for my first question. I know there was a hesitancy to give me or this committee a very direct comment on that. If it is the case that it was televised...and there were other reasons for not wanting to supply that information. I assumed that this kind of information would indeed flow here from the witnesses. It would have given me the assurances to be able to tell someone else that, say, this and this is being done to fix it. I'm not talking politically; I'm talking about how the experts on the ground see it.

• 1045

The Chair: I thought the testimony so far had indicated that.

Mr. Art Hanger: But there's been a reluctance, Joe.

The Chair: That's why I said we're going in camera. You may want to ask that very same question and assure yourself that those answers are forthcoming.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay. I will indeed.

I have a second question. If a situation like the one that happened on September 11 in the United States at the World Trade Centre happened here in Canada, maybe not even to that degree, would we have the intelligence capability and the investigative capability to track down foreign criminals or terrorists who were responsible for doing it?

The Chair: Mr. Elcock and Mr. Zaccardelli.

Mr. Ward Elcock: I hope, Mr. Chairman, we actually would have detected them before they did it. Unfortunately, one doesn't always succeed in doing that in life. What happened in the United States is witness to that fact, even though the Americans had enormous resources deployed against the targets in particular—not the specific targets but the organizations. One is not always going to get it right.

From an intelligence point of view, yes, we have a very good knowledge of who's here and of who's problematic. I think in those circumstances I would certainly hope to have foreknowledge, but we'd certainly be very helpful in tracking down whoever was responsible.

The Chair: Mr. Zaccardelli.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I totally agree with Mr. Elcock. I believe, without question, we would have the ability to do it from a security intelligence and law enforcement perspective. But I must add one other element. You see, this is not a Canadian problem. To phrase the question “Can Canada respond?” has really missed the point, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman. This is an international problem. It's a global problem. It's how we can collectively leverage our collective resources to respond to this.

If we were ever to suffer any such incident, it would clearly involve a whole series of other countries, the way the American situation, as we saw on September 11, tragically involved a whole series of other countries. This is a global problem and it requires a collective, integrated response. So it is not how strong or weak Canada is, it's how we, those democratic, free countries, are collectively capable of responding. That's how we must respond to that.

But the question is a very good one. It's very important that we are able to answer that. From a security and law enforcement perspective, I think the record is there. We are one of the leading countries in the world. Canada is still the safest country in the world, and it is in large part due to the fact that we have very effective intelligence and law enforcement systems.

The Chair: Inky, final question, and then I want to go in camera.

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

To echo your words, Commissioner, this is a global problem that requires global cooperation. Is it time that the RCMP and CSIS had a foreign component permanently stationed internationally?

The Chair: Mr. Elcock.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, we already have liaison officers stationed around the world. Only three of those are publicly declared. The reason for not declaring more is the security of the individuals involved. We do have individuals in a number of places around the world who conduct liaison with foreign agencies and assist the immigration department. When we do covert foreign operations we use Canada-based people. We don't use our foreign staff for that purpose. They're there purely as liaison.

The Chair: Just before we go, I know I had asked that question previously. I think one of the stronger features this committee in fact put forward in terms of the refugee determination system or even the immigration section of the bill was the inadmissibility section, which is the front-end security screening for both refugees and immigrants and foreign nationals, visitors and students.

I'm not going to read the whole thing, but I would refer to clause 34 in division 4. One specific area, which I think goes to the question Mr. Charbonneau was asking, says:

34(1) A foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for

(a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion

(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;

(c) engaging in terrorism;

(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;

(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada or;

—the big one here—

(f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).

• 1050

I think that provision gives you a lot more latitude on that front-end security screening, both on the immigration and refugee sides.

Ward, I think you will say you will enforce what the law is, that what we changed, and what that law represents now is a much broader latitude and flexibility for our enforcement agents to be able to do that.

Mr. Ward Elcock: In our case it's simply the test for information and advice we provide to the immigration department. It's not enforcement in that sense. It's ultimately for them to make the decision on the basis of the information and advice we can provide them.

The Chair: On that risk and security assessment?

Mr. Ward Elcock: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Thank you, publicly, if I—

Mr. Inky Mark: Could we have the commissioner respond to that?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Inky Mark: Should the RCMP have a foreign component? That was my question.

The Chair: I think he indicated they're already doing it.

Mr. Inky Mark: Not the RCMP.

The Chair: Sorry.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: We do have a presence in many countries, in over 25 countries, and we cover every country in the world through our foreign liaison program.

The Chair: That might be a question we might want to ask in private.

I wonder if I could ask the media and the people.... We want to go in camera for about 15 or 20 minutes.

Thank you very much.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

• 1053

• 1124

[Public proceedings resume]

The Chair: Colleagues, we can resume with our second witnesses today. I want to welcome back Peter Showler, chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board, and his guests.

Peter, I want to thank you for attending today, as we look at Bill C-11 again under the lens of September 11, but also to perhaps review what we passed in Bill C-11 in June. It is now before the Senate, as we all know. Hopefully, it will be coming out of the Senate fairly soon. And the regulations, as we promised the public, we will continue to review.

In light of September 11, I think this committee wants to review some of the security measures that were in Bill C-11, assess the role of the IRB with regard to refugee determination, and look again at Bill C-11, through the lens of what happened on September 11, to see if its provisions are adequate and will stand up to that test.

• 1125

Thank you very much for coming, Peter, and for your great input into Bill C-11. I think some of the things you indicated to us have found themselves in that bill. At the end of the day we have a much better product and a much better act that will help us facilitate not only security, but the assessment of refugees and immigrants to our country.

Welcome, Peter.

Mr. Peter Showler (Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board): Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, thank you for inviting us here today.

I'd like first to introduce Christiane Ouimet, the Executive Director, here on my right, and Krista Daley, Senior General Counsel. Both will assist me in answering questions you might have after the presentation.

Given the specific focus of these hearings—to look at the security features of the Canadian immigration and refugee process—I would like to begin by providing an overview of the Immigration and Refugee Board under the current system and the role it plays in protecting the Canadian public. Then I will address the enhancements that Bill C-11 will bring to the work of the IRB.

As usual, I gave you a copy of my comments. My oral remarks will however be shorter.

[English]

First of all, as some of the committee members are new, I'll speak about the role and importance of the IRB.

The IRB is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal, by far the largest in Canada. We report to Parliament through the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I think you're aware that the IRB consists of three separate divisions, each with its own separate mandate. In total, the IRB makes in excess of 50,000 decisions per year.

The overall goal of the IRB, for all three divisions, continues to be to make well-reasoned decisions on immigration matters efficiently, fairly, and in accordance with the law.

On two common misconceptions, the IRB does not select refugees from abroad, and the IRB does not remove people from Canada. Both of these responsibilities lay with Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

[Translation]

As far as security matters are concerned, I am aware that they are of particular concern to this committee, and I would now like to talk about them.

First, the IRB plays a critical security role in the Canadian immigration and refugee process. Through its three divisions, the IRB conducts detention reviews, makes detention orders, makes removal orders, makes determinations that war criminals and terrorists are excluded from claiming refugee status and, finally, confirms the identity and the nationality of claimants.

I would like now to give a brief account of some of the responsibilities relating to security matters of each division of the IRB.

[English]

On the Adjudication Division, IRB adjudicators make decisions about who should be allowed into Canada and who should be removed or excluded. When a person is a danger to the Canadian public or is not likely to appear for an immigration proceeding, adjudicators review the reasons for detention and can order continued detention. They can also order continued detention when a person is being detained for investigation of identity, or as a security risk.

Adjudicators can make deportation orders against criminals, war criminals, subversives, terrorists, and other undesirable persons described in the Immigration Act. Citizenship and Immigration Canada has responsibility for carrying out these orders.

On the Immigration Appeal Division,

[Translation]

the Minister has the power to issue a security certificate or a danger opinion, which will take away the right of appeal to the IAD with respect to a removal order or a sponsorship refusal. Even when this appeal right has been maintained for some people, it will be based on the law only, meaning that the IRB is not permitted to consider humanitarian grounds.

• 1130

[English]

The Convention Refugee Determination Division, the CRDD, may determine that a claimant be excluded from obtaining refugee status if members conclude that the claimant has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a serious non-political crime committed prior to coming to Canada.

Unlike other divisions, CRDD members can and do seek additional evidence. I think that's quite a relevant point for the committee to consider. Case preparations for all claims, not just exclusion, include gathering research and documentation. Members can ask the RCMP to analyse documents for forensic review. They can seek claimant-specific information from our documentation and research program. Refugee claimants are carefully questioned during a full quasi-judicial hearing. There is a minor exception to that, in regard to the expedited program. I will certainly respond to questions on that, if you have any.

CRDD members consider matters of identity and nationality to be very serious. We have developed a great deal of expertise in the area of identity and false documentation. This careful scrutiny is crucial and forms the basis of the well-reasoned decisions of the board. No decision from the board on refugee matters is taken lightly.

On Bill C-11, I'd like to briefly comment on the most important aspects, and how this bill will assist the work of the board. Partially because of your remarks, Mr. Chair, I will note there are provisions that deal with greater security for Canadians, and ones that improve the integrity of the process.

Beginning with the Adjudication Division, which will now be referred to under the new bill as the Immigration Division, under the current act people can be detained on grounds of flight risk, which means they're unlikely to appear for a proceeding, or if they are a danger to the public. The third ground for detention, which is investigation for identity or for security risk, under the present act is only available for persons who arrive at a port of entry. Under Bill C-11 there will be authority to review and detain people for purposes of investigation, whether they're at ports of entry or already in Canada.

Under Bill C-11, removing criminals and people who are security risks will be streamlined. It will be easier for adjudicators to order the removal of people who are security risks because the adjudicators will have access to protected information—that is information that is security-sensitive. Currently, under the present act, that information is only available through the Federal Court. So it will certainly streamline the proceeding if the adjudicators are in a position to hear this information that's ex parte, without necessarily the benefit of the person concerned hearing it. They can consider that information and make appropriate orders, the way the Federal Court can now. I see that as a significant improvement, in terms of streamlining the system.

There is a parallel issue with that. Adjudicators will also now have greater authority to restrict public access to their proceedings. It will be for issues where sensitive information is coming before them. The end result will be that rather than going through a Federal Court process immediately to make those removal orders, the adjudicators will be in a position to make those removal orders based on this sensitive information.

On the Immigration Appeal Division, in terms of security improvements, under Bill C-11 the right to appeal removal orders will be eliminated for certain individuals, including serious criminals, members of organized crime, and those who pose security risks.

The provisions to protect information for security reasons and the expanded grounds to restrict public access to the hearings are also available to the Immigration Appeal Division. The effect of the new bill will be to speed up decisions and subsequent removals of those who pose dangers or security risks to Canada.

Another key change not addressing security issues is that the division will hear appeals from those who have lost permanent resident status by failing to meet Canadian residency requirements.

On the Convention Refugee Determination Division, which will under the bill be named the Refugee Protection Division, Bill C-11 contains provisions that restrict eligibility to have a refugee claim referred to the CRDD when a claimant is inadmissible on security grounds or because of serious criminality. The minister is no longer required to issue an opinion that it would be contrary to the public interests to have the claim determined or that the claimant poses a danger. These are the only bases upon which those persons would now be excluded from the process. So there will be a larger class of persons that will be completely excluded from the refugee process.

• 1135

Refugee claims also cannot be referred when a claimant is inadmissible for organized criminality or human or international rights violations.

Repeat claims, as well, have been streamlined. People who have already been denied once before the board will no longer be dealt with by the IRB if they leave the country and return, which is the case at present. Under the new bill they will be directly referred to a pre-removal process with CIC. There is no second kick at the can before the IRB.

There are also other improvements in the refugee determination process I'd like to highlight. First of all, as most of you are aware, the jurisdiction of the division has been expanded to include all consolidated grounds. This was the concept. Right now the only decisions made by the division are those of convention refugees making the claim. It will now include those persons who would come under the Convention against Torture and it would now also include persons who are currently reviewed by the so-called PDRC office, the pre-removal office. As for persons still at risk for their life or for cruel and unusual punishment, these cases will all now be decided on one occasion before the board.

The vast majority of protection decisions will be made by single members, which is not the case now. Of course this will yield far greater efficiencies for the board. Balancing the single-member decisions, there will be a new division of the board, the Refugee Appeal Division, at which all refused claimants and the minister will have a right of appeal of RPD decisions.

The RAD will have two different but quite complementary results. First of all, it will review RPD decisions on their merits, which is not the case under the present system. In this way the RAD can remedy any errors made by the RPD. Second, the division will ensure consistency in refugee decision-making by developing coherent national jurisprudence in refugee law.

These changes will make the overall protection system more efficient and will at the same time allow the IRB to maintain its commitment to rendering fair decisions.

In conclusion, I'd like to note that the IRB is committed to rendering decisions fairly, efficiently, and in accordance with the law, which is our mandate. We would hope to do it now, during the transition period, and after the new legislation is adopted by Parliament.

I want to emphasize this point in the context of the tragic events that occurred on September 11, because we're all aware that the world has indeed changed. The IRB must and will continue to deliver its mandate by contributing to the security of Canadians and the integrity of Canada's immigration and refugee system, a system that reflects the fundamental Canadian values of fairness and justice.

[Translation]

I appreciate this opportunity to address you today. My colleagues and I welcome any questions you may have. I am aware that the Committee has an interest in refugee determination processes outside Canada, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have in that regard. Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Peter. Again, thank you for highlighting those provisions in Bill C-11 that are new to some members and in fact may be new to the public. It is extremely helpful as we focus on some of these new provisions and how they relate to security, and how the new system of refugee determination is going to work. I thank you for highlighting this.

I'll go immediately to questions. Art.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, members of the board, for coming. I guess you aren't members of the board, you are the board, right?

Mr. Peter Showler: Well, there are over 200 decision-makers, so I'm hesitant to say we're the board. But I would like to say the chairperson is also a decision-maker, and I think it's quite important that the chairperson does render some decisions.

Mr. Art Hanger: Right.

Just as a review for myself and for other members, who selects the IRB members, the board decision-makers?

Mr. Peter Showler: They are appointed by cabinet for two divisions, the Immigration Appeal Division and the Refugee Division. The third division, adjudicators, are public servants.

• 1140

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay. What are the criteria for the appointments?

Mr. Peter Showler: First of all, if we're dealing with the appointments to the two divisions where they are Governor in Council appointees, the basic criteria appointees are expected to have are a university degree or equivalent and five years of experience.

In addition to that, it is important to note that a selection process takes place. It's conducted by the ministerial advisory committee, a committee of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. There is an application process. There is a written examination that is not a casual examination; it's an extremely difficult examination. Approximately 50% of the candidates who write that examination fail, including lawyers who have written it.

The Chair: That doesn't surprise me.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: What, a 50% pass for lawyers?

Mr. Peter Showler: In addition, there is a very structured interview. It has been very carefully prepared by consultants to reflect the values we're looking for in decision-makers. It is conducted by one of the members of the ministerial advisory committee. Based upon the interview—and having already passed the exam, because if you don't pass the exam you are eliminated—a referral is then made to the whole committee based on the interview, and the committee discusses it and votes. Based upon the committee's decision, a recommendation is made to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Approximately two-thirds of candidates who apply are not successful; only one-third are recommended. The undertaking from the minister—and this has been fully respected—is that no candidate who isn't positively referred by the committee is subsequently appointed. This referral process creates the pool from which the minister recommends and the cabinet decides.

Mr. Art Hanger: The minister and cabinet will select and place those individuals from the pool.

Is this pool constant? Once you've written the exam, you're in the pool and that's it—you don't have to renew?

Mr. Peter Showler: You remain in the pool for a period of two years. If you haven't been appointed within a period of two years, then it would be necessary to renew your credentials and reapply.

The Chair: You can swim again in that pool.

Mr. Peter Showler: That's correct.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay. So is knowledge of regions of the world and conflicts in the world part of the criteria?

Mr. Peter Showler: No, it's not; it's not job-specific in that way. For example, the written examination is not on immigration and refugee matters. It's on abilities to think, to communicate, to identify issues, to rapidly marshal a great number of facts very quickly and reach conclusions—the kinds of general qualities required for someone to be a board member. It's not subject-specific.

The Chair: What you might want to say, Peter—and those are very good questions—is that it's an aptitude test. Could you quickly indicate the training provided once a person is selected?

Mr. Peter Showler: Certainly.

There is one other point I'd like to provide you with, sir. In terms of the appointments to the board, the legislation only requires 10% of the appointees to be lawyers, while in actuality approximately 35% are lawyers.

Once a person is appointed to the board, a very intensive training program takes place very quickly. First comes three weeks of initial training—and Canada is renowned for its training. Our training programs and trainers are used to train international judges throughout the world. We're seen as having the best training in the world, and it's something I'm quite proud of.

After that, there's a six-month customized training program that is extremely focused. While the new member is sitting in the beginning as a second member, both a mentor and a professional development coach are provided. As well, a legal adviser works very closely with new members as they slowly learn their trade. Usually at the six-month point there is a review and appraisal of their abilities. At that point it's determined whether or not a new member is fully competent to sit as single member if necessary, to sit sometimes without a refugee claims officer.

It's a very detailed and structured appraisal process.

• 1145

Mr. Art Hanger: I believe they're still eligible to come before this committee prior to their probationary period concluding.

Mr. Peter Showler: Yes, as far as I know they are.

Mr. Art Hanger: That has been the practice in the past. I trust that it hasn't changed any.

Mr. Peter Showler: The availability is there. Members have rarely been called before this committee, but certainly it is possible as far as I know.

The Chair: We just hold Peter ultimately responsible. That's why he appears before the committee so many times. It's good to question, though.

Mr. Art Hanger: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, but I know that members of the IRB, appointees in the past, have come before the committee and were questioned on their backgrounds. Some have pulled their own papers and stepped aside because of their backgrounds.

You might be aware of this, Mr. Showler.

Mr. Peter Showler: Yes, I'm aware that this happened in the past. During my two-year tenure at the board, I'm not aware of any member being called before this committee.

Mr. Art Hanger: This happened in 1994-95. There were a series—

Mr. Peter Showler: Yes, I think so. The ministerial advisory committee process was not in place then.

Mr. Art Hanger: So this has been added—the ministerial advisory committee.

Mr. Peter Showler: That's correct.

Mr. Art Hanger: Is it a supervisory committee?

Mr. Peter Showler: It's the committee that makes the recommendations I've just referred to. The members of this committee make these recommendations to the minister on appointments.

The Chair: It was another innovative Liberal thing that we brought in.

Mr. Art Hanger: It may be an advantageous one in the sense that there's a committee to scrutinize who comes...to develop this pool of potential members. It's an interesting add-on. I'm not for a series of new bureaucratic entities, but maybe this is an advantage if you're looking at the overall structure of the.... I don't know.

I would be interested in questioning not only the credentials of potential IRB members again, but there may be an opportunity for the committee to call somebody forward before their probationary period has ended. I know that the committee has done so in the past.

Mr. Peter Showler: Perhaps I can clarify. When you are referring to a probationary period, initial appointments over the last two years.... Of course cabinet can appoint for the duration that they wish, up to seven years.

Mr. Art Hanger: Sure.

Mr. Peter Showler: However, for the last two years the unspoken policy has been—and certainly it's been the minister's wish—that first appointments are only for a period of two years. That was seen as a reasonable period of time in which to give members the initial six months of customized training and then a year on the job to satisfy as to whether they were able to do the job.

The expectation on reappointment is that if they were to be reappointed, which would be the prerogative of cabinet, of course, it would be for a lengthier period of time. In this way we could sustain a high level of expertise over a lengthy period of time.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay. That's an improvement.

The Chair: For your information, the committee is the master of its own house. We do have the authority to call in any order-in-council appointment, but not until the appointment is made. I'm not sure it would be fair to call them in at the end of the two-year period before reappointment.

Mr. Art Hanger: No. There was a—

The Chair: There are some guidelines. But hey, at the end of the day—

Mr. Art Hanger: The committee had operated within those guidelines before.

I'm curious about the greater authority to restrict public access solely as a result of sensitive information that might come before an in camera setting. This is a decision the adjudicator makes now.

Mr. Peter Showler: This is potentially available.

Right now, the public has access to adjudication proceedings for detention reviews or removals. If extremely sensitive information is going to come before an adjudicator, the concern is that it may be necessary—even in terms of discussion—to determine what is evidence and what is not.

There are two ways to deal with this. First of all, the adjudicator will have the authority to simply review information that is not even made available to the person concerned. As I explained, this only happens now before the Federal Court in cases of danger opinions and security certificates. But secondly, it may simply be inappropriate for some of this information to be made available to the public. It's simply to ensure that the best evidence is brought before that adjudicator to make a prompt, effective decision.

• 1150

The Chair: This is your final question, Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you.

If an individual were to come before an adjudicator and there was very sensitive information that CSIS was going to supply regarding the background of this individual, it would be absolutely necessary for the adjudicator to know that. Now, would that information be supplied directly to the adjudicator prior to his meeting in the courtroom setting, or would it be supplied to the adjudicator in the courtroom setting?

Mr. Peter Showler: I'm going to ask my legal counsel to respond to that, partially because you should be aware that this is hypothetical, in the sense that currently—

Mr. Art Hanger: Well, it's—

Mr. Peter Showler: It certainly hasn't been available to us to date.

I'll let Ms. Daley answer.

Ms. Krista Daley (Senior General Counsel, Director of Legal Services, Immigration and Refugee Board): The way the bill is characterized—once again, the procedures will have to be worked out in the long run—if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration wants that information to come into the adjudication setting for use with respect to a person concerned, then they will give that information to the adjudicator privately, not in the public setting. The only issue is they then will make the decision about whether or not it can be disclosed to the person concerned. Then, based on that decision, the minister can decide whether or not they even want to use the information. If there is a decision that the information can be used, it looks like we'll give some form of a summary of it to the person concerned.

Once again, I think a lot of the procedures and how that actually will work out.... This is a new power within Bill C-11. The bill itself does not set out the entire procedure, but it's basically that structure.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you.

The Chair: It's fair to say CSIS had indicated that this probably was a very good benefit, or one of the helpful things.

Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Chairman, could I indulge in one more question? I have to leave right away, but I do have one question I would like to ask.

The Chair: You mean if I don't let you, you'll stay for a while? Then you can ask the question.

Mr. Art Hanger: No, I'll leave without my question being asked.

Thank you very much.

There's one other aspect to that. I know the importance of public access to those hearings. Sometimes criminality may come up that a claimant may be involved in. Where is the line drawn? That's of key importance to me, and probably to the public. Because if suddenly the adjudicator gets in his mind that it's sensitive and he doesn't want anybody to know about it, then the public is shut out. I don't think it should go that far, if that's the case. I'd like to know what the controls are.

Mr. Peter Showler: I'll give you the general answer and Ms. Daley will give you the specific answer.

In general, all decisions of the board, even if they're interim decisions such as whether or not there's public access, are decisions for which there are reasons, and those reasons are based on the law.

I'll let Ms. Daley describe what the basic provisions will be.

Ms. Krista Daley: I think there are really two issues here with respect to the sensitive information and then the shutting down of the hearing, in essence, from the public. In my view, when I read the bill, they really are two different provisions. There is protection of information, which I just described, where CSIS or the RCMP has this sensitive information and then the adjudicator deals very specifically with that piece of information and decides what to do with it. That is done in an in camera process with the adjudicator and that piece of information.

The other aspect of the new bill, though, is public access to hearings generally. Currently, public access to the hearings can be denied only if there is a risk to the life, liberty, or security of the person. Under the new bill, the provision will also include if there are national security issues at stake. So there really are two elements. One is the piece of information. The other is whether or not there is national security generally for the proceedings.

Mr. Art Hanger: So not much more has been added to restrict that, other than the national security issue?

• 1155

Mr. Peter Showler: That's true. But I have to say, to really explain it, that is very important. We are already aware, from our adjudicators right now, that we're in a situation where if CIC wishes to remove someone and they are aware of information that is very sensitive, they have to go the security route through the Federal Court. With this they can go directly to adjudicator. That is significant, and there are—

The Chair: That's exactly what this committee wanted to achieve, based on testimony we had heard, so that was a great improvement.

Mr. Peter Showler: That's right.

There are many instances when our adjudicators will be aware they're not proceeding with a case, they're going the different route, simply because there's information they're reluctant to bring before them because there would be public access to it, or there's information that they certainly don't want to disclose to this particular person.

I see this as a very significant difference when we're talking about streamlining the procedures.

The Chair: We'll have votes called at 12:30 to 12:45, so I'd like to wrap up about 12:30 or 12:40. We'll go to five-minute rounds, if we could.

Anita, and then Madeleine.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Showler, you may be aware the committee is planning to travel to Washington in two weeks. Some of the material we read, both from what we receive and in the press, indicates that large numbers of refugee applicants to Canada come through the United States.

We've received documentation, but I'm wondering if you could expand on the differences between the refugee determination system in the United States and here. My understanding is that there are three streams there. I would like some real clarity, please, as to the difference.

Mr. Peter Showler: I can provide you with some general responses. Real clarity may be too high a standard to achieve, partially because the American system is considerably more complicated than ours.

Perhaps it would be best to begin with reviewing what the Canadian system is in its simplest form, and it is a very simple form.

Essentially, here in Canada there is a claim presented to an immigration officer, who makes an eligibility decision on whether or not the person is eligible for the stream or not. The very great majority are found to be eligible.

Then the Immigration and Refugee Board makes a decision on whether or not this person is a refugee—and that includes the elements I referred to. They can either exclude them for the kinds of reasons I cited, such as crimes against humanity, or on other grounds, they can determine they're a refugee or they're not a refugee.

After that, all that's available to the claimant if they're refused is an application for leave to the Federal Court. That is an extremely limited appeal procedure. It's based only on a leave provision. So they first ask permission—whether or not the court will judicially review it—and secondly, all that's available is judicial review.

Judicial review is not an appeal on the merits; it simply deals with cases that can be overturned because there's been an error of law, which includes egregious findings of fact, or if there have been errors of natural justice. It's a very limited review. And then there's an even more limited review in the Federal Court of Appeal.

That's essentially the system within Canada.

In the United States, which is considerably more complicated, they have different categories of claimants who come forward. One of the ways in which they're divided is between persons who are claiming within U.S. territory and persons claiming at the border. They make a distinction between them.

With persons who are claiming within the country, they look at whether or not they've been resident or remained in the country for a year or less. If they've had more than a year, the claim isn't considered; it's referred directly to the immigration court. If it's less than a year, the asylum officer, who is equivalent to our immigration officer, can review the facts of the case in an interview and make a decision, either positive or negative. If it's positive, the person can then be accepted. If it's negative, they again get referred to the immigration court.

If it's a person who arrives at a port of entry, it's a little different. They'll decide whether or not this person has a credible fear. If they have no credible fear, they will be refused immediately, and about 10% of claimants are refused on that basis. Otherwise, they as well are referred to the immigration court for a full hearing. Those immigration court hearings are adversarial. There are counsels on both sides, which means the government is paying for a lawyer to oppose the claim in every one of those cases.

• 1200

One of the other differences is that a much higher number of claimants are detained within the U.S. system than within our system. If there is a negative decision by the immigration court, then there is a right of appeal on the merits to a board of immigration appeals. So they have a second level within their system, and that can be quite a lengthy period. Some people—a minority, but some—are still detained even during that period. As well, after that there's also an appeal to their federal court system and then on up through their federal court system. In fact, the levels of appeal are much lengthier than they are here in Canada.

Ms. Anita Neville: I'm not sure how to phrase the question.

Mr. Peter Showler: I hope it isn't going to be which one is better.

Ms. Anita Neville: That's certainly going through my mind, obviously.

From your perspective, what improvements could be made to one or the other so the work could be done more in tandem or harmoniously? As I said, we have a large number coming through the United States into Canada.

Mr. Peter Showler: I've often been asked what improvements can be made to the Canadian system. I've never been asked what improvements can be made to the American system as well.

Ms. Anita Neville: Well, let's talk about it from the Canadian perspective.

Mr. Peter Showler: Actually, I am limited in the responses I can provide you with. There's a bill before you. The role of the chairperson, as the head of an independent tribunal, is certainly to advise the minister and the government when proposals are made. I can assist in terms of talking about the means by which that can most appropriately be done and about the potential effects of any particular policy changes. But certainly it's not my role and it would be improper for me to be coming forward and telling the government how to do its business in terms of the ideals. So I'm sorry, other than that, I really can't respond to you.

Ms. Anita Neville: Okay, that's fine.

[Translation]

The Chair: Madeleine.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

To the extent we recognize that the current situation is related to security and not to immigration, I would like to have your view. Considering the context, do you think that Bill C-11, with what is in it, will become a law which will be sufficient to face reality or do you think that it should be changed?

Mr. Peter Showler: I am going to give you the same answer I already gave. If it is a matter of government policy from an assessment perspective, it is not for me to make direct recommendations to the government. My role is rather to explain to you the efficiency or the effect of some changes which are considered by the government or by the Minister. My role is not to guide them towards some recommendations.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Let me say that this is not a very conclusive answer. You have some expertise and some experience, and I have trouble imagining that you cannot be of sound advice.

Here is my second question. Following September 11, we learned that there were thousands and thousands of people to whom the refugee status was never granted, who should normally have been deported somewhere and of whom we had lost track. What do you need to call on the RCMP in order that the decisions of the board are complied with and to what extent do you call on the RCMP? It is nice to lose thousands of people but it is also disturbing.

Mr. Peter Showler: As I said in my comments, the role of the court is to make decisions. When the decision is made, for example when it is decided that a person is a Convention refugee or that, on the contrary, she has not been accepted, that decision is referred to the Department of Immigration. Then it is the responsibility of the Department of Immigration to start the deportation proceedings for people who are not legally in the country.

• 1205

I must say that some refugee claimants are legally here, who are students for example, etc. Frankly, the great majority of those people are not here illegally, which means that they already have conditional removal orders after it has been decided not to accept them. This is a condition to make the order efficient. A that time, they can be deported, except if they make an application for a review or a judicial control to the Federal court. After that, it is not the responsibility of the court to track those people.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We can read now in the papers about two young Basques who made a refugee claim. I think that their case has not been heard. So we do not know whether they are refugees or not. Their country of origin, Spain, asked for the extradition of these two young people.

What are you doing in such a case? Is their claim always there? Since they are subjected to a claim for extradition, are they to be sent back to their country? Given the fact that they are saying that they are going to be tortured, are you making a risk assessment before the removal, even if Spain signed the Convention against torture, or do you think that such an assessment is not needed because Spain signed the said Convention?

[English]

Mr. Peter Showler: There are some technical aspects to this question, so I think I'm going to ask my general counsel to respond to it.

Ms. Krista Daley: Thank you.

The issue of the connection between the extradition procedure and the refugee procedure is as follows: when the tribunal receives a notice that extradition is being sought by another country, then our refugee processes are suspended until that extradition procedure is determined.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Does this make Canada free from implementing the international conventions we signed, namely the Convention against torture, which says that a person who is on the territory of Canada cannot be deported without a risk assessment being made before being removed? There is a Supreme Court decision, as we all remember, about the case of the two young Americans.

[English]

Ms. Krista Daley: I think we can only speak from the position of what we look after, which is the tribunal perspective. As the law states, once the notice has been given for the extradition procedure, we have to suspend our refugee determination. I don't know, and that presumably is a question for the department, about what other form of risk assessment would take place.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You'll know.

Ms. Krista Daley: No, not from the tribunal.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Okay. We will have lots of questions for the Minister. Four hours of testimony?

The Chair: Yvon.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would like to ask the director to make a summary about the relationship of his agency with the RCMP and CSIS. In what cases do your members call on those services? Are you satisfied with the kind of service you get from those people, in as much you are doing business with them?

Mr. Peter Showler: Our main contacts are with the Department of Immigration, because they normally control information. We know that they call on other security agencies but normally, it is through the Department of Immigration. Furthermore, the court often calls on the forensic department of the RCMP.

• 1210

[English]

For example, for documentation in particular we frequently don't have those services ourselves, so we rely on the RCMP to provide us with a review of documents we think may be false. In those situations it's frequently a question of resources, and we often must make a decision based on the importance of that information and on the delays that would be involved, because considerable demands are made on RCMP services, as I'm sure you're aware. But certainly we find those services to be invaluable. Ordinarily, we would not directly contact, except for that situation, other security services.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Here is my second question. As for the decisions which are made concerning refugee status, after examining several sentences or judgments, I come to think that there are two things: everything turns around the credibility of the witness and the determination of risk in his country of origin.

As far as credibility is concerned, I have seen some rather unbelievable situations although quite real, because of problems of interpretation. I have seen decisions which have been made in the case of Lebanese people where the interpretation was done by Arabs from North Africa. I have also seen the case of a Tunisian where the interpretation had been done by people from Lebanon. Knowing fairly well the difference in the terms and expressions between the various countries, I know that there are situations where the credibility of a witness is undermined although he has nothing to do with it, because the words which are used by the different people are rather different, while still being Arabic.

When dealing with less educated people, as was the case with the last wave of refugees from South Lebanon, who are experiencing great stress, who have often been tortured or whose family was, and they are interviewed by people who speak Arabic but not quite in the same way as they do, the board members may conclude that a witness lacks credibility, which is not necessarily the case.

Are all your members aware of those situations and do they take them into account? Do you have interpretation services which are competent enough to take into account the kind of reality which affects the appearance of credibility without it being justified?

Mr. Peter Showler: I am very pleased that you are asking this question? This is to stress the great challenge of making decisions about refugee status matters during a hearing.

[English]

If I may explain, yes, you describe a problem for interpretation that exists for the board all the time. You gave one example in terms of Arab countries. It applies to many other countries. There are Spanish-speakers who exist throughout the system. The obligation of the board members is first of all to be satisfied that the interpreter is capable of performing their services effectively. In order for that to happen, this question is always posed at the beginning of the hearing, first of all to the claimants: Do you understand the interpreter, and can the interpreter understand you? The same question is posed to the interpreter, and that is carefully placed on the record.

There is an obligation for this board to make decisions that are fast, efficient, and fair. You can imagine the tremendous challenge that exists, because of course even within one country there can be three, four, or five dialects of a particular language. Sometimes we have to fly someone from Montreal to Halifax to attend a particular hearing. This test is always made in the hearing room: Are both the claimant and the interpreter satisfied they understand one another? You will always have problems where there may be one or two words that are in confusion. Not only are decision-makers aware of that, they're trained in clarifying these confusions. There are instances when if it proves problematic we will adjourn the hearing to get the appropriate interpreter. It is a very great challenge, and that's part of the difficulty of doing refugee hearings.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: May I—

[English]

The Chair: No, I am sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: One last aspect.

[English]

The Chair: I can't. I have to move on.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: With all the issues that are coming out of the development since September 11, I imagine there are all kinds of pressures on the IRB to assume roles and responsibilties that were never intended nor are desirable. I'm particularly concerned about some of the statements that assume that the IRB should take on a prosecution role, as opposed to a judicial function.

• 1215

As I understand the system now, it's the role of the minister to present information about security concerns to the board for determination. You look at both sides of the issues and take all the facts into account and make a decision. The same would apply for adjudicators, right?

Mr. Peter Showler: That's correct.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I want to get that clarified and then ask you, to what extent, in your view, is the minister intervening where necessary? And in cases where the minister may not intervene, do you feel pressure to assume part of that responsibility?

Mr. Peter Showler: First, I would like to clarify that the role of the board has not changed since September 11. The law hasn't changed; the role hasn't changed. So in that sense we do what we've always done, which is hear the evidence that comes before us and make the decision on that evidence, whether it be a matter of exclusion or of deciding whether or not the person is a claimant. In that sense, nothing has changed.

At the same time, events have happened such that different evidence may now be taken into consideration. It's too early to say whether the minister will be intervening in more cases than she has to date, simply because it's a little difficult to track those statistics. We may know in a month or so. But of course she has the right to do so.

Currently, under the act and under our policy and procedures, if information comes before the board either in the preparation of a case or even during the course of a hearing that would cause us to have concerns about anything raising the question of exclusion, we have the authority to either adjourn the hearing or before the hearing to advise the minister of the information and allow the minister the opportunity to come before the hearing. But the role of the board does not change, which is simply to make objective decisions in refugee cases based upon the evidence and the facts.

At the same time, if a person has been involved with certain kinds of organizations that have now come to the attention of the world since September 11, obviously that would be a fact that.... You'd look at that fact differently than you might have before September 11.

The Chair: Thank you.

Inky.

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

Let me first thank you for appearing and for coming back to the committee. There's no doubt the IRB has a big role to play, but the fact remains that the IRB is still a patronage vehicle. Unfortunately, through the Bill C-11 process the opposition put many amendments forward that would have made huge improvements to the whole selection process of the IRB.

Having said that, I was going to ask you about deportation, but that's not your role. Then I was going to ask you about references to the IRB, but that's CIC's role. So it's a fairly narrow window I can ask you in terms of—

The Chair: Well, then, thank you very much.

Mr. Inky Mark: But I will ask you to comment on an article written by Dr. Luciuk, a former IRB member, where he made many allegations about dishonesty of applicants and also about the quota process the IRB operates under.

Mr. Peter Showler: Thank you for the question. I would be delighted to respond.

Yes, I have read the article by Mr. Luciuk. I am in complete disagreement with his statements. I can say this. First, we are very proud of the quality of the decisions we render. I've already described some of the process to you before, but there is a tremendous amount of expertise in the board. Primarily, that state has been achieved because our refugee claim officers and our members are country specialists. They hear dozens and dozens of cases from particular countries. They know those countries; they know what profiles of claimants are and are not well-founded.

The documentary evidence filed in our hearings is the best in the world. Every refugee determination system in the world comes to our documentation centre for information. None of them provides the detailed information that we file in every one of those cases. And quite frankly, our decision-makers are well trained.

• 1220

I recognize that some people may not be completely satisfied with the appointment process, but the training of our decision-makers in their expertise is very significant.

Secondly, these are very difficult decisions. The implication that most of these are obvious decisions is in my view fundamentally incorrect. There are a few claims that it's obvious may be positive, and there may be a few that are negative. The great difficulty for most of them is you really have to separate out the details of the facts in the individual's story. There are, ordinarily, the complexities in interpretation that one of the members just referred to.

There's a high level of skill within the board. Candidly, that article showed great disrespect to the board, disrespect to the Canadian government, and great disrespect to genuine refugees, who get smeared with that whole image.

Thank you.

The Chair: We'll have to prepare a response, Peter, and maybe we'll get one of the newspapers to publish it.

Mr. Peter Showler: If you don't, we will.

The Chair: You're absolutely right. I found that article completely irresponsible and outrageous. But that's the beauty of democracy: we can have differences of opinion, just as Inky has suggested that his amendments would have greatly improved the bill—

Mr. Inky Mark: There's no question about that whatsoever, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Unfortunately, in a democracy the majority wins, sometimes.

Lynne.

Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I'm wondering about the backlog with your board. How large is your backlog? I'm gathering you have quite a backlog of applications that have to be reviewed right now. How large is it?

Mr. Peter Showler: Talking about just the Refugee Division, right now there are approximately 35,000 claims before the board that haven't been decided.

As I've said to this committee before—and I've been direct about this—we've made significant improvements in the efficiency of our processes over the last two years, with about an 8% increase last year. But it is also an issue of resources. To the degree to which there are increases in refugee claims, there need to be corresponding increases in resources. Currently we have approximately 35,000 claims to decide. We decided just under 30,000 claims last year, and that's the current capacity of the board.

The Chair: Considering we want you to do it in quicker time to be fair to the process—not only to those who are applying but to the system of getting them done under one year.... The question of resources I think we addressed as a committee. Hopefully the money will find its way to the IRB.

Do you have a second question?

Ms. Lynne Yelich: I was just wondering if we have advised the minister to put more money abroad. It's needed in resources and more educated people. Much like what you go through to choose your people, I would say we should have better-educated people and better resources abroad. It seems to be a big problem in my riding and many ridings that the embassies abroad hire local people. I'm wondering if we should advise the minister to take some of your budget, so that instead of your board starting to get big and flying people from Halifax to Montreal, you could have some of your workers go abroad—you know, have part of your determination board there. I'm just wondering.

Mr. Peter Showler: Well, currently, as I explained in the beginning, there is a misconception. The board has only responsibility for claims that are made here within Canada; we have no responsibility for determination overseas. I would mention to you, however, that there are, according to UNHCR figures, approximately 13 million refugees—persons outside their country—looking for refuge abroad. It's an overwhelming task.

The Chair: This problem may be relevant to the minister in terms of our overseas programs.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes, I see that.

Do you think the principle of safe haven is enforced enough with the decisions? It's known that many people come into Canada from a safe country who are supposed to go to the first safe country to determine refugee status. So I'm wondering, is it applied strongly enough?

Mr. Peter Showler: Currently under the law, if there is a country with which Canada has an agreement, there is the authority to return claimants to that country. But so far there is nobody on that so-called safe third country list. Unless there are bilateral agreements, it's difficult to come to such arrangements. Essentially that's the responsibility, once again, of the Department of Immigration.

• 1225

The Chair: I'll just follow that up and then go to the last two questions.

This is another myth, as opposed to reality. In fact, 21,000 people claiming refugee status came from the United States. The United States always likes to say that we're the problem, but the facts point to the reverse, that 21,000 people want to apply as refugees, coming through the United States.

They're not refugees from the United States; obviously they must have come from somewhere else into the United States and now want to get into Canada. A lot of those were refused.

Perhaps for the benefit of the committee, because we're answering Lynne's question as to safe countries, and so on.... When those people are refused, they are sent back to the United States, obviously, because that's where they were applying from, but could you give us a profile, without getting into individuals?

So 21,000 people, who came from someplace else, wanted to come to Canada from the United States. I'm sure you've heard many of those cases. Why do you think they want to do that, because they like the United States so much, or they don't like the United States so much and they want to come to Canada? Obviously they're using that as the conduit to come to our country, which is the reverse of what the Americans think.

Mr. Peter Showler: There are a lot of reasons for that, and some of it is a matter of speculation, but certainly one of them, of course, as you're already aware, is the visa regime—in other words, visas that are granted in Canada for persons wishing to come to Canada, and visas that are granted by the United States. They are granted to different countries. Sometimes there's simply easier access to the United States because a visa is not required, or in other situations—an example of that would be Argentine claimants—frequently they were able to obtain an American visa at a time when they were not able to obtain a Canadian visa.

As well, Canada has an interdiction program overseas. Again, this is not the responsibility of the IRB, but certainly it has been a model program, where persons are not permitted to get on planes even though they have the plane tickets, if they're coming to Canada. They haven't had that comparable program in the United States. So there has been far greater access to the United States, in that sense, than there has been to Canada.

The Chair: That's useful information, but what's the nature of the claim for the people who are applying, who are coming through the United States, as to why they want to come to Canada? Obviously they're seeking relief from persecution in the country they originally came from. Has it been because they've been refused in the United States and are therefore trying to get into Canada?

Mr. Peter Showler: No. The bulk of them have not claimed in the United States. The very great bulk of them would fall into that situation.

Sometimes it's for personal reasons—for example, they already have family members of some kind here. Sometimes, particularly if they're French-speaking, when they're looking for a country of asylum, they may feel that Canada would be more appropriate than the United States. There are all those kinds of reasons.

They may also think, prospectively, they may have a better chance in Canada than the United States, although I would say—and this number has been discussed before—if you look at all the ways in which you can be granted protection or asylum in the country, Canada is chosen primarily because we make convention refugee decisions. There are other levels of review and other means of remaining in the United States. The comparative numbers, if we look at all the possibilities of remaining, are 58% in Canada, and 52% in the United States. That's relatively close. So there can be many reasons, but in the profiles it often comes down to people's personal preferences. It certainly isn't because Canada has in some way a refugee policy, that I'm aware of, that's so drastically different that they would come to Canada and wouldn't come to the United States.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: If you use that principle, you would have 21,000 fewer people of the 35,000, or the United States would have that problem.

I'm wondering about that backlog. That's a tremendous backlog. When they get here, if that principle is applied, you would not be facing the backlog you're going to be facing.

Mr. Peter Showler: That is correct, but of course if people did come through Canada and went to the United States, it still might apply.

• 1230

There's a broader assumption to your question that I think it's important for the committee to know. If you really look at comparative refugee flows, not just in terms of the United States but the world, Canada is in a very comparable situation. In essence, for most of the 1990s Canada had a constant refugee flow, at about 25,000 persons, until 1997. We have seen increases since 1997. However, most of the other developed refugee-receiving countries, particularly the European Union, Australia, and the United States, have had comparable increases occurring since the mid-1990s. Up until last year, if you compare Canada to the European bloc, you will see that we've had about 7% or 8% of the same claims as they've had, in terms of numbers.

Candidly, I must say it would appear that the primary driving factor in the increase in refugee claims is globalization. So it has been uniform to all the developed countries. Canada is not unique.

Sometimes specific events drive increases. For example, the civil war in Yugoslavia caused tremendous increases to particular countries. But if you look at broader numbers, Canada's increased patterns are actually quite comparable to other countries. And I can tell you, in the last three years, where we've had these increases, nine European countries have had greater increases than Canada has had over that period.

The Chair: Okay. Roy, and then Jerry.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the presenters.

I don't know how much time we have, but in terms of the composition of the board, I'd like to pick up on Mr. Charbonneau's comments.

I went to an IRB hearing, and it basically turned on credibility of the witness. It had nothing to do with immigration law. I've raised this with immigration ministers, that we need to have regular Canadians on these boards, who have a few grey hairs and can look someone in the eye and try to figure out whether their case is credible, rather than a whole slew of immigration lawyers—with respect. Nonetheless, I'll get that load off my chest.

In terms of the backlog, I think that is a serious problem. Most Canadians would support a progressive refugee policy—and frankly, if they don't, they can elect someone other than me. But the problem is getting in front of the board. In budget 2000, I know more resources were made available. You mentioned an 8% increase.

We see it all the time. They come in, and by the time they get to the board, it's a year and a half. Then they lose and appeal, and it's another year and a half. By then they've married, they have a job and kids, and then it's humanitarian and compassionate, and so on. In my view, that's not the way to run a ship.

So is there kind of a one-to-one relationship in terms of resources and the timelines for decisions? Or do you get into diminishing returns? In other words, what is a realistic goal to tighten up that timeframe? Could you do it in one or two months, three or four months, six months, and what would it take in terms of resources to get to that end result?

Mr. Peter Showler: First of all, our current processing time for refugee claims at the board is slightly over 10 months. We've brought that down over the last few years from 13 months. We would like to take it lower, but we're not in a position to do that with the current increase in refugee flows. We have not received an 8% increase in resources—if I understood you correctly.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Maybe I misinterpreted it. You mentioned an 8%—

The Chair: That's an increase in intake.

Mr. Peter Showler: Refugee flows.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Oh, that's an increase in intake.

What kinds of resources have you—

Mr. Peter Showler: We're discussing that with the central agencies right now, with Treasury Board. We have certainly brought the matter to their attention and raised the issue that processing times will obviously go up unless we receive more resources. Our ideal would be to bring them down further, but for that we would certainly require increasing resources. We're just having those discussions with them now.

Mr. Roy Cullen: In budget 2000, I know more resources were made available to the department for this purpose. So if they're getting lost somewhere along the way, it would be useful—

The Chair: You may want to ask that question to the minister, but yes, there was some money that went to immigration. Whether or not it saw its way into the IRB, I can tell you that the minister and the committee wanted to get those times down from ten months to six months, I think we had said. That's going to take an awful lot of time, based on the intake flows, which are increasing, and the resources that would be required to do so.

Mr. Peter Showler: We have a separate budget. We're within the same portfolio, but it's a separate budget process. We are seeking the resources. We are hopeful, but at this point there has been no confirmation of what those resources would be.

Mr. Roy Cullen: May I ask one quick question?

The Chair: A supplementary question.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I find a little offensive a few cases where someone ends up in one of our missions in Europe, or something, and they say they're a refugee—it could be a woman who has been living in Iran under very difficult circumstances—and some immigration official in the mission makes a determination that, sorry, you're not a refugee.

• 1235

I think the logistics are challenging. I don't know why an immigration officer in a mission abroad has the jurisdiction to say it's not complicated in Iran, Iraq, or wherever, and is not going to consider the refugee claim. Why can't they come before the IRB?

Mr. Peter Showler: They're outside of Canada.

The Chair: He is here.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I know the logistics. It's the principle. How can an immigration officer say he has all of this wisdom and knows everything going on in Iran?

The Chair: It's a perfect question for the minister, Roy. I'm going to hold it until the minister is here. You might want to ask that question of the department.

Jerry, you have one final question.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

One final question really cuts it close. However, I want to focus on Bill C-11 as part of the question, and security as part of the question.

It seems to me some of the changes that have occurred in Bill C-11 will help you determine cases more quickly. You now have access to certain types of information you did not have access to before. Hopefully, it will move some cases along more quickly.

I realize access to information is probably one of the key elements in making sure you can do your job, with no backlog of 30,000, speed up times, and move the issues more quickly. Obviously, resources won't solve all of the problems either. There have to be other recommendations, I believe, put in place or other activities put in place to move the backlog in a faster way.

What specific types of recommendations, information, and resources do you require in order to deal with the backlog more efficiently and more quickly? I'm certain we, as a committee, have to know the tools you need in order to do the job. If you just say you need money, you know very well we're swimming upstream. There have to be many other things to help do it. Does Bill C-11 contain some of the elements? Would you recommend other elements we can look at, and deal with, in order to speed up your job and make it more efficient and cost-effective?

Mr. Peter Showler: I've already referred to some of the critical changes that, in our view, will make a difference. The first one, of course, is the single-member decision.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Yes.

Mr. Peter Showler: I've said before, the complexity of two members makes a big difference from having a single member. It will help us speed up considerably.

In that regard, I realize money in itself isn't enough. Almost certainly when we go to a single member, we will need additional resources, for example, for more refugee claim officers. Certainly we've brought this before the government.

If there are single-member decisions going on, there will be different kinds of support and additional support for single members to move them forward. It may be an issue of resources. We are really looking for more refugee claim officers, who can process the information brought before our decision-makers.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Is it offices and officers, or just office space?

Mr. Peter Showler: It is refugee claim officers.

In our hearings right now, they're not adversarial. There's no opposing counsel. Most judicial proceedings have this concept of a lawyer on either side where they argue it out. Our refugee proceedings are called non-adversarial or inquisitorial—in the best sense of the word, not in the old sense. Simply, it is a concept where we try to gather all the information necessary to make the best reasoned decision.

In order to do so, if we have single members, it will be helpful to make sure we have more refugee claim officers, with the best information brought into the hearing room as quickly and efficiently as possible. We always have been dedicated to the notion that we require good information in the hearing room.

Comparably, in terms of the security issue, the refugee claim officers are the ones who talk to the Department of Immigration, if there are security concerns to communicate back to the Department of Immigration or they're looking for information. It's the same for specific information requests about particular claimants. All of it is an issue of resources. The resources provide that kind of information more quickly and effectively in the hearing room.

• 1240

Mr. Jerry Pickard: You have changes in Bill C-11, and hopefully they're going to be implemented soon. We're anticipating cutting a nine-month backlog. We're anticipating cutting 30,000 applications to a reasonable level. Obviously, all of that should save costs, efficiencies, and other things. I heard only that more offices are an issue.

Should we not be looking for more than what is in Bill C-11, and more offices? I heard from the RCMP, the minister, and yourself that the flow of information will be much better than before.

Mr. Peter Showler: It's correct. The refugee claim officers who are responsible must make sure we ask the correct questions, and the information is delivered effectively and efficiently to the hearing rooms. It's not just about offices. They are the personnel responsible for delivering the information within the board to our decision-makers.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Does the flow of information not go well now?

The Chair: It's a little slower.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: What is being said here, without being said, is important to me.

Mr. Peter Showler: Yes.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: The information doesn't flow very well at this point in time.

Mr. Peter Showler: It can flow faster. It's the challenge of the board to make sure we request the information, then deliver it to the hearing rooms. There is a resource issue in terms of the quality and efficiency of our decision-making, particularly if we have a single member, as opposed to two members, in the hearing room. I'm very hopeful the resources will be made available.

The Chair: I'm sure we would want to ask that question of the minister next Thursday.

Peter, Christiane, and Krista, thank you very much for your attendance. Again, thank you for your input.

I know the question was whether you had an opinion on Bill C-11. In this committee, in terms of the refugee determination hearings, and even in hearings on Bill C-31 and Bill C-11, you provided us with very good advice and information, which I hope leads to some of your ideas and advice being put into Bill C-11.

I want to thank you so much for the hard work you and your officers do each and every day in making some very tough human decisions. I'd like to think we have one of the best systems in the world. We've been told that. I think we've improved it. There are some challenges. I want to thank each and every one of you, as well as the members of the IRB, for all the hard work you do on behalf of Canada. Thank you.

We're adjourned until next week.