CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 22, 2001

• 0915

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Colleagues, maybe we can begin, even though some of our colleagues are getting here a little late. I can understand that.

For starters, let me refer to what we have. We have a preliminary draft report outline, which essentially tries to capture the essence of what we were all talking about on Tuesday. Obviously this is just for discussion purposes. As we go through it, on the points we raised, if we agree there should be a recommendation in that particular area, we'll then so direct our staff to prepare the recommendation so that we can review them next Tuesday.

There's a briefing note for you that was prepared by Ben, our researcher, on safe third countries. I know that was an area you wanted further explanation about. There is in rough notes a summary of the evidence from the travel. My apologies to Madeleine with regard to the fact that they're not translated. That's because I wanted the committee to at least have something. It's being sent to translation. My apologies. We should not as a practice table anything that's not translated, but I wanted all of you to have something for recollection so that when we're talking about particular recommendations you will have for your information what was said by our witnesses as we travelled across the country.

Again, to highlight what was handed out the last time, there was a list of the tools developed by CIC and how the PRA works. That was all distributed last Tuesday.

Something that was sent to the office was a response to an information request on federal costs, on how much it costs us for a refugee claimant. I want to highlight the fact that perhaps maybe other people were seeing a zero, and so when that $50,000 figure came up.... I don't know where the heck it came from, but you will see that it's probably $5,637, as opposed to the $50,000 figure that's been bandied about, and we want to make sure that's corrected.

As well, there are some population statistics that I indicated were also distributed to you with regard to case processing centres, call centres, international regions, citizenship programs, and so on, as it relates to human resources and some statistics.

Anyway, that information is all there for you.

Why don't we begin by going through the preliminary draft report outline. I don't want to go through the introduction as much because that's something we may want to beef up, or maybe that's where we might want to start, if there are some additional historical things.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC/DR): I wanted to ask a question regarding the information and the notes. Is there a way we can make them part of the report, as an appendix or other?

The Chair: The witness stuff?

Mr. Inky Mark: Even the information that the department has provided for us, like third safe country and the stats on removal orders.

The Chair: We can put anything in the report you want, if you think it's going to be useful—

Mr. Inky Mark: It would be helpful to the people reading the report.

The Chair: —in terms of education, information, and so on. Maybe that's something we could discuss towards the end, Inky. I agree.

There will be a number of appendices that we might want to attach to the report to back up some of the information we've given or recommendations we've made.

With regard to the evidence supplied during the trip, you will know that came by verbal exchange, for the most part, not submissions made. Our staff has done a very good job of trying to put down what they thought they heard. As you know, there were meetings all over the place. Anyway, I think they captured the essence very well and have done a tremendous job in terms of that. But as far as appendices to back up our stuff, you might be right. We might want to add some additional stuff, yes.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I didn't want to talk on that, but I do want to say that I think some of this stuff would be helpful, for instance, the numbers on employment levels and some of the charts. I have some questions on some of it. If we're going to put it in a committee report, I want to make sure I understand it, and I'm sure everyone else does too.

• 0920

I would like us to take a moment, if we could, on the introduction. I would like to suggest something to this effect, that in the beginning of the fourth paragraph where it says “It has become clear to the Committee”, I'd like to see a statement in there that says that as a result of our tours, both east and west, there was no evidence or indication that Canada's policies and/or procedures at the border had contributed in any way to the tragedy of September 11.

The Chair: Yes. I don't know whether you put it there or whether you put it in the section that says “Canadian Border Security...The Effects of September 11”.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: One of my concerns is that an awful lot of people just read the introduction of the report and don't get into the detail, and I want us to make that message loud and clear, that there was no evidence; there's no indication.

The Chair: I think it should go in the second paragraph then, because you'll see, Steve, that when it starts to say—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, I originally thought that, but then when we're saying here:

It has become clear to the Committee that when addressing the issue of security, the border must be viewed as a continuum.

I agree with that, but if you were to say, previous to that, a statement to the effect of what I've said, and then said, “However, it has become clear....” So we'd be saying there's no evidence, but what we did learn is that the issue of security should be viewed as a continuum.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You're not just being totally mindless and saying we didn't do anything. You're saying there's no evidence to support the charges that have been levied that our policies and procedures contributed to the tragedy; however, we do accept the fact that security along our borders should be viewed as a continuum and we should be cooperating with our neighbours, blah, blah, blah.

The Chair: I see.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: A little more balance.

The Chair: Does anybody have a problem? We can add that there.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If the staff prefer to put it somewhere else, I'm open to that. It's just my suggestion.

The Chair: Good idea.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Support the allegations.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, use it to support—

The Chair: Allegations or whatever. The idea we have...we'll figure out how and where we're going to put it.

With regard to the introduction, if you just want to take a minute to see if there's anything else, because as Steve says, the introduction can be very important.... I thought we talked a little bit about how pro-immigration the country is. Is there enough there that again shares in our vision?

Madeleine, a lot of you talked a little bit about the Canadian vision towards immigration and refugees. Is there enough in the introduction that sets the context of that? I would like to see a lot more of it, to tell you the truth.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't know what the numbers are in terms of ports we visited, and I don't know that an actual number is important, but I think we should stress the fact that the committee travelled from coast to coast visiting several ports of entry, meeting with—

The Chair: That's in the third paragraph.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's not explicit.

The Chair: No, it's not explicit enough, and I think—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Not only that, but we heard from front-line workers on both sides of the border. We met with the Americans as well as the Canadians.

The Chair: We'll beef that up and make it a lot more specific and mention the fact that we even discussed with some U.S. people. But as far as the context and the vision of Canada as a pro-immigration, pro-refugee country, I thought that's what I heard loud and clear on Tuesday. We want to mention that in the introduction.

Mr. Inky Mark: I'm glad you wrote that in too, Mr. Chair, and I'm also happy to see you referencing the last report of this committee.

The Chair: Yes. Again, we want to show them that it isn't just because of September 11 that we've been talking about an awful lot of these things, but in fact it goes back some time.

Yes, Mark.

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): You just made the comment that we're a pro-immigration country. Somebody made some very interesting observations the other night at a meeting. There were a few ambassadors of different countries. They said they agreed that Canadians and the Government of Canada promoted this, but they said if you read our press, you have a different opinion.

The Chair: That's exactly what Steve and a number of people were saying last Tuesday. We have to dispel the perceptions as opposed to reality, and I think we want to do this as firmly as we possibly can in this report. I think you're right, Mark. Again, that's why this is just a draft and we're looking at ideas of how we can beef it up. I personally would like a lot more of the contextual historical sort of stuff in the introduction, about Canada's vision about immigration and how we do maybe compared to other countries. I think we ought to celebrate the fact that immigration has been very good. Our historical and generous refugee plan is one of the better ones in the world. We're taking our responsibility in the world. If we could beef that up in the introduction, I think that would be helpful.

• 0925

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I agree with that.

I just want to say that after thinking about this, I don't want this to be left so that it looks as if we are blaming the media. In the second paragraph it says that it be “based upon facts and not faulty perceptions reflected in the media”. The faulty perceptions came from legislators both here in Canada and in the United States. We don't need to name names, but there were reports from some people, such as Lamar Smith from Texas, who claimed that Canada has a serious problem at its border. That is not justified.

The Chair: Why don't we just strike those four words, then, and just leave it at “not faulty perceptions”?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What I'd rather do is add something. I think those words are fine if it's in the context of the perceptions of legislators both in Canada and the United States that have been reflected in the media.

The Chair: But there are also public perceptions out there that we're dealing with.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But the public perceptions are generated by the media.

The Chair: I would think so, but yes and no.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): We've also had some where the media had driven themselves.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't want to let my buddy Lamar off the hook. That's all.

But it's not only him. There was the congresswoman in the northern U.S. who was waving a report that cited all kinds of statistics. They asked her where she got her information, and she said she got it from the Canadian media. There was another guy who held up a pylon and claimed that it proved there was a problem at the Canadian border, when in fact the pylon was what was guarding the American border. There are also Hillary Clinton's statements, and on and on.

The Chair: I think we should add some words to say “reflected in the media by legislators”, something like that. It's broader than just the media. The media is driven by certain things, and sometimes it's the media that drives certain things.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sometimes it is. Just make sure we add U.S. legislators.

The Chair: That last paragraph talks about our history, and perhaps it's in that context that we want to add some more historical stuff. That's at the top of page 2 where we talk about the vision of the country and so on and so forth.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to the second paragraph.

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: In the second line,

[Translation]

it says in French: “L'attaque horrible qui a frappé notre voisin le 11 septembre 2001 nous a également secoués”. In English, it says:

[English]

“was also an attack upon us”. I think this is exaggerated in English when compared with the French. The French is right. I agree with the French, which says

[Translation]

«nous a également secoués».

[English]

It means we have been upset or shaken up.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): We were not indifferent to those events.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: To say the least.

[English]

The Chair: French is a much more expressive language.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Don't get me going, Madeleine.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Are there any comments from the English side of the equation? David.

Mr. David Price: I agree. It was an indirect attack upon us. Maybe that would cover it.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We can talk about democracy in a more general way.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The words “nous a secoués” are good.

[English]

We have been shaken.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I think we could say that it was an attack upon all freedom-loving nations.

An hon. member: That's a better way to frame it.

The Chair: I agree. Is that okay, Yvon?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: That's a big umbrella.

An hon. member: Like the Liberal Party, it's a big tent.

The Chair: I want you to review this over the weekend and look at that first section.

The next section is recent measures and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This is where I think it's important to mention in the report that even before September 11 we were working on Bill C-11. We can talk about Bill C-11 and highlight some of the increased security measures as a result of it. I think the draft has captured the essence of Bill C-11. Is there anything else you want to add there with regard to Bill C-11?

• 0930

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I like your words “even before September 11”. We might want to indicate that this effort by the committee was generated as a result of September 11. Perhaps we could say something like you've just said, Joe, that even before September 11....

The Chair: We could put in that first paragraph that earlier this year, even before September 11, we had undertaken Bill C-11 and so on.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It wouldn't hurt to say it again, though. There's something like that at the top of page 3. But I think it doesn't hurt to say right there that while we did this work earlier this year, even before the events of September 11....

The Chair: Is there anything else you want to add to that section with regard to Bill C-11? I think it pretty well captures what we've done, especially, as I said, some of the security measures.

On the third page we talk about Canadian border security and the committee's findings and recommendations. Section A, which is probably going to be the recommendation section, talks about the effects of September 11.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Joe, can we back up just a bit?

The Chair: This is where we're going to start talking about misconceptions and reality.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act it says “This legislation will reinforce Canada's commitment to welcoming immigrants”. What about saying something to the effect that it will reinforce Canada's commitment to the Geneva Convention signed in 1949, which has led to us welcoming immigrants and refugees.

The Chair: There's nothing wrong with making mention of the fact that we're in compliance with and supportive of the United Nations and that we have been since 1949. I agree.

A lot of historical context would not be problematic in this document. We want to try to use this document as an educational piece for some of those media types and other people who may want to read this. So there's nothing wrong with beefing it up from the standpoint of some evidence or history.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Along the lines of what Inky was saying earlier, I wonder if there is a short version of the Geneva Convention that could be added to the report as an appendix. I'm sure the convention is that thick.

The Chair: It wouldn't be a bad idea. I think a lot of that reference material might be helpful for the report. Make note of the fact that we might want to include that in there.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'd venture to say that no one has read it.

The Chair: With regard to Bill C-11, that's another point we might want to include. Bill C-11 is a fairly significant bill. I don't imagine an awful lot of American legislators or media people would say, what is Bill C-11? I think there is a legislative summary of what Bill C-11 is all about, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know how big that is.

A voice: It's 40 pages long.

The Chair: That's too long. We don't want to do that.

But I think there's an educational piece—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a householder you can use.

The Chair: Some might question its objectivity.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Let's see if we can find something to add to the report that highlights certain parts of Bill C-11, other than what we have put here. Again, it would be as reference material or something like that.

The third page talks about September 11 and those misconceptions. Maybe Jay or Ben could talk about the security misconceptions after September 11 and what the RCMP and CSIS testimony is all about. If there is a recommendation coming from there, we ought to know what that is.

• 0935

Mr. Steve Mahoney: May I suggest that where it says, on the second line, “by a group of men who entered the United States”, we add the word “legally”?

Mr. Jay Sinha (Committee Researcher): One thing that's not totally clear is whether they all did enter legally. What we've seen from the media so far is that some were there on legal visas, but it's possible that three or four weren't there legally.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So then why don't we say “most of whom appeared to have entered legally”?

I'm going to make this point and drive it right down their throats, Inky, I'll tell you that.

The Chair: I'm looking forward to that meeting, if we ever get to the United States. We'll bring to boxing gloves for you and Lamar.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No problem.

Mr. Benjamin Dolin (Committee Researcher): The RCMP and CSIS testimony was essentially about not using the phrase “safe haven”, that Canada is not a safe haven for terrorists, and that the refugees are not necessarily to be associated with that ilk.

The Chair: I think one of the things we might do toward the end of this section...this is talking about the effects of September 11 and how our country has in fact suffered. We have to clear up the security misconceptions, and perception versus reality, as Steve has said. I think the immediate effects felt at the border—less traffic, longer delays—are realities that we ought to put in there.

Let's face it, this is the first point. So when people are looking at what we're recommending as of September 11, sort of like a global thing, we may want to say something to the effect that the immigration department, and perhaps other government departments, should make an effort to educate the public, both here and abroad, so that unsubstantiated and unwarranted concerns about Canada's border security are refuted.

This gets to the point that, again, one of the biggest myths is that Canada is a sieve, a soft touch, a haven for terrorists or undesirables. We want to say, right off the bat, that we need to do a better job as government, as a department, along with other government departments, to educate the public, both here and abroad, so that these unwarranted and unsubstantiated concerns about Canada's border security are refuted. That might very well be a possible recommendation that we would put at the end of this section, in section A.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, that's fine with me.

I want to talk about a statement here that says “The Committee wishes to emphasize that there is no link between immigration and violence.” I think we have to be more specific and say that, in Canada, there is no evidence to show that there is any link between immigrants and refugees and violence.

The reason I say “in Canada” is that there is evidence that there was some kind of a link in the United States between their immigration policies and the events that took place on September 11. Our job is to speak for Canada. We have found no link within this country or at our borders that ties our system to September 11 or to any kind of terrorism or violence.

We don't want to be overly defensive, and that's where your statement that, however, we have to do a better job, and so on, of recognizing that terrorism as an external threat is possible....

I saw a report on a news show where they were claiming that the United Kingdom—and they used the word that's being thrown around in this country—has become a “haven” for terrorists and organized crime, and they provided all kinds of evidence. It was like a 60 Minutes-type documentary show. I can't remember what it was. So we sort of throw that stuff around.

We are not immune to terrorists coming into our country. We're certainly not immune to organized crime getting into our country and living in the community that we live in globally. In my view, that immunity is just not attainable, short of building a wall around the perimeter. I think we want to stress what we found, that we didn't find a link in Canada. We don't need to say anything about the fact that there might be a link in the United States. We're not reporting on the American system.

• 0940

The Chair: In section two, we'll draft some recommendations for you with regard to perception versus reality, something you just talked about. Also, as I indicated, I think we ought to have a positive statement there in terms of informing the public about these undisputed or disputed sorts of facts about us being a sieve or whatever.

The other thing we might want to do in this particular section, because it says here “The Immediate Effects Felt at the Border”, and I think it's important that we say something about that, is to say that it's incumbent upon ourselves and the United States to make sure that the border functions as well as possible. It has to be open, it has to be efficient, but it has to be secure. We understand that because both of our economies are so dependent on the border being open. The reality is that since September 11, and maybe even before, our border crossings have become problematic, for our economy, for people, and for goods crossing it.

One of the recommendations, because this section deals with the effects of September 11, is that we need to talk about how important it is to make sure that our borders are as open but as safe as possible, but efficient also. So we could draft a possible recommendation for our consideration, that as a principle, we want to make sure that the border is as safe as possible, but it also has to be open and efficient to facilitate travel of our people and our goods.

What we might want to do as well, right off the top, is address what I thought was a really important point—we heard it very clearly—that at the local level, there's a lot of working together between Canadian and U.S. departmental people. But because of September 11 and what we've learned about that, we need to emphasize that there has to be a closer working relationship between all our departments, working together, and all our departments working with all the U.S. departments, working together at the highest levels, because at the local level, in practice, I think it's happening.

I think we ought to say formally or informally both governments need to do everything they possibly can to cooperate among themselves, each department communicating and cooperating with one another, and then communicating and cooperating with each other as two sovereign countries, but that communication and that coordination is essential. If we could draft a recommendation along that principle, as a result of September 11, I think that would be very important.

Yes, David.

Mr. David Price: I just think we have to be a little bit careful here, because we have a really good informal working relationship. You know what happens quite often if we start to try to formalize that too much. That middle level gets involved and says, these guys shouldn't be doing this.

A voice: Yes, we could screw it up.

Mr. David Price: Exactly. What's going on now is good stuff.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So if you're working together, why get married?

Mr. David Price: That's right.

The Chair: So maybe we should stay away from the words “formal” and “informal” and just say there needs to be an awful lot of whatever, and whatever works informally is fine by us. But I think we ought to highlight it that we were impressed by the magnitude of the relationships that existed locally.

Mr. David Price: The good working relationships, which would ensure that the informal relations are not hindered?

The Chair: I think David might say, if you highlight the fact that there may be so much informally, somebody might say, hey, what the heck's going on, and start to screw it up.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And you had better put cameras in all the—

The Chair: We have Canadians marrying Americans and Americans marrying Canadians. That might be an informal arrangement, but we don't necessarily want either—

Mr. David Price: Or perhaps they're just living together, of course.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Of course, if they're involved—

The Chair: Yes, but I think that's an important point, and we'll make sure we draft a recommendation on that.

Are there any other ideas with regard to possible recommendations because of the effects globally? We're going to get into some of the other things, but—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: On section B, “The Impact of the New Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”, if we were to say something to the effect that while implementation of a new law often comes with concerns expressed at the grassroots level, the events of September 11 have heightened a number of concerns with regard to this....

• 0945

My point is that our staff probably would have had some difficulty with some of these things whether September 11 had occurred or not, but September 11 has heightened everyone's awareness.

The Chair: It has heightened everyone's awareness even more so. It's why those three bullet points are there.

What do we want to say about front-end screening? Obviously, if September 11 hadn't happened, to get the standard of Bill C-11 was going to take an awful lot of training, people—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think with front-end screening the issue is resources.

The Chair: Right, and therefore do you want us to draft a recommendation around the whole concept of front-end screening and the need for resources and technology, the training, and the human resources it requires?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I agree, but we can't be specific in recommending any numbers—as you and I have talked about.

We could say the department should consider increasing the human resources and technology available at points of entry to ensure that front-end screening is done expeditiously and it should also embark upon an aggressive training program to ensure our current staff have all the tools available.

The Chair: Do we also want to mention that we expect a standard to be applied across the country?

Let's face it, a lot of us were shocked that one place could have the best of technology and some other place might not have as good technology. Perhaps we ought to incorporate in the recommendation that we want to shoot for a particular high bar of a standard for front-end screening, or technology and training, and so on.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We could put this in with the 72-hour point, and I'll tell you why.

We heard at Lacolle that 72 hours didn't bother them at all. They were already working well within this timeframe, so it would make no difference to their operation. At other points we heard that it was a serious concern. And Lacolle is one of our largest entry points in terms of refugee numbers, with 5,000 people coming across the border at that point from the United States, but they're processing them quickly.

The Chair: We also heard about certain pilot projects like the one in Fort Erie where, as I understand it, they have separate refugee processing teams in large centres, essentially to deal with this.

A voice: It was suggested. It's not in place.

The Chair: Oh, it was only suggested; it's not in place. I think that incorporates some of the things you have just said, Steve.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I'd like to perhaps define exactly what front-end screening is. It may be different from one group of people to another.

The Chair: I agree. If we mention the term, we'd better define it.

We're going to use this document as a way to inform people, so we ought to discuss what front-end screening is, probably as it's described or defined in Bill C-11—or whatever those administrative practices are going to be. If you look at the tools available, given to us at the ports of entry, you will see an awful lot of front-end screening there—from the fingerprint data to the information sharing, the intelligence sharing, to all those things here. So perhaps we ought to put it in, say something about what front-end screening is all about.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Ultimately the goal of front-end screening is to provide confidence to the officers that they can make a decision one way or the other, because at the end of the day, that's who's making the decision, right? If it's a decision to detain, then an adjudicator comes into play 48 hours later, but if it's a decision to release, there's no adjudication and this decision rests right on the shoulders of the officer who's doing the screening. We want to make sure this screening is comprehensive.

The Chair: You just raised a good point, Steve, about recognizing how important the human intelligence factor is. We are in fact leaving it to our front-line people to use their discretion. Hopefully the bill and the tools allow for this discretion. If you come undocumented and uncooperative, for example, and the tools are there to detain you, then that front-line worker may feel a lot more assured that if the tools....

• 0950

We've indicated that, yes, it is their decision. If they can't determine who a person is, because they don't have documentation or they're very uncooperative and not prepared to answer some very simple questions and so on.... We really rely upon these workers being able to make the first determination of whether or not to release. They may say to such a person, “Fine, go into the community and we'll deal with you and/or your application in some way, shape, or form, later”, or in fact the person might be returned to the United States, as an example, or might even be detained.

We might want to reflect on how important the decisions made by that one front-line worker are. Perhaps we ought to reflect it as a committee—I don't know. I mean, we haven't gotten into whether or not.... The principle now is you get released unless we can prove you're not okay; therefore we will detain you.

Perhaps it ought to be the reverse onus: you shall be detained unless you can prove to us that you can cooperate with us. That is an important message. I don't know if it's in this section that we might want to start talking about whether or not.... Again, it's a matter of emphasis as opposed to anything else.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair, that's a very important point you bring up, because we heard in a number of places that, irrespective of the technology, the human element is still the most important component in this whole business of screening. We heard that in a number of places. If we put this somewhere in the report it would certainly show the value of the people who work on the front line.

The Chair: We could do it in part B. Steve was essentially trying to say the same thing.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: On the same issue, Mr. Chairman, Bill C-11 grants many responsibilities to our immigration officers at the points of entry. We can hope that all of them will have enough judgment to be able to make quick decisions. I believe we should hope that they have all the required qualities but we should also state that we will follow the situation closely. We already have some figures, and we will get more based on Bill C-11. We all know that there will not be more bad people in the future than in the past. However, if we find a huge increase of detained people, we will have to look at that very closely also.

We should perhaps underline the importance of the job of our immigration officers, with the new Bill, but also following from the events of September 11. I don't know how we could draft that but I believe that we also have a responsibility. We cannot just shut our eyes and say that Bill C-11 will solve everything.

[English]

The Chair: You raise some very good points, Madeleine.

We have to do a better job of getting statistics—as an example, how many people were detained? We're trying to get all of this information for you; we may or may not know why they've been detained.

But if we're really going to be able to determine whether or not Bill C-11 is very effective, or what this report and the increased resources we're going to put.... In order to show that we're being much more effective, we have to take better record-keeping as to why...how many people might have been detained? For what reason are they being detained? Is it because of documentation or because of their uncooperative nature? Is it because of...whatever?

It's important to learn from those kinds of things. Hopefully we can discuss that with the report, with the department and the minister, to make sure this is being done as we implement Bill C-11, or as we're learning from September 11.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are we doing a separate section here dealing with human resources?

The Chair: Yes. It's in the back. We cover it.

But there's nothing wrong with repeating certain things, especially if they belong in a particular section.

• 0955

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, I agree. The reason I asked is that you might want to say something here and then expand on it in that other part.

The Chair: I agree.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: One thing I noticed in Laval was that the tour was quite informative, and our host on the tour was quite relaxed until we sat around a table. All the justice department was there, the RCMP was there, everybody was there, and the stress level went up quite dramatically on the part of the person who gave us the tour. That person happened to be in charge of the front line for interviews. I remember the comment, which was “Our people are prepared to do this; just give us the support.”

What I took from all that is that this goes to the issue I raised the other day—and I know it is here in a bullet point—about the adjudication system. They're quasi-judicial. The minister cannot direct a quasi-judicial, independent adjudicator on how they make their decisions. But this committee can say that the decisions that are being made by the adjudicators to summarily release people against the wishes of front-line workers has added to the stress our front-line workers are feeling. We can expand on that later on.

It's fine for us to say we want to reverse the onus. We can reverse the onus all we want, but the adjudicators continue to just open the door, contrary to the wishes of the front-line workers.

The Chair: I agree.

Why don't we do this within the context of talking about how important we believe it is for our front-line people to be given all the respect and discretion they need, so if they find someone who is not cooperative and they're not satisfied with one of the other tools, they can detain. At the same time we could go on to mention that those front-line decisions ought to be left up to staff and better respected by adjudicators. We could put it in words that would reflect that.

All right. We'll do that.

The other thing we might want to do in this part...and I don't know. If Jerry were here, I'm sure he would say, again, maybe this is under training or staffing because we found that there was a disconnect among the top levels of immigration, mid-level management, and down to the front-line people. He'd say how important it is to get those directives and that information out so everybody's singing from the same song sheet. Middle management may have known what Bill C-11 was all about, but the front-line people as of yet had not. That's why we encountered this 72-hour-thing misunderstanding; the PRA is another appeal mechanism that was causing our front-line people some concerns.

I think we ought to mention that the communication needs to be a lot better between, I don't know, call it head office staff and front-line workers. But, again, I think that's—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Let's call it the department.

The Chair: Or the department.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have some concerns about us saying something about what we would refer to as middle management that will be taken in a negative light. I was very impressed with the middle management we met.

The Chair: I was impressed too.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But your point is a very good one, namely notwithstanding that, the information doesn't appear to be getting down to the people who are holding the doorknob.

The Chair: Part C of this document starts to talk a bit about Canada and the U.S., and here are some of the things we talked about, such as cases where refugee claimants come through the United States. We want to make sure this is as factual as we possibly can. There's a point here that many refugee claimants come to Canada through the United States, somewhere in the range of 40%. Here's where we get into some of the recommendation sections.

I take it, even though I heard there was general consensus, that there wasn't unanimity of the committee on the safe third country issue. That's why you will see that we have a paper for you on what a safe third country is all about. I personally think we should have a recommendation that Canada ought to negotiate safe third country agreements with the United States and with any other country because that's allowed and that would be very helpful in the overall scheme of how you deal with people migrating all over the world. Perhaps this will be one way to make sure that people do not country shop.

This research paper is there for you. At the end of the day we don't have a recommendation for you, one that's written right now, but the points that were made on Tuesday were that we should at least look at a recommendation on safe third countries.

• 1000

The staff will draft a recommendation on a safe third country position this committee might put forward. Is that agreeable to everybody? Does anyone completely reject the idea of the safe third country, even with some of the information we've given?

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I believe that we should take the time to ponder seriously what that means. Of course, it may be very interesting to state that roughly 40 per cent of refugees come from the U.S. and that therefore they will be returned to the U.S.

However, if there were an arrangement between the two countries, which I find very doubtful... But there may be something else to look at. This is nothing new, it has been there for a long time. We should look at the pros and cons. If I were a refugee, I would perhaps be much more attracted to life in a country like Canada than in a country like the U.S.

Should we reject that absolutely? I'm not sure. So, we should take the time to look at that seriously. A document has been provided and it gives us an idea, but...

[English]

The Chair: Well, I'm going to give you some time till Tuesday to decide whether or not you want to include it in the report. I would agree, it's relatively new in the world, and that's why the paper tried to talk a little bit about the pros, the cons, what's happening in the European context, and so on.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to suggest, again, that we expand just a bit on this first paragraph. First of all, I heard that the numbers range between 40% and 50% of refugees crossing the border, and I'd like us to say that this is what we heard.

On the issue of safe third countries and to Madeleine's point, nothing would prohibit someone from applying to come to Canada as a landed immigrant from the United States once they've been accepted as a refugee in the United States. The issue is that you can't get to the United States on a visa and then apply here for refugee status because you've already been in a safe, protected third country. The argument made here that this would increase our applications inland doesn't hold, because, frankly, I don't care where they apply; the answer is, if you have managed to get to the United States legally and you're applying for refugee status in Canada, you're not eligible. It doesn't matter if you apply in downtown Montreal, in Vancouver, or at Pearson Airport; you're not eligible. You're coming from the United States. Go back to the United States and apply for landed immigrant status to this country from the United States, and we'll be happy to process your application.

I appreciate the fact that this report comes out of some earlier comments made by the minister referring to Dublin and problems they have supposedly had, increasing their staff at inland stations because of an increase in applicants. Once again, it doesn't hold water because the answer is the same regardless of where they apply for refugee status: you're already in a safe country, you are not eligible to claim refugee status in Canada, so go back and apply through the proper process. The real issue here becomes, are the Americans prepared to sign this?

Madam, if I might just say so, this other problem—and if Judy were here, she would stress this—is the Canadian Council for Refugees' point that the American system is more restrictive and ours is more generous. Therefore, if we're going to be humane and help people, we shouldn't preclude their claiming here. I understand. It's an NGO saying “We don't like the American system.” But frankly, that's not our problem. It's also not our responsibility. I don't think too many Americans voted for me. It's their problem. They should deal with it in their system. They should not be allowed to use our system as a pressure-release valve to eliminate problems they might have to deal with in the United States.

• 1005

The Chair: Inky, Madeleine, then David.

Mr. Inky Mark: Because we use a number, we're going to use it many times over, right—the 40% or whatever—if Steve has his way?

I would like to see a breakdown on that number—on what basis they are making these applications—so that when the Americans pick this up and read it, we won't have to explain to them that this is how they're coming here.

Mr. David Price: Just on that, that's exactly the line I was going to...I didn't like the part where Steve said “We heard”. I think we have to go further than that, and that's easy to do. We can at least get a percentage, so we can say “We heard...and in 2000, this was the percentage...”.

The Chair: Oh, I think we have those statistics, that breakdown.

Mr. David Price: Don't just say “we heard”, because as soon as you say that—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's not a total.

Mr. David Price: Yes. It cuts it. But then if you actually put a number in there, saying in the year 2000 that was the percentage....

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Tell them where they come from.

Mr. Inky Mark: That's what I want. That's why we need more definitive information.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Five thousand came in at Lacolle....

The Chair: I think those statistics are available, because I know that's how they came up with this number, 40% to 50%. It was fairly precise. I think they must have a breakdown. I'm sure they must keep records on “where”, and I think they have some on “why” too.

I don't know whether or not we should include that as part of the report. We can get so bogged down in making sure we get this information that we'll be here talking about this report in January and February.

I want this committee to be relevant in the discussion. I think come hell or high water, even if we can't get to Washington, we ought to try to finish this report next week, so we can release it, show Canadians, and get the point to the Americans as quickly as possible that this committee has taken their concerns and anxieties seriously, and here's what we think needs to be done.

We'll try to get that information. Once we get the information we can incorporate it next week.

Inky, I agree, we ought to be able to do that.

Mr. Inky Mark: Even just clear up the one point about visas, because we've talked about that a number of times, the people who go to the U.S. on visas and then come here. Let's substantiate that.

The Chair: I think our department has some of that. I'll make sure they're listening and that we get some information.

Regarding the safe third country, we're going to draft a recommendation. We'll see how it fits. In fact, it might be able to be modified. But let's try a recommendation for next Tuesday, so we can take a look at that safe third country option. It will be one tool of many, I'm sure, that we may want to use under the question of how we make sure the perceptions, the reality, deterrence...but still have compassion. All of those things I think will be brought up.

Anyway, we'll draft one for you.

On directing back, I think that was another issue there was consensus on from the committee. Is this another tool? Instead of safe third country, you'd be able to say to those people coming from the United States “Listen, you might want to apply, but you'll stay in the United States until such time as we call you for an interview”.

We can already do that. I think we ought to draft a recommendation that says let's start to do it more often, as opposed to saying here's the option. We could direct you back and give you a time for an invitation, or you could be detained in one of our glorious cells until we figure that out for you—for 72 hours or 48 hours, whatever the case may be.

So it's one more tool. But I think we ought to draft a direct-back recommendation.

Are there any real problems with that?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's not really a problem, just a caution that while we're in the process of negotiating a safe third country agreement with the Americans, the direct-back thing might be seen as a backdoor method of doing a safe third.

We have the authority to do it now, I understand. If I had to choose between these two, I'd prefer the safe third.

• 1010

The Chair: Let's put those there and then have a discussion on it.

Yes, Mark.

Mr. Mark Assad: Joe, I have a question.

Let's say we change it and we have a process the way Steve was explaining a while ago—those claimants would have a limited time they could stay in the United States. Would the Americans take into consideration that Canadians were looking at their application? They'd probably ship them out before we even got to first base.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The American system isn't our problem.

Mr. Mark Assad: I know, but the claimants will be making an application, and they'll never have the time to do the whole process before they have to leave the United States.

Mr. Inky Mark: They'll often come here because their visa has run out. There are a lot of reasons they make the claim.

Mr. Mark Assad: It's an indirect way of saying, we're not taking you.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I recognize the problem there. I suppose if someone shows up on our shores and they don't have legal access to the United States, then safe third wouldn't apply, because they're basically stateless. So they'd apply for refugee status, and we would process the application.

But if they're living in the United States on a working visa, they should make the application there, and try to get accepted as a refugee, if that's what they want to do. And the indication is many of them are not there on 30-day visitor visas. Most of them are there working or they're studying; they're there for extended periods of time.

It would not preclude them from applying for landed immigrant status in our county from the United States. They could start that process. And maybe we should suggest that when they receive such an application, our department should process it as expeditiously as possible. What they're doing now is just jumping the queue, and that's not fair to the people who are doing it legitimately.

The Chair: On this Canada-U.S. thing, the first point is with regard to the refugee claimants, and we'll deal with that. Then we have safe third, and we have directing back....

In the title—“Canada and the U.S.”—I think we ought to use some very positive words, such as coordination, cooperation, and partnerships—in bold. The next areas we're going to talk about, such as coordinating visa requirements, pre-clearance, CANPASS, NEXUS, commercial traffic, pre-screening, information and intelligence sharing, transitional internal joint enforcement, and shared facilities, are all cooperative.

We'll draft recommendations on every one of those points you brought up. That will show the cooperative and partnership nature of what we're suggesting. Safe thirds and direct-backs are sort of the stick, but here's the carrot—we need to do a lot more information sharing, technology sharing, facility sharing, and working together.

We'll draft all kinds of recommendations on all those other areas that follow in the section about Canada and the U.S. Is that something you'd like to see on Tuesday, a number of recommendations, for example, that we encourage joint enforcement, and perhaps that we start to look a little at more pre-clearance?

We'll draft some recommendations on those points here, including...on the top of page 5 is land borders and airports. I'm just trying to recollect...because that was brought up.

Go ahead, Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The concern I had was that we should differentiate. At land borders, the main issue is commercial goods. I couldn't put a number on it, but if it's 80:20 commercial to people, as opposed to our airports, where it might be 80:20 people to commercial.... The emphasis at major air entry points like Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto—and I hear now Calgary has a big influx—is mostly people.

• 1015

While our responsibility is to deal with the immigration and refugee system, as it relates to our border points, I don't think it hurts for us to identify the fact you made earlier, Joe, that our borders are not open and flowing freely the way they should be as a result of the September 11 aftermath and some of the issues that we identified. I would like to see it differentiate between those two border points.

Also, most of the refugees who come from the United States come across land borders, I believe.

The Chair: We'll make that point. The fact too is that there was some discussion with regard to Canada and the U.S., not only on the CANPASS, on the NEXUS, with the commercial stuff, but also in terms of perhaps the streaming at both the land borders and the airports.

Anyway, we'll develop some recommendations along what you just said, Steve, that there is a differential between land and airports and there are ways of being able to handle those much more efficiently but again keeping security in mind.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think we could also recognize the problems are somewhat different. If you had been with us in Stanstead and seen the openness of the land border and in New Brunswick.... There are so many thousands of kilometres of border in this country. It is almost an imaginary line, and it is impossible for the border patrol and the RCMP to effectively patrol it. Frankly, I don't know that there is a solution.

In fact, it was in Stanstead that the RCMP showed up with a couple in a van and they took them away in handcuffs. They had caught them under the cover of darkness trying to cross a country road. They were rifling through the van, which was a normal family-sized van but it was packed to the roof. It was obvious they were moving into the country. We actually witnessed that happening. How many of those get through that nobody catches? That's a real anomaly with land borders.

The Chair: It might not be a bad idea under the Canada-U.S.... We essentially heard the same thing in Emerson. Let's face it: we have a number of border points between Emerson and the Alberta border, and there are hundreds of kilometres where there is absolutely nothing but farmers' fields and nothing else. Yet there is a responsibility on both sides of the border, be it Canadian or American. They have border control people. We do too, but the RCMP really has not made that its highest priority, even though it has not been a really big problem.

I think we ought to talk a little about the positive aspects. What our country and the United States have shared is really a border that might be formal in some cases but very informal in other cases, between farmers' fields.

Mr. David Price: I want to be clear here, though. He talked about this border crossing, these logging roads, all that type of thing. In actual fact, along the Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire borders, which I'm very familiar with, they're covered on both the U.S. and Canadian side with detection equipment. They know there are people going across. They can't get to them soon enough. That's what happens in some cases. But they know their numbers exactly.

The Chair: We're going to talk a little about technology and shared responsibilities.

Mr. David Price: If they know a particular area is being used a lot, then they pinpoint it and they do watch out....

The Chair: We'll develop all kinds of recommendations along those points for the Canada-U.S. stuff. Really, the highlight and flavour of this will be a lot of cooperation, coordination among ourselves and the Americans in terms of technology, people, facilities, and even starting to look at each other's visa policies and so on as a way of being able to have some common ground or common policies with regard to immigration. On Canada and the world, we started to talk a lot about how positive we were about overseas interdiction.

These are some of our points. We believe there should be more ICOs. There should be joint activities with other countries. We ought to have more CSIS presence overseas, more access to better technology. We need to have locally engaged personnel at our visa posts.

• 1020

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think it was a concern over locally engaged personnel—

The Chair: A concern, but making sure.... Airline manifests available to ports-of-entry personnel, scanning or pouching of documents, disembarkation teams, and the use of other country exit controls as part of Canada's pre-screening.... I thought there was a lot of consensus on all of those. So my point is that we will have recommendations on one or more of those points. We'll try to put the technology in. There are a lot of good points there that we ought to do.

Madeleine, then David and Steve.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: On a point of information, what is the meaning of “airlines' manifests”?

[English]

The Chair: Passenger lists.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's what we should say because, in French, “Manifestes des compagnies aériennes” does not mean anything. All right?

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

David.

Mr. David Price: You talked about locally engaged personnel at our visa posts. I just came from a meeting of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of National Defence. We were discussing exactly that. The problem is that there is no way they can get enough Canadians or even friendly countries, because of the interpretation problems. That's what happens at those outland areas. They need interpreters. There's no question it is a serious problem. We just heard this morning about infiltration by different groups coming in as interpreters. It's the same problem there, but it's not that simple to handle. We can't just say that overall they have to be all Canadians.

The Chair: No, and I've talked to many of our foreign posts and ambassadors. The fact is that a very small minority of locally engaged personnel who work at our posts and who have taken advantage of their position have therefore caused some legal and criminal problems. Our offices tell us that you couldn't operate in a country without that kind of local intelligence. The fact is that we have to make sure that all of our local people working at our foreign posts are honest. Those who are not, we are going to get the law....

Mr. David Price: I think that's the point.

The Chair: So we need that local intelligence or presence. How do you expect a guy like Joe Fontana to go somewhere in Africa, and hope that I or anybody else would know everything about that culture, that society, or those people?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Not in here. You can fake it, though.

The Chair: You're right, David.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I read recently in a newspaper that security investigations about locally hired personnel were absolutely not comparable to our own security investigations, about our own Canadian citizens. If it's true, it is unacceptable. I believe that security investigations should be extremely detailed.

[English]

Mr. David Price: That's exactly what we were discussing this morning. The problem is that

[Translation]

locally, we accept all kinds of information. We do not have access to the information that those countries have on those people. That is our problem. And there is no organization that we can contact to get that information. In many of those countries, we have no presence. Our only presence is the embassy.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It is extremely interesting to see that we do not demand that people coming here give us true documents and true information.

[English]

The Chair: You're both saying the same thing: I wonder if we could do that.

In the second part of Canada in the World it talks about information sharing and it talks about reciprocal intelligence-sharing agreements, linked databases, and so on. Perhaps we want to emphasize the point about ensuring pre-screening standards or security checks and what we would expect the quality of those checks to be, done in an expeditious fashion.

I don't know about you, but in my constituency office I'm waiting for security checks in certain parts of the world that are 12, 13, 16 months. I have people who have been waiting two or three years; they've been accepted, but they're still waiting for security checks. Let's face it, in some of those countries you don't know how long it's going to take. You can't call CSIS and ask them, because they're essentially waiting for their counterparts to provide the information. It's incredible sometimes that we're having to wait so long for the screening. You want it done well, of course. You want to make sure it's done properly, and you want to make sure it's bona fide information. But some of that stuff is very, very difficult.

• 1025

I think we ought to have a section that talks a bit about how important it is to get these security screenings done as quickly as possible but with a very good quality.

Steve, did you...?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes. First of all, I think this is kind of funny: “more of a CSIS presence”—that's kind of against the way they do business.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think what we really mean to say is “better support by CSIS”, so that when our officers are investigating and looking for information they're able to contact a CSIS office and get the information they need as quickly as possible.

The Chair: I think it also meant that while CSIS does provide a foreign intelligence service—remember, Mr. Alcock was here and said: “Let it be clear. We do have a foreign service component. It's not very big, mind you.”—that's part of it. “Better support”, but I think we're also saying we want more CSIS people overseas. At least that's the impression I got. I don't know how you can get better support unless they're actually there.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, technology can do it.

The Chair: Technology sometimes is okay, but I thought I heard both, so we'll develop a recommendation along that basis.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...increased support.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have two concerns, one the pouching issue. I just have a lot of trouble with 300 people on a plane putting all the documents in a pouch and the length of time it's going to take to sort that out when they land, especially if I'm one of them—the bottleneck.

Now, scanning and the use of technology—surely to goodness that makes more sense. When you're checking in for your boarding pass, they just scan your document and give it back to you. But this idea that some human being...—and then you land from Heathrow at Pearson and find out they left the pouch in Heathrow. Air Canada can lose your luggage, never mind your pouch. So I have a big problem with the carriers doing that.

The Chair: The only thing I like about it is this. What we heard in testimony, at least by some of our people, is that somewhere between the time they get on the plane and the time they get off, documents are going missing. If it means that by pouching or taking the documents—and unfortunately sometimes you inconvenience the law-abiding people who have nothing to hide—that taking some of those documents out of circulation when you enter the plane, hopefully getting them back when you exit the plane, would be a good way of finally getting them, if we've got disembarcation.... But if in fact, as we hear in some cases, the smugglers are actually on the plane to get these back, so they're recirculating the same documents over and over, it's big money.

I hate to inconvenience people more; I agree with you, Steve. But if the idea is to try to get these documents that are either bad documents or—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The real idea for us, and our responsibility, is to identify the people who show up at our border seeking entry into the country. If we have it on a scanner.... Let's face it, if they're giving the document back to a runner on the aircraft, it's not their proper ID anyway; it's phony ID.

The Chair: But we're taking them out of circulation. Anyway, I would agree. I don't know what everybody else thinks on this one and I don't know whether—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What's happening right now, tonight, when we all bail out of the nation's capital and go to the airport is we will be in a snake lineup that takes a better part of an hour to get through security.

The Chair: Which is disgusting. Did you know Ottawa is the worst airport in the country?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I did know that.

The Chair: That's because they can't find people to work there. It's absolutely disgusting that they—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I do know, yes, I've talked to the minister about it.

My point is, each week that happens people get just a little more upset about it, but post-September 11 nobody's going to say very much. I had a guy stop me downstairs and ask me if I had a pass to get up here. I showed him my pin. He said “Okay, fine”, and I said, “By the way, I'm glad you're checking”. We're all glad this is happening, but at some point you're going to say—and it might be three months, six months, a year down the road....

I just think we're creating a nightmare by recommending this—not that I've been convinced it would be accepted. I think we should be able to use something a little more sophisticated than sticking 300 travel documents in a pouch and hoping you get yours back. That would be the use of technology? That's my point; I leave it with you.

• 1030

The other point I wanted to make concerns the use of other countries' exit controls as part of our pre-screening. I have some concern that we're possibly abdicating our responsibility as a sovereign nation. If something goes wrong, are we then going to turn around and say “It wasn't our fault. It was the exit control officer in the United States who did the screening; we just accepted the information”? I want to be sure we're not abdicating our responsibility to conduct a proper and thorough screening process. There's nothing wrong with an agreement that we share the information—that's fine—but it does not and should not release our people from doing their job.

The Chair: I think that was a point made during our discussions about using exit controls as a sort of information-sharing exercise without abdicating any sovereignty—or hopefully, in our case, even promoting the idea that we want exit controls coming out of our country: you'd have to have an administration so large it would be difficult to accept. But we'll put it there. We'll develop something.

Yes, Inky, you were going to talk on pouching as well.

Mr. Inky Mark: On the pouching issue, I just want to say that's one solution to an existing problem. It doesn't have to be written in stone, but I think because of international inbound flights it would work. Certainly, as the chair said, it would certainly get rid of the fraudulent documents in circulation, so I would be supportive of leaving it—

The Chair: We'll get a recommendation on it. Whether or not at the end of the day we all support it, we'll see. Let's just develop one. It may, as you said, be one tool of many to essentially get to the problem once and for all.

Information-sharing—again, we'll develop a recommendation on this.

Hi, Paul. We've written half the report in your absence. I think you're going to be very impressed with it, but I'm sure you're going to—

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): I'm always impressed.

The Chair: We're now at page five, under “Enforcement and Program Delivery”.

Some of the things that were mentioned on Tuesday were—and again, we'll develop possible recommendations around these themes or points—that we should have a greater role for the immigration department at the primary inspection line, so we'll develop something of a recommendation that we'll look at on Tuesday.

A lot of things were mentioned: for example, that perhaps there's a differential, and one should distinguish the role for the immigration department differently, maybe, at airports, where in fact the prime responsibility is people, as opposed to goods—maybe they ought to be on the front lines of the PIL, as opposed to customs people—and that at the land border there is a difference between commercial vehicles and people, even though people actually drive the commercial vehicles that deliver goods.

There was a lot of talk about streaming, perhaps, at airports and land borders—at seaports there's an entirely different situation, and I guess every point of entry is rather unique and different—and that there ought to be, I suppose.... There was a lot of talk around the table about allowing some flexibility, since what works in Emerson may not necessarily work in Vancouver, or what works in Stanstead doesn't necessarily work somewhere else.

So there ought to be a flexibility at the POE, but the general thrust was that there be a greater role for the immigration department at the PIL.

Are there any comments with regard to that?

We'll develop a number of recommendations around that theme and around airports and land borders—and around streaming, as I just said: people versus goods; citizens and permanent residents; Americans and Canadians in separate streams; again, Dorval's project involving students, temporary workers, new permanent residents, and visas—

Mr. David Price: Just in fashioning the streaming, if you remember.... Oh no, that's right; you weren't in Dorval. In Dorval they told us that with the green passports we have we could go through the crew line any time—no problem whatsoever there. Last week I went through Toronto. Were they ever pissed off when I went through that line.

The Chair: Nice try, though; I've never heard of such a thing, but you know—

Mr. David Price: You wouldn't expect it there.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I actually did it once—no problem.

Mr. David Price: Yes, but they—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: They wouldn't accept it? Did the girl send you back?

Mr. David Price: The girl said she'd let me through that time, but I said there's no hope, because there were several of us. “Well,” she said, “we've got directives. You can't do this.”

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So the department will ensure there's an immediate directive—is that correct?

The Chair: It won't ever happen again, that you'll be able to try to do it.

Mr. David Price: That's right.

The Chair: Okay, we'll develop a number of things along the lines of draft recommendations E(i) and E(ii).

• 1035

Now, concerning detention of refugee claimants, I think I started to talk a little bit about mandatory versus current system. Then as you see Steve's point, the adjudication issue, I think we just discussed that in the previous section. It doesn't hurt to repeat it in this section, because we're talking about enforcement in program delivery. Where you brought it up, Steve, and where I brought it up, was at the Canada-U.S. section.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, I said we should mention it there, but then expand on it later.

The Chair: Yes. So I think we'll develop some recommendations on the premise of a system that says if you're uncooperative and you're undocumented, the discretion is that you “may”...and we may want to use the word “could” or “should”, or strengthen it up somewhat more on that situation. Again, we're talking about the safe third, and we're talking about direct back.

On the adjudication issue, Steve, I think what we'll do is we'll take that recommendation you suggest to indicate that adjudicators should respect the decisions made by front-line workers and signal that as our dissatisfaction with some of the things they're doing.

Paul, yes.

Mr. Paul Forseth: This committee previously looked at that issue—

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Paul Forseth: —and there was quite a big document that was delivered from the IRB outlining the rules and the precedents of what an adjudicator follows. That's what they're currently operating under. At this point we're not recommending the elimination of the IRB; we're working with it. So if we want to maybe harden the target a little bit so in some of the iffy situations they would perhaps err on the side of safety, we have to look at that protocol document about what their rules of operation are.

The Chair: I would agree with you. We were talking around the same points.

Jacques, I wonder if we could get from the IRB as it relates to the adjudicator....

The Clerk of the Committee: Guidelines on detention?

The Chair: Yes, guidelines on detention, because before we go to hear Paul, we were talking about some pieces of information that we may or may not include as part of the documents. But let's take a look at that on Tuesday. We should get those guidelines to detention so we could have a cursory look, because we do talk about detention in a further section, or along here.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It's quite an organized and well-laid-out document. But things look great on paper, but then of course there's always the case of exceptions.

The Chair: As you know, we were going to go through the regulations of Bill C-11, and hopefully once we've tabled this report that's exactly what we want to do. We want to get into the hard work of dealing with the regulations that are being prepared before this bill gets enacted. And it can't get enacted unless we have the regulations done.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think on that subject we want to be careful that what we do doesn't backfire. Adjudicators are quasi-judicial. The minister would therefore be prohibited from telling them how to do their jobs.

The Chair: Yes, but the committee can make suggestions.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Let me finish.

I'm just saying this for the benefit of the people who will be drafting the recommendation. What I would like to see is that the evidentiary aspects.... What we heard is that the front-line workers feel that the adjudicators are releasing people in spite of their efforts to provide evidence to detain them. I think we should recommend a closer working relationship, better cooperation, whatever the thing is. The last thing we want to do is say we want you dumb adjudicators to stop releasing people. It's going to backfire on us.

Mr. Paul Forseth: No one has said that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, but I want to be clear that when we point fingers, we're pointing because we heard it from the people on the front line, as opposed to it being political interference.

The Chair: We'll draft the recommendation. I'm sure there will be sufficient discussion as to the precise wording when we actually see something.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Let me clarify this. There are two issues there. First of all, there's the basic protocol, the rules of the game as to what the IRB follows. Then also it's the quality of information before them. That's where Steve's comment comes in. They can only decide based on the information that's reflected before them.

What happens is when the linkages don't happen, often the IRB adjudicator doesn't really get all the information that the line person had. So then they wonder why the disconnect. The IRB made a reasonable decision based on what was before it, but there was a communication breakdown and a logistical breakdown, as a result of which the information that was available on the line didn't really get presented properly at the IRB.

• 1040

The Chair: Yes. We're going to develop those recommendations and then we can discuss the finer points of those.

On detention facilities, again, we'll develop something with regard to detention. I know that there was a question last time asking how many CIC detention facilities we have. We supplied you with that information.

Paul, did you get the information?

Mr. Paul Forseth: I got this. What about the third?

The Chair: Hang on a second. I tried to cover that off at the beginning of the meeting, so hang on a second.

First of all, I think there was a question: How many persons are detained because they are undocumented and uncooperative? I think this was a question that was asked, and we wanted to find out. This answer is 9,138 were detained under the Immigration Act, for an average period of 16 days. That's fairly long, when you think about it. In some cases it's longer and in some cases it's shorter, but the average was 16 days. And it says that “CIC's systems do not capture detention details statistically. It is not possible to specify how many persons were detained to establish identity.”

The second question was on how many detention facilities we have, and what is the capacity of CIC's detention centres? We have three: Mississauga, where the capacity is 80; Laval, Quebec, with a maximum capacity of 100; and Vancouver Airport, B.C., for short stays, for a maximum of 72 hours, and with a capacity of 24 persons. And for persons detained on dangerous security grounds and for those areas not served by CIC, CIC has access to provincial institutions—in other words, jails. Or if we need some additional facilities, CIC has access to provincial and federal institutions.

So that brings up a question. I think we had asked about capacity, and we were starting to talk about it, and the minister even talked a little bit about capacity. If we start talking about detaining more people because they're uncooperative, undocumented, and everything else, that's fine—at least I think it's fine—but you need to think about where you would deploy your resources. Would you put them in detention facilities—would you put them in whatever? Because that's what the Americans do, and they spend an awful lot of money on detention.

I'm not trying to argue the point. What I'm trying to say is that you asked for the information.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I must admit that I am absolutely flabbergasted to find that we are not able to know what percentage of people have been detained essentially for identity reasons. I find that incredible.

[English]

The Chair: Maybe we'll ask for a further clarification, and perhaps, like I say, if they say they don't have—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That is surprising.

[English]

The Chair: —specific information on how many persons were detained to establish identity.... Maybe it's easier to determine whether they're cooperative or not cooperative than it is to determine who they are. Let me get a further explanation from the department on that.

Madeleine, I think you said at the beginning of the meeting that we have to do a better job of keeping statistics, especially in light of Bill C-11 and in light of what happened. Because of September 11, we may want to tell our front-line people or the department that they ought to look at certain points and variables.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I have a supplemental to looking at the costs of CIC facilities per se versus the charge-backs from provincial institutions. It is expensive, it's $100 or $150 a day, or something like that. I know in Vancouver they use the local Richmond RCMP detachment, and then they're further sent to the pre-trial centre in downtown Vancouver. A lot of transportation is involved. And I know that in the Toronto region they have access to a whole host of provincial institutions and they're being used from time to time.

So that whole business of cost has been a bit of a media thing, where they say maybe we ought to be building more of our own facilities that could be managed, rather than being...and what's the per diem in provincial jails, especially in the larger centres, such as Toronto?

The Chair: Yes. Anyway, again, with regard to detention and/or the adjudication issues under that particular section, we'll develop some recommendations for your consideration. And we'll try to get some additional information, Madeleine, on the identity question there.

• 1045

On backlog of deportation orders, as we start to talk a little bit about capacity in the system, be it detention or process, because of Bill C-11, and as we start to talk about resources and technology, this is the section on terms of enforcement and program delivery. There was some discussion on how to deal with this backlog. There's Steve's favourite subject of possible use of amnesties and amenities—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Amenities at a detention centre.

The Chair: —and the issue of prioritizing criminals versus non-criminals, in terms of deportation. I think the minister pointed out what those priorities were. I think we may want to again look at those when we have some recommendations.

With regard to amnesty, I don't know at this point whether or not you want us to develop a recommendation for your consideration for next Tuesday on the amnesty. I put it down because it was mentioned.

On the issue of prioritizing, there is a priority list of who should be deported. I think there were three categories: the most serious criminals—criminality; people who just overstayed their visas—visitors, workers and so on; and deportation orders. We'll make a recommendation perhaps on tightening or doing something with regard to that one.

On amnesty, is there an appetite to look at an amnesty...?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would like to see a recommendation. I understand the department's objections are that somehow it is an admission that our system didn't work because we have all these people here. But the reality is they're here, so the system didn't work.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It also creates an expectation, and that increases demand in anticipation of an amnesty.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We've used it before, though, and I don't know if there's evidence that actually occurred. I want it to be clear I'm only talking about cases that would likely qualify. They would have to come forward. I'm not talking about a whitewash. We would not grant amnesty to someone who had a criminal record, didn't pass our security checks, and we would not allow in the country.

There are estimates that as many as 15,000 to 20,000 of these people are living and working underground. They don't have access to simple things like workers' compensation, health care and things of that nature, or pension plans. They don't have access to anything. They get paid under the table. Many of them are building homes in my community, working in the construction industry—

The Chair: You've convinced me. I think we ought to—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I knew if I talked long enough he'd agree with me.

The Chair: —use the carrot and stick approach. The stick would be that we're going to deport you and remove you quicker than you ever thought before. The carrot approach might be that if you voluntarily come forward and meet the criteria—and we've done amnesties in the past—we'll make you a full-fledged taxpaying member of Steve's community—not a problem.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And a voter, Mr. Chair, let's not forget.

The Chair: And a voter.

We'll develop a recommendation for you on amnesty. We'll have fun on Tuesday or Thursday with it, I'm sure.

On safety for officers in facilities, I think Inky and a number of people brought it up, with regard to firearms for officers' use, security of facilities, bullet-proof glass, and everything else.

Okay, Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Let's say that I am not too tempted to provide guns to our officers, even if we have heard some requests about that. I am extremely reluctant. So, I would not be able to support a recommendation on that.

[English]

The Chair: Rather than using the word “firearm”, let's use “protective tools for officers' use”, or whatever.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I suggest they learn judo. There!

[English]

The Chair: We've heard it enough times. I think it's incumbent upon us as a committee to at least put it forward now, whether it's firearms or other things, des bâtons or whatever, that could be used—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Why not Cayenne pepper then?

[English]

The Chair: Let's put it forward, in terms of safety for officers in facilities, and we can talk about it.

As you know, presently there's a system where locally, as I understand it, you can get cufflinks—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

A voice: Silver, please.

The Chair: You can get handcuffs, pepper spray, batons, and everything else, if you ask. Those are acceptable sorts of things.

Let's look at that as a recommendation. If guns are the problem, Madeleine, then we'll—

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Take out the guns.

The Chair: —take out the guns. We'll see.

• 1050

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Okay.

The Chair: On secure facilities, we'll develop one on securing facilities a lot more with bullet-proof glass, and so on.

The other thing we heard and talked about was organized crime, with people smuggling and trafficking. We heard about information-sharing between agencies and countries, and formal and informal partnerships. But I thought we also heard we had to toughen it up. Bill C-11 does a lot on human trafficking, in terms of sanctions and fines. We can take their ships and boats. We can do an awful lot of things, but I thought we had heard that there were ways of being able....

Who was with us in Emerson? We heard that some people said smuggling was a cost of business. They were only getting one, two, or six weeks in jail, or something like that. They said we needed to change the Criminal Code because of how it was being interpreted.

Does anybody have a recollection about that? I know we want to get tougher—and we are in Bill C-11—with regard to human smuggling because that is a problem.

On organized crime, just to let you know, I met with the ambassador for Sri Lanka yesterday or the day before. She indicated that people-smuggling was one of the ways of financing terrorism in her country. I think it's important for us to talk about that.

I think it was the RCMP investigators, right here, in Vancouver.

Jay.

Mr. Jay Sinha: Okay.

At the airport, RCMP investigators talked about how they were frustrated with the criminal justice system. They said they often spend weeks gathering evidence to try to convict smugglers, and they're often told by crown prosecutors they just don't have enough. In order to get a full conviction they need more proof. Even if they can get a conviction, often it's only for 30 days in jail. Some may get two weeks and a $300 fine. That's often the case. So they found that frustrating.

That's more a Criminal Code issue, really.

The Chair: If we believe we need to tighten up the total system.... Bill C-11 does it within the context of immigration and refugees, but if it means making a recommendation to another minister, or something like that, in order to make sure the system is actually working, let's develop one. We'll pass it along, or whatever.

Mr. Paul Forseth: The Department of Justice prosecutes. They hire law firms ad hoc. Of course, in Vancouver there is a department, but their boundaries on what cases they will bring forward or not are based on a lot of internal capacities within the prosecutorial side in the Department of Justice. So unless they have a case that's a slam-dunk, they won't even bother with it, because they can't handle the resources and time.

The Chair: All right. So we'll develop some recommendations on that.

On resources and technology, we talked about more personnel. We might want to give some thought to where we deploy that personnel. Some of you mentioned the local offices need to be beefed up; ports of entry need to be beefed up; internationally we need to beef up people at our points of entry and even at central processing. We understood and heard that there was burnout, stress, and low morale because our human resources were incapable of keeping up with the capacity situation, with more applications, and so on.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Today we come to committee and get further answers to the questions. How many days have I asked the simple question: what were the numbers that were part of the employee challenge exercise? We know it was 148 for B.C.-Yukon. Just what were the numbers for the other regions?

Just for general information, to give us an indication, why isn't the department bringing forward those simple numbers?

The Chair: They've indicated to me they're still trying to get those numbers. Also, there are some questions and concerns about putting out numbers that come from regional offices.

As you know, it's no different in the corporate sector from in government. A local office might have a wish list. They might say they think they need 100 people. The regional office might say “We don't think you need 100; we think you need 50.” Then all of a sudden it comes to head office, and head office says they don't think 50 people are needed from the region; they think the need is for 25 people because of where the priorities are.

• 1055

The problem is, and I would agree, we need to get a handle on numbers. I think it's important. I will continue to press for some general numbers, as you've indicated, from the department per region. I think it's important for us, as a committee, based on the evidence we've heard and the direction in which we want this country to go.

Rather than giving precise numbers, Paul, you might say the Yukon and B.C. are 148. I indicated we want significant numbers.

Mr. Paul Forseth: What document is it?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's in relation to population. It's on finance, administration, and resources.

The Chair: Yes, there might be one here.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: They go right through. Then they go into the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, and Ontario.

The Chair: We did ask for it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It shows a full breakdown of 4,882 employees. All the numbers are here.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I haven't seen it yet. Maybe it didn't come to my office. Could I have a copy of it?

The Chair: I have his copy. We'll get one.

It will give you some macro numbers as to where the people are deployed now. You had asked specifically about the regions.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It's not the answer we were looking for.

The Chair: I know.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It came to committee and under oath they made a promise that they would produce the numbers.

The Chair: No. I'm going to get it.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I understand what we will do with them, and all of the arguments you're making. I agree with all of it.

As a simple snapshot measure, we want to know what the managers are asking for. It's good information to know.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Paul Forseth: We may keep it to ourselves. They made a commitment to committee that they would do it. It still isn't here.

The Chair: Paul, between now and Tuesday, they're working on it. I've been told so. We've asked for a lot of information. They're getting the information as we request it. Again, let's deal with it.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay.

It's not hard to get the numbers. They know the numbers. If the managers were allowed to talk to me, in five phone calls I would have the numbers. It's not that the numbers are not available. They know what they are. There are other issues.

The Chair: As you know, there are always differences of opinion between local regional offices and the head office.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I understand.

The Chair: They may have a wish list or a number you might want to hear about, as I might want to.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes.

The Chair: The most important part is what we think, as a committee, we need to recommend.

I'm not going to micro-manage a department and say they need a hundred people. I'd like to be able to say they need significant numbers internationally, as opposed to low numbers. I'd like to say I think they need significant numbers to deport and remove more people. If they're not deploying enough people, I want them to hire more, because it's important. I think they ought to put more people in Calgary airport or in the port of Vancouver, where there's one immigration officer. Give me a break.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I know this argument. Please, don't go there over and over.

The Chair: I can get you numbers.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes.

The Chair: You're so exercised about the numbers. It's more important to deal with what we think about the resources.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It's helpful for us to get to where we need to go.

The Chair: Okay. I said we're going to try.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It was a commitment made under oath to committee.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is it under oath?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Anyone who comes to committee and gives evidence is under oath.

The Chair: Technically speaking, you're right. We'll get the information.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm a little bit unclear as to what exactly it is Paul is asking for. Maybe if I understood it better, it would be helpful. I see numbers here for the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, and Ontario. You say this isn't it.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I understand they are current numbers.

It would very useful for our overall education to get to the suggested soft kind of recommendation, perhaps to get even more than I was asking. First of all, get the numbers as to what the regional managers are asking for throughout the challenge exercise. Then maybe get the numbers for what the senior managers are feeling in the challenge. For instance, there was a comment out of B.C. asking for 148. He said he really knew he was not going to get all of them. Maybe the next number is the department really feels B.C. and the Yukon are only going to get 60 at best. We need to hear the overall process.

• 1100

The Chair: Can I go on? I know everyone has to get going.

Right now, we're on resources. In terms of more personnel, we'll develop some recommendations on the personnel issue.

I don't know whether we have actual information about the pay scale issue on the differential between customs and immigration.

David?

Mr. David Price: Yes, I've been told there are different pay scales.

The Chair: I don't know whether you want to see a recommendation on that kind of thing.

In the report we said we want immigration officers to play a bigger role in the front lines. There's going to be a lot of training. Let's get some information, if we can, on the differential before we put anything forward.

I think we've talked a lot about the training issues. We'll develop a recommendation as it relates to cross-training, Bill C-11 implementation, and educating officers about privacy and disclosure restrictions. Let's see what we can draft in terms of recommendations in that area.

I think we're agreed on intelligence resources. There seems to be consensus that we need to increase our intelligence resources, not only overseas, but also internally. I heard the suggestion that we ought to have security intelligence officers regionally or at certain points of entry. It would be very useful. We have great examples of where it has been very successful and very constructive. We'll develop something there.

We've talked about national standards for port of entry security so there is a standard across the country. At the same time, certain flexibilities are required, in particular for regional needs.

We also talked a little bit and heard there needs to be a mobile capacity for border control, especially in areas where there's a lot of space. We'll develop something along that basis.

As it relates to a mobile capacity for border control, right now the RCMP has what's called border control responsibility enforcement. I'm not sure where it is in their priorities. I think we heard the United States has it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: In New Brunswick they told us they had an increase in their numbers. If I recall correctly, in St. Stephen they went from three to eight officers to work with the border patrol.

We had the American counterpart in to meet us, as well. I loved it. His name was Butch, and the Sundance Kid was at the other side of the room.

There does seem to be some recognition by the RCMP that they need to beef it up. I think it would be a good thing for this committee to recommend.

The Chair: I think so too. Mobile capacity means that not only CIC officers will be able to get from one point to another and have some flexibility.

The other point is to perhaps enforce or support greater RCMP efforts in regard to border security and technology.

I think, David, you talked about the fact there is technology available, even aviation technology. There are cameras. There are all kinds of ways without having a person every ten kilometres. There's aerial surveillance.

Mr. David Price: Yes, but you have to be able to respond.

The Chair: Yes. Once you detect something, you have to be able to move fairly quickly.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You have to have a saddle on the horse.

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We have heard immigration officers and customs officers state repeatedly that it might not be a bad idea to put them all under the same structure. And I don't find that in these points. It might be there but I have not seen it, even though it has been said several times. As a matter of fact, this idea was considered several years ago and it might be worth having another look at it.

[English]

The Chair: Do you mean a consolidated service?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It is because Customs and Revenue Canada are together. However, there are many common areas in the work of customs officers and immigration officers.

[English]

The Chair: We'll put something there. It might serve as a good discussion. There may very well be.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Absolutely.

• 1105

[English]

The Chair: I thought we said that cross-training might be the alternative to integrating both customs and immigration. There was a point made in terms of the consolidation of customs and immigration together. That's an important issue.

Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have a comment on resources and technology.

As Members of Parliament, we often see files showing that officers spend too much time on secondary issues. And when we get involved, the matter can be resolved quickly, which proves that those people waste time on secondary issues.

I raised this point when we had officers in front of the Committee and the lady who answered me said that they have a program aimed at improving the effectiveness of their resources. I believe that we should encourage them to find effective and efficient ways to process the cases. If they spent less time on some files, they would be able to process more of them.

I agree that they should have more resources but those resources should be better used. We have all had that experience. All M.P.s have seen this type of cases coming back regularly. Why do they come back? As soon as we get involved, they are resolved. The very next day, they are resolved. Why? Howe many hours have they wasted on those cases? They spend so many hours on those files whereas they could process many more if they processed them in a more intelligent manner.

[English]

The Chair: We could probably talk a little about client services under this particular section because I think we all have indicated that we need to improve that. Whether or not you use technology or whether or not you need certain flexibility, let's develop something on resource technologies that relates to ensuring quicker and more expeditious client services. We'll deal with that.

With regard to technology, we'll develop a recommendation that we want to make sure, obviously, that there's the best available. We talked about an automated fingerprint identification system and the fact that we have a national standard. You can't have one port of entry having one and not another one. We talked about hand-held heat detection devices, primary automated lockout systems. There are a number of different technologies we will make recommendations about.

Finally, the last section was Steve's suggestion. We talked a little about refugees, but within the context.... I guess the bottom line was refugees do not equal terrorism.

We're going to talk a little about perceptions and realities. We want to stress that as a learning exercise, the facts don't bear out that refugees are necessarily terrorists.

Everything we've done here is not necessarily with regard to refugees, but how do we make our border that much safer and more secure, but at the same time more efficient? We'll develop something. There'll be a conclusion.

We're looking for a great title. The only other thing that I would ask between now and Tuesday is does anybody have any ideas? I think it's important for the title to reflect that we want a much safer and more secure border and hence a country, but we need to have an efficient border too. Perhaps within this is the idea that there needs to be always more partnerships, more consultations, more coordination among nations, or whatever.

I was thinking about something like “Building Bridges for a Safer and Secure Border”, and not walls. At the end of the day, I'm not sure that I want to talk about building walls between us and the United States or building walls between us and the world. We need safer and secure borders, but we also need bridges that welcome people, and not necessarily walls that keep people and goods out.

So give some thought on what potentially we might want to call this document so that we can tell Canadians and everyone else what we're really thinking.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Further to that, you recall I asked a question related to refugees and what it really costs per refugee.

The Chair: Yes, and we have that information for you. I'm sorry. Too bad Art isn't here. He made the point that if we could save $50,000, because that's supposedly the number he had...if we stopped them, we wouldn't be spending $50,000 a shot.

The number for Art and yourself is $5,627. That document is here.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I was working with the actual estimates last year, and I came out to about $4,800, as best I could figure it. So there must have been some other....

The Chair: Did you have one for him?

• 1110

Mr. Paul Forseth: I have just asked my assistant about whether these documents arrived in my office, and he has seen nothing like that.

The Chair: Which one? This one, or any of them?

Mr. Paul Forseth: So as you said, they all arrived at our offices—

The Chair: Who's distributing these documents?

The Clerk: We gave them on Tuesday to all members present. So you might have them in your briefcase somewhere.

The Chair: I don't think the cost of the refugee application was given to us on Tuesday. It was coming later that day. There was some additional information that was coming later that day.

Paul, I don't know. We'll find out. I take it that the documents were distributed by the clerk and the researchers to your office. You may want to take a look again.

I know we distributed a lot of things on Tuesday. I know there were two or three things we were still waiting on.

Anyway, we're going to adjourn till Tuesday at nine o'clock, and we'll talk a little more on the recommendations.

Thank you so much for your cooperation so far. I'm sure we'll have a lot of fun as we get into it. The devil's always in the detail on Tuesday.

This meeting is adjourned.