FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 20, 2001

• 0913

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Colleagues, I want to call this meeting to order.

I recognize Madam Lalonde with a point of order.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the very end of the last meeting of this committee, after we finished our study of Bill C-35, we had a quorum and proposed a resolution which was never presented within the allowed timeframe. Since then, I have had the opportunity to read it and I would like to know when we will deal with it again.

The Chair: Perhaps Mr. Patry would allow me to answer your question, even if it his resolution. We just talked about it; we would like to propose a small amendment to the resolution which would strengthen it. We are proposing that the resolution be referred to the House rather than to the committee, so that the government can respond directly to the House on that matter. We are in the process of drafting the new wording of the resolution, which we will then distribute. It will be adopted at that point. I believe that Mr. Patry intends to present this resolution, including the amendment to the procedure, this morning.

[English]

Colleagues, this is the first of our hearings in respect of our major study, which you'll recall we agreed to do some time ago, in respect of Canada-United States relations. But in light of the changes that have taken place as a result of the events of September 11, obviously we will be focusing perhaps more on the security dimension of the relationship than we would have been under the original study. That's not to say we won't be talking about everything, and I want to remind members that this is going to be an extremely complicated and important piece of work.

• 0915

For those of you who have been following what is going on, there has been a great deal of discussion about the advisability of intensifying our economic relationship with the United States, and if so, what form that would take. I think we're going to have to address that in this study as well as the security issues. So I think this will be a very major piece of work for the committee, and we're going to have to do a lot of concentration on it in the next six months.

We're going to have another problem due to the fact that we are going to have a really heavy work schedule. If we do this report, which will focus on our relationship with the United States, both economic and in terms of security, and set out guidelines to the government as to how we should proceed along those lines, it will take us well into next spring. But also, as you know, next summer there will be the G-8 summit, and we might well be called upon to do a study in relation to the G-8 the way we did for the Quebec City summit last year. In this case, if we travel across the country we may be doing both of these things at the same time.

I'm laying this out so that everybody knows we're going to have a really extraordinarily intense and heavy schedule. So this is the beginning of a study that could be extremely influential in terms of the way in which Canadians relate to the United States, which is our most important economic partner. That in itself is important, but these other things will add to the intensity of the work we're going to have to do between now and next June. So this is really the beginning of something that will take us through to next June.

With that in mind, I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Allen, from the foreign affairs department, but we also have represented this morning the Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration, Transport Canada, the Solicitor General's department, and Industry Canada.

I understand, Mr. Allen, that what you had proposed was that you would start off with a short lead-off statement, and then we would go around the table from all the presenters and then we'll go to questions.

Thank you very much for coming here today.

Mr. Jon Allen (Director General, North America Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning. My name is Jon Allen. I'm the director general of the North America bureau at Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

As the chairman suggested, I'll make a few introductory remarks and then I'll turn the floor over to my colleagues, who can follow up with much of the detail on Canadian activities related to the border.

It's become a cliché to say that the world has changed since September 11, but it's unfortunately true. The international agenda and indeed many domestic agendas have become focused on the dangers to public security from global terrorism. The United Nations, most western countries, and our partners around the world have mobilized in that fight against terrorism.

The events of September 11 also have put into high relief our interdependence and our vulnerability both from an economic and a security perspective in our relationship with the United States. This is not surprising. The pervasive economic, security, and environment linkages between our two countries have always made the management of the Canada-U.S. relationship a critical domestic and foreign policy challenge for us.

Public security is now the overriding issue in the United States. The appointment of Governor Tom Ridge as the director of the Office of Homeland Security, the quick passage of anti-terrorist legislation by the U.S. Congress, and the significant amounts of money authorized, and in some cases now already appropriated, in support of increased security are strong evidence of this heightened concern in our neighbour to the south. In addressing our vulnerability, Canada's challenge is to respond to that concern, one which we fully share, while at the same time working with the U.S. to protect and indeed to significantly enhance our economic security.

• 0920

The ad hoc committee on public security and anti-terrorism that the Prime Minister asked Minister Manley to chair has quickly produced a series of measures, including investing some $280 million in new technologies and additional personnel to bolster our security framework. We were among the first to implement new financial regulations to freeze terrorist assets and impede terrorist fundraising. And Canada already has one of the safest aviation systems in the world, but we've now strengthened that now even further at airports and in the air. Last month we tabled an omnibus anti-terrorism bill in Parliament, which you'll hear more about, that will provide Canadian law enforcement and our justice system with the tools required to shut down terrorist organizations.

The government has also engaged the U.S. administration intensively, from the President on down, on what we are doing and what we can do together. Since September 11, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and Ministers Manley, Pettigrew, MacAulay, Collenette, and Martin have met with their counterparts to discuss the way ahead. Minister Eggleton is in Washington as we speak for meetings with Secretary Rumsfeld, and Ministers Caplan and McLellan will meet their counterparts soon.

Ministers have visited border communities. Minister Pettigrew and the Deputy Prime Minister were in Windsor last week and met with provincial and business leaders. Just yesterday, Ministers Cauchon and Tobin met in Ottawa with five border mayors. Senior Canadian officials, including a number before you, have almost daily contact with their U.S. counterparts. The engagement to date has been positive and productive. We have few disagreements with our American counterparts and have received virtually no complaints from the U.S. government.

That said, as you all are aware, the border is the central nervous system of our economic prosperity. The facts are well known. The Canada-U.S. relationship is by far the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world. Two-way trade exceeds $1.9 billion a day. At least 85% of our exports go to the U.S., and, importantly, 25% of theirs come to Canada. Fully 38 of the 50 U.S. states have Canada as their number one export destination.

Before September 11, the border was already a priority in Canada-U.S. relations. For over six years, Canadian and U.S. border agencies were cooperating on a wide range of new and innovative measures aimed at helping to move legitimate trade and traffic across the border in the most efficient way possible, while at the same time meeting threats to our common security. You'll hear today about the status of some of these measures, including NEXUS, CANPASS, PACE, and customs self-assessment.

In the two years immediately prior to September 11, Canada sought higher-level political attention and engagement on the border. Foreign Affairs and the U.S. State Department co-chaired a mechanism called the Canada-U.S. Partnership, or CUSP, which brought together all of the various border agencies before you today and border communities, politicians, business people and academics for a more holistic discussion on the border's future. You have a copy of the CUSP report. It is a blueprint for action.

September 11 has only brought new urgency to this endeavour. Today, border agencies remain on high alert. Just-in-time delivery schedules have been at risk, and production lines were threatened on both sides of the border, thereby undermining Canada's competitiveness. The huge lineups that characterized border traffic in the hours and days immediately following the attacks have largely, although not completely, disappeared. As border mayors have noted, while passengers can get into Canada quickly, getting back can involve long waits. However, the good news about reduced delays is masked by the reality that volumes are down and staffing and overtime is still up. The negative impacts of September 11 on border communities has been significant, especially when combined with the impact of the economic downturn.

• 0925

Our challenge—and I believe I speak for all of us appearing before you—is to look beyond today and tomorrow. Our goal is not to return to the situation that existed on September 10. Rather, we are actively exploring ways within Canada, and then, together with our U.S. colleagues, to ensure the border is not an impediment to an ever-growing trade relationship two years, five years, and 20 years from now. Last month, Minister Manley, as chairman of the ad hoc committee on security, met with U.S. homeland security secretary Ridge and they agreed it was necessary and urgent to look for solutions for both our countries to protect citizens and safeguard the cross-border economy.

As you know, Tom Ridge was a former governor of a border state who led trade missions to both Quebec and Ontario. Both President Bush and his national security adviser, Condeleesa Rice, have also made it clear publicly that we cannot threaten our economic well-being in the name of public security.

On the margins of last week's G-20 meeting, U.S. Treasury Secretary O'Neill, who is responsible for U.S. customs, met with Ministers Martin and Cauchon. Minister Martin spoke of the need for a seamless and sovereign border. Both sides committed to working together to keep the border open and secure. A forward-looking action plan is being developed by our respective customs and immigration agencies to that end.

Minister Manley met yesterday with the Coalition for a Secure and Trade-Efficient Border, only the latest in a series of high-level meetings intended to ensure Canadian business concerns are heard and acted upon. We and they believe that both groups, business and government, can play a very positive and effective role in advocating Canadian interests with their U.S. counterparts.

In order to provide a more comprehensive coordination on border issues, Minister Manley, in his capacity as chairman of the ad hoc committee, will be working with all of his colleagues to develop a comprehensive set of proposals on the best way forward on the border. At the same time, our embassy in Washington and our consulates throughout the U.S. are working hard to disseminate to U.S. media and to federal, state, and municipal legislators materials aimed at countering the negative and unfounded press stories suggesting somehow there was a Canadian connection to September 11.

If I may, I'll stop here, and turn the floor over to Paul Kennedy, the senior assistant deputy minister.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Kennedy, welcome back to the committee.

Mr. Paul E. Kennedy (Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policing and Security Branch, Department of the Solicitor General): Thank you very much. These days, I tend to spend more time before committees than in my office.

The Chair: It's very good for you, I'm sure.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: Well, I think it's very good that the system has responded in such an efficacious way to the challenges we're all confronted with.

I'll be doing a presentation here, but there is a written presentation I'll be filing with the committee that's longer in length. I'm respectful of the time that's afforded to us. The document is being translated, but the translation hasn't been completed. It will be translated and submitted to the committee.

The Solicitor General of Canada, along with the other federal departments and agencies present at this panel, is responsible for the safety of Canadians, including the border. The mechanisms to counter terrorism or to fight any other cross-border criminal activity have been in place for some time, and the cooperation has only been strengthened since September 11.

Minister MacAulay is in regular communication with U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. And just to follow up on the comments Mr. Allen made in terms of the kind of communication that regularly occurs between CSIS, the RCMP, and their American counterparts, Mr. Ashcroft indicated that before he could even ask, Canada was in fact already cooperating and doing the things they knew to be necessary in order for both countries to address the challenge presented by September 11.

• 0930

[Translation]

Let's not forget that terrorism is a strategy involving criminal acts. Canada and its partners are working very hard together to fight transborder crime, and those efforts are just as relevant and simply reinforce our fight against terrorism.

The tools we use to fight organized crime can also help combat terrorism.

[English]

We have formal, bilateral, consultative mechanisms to combat crime and terrorism already in place. Two of those are particularly relevant to the portfolio of the Solicitor General.

Minister MacAulay and Attorney General Ashcroft co-lead the cross-border crime forum, and I co-chair that particular forum with my American counterpart, the deputy assistant attorney general.

The forum promotes information sharing between Canadian and U.S. law enforcement, and policy focuses on transnational crime problems. It has met annually since its inception in 1997.

Four permanent subgroups contribute to the work of the Canada-U.S. cross-border crime forum, and the forum relies on cross-border law enforcement—this is agencies—to identify and bring to its attention impediments they face in combating crime more efficiently. Those subgroups report to the subcommittee and make reports directly to Minister MacAulay and to Attorney General Ashcroft. The subgroups are co-chaired by Canada and the United States as equal partners.

Allow me to elaborate in more detail on the practical work the forum is doing today. All the action items that were identified in the June 2001 forum are relevant in combating all cross-border crime, and this includes terrorism. Just as we have brought together agencies from both sides of the border to fight transnational crime, those same agencies are now fighting terrorism.

If I can just digress for a moment, although we have largely a law enforcement focus at that forum, in fact the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Privy Council security intelligence coordinators are also present, and as you know, the FBI in the United States has a national security mandate as well as a law enforcement mandate.

One of the groups looks at telemarketing fraud, which was initially the fraudulent activities that were occurring to American retirees by people located in Canada. The mandate of that group has been expanded to deal with mass-marketing fraud, just to reflect the evolution of the problem.

We have a prosecutions subgroup, which has been set up for training of Canadian and U.S. attorneys to learn about each other's legislation. There are subtle misunderstandings. We're very similar in terms of the goals we pursue, but some of the legislative tools we put in place are a bit different. We want to make sure everyone knows what those subtle differences are. These legal counsels also participate in the other subgroups to provide legal support.

We have a coordination and cooperation group, and they identify challenges and obstacles for both countries in terms of how they carry out their work. One of the issues they're looking at and have identified this year is the issue of law enforcement carrying firearms across the border. This is going to be complementary to some of the work that has been done on the air marshalls issue—if you are on an airplane leaving one country, and land on another plane, and you're carrying a weapon.

There's a targeting and intelligence group. In addition to the joint threat assessment, this subgroup will be looking specifically at arms smuggling across the border, which accounts for most weapons used to commit crimes in Canada.

This year the forum identified the need for two new groups. We're looking at alien smuggling. In his address to the cross-border crime forum in June 2001, U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft identified alien smuggling as a key area on which to focus.

The other one is organized crime, and that remains a priority for the U.S. and the portfolio of the Department of the Solicitor General, which was instrumental in developing a national agenda to combat organized crime that was endorsed by the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice in September of 2000. In that national agenda we look at high-tech crime, economic crime, and other issues of that nature that cross the border. This particular subgroup will be co-chaired by the RCMP and the FBI.

• 0935

Canada and the U.S. also coordinate anti-terrorism efforts through the Bilateral Consultative Group on Counter-Terrorism, known as the BCG, which brings together on an annual basis representatives from agencies and departments involved in the fight against terrorism.

In terms of ongoing work on the border, you will recall that on October 12, 2001, the government announced $54 million in new measures to strengthen Canada's ability to prevent, detect, and respond to existing and emerging national security threats. Of that amount, some $9 million was allocated for staffing requirements in support of such things as the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team, know as INSET, and the Integrated Border Enforcement Team, known as IBET, and of course other priorities.

Today we have two IBET teams on the east and west coasts, and a third one is being developed on both sides of the border near Cornwall and Akwesasne.

The IBET was originally developed in 1997. It was established as an innovative method to address cross-border crime along the international land and marine borders of British Columbia and Washington state and to enhance border integrity. They represent a united international stand against cross-border criminal activity by combining the human and technological resources of the RCMP along with Canada Customs, the U.S. Border Patrol, the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, and municipal police agencies on both sides of the border.

Illustrative of the success of that particular initiative is that the west coast IBET unit has averaged $1 million a month in seizures. They've effectively disrupted smuggling rings and have confiscated illegal drugs, weapons, liquor, tobacco, and vehicles, with numerous arrests. They've also intercepted criminal networks attempting to smuggle illegal migrants across the border.

Based on the success of the IBETs, integrated national security enforcement teams are being created to collect, share, and analyse information and to increase enhanced enforcement capacity, and they would have a national security focus.

Fighting terrorism is a top priority for both Canada and the United States. No two countries work more closely on the common goal of ensuring the safety of their citizens. The RCMP, CSIS, local police, and customs, immigration, and transport officials work with their American counterparts every day. Of course, in terms of an initiative to strengthen some of that capacity, the government announced on October 12 an air marshal program whereby RCMP officers were put on flights going into Reagan National Airport.

In addition, there are a number of ongoing initiatives that reinforce our partnership with the United States in combating terrorism. There's joint investigation of possible moves by terrorist groups to converge with organized crime for financing purposes. There's monitoring and amending as required or appropriate the national counter-terrorism plan to reflect changes, threats, and policies. There's ongoing enhancement and outreach of broad-based strategy to strengthen Canada's national response capabilities. Of course, with some of the anthrax scares in the United States and concerns in Canada, we've seen that is an important issue in the minds of people.

There's expanded cooperation through regular meetings of the U.S.-Canada Bilateral Consultative Group on Counter-Terrorism and a host of other groups. There's a long list of such groups, which I won't go into.

[Translation]

We are working in partnership with others on the ground to fight terrorism, and senior officials, as well as people responsible for developing policy, are also involved.

Further, there is also joint management of research and development projects to increase our ability to fight terrorism.

• 0940

There are also joint training initiatives and coordinated planning of interventions.

[English]

In addition to those steps taken by our government, which were widely announced, we must build on the existing mechanisms to share information in order to make them more efficient at all levels.

We are seeking ways to extend cooperation beyond our normal partners. Illustrative of that, Commissioner Zaccardelli announced in mid-October the formation of the RCMP's financial intelligence task force. It drew upon expertise in the integrated proceeds of crime units.

The task force shares information with the Canadian banking industry. By November 8 the task force had assisted in the freezing of 26 Canadian bank accounts with assets of about $2 million, which they suspected were destined for al-Qaeda terrorists. They also assisted American authorities, such as the FBI and the U.S. Customs Service, in their investigations.

Similarly, we must continue to strengthen our existing relationship with our U.S. partners.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to interrupt the evidence being given because we have a procedural matter to deal with, and we're somewhat distracted up here.

As was mentioned before by Madame Lalonde in her point of order, the committee raised the issue of Bill C-35 at its last meeting, and that remains to be dealt with. Madam Carroll informs me that she will be introducing the bill in the House in terms of third reading at 10 o'clock. Madame Lalonde will have to be there for that. I understand that she and Mr. Casey will propose some amendments to the bill at that time. But it was our belief that we should have adopted our resolution here in order that the House could be informed of that at that time. I'll have to put it in as a formal resolution, but some members may wish to refer to it at that time.

You have before you a draft resolution, but, as I said, we now have some proposed changes to it. Does everybody have the resolution and their proposed changes? Unfortunately, I don't have the changes in both official languages.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde, if you don't mind, I would ask you to... We are trying to translate it, but it's a little difficult to do so in 15 minutes. The clerk is translating the resolution and I will have a translation for you in a few moments.

[English]

Does everybody have the proposed motion and the proposed changes in front of them?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: But the amendments are here, aren't they?

The Chair: They are indeed on that page.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Only on the back, on the reverse side.

The Chair: Only the last paragraph is amended.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): It's on the other sheet.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It's what replaces—

Mr. Bernard Patry: The second paragraph is amended. You have it in front of you.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Only two sentences are affected.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, that's right.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, does this mean that the last paragraph would be replaced by this one?

The Chair: Exactly.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Can someone explain what it means? I reserve the right to ask questions afterwards.

The Chair: Other people may also respond. However, I understand the meaning. Instead of proposing that the matter be sent to the justice committee, we are suggesting that the government be obliged to report directly to the House after having studied the issue, and having sent us its response.

• 0945

If it is sent to the justice committee, that committee will study the issue before sending it to the government. We are simply taking a short cut by sending it directly to the government, which will then be obliged to report directly to the House.

That's the point of the proposal. That way, we would receive a response more quickly and more directly, instead of putting the issue to another committee, which would have to deal with it.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I still feel that if a study were carried out by the justice committee, it would definitely be more in depth, since that committee usually examines issues raised by us.

If I understand correctly, we were trying to highlight our many concerns and, as a consequence, we wanted to ask the justice committee to study the issue and to make relevant recommendations. But now, we are asking for the government to be seized by the matter directly and to report to the House. Is that right?

The Chair: Yes, and we mention the reasons why we should review the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. This is exactly what we would have asked the justice committee to do, that is, to carry out a study and to report to the government, after which the government would report to the House. But now, we are sending the issue directly to the government, which will then have to report directly to the House.

It's the same thing, except that we are dropping the reference to the committee.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I don't think it is necessarily the same thing, unless, no matter which committee studied the bill, government directives were so strong that it would not be possible to do anything else.

I believe that the Standing Committee on Justice would issue specific recommendations as a result of their study. I feel that the wording... I haven't had the opportunity to read it closely and it doesn't help that I do not have it in French. That is something I won't forget. If ever I presented resolutions drafted only in French, would you submit them to the committee?

The Chair: Perhaps I can read you the translation we have done and that might clarify things, unless it only makes the situation more confusing. We'll see.

So, here is the translation:

Le Comité presse le gouvernement de tenir compte des soucis légitimes exprimés à l'égard du libellé de l'article 5 du projet de loi.

This corresponds to the existing text.

In accordance with Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a global response surrounding the issues which have been raised regarding the powers needed by the RCMP in relation to the establishment of security perimeters, and the statutory or other basis for those powers, and the desirability of establishing specific guidelines as regards the exercise of those powers in the RCMP Act.

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: In response to my colleague, Ms. Lalonde, I would say that nothing prevents our committee from sending the issue to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but that the committee is not obliged to study it. The committee must acknowledge receipt of the matter, but who knows what will happen next. This surely will not be one of the committee's priorities. We are concerned that it would take a long time for the committee to deal with it. Therefore, by sending the matter directly over to the government, which must report on it to the House, we will receive a response much more quickly. Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): If I could just add to what Dr. Patry said, that was a concern of mine too, that it may go to the bottom of the list. But I would ask the table, having had a response from the government—which we're going to achieve more directly, if it's acceptable, by taking this alternate route—in the event that we as a committee, having received that response, still want to convey our desire for a particular task or study from the justice committee, we could at that time continue that route, could we not?

• 0950

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: So this doesn't close a door.

The Chair: Nothing stops the committee from taking a subsequent action if it wants to take it—

Ms. Aileen Carroll: That's my view.

The Chair: —if we're not happy with the report we get back.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: That's right, and in the meantime, seeing the justice committee somewhat bowed down by the workload, we will move to the government for their response. As I say, when the justice committee has more time, if we did not feel satisfied, we could go the second route.

The Chair: Right.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes.

The Chair: The clerk informs me that if we had proposed the resolution as worded, we would have needed a motion of concurrence from the House to approve it.

[English]

So we would have needed a concurrence motion in the House to approve a reference to the justice committee. That would have been another procedural hurdle to get over that we eliminate by going the direct route, if I can put it that way.

My own personal view, and Dr. Patry was trying to struggle with this, is that this is a more efficient and a much more powerful way for the committee to air its problems.

Madame Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: When a resolution or a report is tabled in the House requesting that the government report back to the House on a particular issue, under the House rules and procedures, what is the deadline within which the government would then have to report?

The Chair: It's 150 days, which is traditional. It's always that under the statutory provision, but we usually get it much faster than that. I think on something like this we would get it faster.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Are you leaving?

[Translation]

Ms. Aileen Carroll: The House will begin sitting in five minutes.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Okay, we'll pass it.

The Chair: But I don't have a quorum.

Mr. Bernard Patry: What's the number for quorum?

The Chair: I was trying to do this with a quorum.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Pick up somebody else.

The Chair: We did have a quorum. Unfortunately, Mr. Casey walked out of the room.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Do you think anyone has noticed that there's no quorum left?

The Chair: Okay, we had Mr. Casey here to begin with. A quorum was here when we began. I'm willing to see a quorum for the purpose of the resolution.

Mr. Patry, you put the resolution?

Mr. Bernard Patry: I move the resolution.

The Chair: This is on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Motion as amended agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: So you're going to go to the House and discuss this. At least when it comes up in the House you can point out that we're doing this.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: May I move—

The Chair: Your other resolution? Yes, since you're here, but quickly.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I move that the first report of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development, concerning its trip to Colombia, as adopted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on October 16, 2001, be amended by striking out “to the Christmas break, 2001” and substituting the following therefor: “to the end of March 2002”.

The Chair: So it's a question of changing the deadline.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Jennings.

Thanks, Mrs. Carroll. Sorry to keep you waiting.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you for your patience.

The Chair: My apologies to the witnesses, but we had to do this before the House starts at 10 o'clock.

• 0955

Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Jon Allen: Mr. Chairman, we're now going to go to Joan Atkinson, the assistant deputy minister from CIC.

The Chair: Thank you very much, and welcome back to the committee.

By the way, colleagues, for your information, Mr. Schmitz points out that in respect to Mr. Kennedy's remarks, the national counter-terrorism plan is item N in the briefing book we have before us.

Ms. Atkinson.

[Translation]

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased

[English]

to be back again in front of the committee. I'd like to talk a little about the immigration context of our post-September 11 environment. Let me start by again emphasizing the fact, as Mr. Allen and Mr. Kennedy have said, that our cooperation with American authorities is deep, longstanding, and ongoing.

Prior to September 11, we had under the auspices of the border accord that was signed between the two governments a subset, called the Border Vision, in which the two immigration agencies established a set of initiatives and a set of working groups to deal with immigration issues. Let me tell you that this particular border vision exercise had, prior to September 11, a number of objectives: finding solutions to our common immigration control problems closer to their source; using advanced technologies at airports and land borders to facilitate the flow of legitimate travellers and to control undesirables; exchanging intelligence data using proven technology to establish better coordination on our visa policies and operations; and improving coordination and cooperation at our land border.

We did make some accomplishments and achieve some of those goals prior to September 11. For example, we signed a statement of mutual understanding with the American government, with our U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service counterparts and the State Department, and we have been exchanging and continue to exchange information and data with our American counterparts.

For example, we have mutual access to our known and suspected terrorist databases. We have disrupted the movements of illegal migrants to North America through cooperation, and we have curbed abuse of the North American asylum or refugee determination systems in both countries through a pilot project where we exchange fingerprint data on refugee claimants and asylum seekers in both countries.

Obviously, in the aftermath of September 11, as Mr. Allen indicated, we went on high alert at all our border points, at all our offices in Canada, and at all our offices overseas. We increased our information and intelligence sharing with our American counterparts. In addition, we increased our overseas screening of applicants for visitor visas, temporary worker permits, student permits, and immigration visas, and we initiated front-end security screening for all refugee claimants to Canada. Traditionally, what we had done in the past was to do our security screening of refugee claimants once they had been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board. We moved to do that screening at the front end, on arrival, so we would know who we were dealing with as soon as they arrived in the country.

We've also initiated a process where we look at all the cases that are in the current inventory at the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine whether, among the people who are awaiting their refugee determination, there are any cases that cause us security concerns.

In the medium term, a lot of attention has been focused on the immigration and refugee system in Canada, and as Mr. Allen indicated in his opening remarks, part of our challenge is to try to distinguish myth from reality in terms of what Canada's immigration and refugee system is all about.

There is a similar focus on the border and on what needs to be done, and our objective here is to assure Canadians as well as Americans that we take border security seriously and that we are doing our utmost to ensure that we have the appropriate screening mechanisms in place to control the entry of people who might cause concerns on both sides of the border.

In the immigration context, Mr. Chairman, we believe that we need to move beyond the border. In the immigration context, the border is not just a line. The border is one in the last of a series of checkpoints where individuals can be assessed to determine whether or not they pose a threat to the safety of Canadians or Americans. These checkpoints start at our visa office network abroad, where individuals come and apply for documents to come to Canada; at international airports abroad, where people will get on planes to come to Canada; at transit points as they get off planes and go on to other means of transportation or planes to come to Canada; at our international airports and seaports when people enter North American space; and finally, at our land border. All the work we are doing with our American counterparts looks at that series of checkpoints starting from outside Canada and looking at people who move through the checkpoints.

• 1000

Document security is one of the key elements. What we do in terms of our checkpoints at any point along the continuum is look at a person and the document he or she holds. We check it against our intelligence, our databases, and information we may have, and the judgment that is applied to that information by immigration and visa officers.

Our minister announced on October 12 we would fast track the production of a permanent resident card to replace the very fraud-prone document immigrants to Canada currently use—the immigrant visa and record of landing—which is a paper document and is one of those documents used and abused by individuals seeking to circumvent our controls. The minister announced we would fast-track the production of a secure permanent resident card that would be issued to all permanent residents in Canada for the purposes of travelling outside Canada and seeking re-entry to Canada. We hope to have that card ready for distribution in June.

We are reviewing our visitor visa screening regime—

The Chair: Does a permanent resident normally just have a piece of paper, rather than—

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, a long one.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes, right.

The Chair: They carry that with their original passport?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: They do indeed, yes, and that is—

The Chair: If they have one.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: —if they have one. That is currently their proof of status in Canada. That is currently the document that indicates the person is a permanent resident of Canada. It is not a secure document.

The Chair: It's like a Quebec birth certificate, which comes from a hospital and is signed by a notary. Okay, we're with you.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Certainly.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Or from the church baptismal.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Secondly, as a matter of some urgency we are reviewing our visitor visa screening mechanisms abroad and reviewing those countries we currently impose visitor visas on. We are doing that in conjunction with our American colleagues.

Finally, our new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act received royal assent on November 1. Let me take just a minute to talk a bit about the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, because there are new tools in that legislation that will considerably assist us in enhancing border security and security along the continuum of checkpoints.

The new act gives us new inadmissibility clauses based on transborder crime, fraud, and misrepresentation. It gives us more powers to arrest and detain those who might pose a threat to Canada. It provides for a streamlined process for excluding individuals from the refugee determination system if they are serious criminals, if they are terrorists, or if they are war criminals.

It provides for a streamlined process for us to detain and remove those who pose the most serious of security threats to this country, through our security certificate process wherein two ministers—the Minister of Immigration and the Solicitor General—present a certificate to a Federal Court judge indicating that an individual poses a security threat to Canada. If the judge finds the certificate is reasonable, the person may be detained and be removed.

The act provides new abilities to protect sensitive intelligence and security information in administrative hearings. We currently have the ability to do it in the Federal Court. The new act will give us the ability to be able to protect that sensitive information when we are doing admissibility hearings or detention reviews in front of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Finally, the bill gives us a very important power to collect advance passenger information and passenger name records from airlines that bring individuals to Canada.

I want to assure the committee members that the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is not just about saying no, which is very important; it also enables us to say yes more efficiently to those who are seeking to come to Canada.

• 1005

The act provides, in its regulations, a new skilled worker selection criterion. It allows us to be able to more efficiently and effectively select those skilled workers who are going to be so essential to the future prosperity of this country. It allows us to be able to take temporary foreign workers currently in Canada and make their transition to permanent resident status more effectively from within Canada.

It sets clearer requirements for business immigrants—those who come to this country to make investments and bring their entrepreneurial skills and talents to this country. And it allows us to recognize the current reality of family and family configuration in this country by expanding the family class to recognize same-sex partners and by increasing the age of dependent children.

Finally, let me just go back to where I started with my brief remarks about cooperation with the Americans. Obviously we need to strike a balance in all the efforts we are undertaking. We feel the best way to deal with the two-way flow across the border is to pursue the objectives I talked about, through our border vision exercise and the border accord exercise with our Customs colleagues.

We are developing an action plan in collaboration with our customs colleagues and our immigration colleagues in the United States. We're looking at cooperation between the agencies at ports of entry and between ports of entry, and cooperation between immigration services at the border on our asylum and refugee systems, on migrant smuggling, on terrorism, and on overseas enforcement. We're focusing very much on information and intelligence sharing and joint initiatives. We're moving towards a coordination of our visa policies and looking at ensuring that we're using compatible technologies to assist us in this task.

I'd be happy to take your questions after our presentation. That's the end of my brief remarks.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Atkinson.

Now, Madam Nymark, welcome to the committee.

Ms. Christine Nymark (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Transport Canada): Thank you.

The Chair: We don't get transport department officials here very often.

Ms. Christine Nymark: Well, I'm delighted to be here.

The Chair: This is a great moment for us—

Ms. Christine Nymark: Absolutely.

The Chair: —although we did actually, when we were considering the bill involving the airport with the U.S., get some transport people.

Ms. Christine Nymark: Actually, it's a real pleasure for me to be here. I used to be the clerk of this committee many years ago, so I have indeed been in this room before.

The Chair: Welcome back.

Ms. Christine Nymark: Thank you.

The Chair: You can come and talk to Stephen after about how crazy it is.

Ms. Christine Nymark: I was going to focus on including a review of security-enhancing measures we at Transport Canada put in place, as it relates to the various modes of transportation, since September 11. I'll also talk a bit about our collaborative efforts with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the provinces. I'll conclude by touching on Transport Canada's approach to promoting a secure and efficient border.

Concerning aviation, on September 11 the minister responded immediately to the crisis and closed Canadian air space. Since that time we've put in place a range of measures to enhance aviation security and have been collaborating very closely both with other departments within Canada, with the Federal Aviation Administration, and with the U.S. Department of Transportation on air security matters.

Obviously the events of September 11 had a significant impact on air traffic levels. Domestic traffic has been down 10%, while transborder traffic has been down on the order of 25% to 40%, depending on the routes. This has had a significant impact on carriers and airports, which I'm sure you're all well aware of.

To compensate for the closure of air space, the government has provided a $160-million aid package to air carriers, which has been very well subscribed to. In addition, we've also provided liability coverage to both carriers and airports for 90 days, as insurance companies reacted to these events. We are also lifting the 15% individual share ownership limit for Air Canada, which should help the airline attract investment.

On aviation security, it's very important to note that Canada was seen as a leader in aviation security prior to September 11; but clearly we must remain vigilant and take the measures necessary to continue to enhance our security and the competitiveness of our air industry.

• 1010

Some of the steps we've recently taken to address security concerns include enhanced passenger screening—you've all experienced the increased hand searches; tightened access to restricted areas; the acquisition of explosives detection systems for $55 million; the mandatory locking of cockpit doors; and an increased police presence at major airports. The RCMP is also on flights to Reagan National Airport in Washington, in accordance with U.S. requirements, and we will continue to put in place all reasonable measures to promote the security of the Canadian travelling public. We are in the process of reviewing the options on this and indeed all issues related to aviation security.

On the marine mode, we are continuously reviewing the threat to marine transportation, in conjunction with CSIS and the RCMP. We are also working very closely with the Canadian Coast Guard, the U.S. Coast Guard, the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, port authorities, and vessel operators to enhance security throughout the Canadian marine transportation system.

Some specific measures taken to enhance security include the lengthening of advance notice requirements from 24 to 96 hours for large ships entering Canadian waters, pre-arrival provision of passenger lists to the U.S. INS by ferry services, and enhanced screening of foreign vessels entering the St. Lawrence Seaway system.

The Marine Transportation Security Act provides the Minister of Transport with an effective legislative base to introduce any further required security services in the marine sector.

Security measures for cruise ships have been in place for some time, and while the Canadian cruise season is drawing to a close, obviously we will remain vigilant in this area.

Turning to the land border, both commercial and passenger vehicle levels were down immediately after the September 11 crisis. But since that time, truck traffic seems to have recovered to a level only slightly below where it was last year, at least particularly at the very heavy southern Ontario border crossings. Passenger vehicle traffic levels remain down from last year, however.

Transport Canada has been monitoring both border delays and traffic levels and is somewhat concerned about the economic impact of the events of September 11 along the 49th parallel, particularly in certain industry sectors and in border communities such as Windsor. So we are working very closely with carriers and the users of transportation services on border management issues and are studying the impact of border delays on the transportation industry and on certain key industry sectors.

On road and infrastructure security, Transport Canada, provincial departments of transportation, and other stakeholders are examining possible approaches for enhancing the security of roads and other critical infrastructures such as our bridges. As a first step, assessments are being undertaken to determine the level of risk to critical infrastructure.

We are aware that security concerns have prompted members of the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association to stipulate that vehicles will not be permitted to queue on their structures. We recognize the problems this could potentially cause along routes such as Windsor's Huron Church Road. So we are consulting with members of the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association on this issue and will continue to work with them and other stakeholders to identify means to address concerns with respect to critical infrastructure.

On dangerous goods, Transport Canada is also working with provinces and territories on issues as they relate to the movement of dangerous goods. Security concerns figured prominently on the agenda of a November 5 to 6 meeting of the federal-provincial task force on dangerous goods. Our efforts with respect to dangerous goods have focused on 800 carriers of the most dangerous commodities, and we have received very good cooperation during visits to review concerns, issues, and practices.

Rail is a better picture. We have been collaborating closely on security matters with Canadian railways, and the rail industry itself has implemented enhanced security for critical operations and locations. The Railway Safety Act governs rail safety and security matters and provides an effective legislative base for making of regulations and standards and rules. The good news is that rail traffic was not largely affected by the events of September 11, moving largely unimpeded across the Canada-U.S. border. It is our understanding that the major Canadian railways have in place effective electronic data interchange systems that engender the trust of U.S. inspection services and facilitate cross-border movements.

• 1015

Looking ahead toward an efficient and secured land border, Transport Canada's approach to promoting this is focused on enhancing binational coordination, strategic improvements to border infrastructure, and promoting transportation efficiency at and away from the border. The hallmark of Transport Canada's approach is the excellent cooperation that exists between the department, other Canadian government agencies, the U.S. Department of Transport, as well the provinces and U.S. border states.

With respect to Transport Canada-U.S. Department of Transport cooperation, a memorandum of cooperation was concluded in October 2000 and has proven an effective mechanism for engaging U.S. DOT and will continue to provide a basis for joint collaboration on surface transportation initiatives and issues at the border. The memorandum of cooperation committed the two departments to enhancing collaboration in a number of areas, including coordination of border transportation initiatives, the development of transportation efficiency-enhancing technologies, intermodal strategies, and joint data analysis and exchange.

As a follow-up, Transport Canada and the Department of Transport, in partnership with border states and provinces, are establishing a transportation border working group to promote joint cooperation on transport issues at the border. The group's first meeting will be in Windsor on January 24 to 25, 2002. This initiative has the support of 19 border jurisdictions.

Transport Canada has also set aside $65 million for improvement to border infrastructure under our border-crossing transportation initiative. We are currently reviewing how this funding can be most effectively targeted and best complement inspection agency priorities. We have a number of initiatives we are exploring with the provinces, CCRA, DOT, and the border states. Intelligent transportation technologies provide a number of opportunities to make significant progress in this area.

In addition to examining possible improvements at the border, Transport Canada intends to look at strategies to mitigate congestion at choke points away from the border along key trade corridors in collaboration with our stakeholders. We also intend to work with Canadian colleagues and U.S. partners as well as with transportation stakeholders to identify ways in which technology might facilitate cross-border movements while enhancing security.

Transport Canada's initiatives are intended to advance the overall border management agenda by enhancing transportation efficiency at the border and by complementing the initiatives of other Canadian agencies. We're quite optimistic about the emerging opportunities and converging priorities on both sides of the border.

I trust that my comments have given a broad sense of the proactive approach we're taking at Transport Canada on both security measures and the free flow of goods and people at the border.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Nymark.

We will now go to Mr. Lefebvre, I believe, and then Mr. Sulzenko.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Lefebvre (Assistant Commissioner, Customs Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee.

I will try to be brief and to not repeat what has already been said by my colleagues. I would like to deal with the border and customs issues in three parts: first, external perceptions of the border, especially since September 11; second, the reality of the border since September 11; third, our plans for the future.

In a number of cases, particularly in some communities, there is a perception that delays at the border are still too long and much longer than they were before September 11. People also think that these delays are causing an economic slowdown and have resulted in fewer people wishing to cross the border. There's also an impression that the procedures introduced by our U.S. counterparts are more rigorous than ours.

• 1020

The reality is, as Jon said, that there were some unacceptable, excessive delays in the days immediately following September 11. Since then, the situation has improved, and we are now almost where we were before September 11, even though, particularly on the American side, there are still a number of ports where the waiting time required to enter the United States is too long.

Since September 11, the minister and the government have said that they would invest $21 million to improve our technology, which we will be using particularly at airports and ports of entry. We will also be adding extra customs officers, particularly at airports and seaports.

Since September 11, we have increased our contacts and our cooperation with our American colleagues. The minister has met with Ambassador Cellucci on two occasions. He's also met with representatives from the American Treasury, which is responsible for customs, customs representatives and congressmen. In addition, last Friday, he met with the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, together with Minister Paul Martin, to discuss border cooperation.

[English]

These are some of the facts and the reality since September 11. The real border issue, as we see it, is to keep the border both secure and open for legitimate trade and travel both ways, now and for the longer term.

We already have a lot going for us. We have a strong history of cooperation with our U.S. neighbours. We have strong links among security agencies within Canada and with the U.S. And our economic interests are similar. Over 80% of our exports go to the U.S., but 25% of U.S. exports come to Canada.

It is very important, notwithstanding the current reality, to address the fears about how the border will continue to ensure the safety of Canadians and also our economic growth. Since September 11 we have been on high alert, and we continue to be on high alert.

Before September 11 we had a plan. Our plan was to do more approvals away from the border for low-risk people and goods, and to use more technology to bring to the front line the information about those low-risk people and goods. And we had already embarked on some discussions with our U.S. colleagues to benchmark what we do at our external borders, which are our seaports and airports. Also, we are already exchanging information, but we had plans to exchange more information.

Since September 11 we have reviewed our plans and we have confirmed that they are the right plans for a post-September 11 environment. However, we are accelerating the implementation of our plans. And in some cases we are expanding them.

One of the initiatives I'm referring to is NEXUS, which is being piloted at Sarnia and Port Huron. It is a program to allow travellers who are low-risk to be pre-approved. They are given a card, and they have a dedicated lane to allow their passage both ways.

• 1025

Our plan is to have a NEXUS-like system for our airports. And for goods we had plans for what we call custom self-assessment, which is to pre-approve low-risk importers, and allow them to use a dedicated lane when they come to the border.

Since even before September 11, and in a more pressing way since September 11, we have engaged our American colleagues in discussions to have joint programming at our shared border. NEXUS is the prime example. Custom self-assessment for goods is the other key example of what we would like to do at our shared border.

We have also engaged with them in a NEXUS-like system for airports, which we call EPPS. We have engaged with them in exploring greater exchanges of information. And we are also exploring ways in which we can develop mutually recognized practices at our external borders, which are the airports and seaports, so we can have the mutual confidence that people and goods that come to either of our countries are not a risk for the other country. In our view, this would have a direct impact on the way we manage our shared border.

Mr. Chairman, these are some of the initiatives and activities we have engaged our U.S. colleagues in since September 11, but for most of those activities we had already discussed those issues with our American colleagues prior to September 11.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lefebvre.

I hope that with all this high-tech wizardry you can get something to work better than those crazy hand things that you put in for the INSPASS thing, because for me it never works. That's all I can say.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: We are.

The Chair: It must be my hand. I have the wrong fingers or something.

Thank you.

Mr. Sulzenko.

Mr. Andreï Sulzenko (Assistant Deputy Minister, Industry and Science Policy, Industry Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for inviting Industry Canada to your committee.

I have a very short presentation. There are copies, I believe, that have been circulated of the deck.

[Translation]

There are copies available in French as well.

[English]

My purpose today is really to give the committee a very brief overview of the current state of the Canadian economy and in particular of the sectors of the economy that have been most impacted by the events of September 11.

First of all, with respect overall to the economy, it is clear that both the Canadian and American economies had been slowing down very quickly prior to September 11, and certainly in the wake of the events of September 11 forecasters have been revising their economic outlooks for the two economies down significantly from previously forecasts. Certainly it is highly likely at this point that the U.S. economy will go into a mild recession in the second half of this year. The outlook for Canada is somewhat more uncertain, and we will obviously have to wait for the Minister of Finance's forthcoming budget to get a better feel for whether or not we will also join the U.S. in a shallow recession.

There is currently a rather mixed picture with respect to economic indicators. For example, employment in Canada rose marginally in both September and October. Vehicle sales fell in September, but are expected to be up sharply in October. Housing starts rose 13% in October.

The Chair: But we're using our own softwood.

• 1030

Mr. Andreï Sulzenko: That's right.

However, but business and public confidence appears to be down. The Conference Board of Canada index of business confidence fell by 30% in the third quarter, bringing it to the lowest level since 1990.

In the U.S. I think it's fair to say that the indicators are more in one direction, and that is with the decline in real GDP in the third quarter, employment in the U.S fell by over 400,000 in October. But retail sales were up in October, largely pulled by the auto sales, which were up 26% in the U.S. in October.

With respect to the stock markets, they were already down almost a third from the peak by late summer. As we all know, they fell sharply after the attack, but they have basically returned to pre-September 11 levels.

With respect to the sectors most affected, my colleague Christine Nymark spoke to the airline sector. The other two are aerospace and tourism.

In terms of the airline industry, that was already heading downwards globally before September 11. Obviously revenues will be down this year, in the order of 20% to 25%, and they're forecasting only a modest improvement in 2002. Further, there will be some significant ongoing restructuring in the Canadian industry.

With respect to aerospace, major employment reductions have already been announced and others are expected. Boeing and Bombardier have reduced production and announced layoffs of 30,000 and 6,500 worldwide, respectively. For Canada these reductions will be felt particularly in Quebec and in Ontario. Airbus is also reducing production, and that will have some impact on suppliers in Canada. Offsetting this, there is some potential for increased business in defence-related industries and in sales of private aircraft.

With respect to tourism, the Association of Canadian Travel Agents estimates a 40% to 60% drop in business in September and 20% to 40% in October. As many as 6,000 of Canada's 30,000 travel agency workers could lose their jobs by the end of this year.

With respect to hotels in Canada's major urban markets, some 500,000 hotel room cancellations took place in September and a further 260,000 in October. Ontario's tourism industry, which is the largest in the country, estimates a year-end impact of $100 million, and other regions will experience proportionate revenue losses.

There are some signs that travel is picking up again, but the weakness is expected to last into 2002, especially for long-haul travel and businesses associated with airlines.

The government has recently announced an additional injection of funds for the Canadian Tourism Commission of $20 million, targeting our northern neighbours in the U.S. and Canadian residents.

Other sectors.... Obviously the automotive sector is one that is very vulnerable in Canada. The sales, as I mentioned earlier, have remained steady because of the incentive programs offered by the manufacturers. We also must bear in mind that the Canadian auto industry reached in both 1999 and 2000 record production of three million vehicles. In 2001 we expect production to go back to what we would call more normal levels, which would be in the order of 2.5 million vehicles. That would still be the third-largest year ever.

With respect to other areas, such as energy, as we know, oil prices have dropped very substantially since September 11. This is good news for consumers. Certainly the near term is expected to have a high degree of volatility in energy prices. Over the longer run, we believe the U.S. emphasis on security of energy supplies will be good news for Canada in terms of increased production and investment in that sector.

• 1035

The events of September 11 have further damaged an already weakened manufacturing sector. Employment in Canadian manufacturing was down 44,000 this year in September, even before the attacks, and this figure rose to 75,000 in October. As well, in October the manufacturing shipments fell 2.5% relative to September. So it is really this sector that is most impacted by border delays and by the state of the U.S. economy.

With respect to other sectors, such as financial institutions, the direct exposure has been quite limited. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions is monitoring lending to firms in vulnerable sectors, and the Business Development Bank—which is a crown corporation—has offered qualified customers the option of postponing principal payments for up to four months.

With respect to the information technology sector, there was an immediate impact following the attacks as networks become overloaded. These attacks have raised concerns over security and calls for stricter control on access and use of communications systems.

The potential upside is that there may be a shift to greater use of communications technologies—for example, for video-conferencing to replace business travel—and certainly some of our firms have benefited from increased orders, such as for the Blackberry, from the United States in particular.

I'd say, Mr. Chair, in conclusion, the events of September 11 have had a major impact on only a few industries, but some very important industries. However, all will be affected by the slow recovery that is now underway.

I might just reinforce, on the border issue, what my colleague mentioned at one point—the $9-billion-per-day two-way flow. That is triple what it was ten years ago—which is a phenomenal increase when you consider the resources available at border points and the infrastructure at those border points.

From an Industry Canada point of view it is certainly a critical priority to improve border flow, not only for the short-term impact on trade—particularly if our respective economies pick up and trade flow should increase—but also for the medium-term impact on investment decisions. Investors serve the North American market, not just Canadian or American markets, and certainly a free flow at the border of legitimate commercial traffic is an important factor in attracting investment into Canada.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. Those will be my remarks.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before I turn to questions, I want to thank you all for coming. I think this has been a very useful and rather an extraordinary opportunity to get an overview of all the issues. We don't often get an opportunity to have all of you in the same room at the same time. We know you're all very busy, but we appreciate your coming.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of you who have come here today.

I'd like to also thank Gerry and Jim for your great job of putting this together. You did a fabulous job, and I'm sure you worked over the week long and hard.

The Chair: Are you suggesting you've read all of this already, Dr. Martin? If you are, I'm getting worried about what you do on your weekends.

Mr. Keith Martin: If I said that, my nose would get longer, but they've done a good job from what I've seen. That's for sure, and I'm sure it took a long time.

In dealing with this complex situation, you mentioned numerous threats. I wonder if anybody's identified the priorities for the threats we're facing and also identified solutions to those.

Also—this might be a bit of a rhetorical question—do you have enough money to do what you've been asked to accomplish? You can perhaps give us an indication whether you need more resources to deal with the priorities you have been faced with post-September 11.

• 1040

Perhaps you could also let us know what coordinating mechanisms are taking place between your departments, because you all deal with issues that overlap each other.

Here are a couple of specific questions. Will you be pursuing RICO-type amendments here to go after the proceeds from crime, as they do in the U.S.?

Lastly, ex-IRB members say the majority of refugee claimants are actually economic refugees, many of whom are coming from OECD countries. I wondered if you are going to pursue a dictum that would suggest that for individuals claiming refugee status the onus of identification be upon them—with some exceptions that are defined. And then, why are we accepting people claiming refugee status from OECD countries?

Just on a point for which perhaps we can get some answer that could be submitted at a later date—to Madame Nymark—CAE in Toronto are selling flight simulators to Khalifa Airways in Algeria. Also, they were giving access to Boeing 777s. Madame Nymark, if you could perhaps get back to the committee on this, I would like to know whether we're having any checks and balances on the sale of flight simulators to foreign countries. That would be appreciated.

Also from a transport perspective, in my area in Victoria ferries travel between Washington State and Victoria. Apparently there are no checks taking place at that time on individuals gaining access to the ferries from Canada going to the U.S.—there are no security checks on what's taking place there. If your department can check up on that and get back to us, it would be appreciated.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Since there are so many people on the panel, with a lot of questions you may find—you know, you've got about 20 minutes worth of questions there—I'll have to cut if off after a bit.

Maybe we could try to make sure the specific questions are answered. We'll start with you, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Jon Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll just reply on the coordination issue, and then Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Atkinson can reply on the specific immigration questions.

In terms of coordination, Marc Lortie, the assistant deputy minister for the Americas, chairs on a weekly and sometimes more than weekly basis a committee of assistant deputy ministers, including all who are here today and actually many others—some from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, others from the PCO, and from the finance department. This is in an effort to ensure we each know what the other is doing, where we're moving, and what activities are in place with our American counterparts, so that we can be briefing our ministers and can move in a coordinated fashion.

In the bigger picture, the ad hoc committee that Minister Manley chairs is also beginning—having spent some very important time dealing on the security front and getting the security packages together with the omnibus one, and now discussing a second omnibus package—to turn their attention to the border.

So there are and have been ongoing efforts to coordinate activities, to make sure there are no gaps, that we're dealing with the problem in a comprehensive way, and that we can present a unified front when we deal with the Americans.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: Approaching the items as they were identified in terms of threat priorities, we have a national action plan, for instance, on organized crime. Part of that is to have the police—the law enforcement entities—identify where the major current problems are in terms of crime and what the new trends are. So we look at crime as it exists, what the major ones are, what the trend lines are—and that's done annually.

In terms of solutions, there are a number that are hopefully wending their way through Parliament: Bill C-24, which is before the Senate and which is the organized crime bill; Bill C-11, which we've heard reference to—the immigration response; Bill S-23 was about customs and some of the powers they required; and of course Bill C-36, the counter-terrorism bill, is before the House. That shows some action in response.

• 1045

We have a whole series of coordinating mechanisms. I talked about the cross-border crime forum to identify what's happening out there at the grassroots level. The forum also reaches out to something called Project North Star, which runs right across the border, in terms of enforcement agencies, where we give them a seat at the table. Tell us what the problems are so the policies we're developing now respond to the reality of the problems that are occurring, or will be occurring.

I chair a national coordinating committee on organized crime. We'll be meeting December 13 or 14. That includes representatives from the provinces, the territories, and all enforcement agencies at the federal level, plus Foreign Affairs and International Development, to see what we're doing internationally and domestically. That coordinates all aspects—prosecution, as well as policy development and law enforcement. We feed into a deputy ministers federal, provincial, and territorial level, which in turn supports ministers.

As I referred to earlier, there's an action plan approved by ministers of justice, where solicitors general and attorneys general for the provinces and territories tell us, “Here here's a report card. What have you done?” We tell them what we've done and they give us our marching orders for the next year.

In addition, I am fortunate to chair an ADM steering committee dealing with public safety issues. There are about 14 or 15 key departments and agencies that are part of that. Colleagues from Immigration, Transport, CSIS, RCMP, and National Defence all play a part in that. That group meets monthly. As a matter of fact, we met at 11 a.m. on September 11 to coordinate our activities. We met twice a day, six days a week for a number of weeks, and then met daily going through. So there are mechanisms there to coordinate that.

With reference to money, obviously we've been successful, in the sense that the government saw fit to give us about $250 million two or three weeks ago. Clearly there's an ongoing challenge here. We're all hopeful, waiting for the budget, to see if there is any reset, in terms of what our current challenges are. As Mr. Allen said, the world has certainly changed post-September 11.

In terms of the last one, which is RICO legislation, we don't have a federal RICO, but in Bill C-24 there's an expansion of the proceeds of crime provisions to make that applicable to all indictable offences. Previously, there was a list of maybe 40 or so offences. With any offence there, if we successfully prosecute you, we can turn around and have the proceeds of crime seized.

On the number of provinces, the responsibility in this area isn't just federal, it's federal, provincial, and municipal. Real property is also a jurisdiction for the provinces. I know Ontario, and I think a couple of other provinces, have passed RICO legislation that allows for the civil forfeiture. We can do it on criminal. If you look at what we've done for organized crime, on the criminal side that would be like a RICO. I think we're pretty close there.

What Ontario does is complementary, in terms of a civil RICO. Obviously, we can also make arguments that we can do the same thing at the federal level. If you look in Bill C-37 on terrorism, for the seizing of funds for terrorist financing, there's something there akin to what you would call a civil RICO, plus a criminal RICO.

Those are my comments.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Perhaps I can address your questions on the refugee system. Before I do that, let me also emphasize the level of coordination and cooperation we have operationally with our federal government partners in the immigration program. Customs is at the ports of entry on the primary inspection line. We work very closely with our customs colleagues at the land border.

We work with the RCMP and CSIS. The RCMP are very much involved in the enforcement of the Immigration Act. They assist us in criminal screening and vetting, and are very much involved in investigations under the Immigration Act. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service is much involved in security screening of all immigrants, refugees, and visitors to Canada.

At the operational level, we work very closely together on a daily basis with our counterparts at the federal level. The coordinating committees here in Ottawa, with the forums in the United States we've mentioned, engage in the policy coordination with all our colleagues.

• 1050

On the refugee system, we have, as you know, obligations under the Geneva Convention that anyone who comes to Canada seeking protection will be heard and will be able to make their case and get a fair hearing. Our charter protects those individuals and ensures that they get due process in the context of a refugee hearing. We have articulated our international obligations and our legal obligations under the charter in our immigration legislation—both the existing legislation and the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

We can and we do exclude from the refugee determination process those who are not entitled to protection. Under the Geneva Convention, those who are not entitled to protection are those who have committed a serious non-political crime, those who are terrorists, those who are involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity. Our legislation allows us to exclude from the system those who are involved in those activities.

Secondly, in our legislation we have something called the safe third country concept. Safe third country concept allows us, through the negotiation of bilateral agreements with countries, to exclude from our refugee determination system those who could have found protection in another country that is signatory to the Geneva Convention. This is very important for us, because in our current system almost 40% of our refugee claimants in fact come from the United States. They have resided or sojourned in the United States and they come north and claim refugee status at our land borders.

As part of our border vision exercise, we are in discussions with the Americans on looking at responsibility-sharing for asylum seekers within North America, because both countries receive asylum seekers. And we are looking at the tools that are in our legislation on safe third country to see if there is some prospect of us being able to enter into an agreement with the United States to share responsibility for those asylum seekers who are in Canada and the United States—looking at where they landed first and which country should deal with their protection claim.

The Chair: Thank you. I think we're going to have to....

Well, very quickly, Mr. Lefebvre, because we're into ten minutes now, and there are lots of other questions.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I just want to add that since the first question concerned priorities, our priorities are at the external borders, because we're looking first and foremost for terrorists and the tools or goods they may want to import. So we think we should focus our efforts at the external border, as opposed to the shared border.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions will be short. I should say that I am replacing Ms. Lalonde this morning.

On the border issue, in reviewing the measures you discussed this morning, was any consideration given to including Mexico given that it is part of NAFTA? That is my first question.

I may have misunderstood you, Ms. Atkinson. You mentioned certificates issued by the minister or the department to facilitate things. I would like some clarifications. If they are issued by the minister, I am somewhat concerned. The two ministers in question are the Minister of Immigration and the Solicitor General.

As regards extradition, since some U.S. States have capital punishment, have we ensured that we would not automatically send someone...? You will appreciate the sensitive nature of the question. I would like to hear about this.

Finally, Ms. Atkinson, you spoke about the good cooperation that has existed between the United States and Canada since September 11. Does that mean that before September 11 the cooperation was poor?

You say that the events of September 11 may have an impact on rail transportation. I follow the situation quite closely because I live in Lévis. Some extremely hazardous materials are transported by train, and incidents happen regularly. Can you provide any assurance that the current situation will improve? I am not asking you to produce the list now, but I would like to know what the 800 hazardous materials are, and also which are the most dangerous.

I think I have asked enough questions for the time being.

• 1055

[English]

Mr. Jon Allen: Madam Chair, maybe I can just address the question of Mexico in the first instance, and then pass it on to my colleagues.

At this time the Canada-U.S. border is our main priority. I think the government is focused on making it secure and making it work better.

There was discussion over the summer, after the election of President Fox, about a North American community. From the government's point of view, we see that being a number of years into the future.

We've heard from the Mexicans that they would like to talk about a North American perimeter. Frankly, that's not in the cards right now. The government wants to focus its attention on the 49th parallel and dealing with the movement of goods and people away from the 49th parallel, to the extent it can.

We're more than happy to discuss these issues with the Mexicans on a bilateral or trilateral basis. Ms. Atkinson was in Washington yesterday meeting with her American and Mexican colleagues, but we don't really see this as a trilateral issue at this time.

Thank you.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Perhaps I could speak to the security certificate process and the question on that.

Under the current Immigration Act, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor General can, on the basis of evidence, prepare a certificate indicating that an individual poses a threat to the national security of Canada. That certificate and the evidence that supports the issuance of that certificate are brought before a Federal Court judge. The Federal Court judge reviews that information in camera without the presence of the individual to whom that certificate applies. If the Federal Court judge determines, on the basis of the evidence, the certificate is reasonable, that provides the ability for the government to arrest the individual, detain the individual, and commence removal proceedings against the individual.

Citizenship and Immigration, together with the RCMP, normally effect the arrest. The person is detained under the Immigration Act, and then the removal proceedings are commenced under the Immigration Act.

The information that is used to produce the certificate normally comes the Canadian Security and Intelligence Services. It's normally fairly sensitive information, and for that reason it is protected in the process by which the Federal Court judge reviews that information.

This is the process for non-permanent residents. There is another process under the existing act for permanent residents, because a security certificate can be issued against a permanent resident. The process is somewhat different, in that it involves the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act will change the security certificate process for permanent residents, and permanent residents and non-permanent residents will be subject to the same process.

I should indicate that while the individual to whom the certificate is issued is not provided with all the evidence provided to the Federal Court judge, they are given a summary of the grounds upon which that certificate is issued. So they are made aware of the reasons for the issuance of that certificate.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: What about the cooperation?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: If I could speak on behalf of probably all of my colleagues here, our collaboration with the Americans was very good prior to September 11, and it continues to be excellent. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, the American government expressed, on many occasions, their thanks to the Canadian government for its response. Our collaboration continues to be excellent with the Americans at all levels of the administration, after September 11.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I have a very brief question.

The Chair: There will be another round. Keep it for the next round.

• 1100

[English]

Madam Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentations, which I found quite illuminating. I have a couple of questions.

The first question is for Ms. Atkinson. You talked about safe third countries and the initiative that Immigration Canada is now undertaking to attempt to come to some kind of agreement with the United States, given that 40% of our refugee claimants come via the United States. The first question is what percentage of American refugees claimants come via Canada? Secondly, why has it taken so long?

Before I ever got into politics I knew quite a few people who worked for organizations that provide services and programs to recently arrived immigrants in Quebec and therefore became fairly familiar with the refugee program and the IRB. I know that back in the early 1990s people were saying “Why is it that Canada is not requiring that if you came from a third country you cannot claim refugee status here?” So why has it taken so long? That's the question for you.

Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Allen, given the September 11 tragic incidents, given the fact that we know there are certain areas of the world where there is significant political instability and that are a certain breeding ground for terrorist groups, how many of your analyst experts who are able to provide expert political analysis on what's happening in other countries—who the terrorists are, where they come from, what are possible new areas for terrorist groups—how many of your analysts speak Urdu or Arabic? That's for you too, Mr. Kennedy. I realize I lost the battle on the issue of Bill C-35 as regards the powers being given to the RCMP for establishing security perimeters, but as you were here for the resolution, we may yet win the war.

And I would like to know, given that for two years I sat on the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, in which the whole issue of the RCMP Act and its regulations concerning members' activities in the political sphere—you'll remember Mr. Gaétan Delisle.... The opinion of that standing committee was that any such regulation should actually be in the act itself and not in regulations, and the answer of the RCMP and the Solicitor General's department was that you were in the process of revamping the entire act. How far along have you come? It's been a couple of years. That's the same answer you gave for Bill C-35. So I'd like to know just how far along the RCMP is in revamping its RCMP Act.

Industry: we passed legislation when I was on the industry committee, and it passed in the House, on the protection of personal information and commerce. One of the major pieces in it as it pertained to the private sector involved encryption. Obviously, following the September 11 tragic incidents, heightened security measures, both in the private sector and also for governments—heightened encryption—is required using this new information technology, given the society we're living in.

How has that legislation positioned Canada relative to other countries in ensuring the protection of information on the private sector side, whether it's protection for business information or against industrial espionage, and on the public sector side in terms of sensitive political or personal information? It was leading-edge legislation when it was adopted, and one of the things Industry Canada explained to the industry committee was that this was going to place us quite far ahead of our competitors. How has that, if at all, assisted both government and private sector in dealing with the heightened security risk that has followed from September 11?

I think that's it.

The Chair: Five minutes of questions—it better be.

• 1105

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Perhaps I can start on the safe third country issue. How many go from Canada into the United States? The short answer is I don't know, and I'm not sure the Americans know. Their system is somewhat different from ours. They get some claims from people on arrival, but a lot of their refugee claims are made inland, after people have been apprehended through some kind of INS process—and then people claim. The difficulty is they have the same issue we do of people who don't have documents and not knowing exactly where they're from. The short answer is I don't know, and I'm not sure the Americans know.

Why has it taken so long? We did, as you may be aware, initiate discussions and negotiations with the Americans in the mid-1990s. We started in 1994-95 to negotiate a safe third country agreement. Those negotiations took two years, and at the end we were not able to come to an agreement with the Americans and decided to walk away. At that time the Americans had put a lot of caveats in the agreement; there were a lot of exceptions—it was very complicated. It was our estimation—at the very last minute, actually, before the agreement was to be signed—that it was not going to meet our objectives. Both sides agreed—amicably, I might add—that an agreement that would be workable was just not going to be possible at that time, and we decided to drop it.

Why are we optimistic now that we might get an agreement with the Americans? The world has changed since September 11. We have our objectives, in all of our border initiatives with the Americans, to look at our joint responsibilities for the people who are entering our respective space. We both have problems of irregular migrants, people who claim refugee status and who are not in need of protection. Both sides need to be able to deal with that issue in a more coordinated fashion. We believe the time is right, now, for us to initiate those discussions again with the Americans and are optimistic that this time we will succeed.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: If the United States doesn't know how many come from Canada in terms of refugee claimants, I see no reason whatsoever why their attitude as it concerns that particular issue—a safe third country—would be any more open than it was back in 1994-95. That's the first thing.

Secondly, the issue of a safe third country is not an issue of false documents or lacking documents, because people who have false documents or lack documents may indeed be genuine refugees under the convention. It's the issue that if they were in a country that is a signatory to the convention, there is a process that is accepted in democratic countries as being a democratic process, so why did they not make their claim there, rather than move on to another country?

I would urge you, when you discuss that, not to raise the issue of false and missing documents, but I thank you for the information. I'm not hopeful, unless we're using other issues in the border discussions with the United States as a bargaining chip to force them to come to an agreement on the safe third country issue, that there's any incentive for them to do so.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Mr. Chairman, could I just clarify on the documentation issue?

The Chair: Yes, just quickly, but I want to say to Ms. Jennings that the problem is we're now up to about eight minutes of her time, and if she wants other answers to her other questions—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Kennedy is going to go really quickly, as he did the last time, which is not much of an answer—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'll just clarify on the documentation issue.

You're absolutely right: legitimate refugees don't have documents. The point I was trying to make, and not very effectively perhaps, is that you need to know someone was residing or sojourning in a safe third country. If someone comes to the border and claims refugee status, then it's clear. They've come from the United States; you know they've come from the United States. Or they've come from Canada at the border; you know. If they claim inland and have no documents, you don't know where they came from. You don't know whether they spent time in Canada or in the United States, so it complicates the matter.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: I'll try to focus quickly and thoroughly at the same time.

• 1110

I just want to comment that in my presentation I made reference to the RCMP financial intelligence task force, and whether or not they had seized, I think I used the figure $2 million. The press indicated to me that they had heard a figure earlier of $300,000 or $400,000. I just want to indicate I'm trying to have that number tracked down. I don't want the committee to be misled. If it's $300,000, I'll correct it. If I can correct it before I leave, great, but the important thing was that we're sharing information and they're making seizures. That was the point. But I don't want the number to be wrong, and I'll clarify it if I have to.

The Chair: It doesn't sound like very much, frankly, $300,000 or $400,000—

Mr. Paul Kennedy: That was with reference—

The Chair: —when you hear the amount of money in drug deals.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: That's only with reference to those that were on the UN list, and a lot of those were international organizations that may not have accounts in Canada.

With reference to the questions that were asked, there was a specific reference to Bill C-35, merely to indicate.... I hope the committee accepts that I'm here to help the committee. I neither win nor lose. That's not my objective. I have no interest at all.

In terms of revamping the RCMP Act and how far along it is, I'm aware of the issue the member referred to. I can't tell you right now. It isn't on my horizon. Unfortunately, I have a number of issues that are quite pressing that I'm looking at. It may be in the works, but I can't tell you where it's at.

With reference to the breeding ground for terrorism and things of that nature, the Canadian government and its agencies have a huge number—and it flows from the nature of Canada's reputation in the world—of contacts with other countries in the world, with information exchange and so on going on. We're very well plugged in. We know what's happening. There are interdepartmental groups at PCO, IAC—the intelligence advisory group—with representatives from RCMP, CSIS, CSE, DND, and Foreign Affairs, where they pool their knowledge and experience. We know what's going on.

With reference to the language skills, there are a large number. If flows from the nature of Canada. We're a very diverse, multicultural country. It's quite astounding. As you probably know, Toronto is the most diverse city in the world, and Vancouver, I'm sure, is a close second. That has affected the nature of how police agencies and the intelligence service have configured themselves in terms of the skill sets. And targets of today may not be the targets of tomorrow. Some of this varies. But I think the intelligence service did file a report—I think it was the last CSIS annual report they filed with Parliament—in which they indicated that Sunni extremist groups were a major problem. So they are on that.

I can't tell you how many analysts they have who speak Arabic languages, but we do have that capacity. In addition, when events come up, there's a sharing of linguists between the Communications Security Establishment, National Defence, DFAIT, and CSIS, depending on what the volume of traffic is and what the problems are. So the capacity is there. You can always have more, but like I say, it goes up and down. I'm sure at one time the Russian cause was more significant than today. So the linguistic skills vary, and those pools are adjusted to reflect the priorities of the day, and that helps.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you.

Mr. Kennedy, if, as you said, the majority of weapons that are used in crimes in Canada are smuggled here from the U.S., is there a move in your department to pursue consecutive sentencing? I'm not a lawyer, as will become patently obvious by these questions, but will there be a move to pursue consecutive sentencing for individuals who are caught smuggling weapons into Canada, and to forbid plea bargaining on those weapons offences?

The second question is for Madam Atkinson. In strengthening our security perimeter, is there a move in your department to forbid individuals who are coming to Canada but have resided in an OECD country before from claiming refugee status? Can you, given the Geneva Convention?

And for Mr. Allen, given our priority of being able to have what I call a “steel sieve”, where we allow the goods and services to move freely through that sieve but have a steel barrier to individuals or commodities that are not desirable, why don't we just use passports as an identification paper that will enable individuals to move back and forth quite freely? Maybe we have to revamp the passport so it's less able to be forged.

• 1115

The last question is on security for our nuclear sites. What is being done to secure nuclear sites in Canada against a terrorist attack?

Thank you.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: Maybe I can speak then to the weapons offence and the series of questions you asked, which had a lot of legal terminology—from a non-lawyer—in them.

This, as you know, is the primary responsibility of the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Justice. Whether or not a consecutive sentence is imposed is usually factually driven; in other words, if the offences are separate, then the time is given separately. Normally, if a weapon is found to be used in an offence, it's an aggravating factor and does call for a higher sentence. I believe, just going by memory, there are provisions currently in the code that call for minimum sentences where a weapon is used for certain offences. So it is there.

We have provisions, for example in Bill C-24 and Bill C-37, that specifically call for one factual situation that can give rise to different offences, and there's a specific requirement for a consecutive offence. If you do a particular criminal activity, and you're a member of organized crime and are charged with an organized crime offence, the organized crime offence would be consecutive to the other, even though they both occurred at the same time. I believe there's something like that in the terrorism provisions. So there are provisions in the code right now.

With reference to the study that's ongoing with the Americans, a lot of the problem I think is more a case of a lack of vigour on the American side in enforcement of some of their laws, and if that vigour occurs, it will cut down on the number of weapons that are smuggled into Canada. So when we're looking at actions, we're looking for reciprocity. We're doing our bit in Canada, and the hope through this dialogue is, will you please do your part in the United States, because that's causing us a problem here.

With reference to plea bargaining, this is, unfortunately, part of what makes the system work. The prosecutors have discretion, which hopefully they're exercising in a very mature and responsible fashion, as to the appropriate solution. But that also, if it's under the Criminal Code, would be done by the provincial attorney general, so how they would discharge that is their area of responsibility. I'm hoping this study that's coming out will inform both our jurisdictions whether more has to be done, and if so, how.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Perhaps I could address your question on the refugee system, but before I do, I should also point out, in terms of people smuggling guns across the border, one of the new tools in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that I mentioned gives us new authorities at the border to stop and remove from Canada those who are committing an offence as they cross the Canada—U.S. border. So that's an additional tool that might assist us if we are in fact detecting people crossing the border with guns. We may be able to exclude them from the country, given this new provision in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Does the Geneva Convention allow us to deal differently with refugee claimants who come from OECD countries? Yes, it does. There are a number of jurisdictions that have various tools in their legislation that are called things like “manifestly unfounded claims”, “credible basis determinations”, or in some jurisdictions “safe country of origin provisions”. Generally, what those provisions do is allow the decision-maker to deal with those claimants differently, for example, there is a different level of proof required, or the individual will have a rebuttable presumption to overcome that they are indeed a refugee. So different jurisdictions have dealt with those issues in different ways. We do not have such a provision in either the current legislation or the new legislation.

The reason we have not gone down that road is that it adds an additional step in the process. You still have to deal with the individual. You still have to give them some kind of hearing, and that decision is reviewable by the Federal Court. In our particular system, while it's possible to do that and the Geneva Convention does allow you to do it, we felt it would add an additional step in the process and would in fact slow the system down, not make it more streamlined.

The Chair: I'm going to have to go on to the next person.

Madam Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): I will help you to catch up on the time, Mr. Chairman. I have three questions.

• 1120

I was pleased to hear about the excellent collaboration with your American counterparts, but I want to ask about our collaboration, or way of communicating, in light of transparency, democratic accountability, and all these things our constituents ask about. How are we communicating and partnering with the business sector, civil society groups, etc., in all the various areas of which you've spoken? Since September 11 a lot of fears have arisen. For someone on the ground, sometimes there are feelings expressed that we'll use that opportunity to do some of the things that otherwise we may not have been as speedily and readily prepared to do.

My second question comes out of this one, and it is in the area of immigration, family reunification as an example, trying to get individuals here from places that are presently under scrutiny, for want of a better term. How are we facilitating that? Are we adding personnel? What are we doing to ensure that the usual process of of processing people's documents, etc. takes place within the normal channels and does not get entangled in the September 11 aftermath?

My third question was around Canada and the U.S. responding together. You spoke about joint programming and benchmarks. I want to know what some of those benchmarks might be with respect to that collaborative way we are working with the Americans.

Mr. Jon Allen: I could just very quickly say that in terms of partnering, certainly the government has tried to reach out to business and to the provinces, who all expressed concerns post-September 11 about the impacts of the events on their constituents, on business, and on their capabilities to deal with the terrorist threat.

We as a committee met with senior provincial officials a couple of weeks ago. We provided them with documentation and speaking points so they can explain the issues to their own citizens but also work with their American counterparts, namely governors and state legislators, to try to put the Canadian case across to Americans, with whom they deal on a daily basis.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we've met a number of times with Canadian business, with the border coalition, with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and with small-business groups to try to hear their concerns and to ensure that as we respond as a government, we do so in a comprehensive way, one that meets those concerns.

Maybe I'll pass it on to Joan.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: In terms of family reunification from countries that might be under increased scrutiny as a result of the events of September 11, we have a very robust screening process for prospective immigrants and refugees overseas now. We haven't changed that process. We have refreshed the intelligence, I would say, that underpins that process. We're constantly trying to ensure that we have the most up-to-date and current intelligence and information to inform our decision makers. But we have not fundamentally changed the way we screen prospective immigrants who come to this country.

The reunification of spouses and dependent children continues to be the first priority in terms of our immigrant selection abroad. That has not changed since September 11. We will continue to work towards processing spouses and dependent children 80% within six months. That particular standard hasn't changed. We're continuing, I think, to do a fairly good job of meeting that objective.

We're also moving forward with a redesign of the way we deliver the family class program to try to further streamline and enhance our ability to be able to process those cases more quickly. We're doing this by amalgamating the application process and the sponsorship process up front in Canada at the case processing centre in Mississauga so all of the information is provided all at once. That will allow us, we hope, to make decisions even more quickly on family class immigrants. We are proceeding with that despite the events of September 11.

• 1125

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I have two points. On the meetings with business and so on, we had a continuous string of visits to trade corridors, meetings with the minister, and meetings with local politicians and business. Also, there were some meetings in Ottawa with business and also, as late as yesterday, with border-town mayors. On the benchmarking, as I mentioned, we basically see a direct connection between what we do at the external border and the management of the shared border. When we say benchmarking, I'm referring to the fact that we are basically striving towards mutual recognition of our practices at airports and seaports.

We have already started with joint teams for immigration and customs on both sides. We have visited airports, for instance, in the U.S. and Canada and compared our screening practices, our procedures, and our training with a view to adopting best practices. Also, we want to ensure that our front-line inspectors in Canada as well as in the U.S. have all the information required to intercept people and goods that could be threats at our external borders.

That's what we are doing, giving each other the satisfaction that the other side will intercept at the external borders the people or the goods we would like to intercept ourselves. It's not a joint program, because we would retain the right to accept in our country those we think are low risk, and they would retain that right too, but we would have mutual recognition of our respective practices.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: A few moments ago, I asked six questions, and there was not enough time to answer them all. The question on extradition was not answered.

Two weeks ago, France entered into an agreement with the United States. Capital punishment is outlawed in France and the United States agreed to that principle. I would like an answer on this.

Second, I would like to hear a definition of a low-risk individual. Let me take myself as an example. Is a Bloc Québécois MP like myself a low-risk individual?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Not necessarily. Let me answer the last question briefly.

Usually, there is no single factor involved in evaluating risk. A number of factors together may indicate that there is a risk. In the case of drug smuggling, for example, the risk factor may be the country of origin. We know that at a particular time, a particular country of origin is exporting drugs, but there may be many other indicators as well. The police or customs officials in various countries, who have learned from experience, say how great the risk is. So it is often a combination of these factors that determines whether an individual, merchandise or a container presents a risk or not.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: And what about extradition?

[English]

Mr. Paul Kennedy: Maybe I can try to answer that. It's actually a justice issue because, as you know, the Minister of Justice is responsible for the Extradition Act. I took from your question that you are maybe alluding to the Supreme Court decision in Burns and Rafay, where the Supreme Court said that if a person faced a death penalty in another jurisdiction, the Minister of Justice had to obtain a guarantee from the other country prior to the person being sent back that the death penalty would not be imposed. I think that's the issue you're referring to. That decision, though, has in it a fact-driven criterion where there may in fact be some instances when the court would not object to the person being sent back to face the death penalty. It depends on the nature of the crime the person is charged with.

• 1130

However, I think it's fair to say that as an operating rule, Canada has to get that kind of assurance from the other jurisdiction. That means the person would go, and under the laws of the jurisdiction, they would be probably facing, as they would in Canada, a maximum of life in prison. Those individuals were, I believe, returned to the United States. I don't know if their trial's been carried out or not, but if convicted, they face a maximum of life.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: To turn to another subject, as we know, the delays at the borders are caused mainly by the Americans. What do the Americans have against us to slow us down like that? What are they holding against the Canadian government?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Following the events of September 11, I think it was completely legitimate for the Americans to feel that they were the preferred target of any terrorist or any individual intending to commit terrorist activities. I think this was quite legitimate, in light of the information they had. Some of the information may have caused them to think that some individuals wanted to cross the border or transport goods. They therefore paid particular attention to all their borders.

The objective of our efforts is to establish a climate of confidence so that in the long term the Americans can feel secure. Often, they do not know what we do. Consequently, we have to exchange information with them. We must also change some practices so that in the long term they know that Canada is not a threat to their country.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: That is not the case at the moment?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I think we have to exchange information. Since September 11, there has been a great deal of information, and the same was true before that date as well. After the Ressam incident, we held many meetings at all levels to tell the Americans what we were doing. It is not just a question of facts, it is also a question of perception. We have to ensure that they are well aware of the facts. That will help us for the future.

The Chair: Thank you.

Dr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Atkinson, with respect to the cooperation between Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the USINS, I would like you to describe further the concept of convergence on visa policy between Canada and the United States. On which side of the border will this convergence policy apply? Will the United States note what Canada is doing, or will it be the other way around?

Based on my personal experiences as member of Parliament, before September 11, it was much easier to get a visa for the United States than for Canada. Very often, people went to the United States and called members of Parliament from New York to get entry permits for humanitarian reasons and all sorts of other similar things. However, since September 11, it is very difficult to get visas for Canada, even for humanitarian reasons. I cannot say what the situation is in the United States, but I would like to know how this convergence will work.

Mr. Lefebvre, you spoke about extending your NEXUS project to other border customs points, and possibly to the airports. In the places where it does exist, that is, between Sarnia and Port Huron, and also at the Missouri border, what percentage of people are using it compared to the overall traffic flow at this location? In its current form is the project meeting expectations?

Mr. Sulzenko told us that trade had tripled in the past 10 years, and has reached 1.9 billion dollars. Has it doubled in the last five years? What is the projection for the next five years, if we do not take September 11 into account? Will trade increase nevertheless?

Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: In terms of visa convergence, perhaps I could start.

There are two things we're looking at with the Americans. The first is the process by which each country issues its visas, and the second concerns those countries for which we issue visas.

In terms of the process, I can tell you that the American visa issuance process is under intense scrutiny. In the American system, it is the State Department overseas that issues visas, and State Department foreign service officers are the visa officers overseas, as opposed to INS officers. However, the Canadian system is an integrated system. We have CIC foreign service officers overseas issuing visas.

• 1135

There has been a lot of discussion and testimony in front of Senate and House committees on the visa issuance process in the United States. It is clear that what the Americans want to do is tighten up their process, particularly ensuring that they have better information sharing between their respective agencies.

In our discussions with them we have looked at our respective processes, and our goal is to make sure that we are sharing the same kind of information with each other. For example, if the Americans are dealing with an individual who may pose a threat and that person walks across the street to the Canadian embassy and makes an application, there's an ability for us to share that information in many capitals. We want to be looking at the same sorts of issues when we're dealing with the same individuals.

The second part of that process is looking at the countries we have a visa requirement for. We have many countries in common we impose visas on, but there are some differences. We are looking at our current visa list, as the Americans are also looking at their current visa waiver list, and we are examining what are the respective control problems and security problems for each country. That doesn't mean to say that we will end up having exactly the same list, but it does mean that we'll probably have a list that converges, that is closer. But we will still, obviously, retain the right to decide who we impose visas on as a country, as will the Americans.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: NEXUS has been in place only since November 2000, and we think it is very promising. That is very recent. NEXUS has about 4,500 members. It is difficult to give you a percentage, because these people cross the border frequently. We do not know how frequently they cross it.

This is a pilot project at the border between Sarnia and Port Huron. The technology used on the Canadian side is different from the technology used on the American side. In Canada, we are currently using a card with a photo of the person and a licence plate reader, while in the US, they are using a smart card which displays a photo of the card holder on the custom officer's screen.

Before extending this project to other borders, we will evaluate which of the two technologies is better. We are confident that this is the way of the future. This is why we want to reach an agreement as soon as possible about the terms and conditions of NEXUS with the Canadian and American immigration services and extend it to all very busy border crossing points.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Who uses that?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Truckers use it. This is part of our customs self-assessment program. It allows low-risk importers to have access to a lane reserved for their truckers so that they can get through customs more quickly. In order to do that, we require that these truck drivers receive prior approval from the customs officers. For all types of trade, if it was acknowledged before- hand that the trucker, importer and carrier are all low-risk, these individuals may clear customs very quickly.

An hon. member: Thank you.

Mr. Andreï Sulzenko: I would just like to add a brief comment. Because of the very strong economic growth in the United States, exports have increased a great deal in the last five years. Obviously, it is difficult to predict what things will be like in the future, but I doubt that this rate of growth can be maintained indefinitely. I think it will drop.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Maybe I can ask a couple of questions, and then we'll go to Madam Jennings.

It was reported in the press after the meeting of Mr. Cauchon and Mr. O'Neill that Canada and the U.S. would be appointing order coordinators. I wonder if you could let the committee know as to when the appointments will be made and what the mandate of reference of these coordinators will be. That's the first question.

• 1140

Mr. Allen isn't here, but somebody might help me with this. The usual $1.9 billion in cross-border trade was mentioned. What are the parameters of the statistical accuracy when we use that figure? We talk about $1.9 billion, but is that strictly goods? Do we have any handle on the amount of services trade, which is equally important in today's economy? It's now becoming more important than goods in the internal economy, but I don't think we seem to have much of a handle on services trade in terms of statistics.

We were recently in Qatar for the negotiations there and were told, for example, that one of the problems is a lot of our exports go through the United States and that while we show x billions of dollars of exports to the United States, in fact, that's transshipment to other countries. Do we have any handle on this?

On refugees, we talk all the time about the refugee applications inside Canada. One thing that disturbs me is that there are very many legitimate refugees outside the country who are applying. Now, these applications take months and months and months. Meanwhile, of course, the people who can get here get to work and.... Is there any attempt being made to streamline the process outside the country? It seems to me it's the unfairness perceived—that people who jump the queue and get in get the preferential treatment, and the people who are outside applying don't get the same approach. If that's the case, it puts pressure on people to jump the queue and come to the country. So what are we doing about it?

The last thing I would ask concerns, Mr. Lefebvre, this business of trying to back the whole process up and getting clearances for people beforehand. Sure, this is a negotiation with the United States, but we're going to have very different attitudes on what are criminal offences and things like that. What are you going to do with people who have maybe a marijuana conviction, which for the United States is considered something like “whip 'em and hang 'em”, while in Canada we're saying we're going the other way? Meanwhile, as somebody pointed out, down there, if you've got a gun offence—“Oh, well, everybody has guns down there.” But it's very serious for us. How are we going to work out these value distinctions, which are very, very important for us if we're going to preserve our own values? Or are the Americans going to dictate the values to us? You can shoot who you like with a gun, but you can't smoke a marijuana cigarette. Is this the way the standards are going to work?

It will be the same thing on the terrorism issue. To what extent do we talk about sharing information about terrorism? Is every Cuban going to be a terrorist because the Americans have a total paranoia about Cuba and we don't? How are we going to resolve these differences?

I presume, Ms. Atkinson, when you were telling us about backing off on the negotiation you were talking about before, it was these highly political and highly difficult issues that caused us to back off. Now you say there's a chance of coming together, but if anything, I would have thought the issues are more troublesome and more complicated than they were before, not easier to resolve. There might be a greater political necessity to resolve them, but I'm not convinced that on the terrorism issue, when you pick Cuba and a few other similar things, Canadians are going to be happy with resolving them if, in fact, they're going to be resolved by the Americans determining what our policies will be.

So those will be my questions. I don't know who wants to start.

Mr. Jon Allen: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I'll just start on your first question.

It was fairly clear in the United States that President Bush, in a White House directive, named Governor Ridge as his point person for dealing with homeland security. In Governor Ridge's meetings with Minister Manley, who was there in his capacity as chairman of the ad hoc committee, they agreed they would work with each other on questions of security, both public and economic, and that's the border.

• 1145

In terms of bringing it down to the next level, in the course of that meeting on Friday, Secretary O'Neill named his under-secretary for enforcement as his point person. There is some question as to who will represent the other parts of the U.S. package—that's INS, which comes under Attorney General Ashcroft's mandate, and the State Department, which obviously falls under Secretary Powell's mandate. I think within the United States right now they're just working out whether or not it will be Ridge's deputy, a former military man named Abbot, or somebody else who might perform the function.

On the Canadian side, as you may know, Robert Fonberg from PCO has been named as the coordinator for our side. He'll be working with Minister Manley and with the ad hoc committee, and for now, at least, he's the Canadian point man.

The Chair: So he'll come and talk to us, I'm sure.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Jon Allen: Certainly I think Mr. Manley is scheduled to come to talk to you.

The Chair: Ms. Atkinson.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Concerning refugees, you're absolutely right that there are some 23 million people overseas whom the UN High Commissioner for Refugees indicates as being persons of concern to them. There is actually a very small proportion of that 23 million, however, who the UN believes are in need of resettlement in a third country. The preferred solution when you're dealing with mass outflows of people is to be able to return them as quickly and safely as possible to the country from which they fled.

If that's not possible, the second option is to try to provide asylum in their country of first asylum and to integrate them into the local communities there. The third option, which is always the least preferred option on the part of the UN, is to resettle them in third countries. We ourselves, the United States, Australia, and some European countries have resettlement programs.

You're quite right that it does take some time for us to process those cases. Sometimes we're dealing with rather difficult environments. These people are in remote refugee camps, so it's difficult for us to get to them. Their family members are often dispersed in different countries. We try to coordinate the processing of all of them, and it does sometimes take some time.

Those who simply arrive on our shores we are obliged to deal with. If they arrive on our shores and claim protection, then we must hear their claim and deal with them. That is a problem or issue that all countries of the western developed world are dealing with. We are not unique in terms of dealing with increasing numbers of people who are coming to claim asylum; all western developed countries have the same issue in terms of dealing with people who arrive on their shore.

There are some estimates by the International Organization for Migration that there are some 150 million people moving around the world. Regardless what systems you put in place overseas to select refugees from refugee camps and so on, they will continue to come. We must be able to put in place processes to be able to deal with those individuals as fairly and expeditiously as we can—those who are in need of protection and those not in need of protection. It is very much a challenge for all of us.

The Chair: On that issue, I've got a church group in my riding at the moment, for example, involved with a Kurdish refugee from Iraq in Turkey whose life is in danger in Turkey, and it will probably take six months to get the embassy to function in Turkey. Of course, the smart people would say get on a plane somehow and get there and forget all this stuff. But the legitimate people, such as the church groups, are trying to work through the system. They're getting really hammered on this, if I can leave it with you that way. It's very, very frustrating.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Perhaps I can give you a little bit of relief on that one, in that one of the new provisions in the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, in the regulations that will accompany it, is a revamping of our overseas refugee resettlement program and our humanitarian programs.

To codify, for example, the urgent protection process, which we do now on an ad hoc basis, we will put it in regulations. Individuals whose lives are at risk in whatever situation they find themselves will be fast-tracked through the system and dealt with in a matter of days as opposed to a matter of months. If the UNHCR, the High Commissioner for Refugees, the Red Cross, or another NGO on the ground brings to our attention the fact that this person or this family is in imminent danger, we will have the tools to be able to deal with them quickly and bring them to Canada quickly.

• 1150

We're also looking at streamlining the family reunification process. For family members who are dispersed in different countries, hopefully we'll be able to bring them to Canada more quickly.

Mr. Chairman, could I make a comment on the different standards between the two countries in terms of our immigration laws and how we interpret who is inadmissible?

We have done some work already with the Immigration and Naturalization Service in terms of looking at our inadmissibility provisions and respective immigration laws. There are a lot of similarities. We are looking for the same sort of thing when we screen individuals against our respective inadmissibility laws. There are differences.

It is not our intention to have completely convergent laws in that sense. It's not our intention to completely harmonize our immigration provisions. Each country will continue to retain some differences in terms of those they declare inadmissible.

Our goal is clearly to be able to identify the best way to detect those inadmissible to our respective territories. It's when we get into the information and intelligence sharing that we've talked about.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: Mr. Chairman, I would speak to two issues. You made a reference to terrorism and drugs. It tends to fall into my hopper a little bit.

I think it concerns us as to whether or not we follow lockstep with the Americans. The reality is there are certain groups that are internationally recognized as terrorists. We've seen it through the UN declaration vis-à-vis bin Laden and al-Qaeda. There are groups out there that they recognize are common throughout the world.

As well, through a number of years we have seen the State Department of the United States with lists of groups that were terrorists. There are no such lists exist in Canada. Recently we have some other lists the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been publishing. You'll notice the lists do not necessarily go lockstep with the Americans. If you're on an American list, it does not necessarily mean you're mirrored on a Canadian list. There are subtleties where Canada is clearly exercising its own leadership and decision-making.

There will be, I assume, at some date, if Bill C-37 passes, a made-in-Canada list. You'll see them common to the United States and common to the world, some with differences from the United States and some made in Canada. I think ministers to date have certainly exhibited the typical Canadian independence. I think it will carry over there as well.

In reference to drugs, I'm head of a delegation for Canada to a group called CICAD. It's a committee of the Organization of American States. It's their drug commission. There are 34 countries there, and the issue is very alive. What are the best techniques we use to address the drug problem, particularly at the possession level? Is criminalization the appropriate tool?

I've been there for a number of years now. In my experience, the Americans have a very open dialogue on it. Like us, they are just trying to find a solution to a major health problem. They describe it the same way. There's a distinction between the traffickers and the users.

What's the best way to identify the problem? The challenge in the United States is you can have municipal, state, as well as federal laws that address the problem. The States have their own criminal codes and so on. It's a complex issue.

I can indicate to you it's an international obligation in some areas. We have two committees, the House as well the Senate, looking at the non-medical use of drugs. It is out there. Countries are actively debating the issue. We have mechanisms, one of which is the multilateral evaluation mechanism, to see how we as countries do things, with an ongoing evaluation as to the best way to sort this out.

The Chair: Thank you. It's very helpful.

Mrs. Jennings, and then Monsieur Paquette.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Some of my colleagues have raised some concerns about the increased powers that will be afforded the RCMP and other police forces under Bill C-36, as well as the enhanced powers of immigration agents under Bill C-11. The concerns arise out of ethnocultural communities and different religious communities already here in Canada, and the difficulties they face already in terms of policing services, immigration, and occasionally customs. I don't really hear many about customs.

• 1155

Within the Canadian black community, the same expression exists in the States regarding policing services. For our young black men between the ages of 16 and 40 years, we have an expression: “You're guilty of driving while black”. Now the same kind of expression is beginning to develop within Arab communities, Muslim communities, or communities with members who look like they might be Arab or Muslim.

Given these enhanced powers, what moneys are being put into training the officers on the ground? I'm sure you, Ms. Atkinson, and you, Mr. Kennedy, are very sensitive to these issues. You have a really good understanding of the issues and are able to make the distinction. I'm not sure the officers on the ground always make the distinction.

As someone who comes out of law enforcement with ten years of investigating public complaints against the police, with all of the efforts by local police forces, there's still a lot of work to be done. That's with the powers they had up until 1997. Now we're talking about enhanced powers.

What is your strategic plan to deal with it and improve the issues?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: I can try taking a run at this. It's a very important issue. There have been a number of jurisdictions.

When you talk about Bill C-36, I think you're also talking about Bill C-36 and Bill C-37.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: There is also Bill C-35.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: There is Bill C-35.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Let's not forget it.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: Probably I could put Bill C-blank and add in anything afterward.

There's no doubt there are challenges. We've been alive to the challenges. As a former employee of the Department of Justice responsible for drug prosecutions, I dealt with our colleagues in Ontario on the Cole-Gittens report, dealing with law enforcement in that particular jurisdiction. Was there discrimination, systemic or otherwise, in terms of how things are enforced?

People are highly sensitive to it. They really are. I know on the justice side there were guidelines developed, in terms of exercise of discretion by crowns and in terms of charges. The police do have ongoing training for their people. Organizations are sensitive to it.

At the end of the day, I think the solution has to be more recruitment of the ethnic mix in this country. When you see a police officer, hopefully, in nine out of ten or whatever, it's someone who may be from your ethnic or religious group and the sensitivities are there.

Some of them are, for instance, cultural, and we may not be aware. For us, we look at someone in the eyes as a sign of honesty. In other jurisdictions, people cast down their eyes because it's disrespectful if you look at the eyes. This is really complex stuff. There's no intention to cause offence, but you do cause offence. There are cross-cultural problems.

We try to make people sensitive to it, both when investigating and prosecuting. We'll frequently get up and ask the jurors to draw an inference of guilt or evasion from how a person behaves on the stand. They may be behaving in a very respectful, truthful way, but it's misinterpreted culturally.

It's a phenomenon that we have to confront ourselves. We're a country of immigration, and have so many new immigrants to this country who brings those values. This may bleed itself out over time, as the cultures get to talk to each other and establish a common norm. People are alive to it. There is training going on. The whole cycle is there.

The solution is for more ethnic minorities to be represented, not only in police forces, but in prosecutions, so we create role models and they see themselves as part of the culture. Part of the challenge we have is some of the groups that come to us come from parts of the world where police and the state are highly abusive. They create a reflex of fear. It's the problem. We have to get over a reflex that has been created somewhere else.

As a matter of fact, if it helps at all, many countries come to Canada asking us to send prosecutors or police to help train their police. We have a very good reputation of dealing with it. They're hopefully trying to fix their reputation as well.

I think that's it. We need more programs like community policing, where police are dealing with the communities in an outreach program. We try to do it in schools and so on. I don't pretend it's an easy chore, but we're alive to it and are trying to address it.

• 1200

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Perhaps I can just add, from the immigration perspective, that our immigration enforcement officers receive very similar training to the kind of training Mr. Kennedy referred to that law enforcement agents receive. The cultural sensitivity that is a critical piece of that training is there.

I think Mr. Kennedy made an excellent point about trying to ensure that our Department of Citizenship and Immigration is reflective of the Canadian reality. We have made a very concerted effort to try to recruit and retain higher numbers of visible minorities within our staff, so we can be reflective of the multicultural and diverse nature of Canada.

We have launched a couple of major training campaigns in the department. We call them respectful workplace training campaigns. They are aimed at increasing and enhancing the awareness and sensitivity to cultural differences, whether they be religious or other cultural differences, for all staff at all levels throughout the department.

It is an ongoing challenge. It is an ongoing issue and we must constantly be vigilant about it. As we launch our new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the training will obviously be a critical element of that.

In those few areas, such as arrest without warrant for security threats and serious criminals, where immigration officers will have somewhat increased powers, the cultural sensitivity and the need to be able to exercise that increased power with judgment will be a very critical part of the training we will be providing.

[Translation]

The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): I see that it is getting late, so I will be brief.

Ms. Atkinson, you said that you were holding discussions with your American counterparts about our immigration laws. Since there is a specific agreement in Quebec, how is Quebec involved in these discussions?

My next question is to Mr. Allen, although I am not sure I should be directing it to him. In fact, Mr. Allen may have already answered it, because Bill C-35 is being studied at the same time.

We hear about North American integration. Obviously, we focus a great deal on our American neighbour, because it is our main trading partner. However, Mexico is also part of NAFTA. The President of Mexico has in fact asked that NAFTA partners cooperate to establish a number of measures, into all of them. He appealed for a type of cooperation. How is the Canadian government responding to this invitation? We have asked questions on this in the House. Initially, Mr. Manley said that since Mexico complicated the situation somewhat, the Americans should work it out with the Mexicans. However, when we asked the question again of the Prime Minister, he said that all NAFTA partners would be involved in future discussions on security. In light of that, I would like to know what your mandate is in this regard.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I will first answer your question on immigration.

As you know, we have a very detailed agreement with Quebec.

[English]

But that agreement really focuses on selection against economic criteria, and does not affect the admissibility criteria.

Our discussions with the Americans have really related to and focused on security, criminality, terrorism, and so on. Those areas relate to the admissibility criteria, which under the terms of the Canada-Quebec accord is a federal government responsibility. Having said that, we have engaged in consultations with all our provincial counterparts.

As Mr. Allen indicated earlier, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade organized a session with all the provinces and territories present, where we briefed our provincial counterparts on all elements of the relationship and the post-September 11 initiatives we have undertaken with the Americans.

So we are keeping all of the provinces and territories informed. In the specific case of Quebec and the Canada-Quebec accord, we believe we're very much respecting the terms of the accord. Our focus with the Americans is not so much on selection, which is in the terms of our agreement with Quebec, but very much on admissibility.

Mr. Jon Allen: Thank you. I'll just address the issue of trilateralism.

First of all, in terms of the big picture there's no question that Canada embraces the Fox administration and the changes that have taken place in Mexico. The Prime Minister and Minister Manley have been out front in terms of expressing their support. We're doing so on many levels, in terms of good governance, elections, judicial support, and access to information. The bureau I head is an example of that. We brought Mexico into the U.S. bureau and now we have a North American bureau to reflect that.

• 1205

On the specifics, North American economic integration is an issue that was floated by President Fox and some of his advisers early on. It was not embraced by the Americas or by us. I think the view is that perhaps 10 or 15 years down the line, when the Mexican economy and our economies are at a similar level, we will be able to embrace something that Europe has been doing for over 50 years. But in terms of labour mobility and issues like that, I don't think we're there yet.

On the post-September 11 situation, I mentioned before you arrived that the focus has really been on the Canada-U.S. border. With 87% of our exports heading south, we really have to get that in order, in terms of both the public security and the economic security.

The Canada-U.S. border and the Mexico-U.S. border are very different. They're at different levels, in terms of their modernization and their efficiencies. There are certain concerns that if we had to include discussions of the Mexico-U.S. border in our discussions between Customs, Immigration, Transport, etc., it would only seriously complicate the situation.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I agree with Mr. Chrétien when he says that the three NAFTA partners must discuss these issues.

[English]

Mr. Jon Allen: They are discussing. As I said before, Joan Atkinson was in Washington yesterday meeting with her Mexican and American counterparts. That should go on. We will continue to meet with our Mexican partners and share information with them on how we're managing the border with the U.S. and how we're dealing with post-September 11. But we're just not in a position to trilateralize the border discussions right now, given the extreme differences we have.

The Chair: Are you confident all this shared information is conforming with the Privacy Act and everything? There seems to be a lot of talk about sharing things with folks today, and a lot of this would be confidential. What's the issue there?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We share information on the basis of government-to-government agreements, for the most part, which are covered in the Access to Information and Privacy Acts. If it is an agreement between governments and all of the safeguards are included in the agreements, when we are drafting such agreements we work very closely with the Privacy Commissioner's office—and I know this is true for my colleagues—to ensure that we have all the appropriate safeguards in place.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: I just want to clear the record. I indicated $2 million was seized, with reference to al-Qaeda. In fact, because they've had to look at the numbers and work it out, it's $1 million in 34 bank accounts.

You said it didn't sound like much, but that's only with reference to al-Qaeda. In terms of proceeds of crime, $170 million has been seized, I think, since it started. There's $70 million at any given time, and between $15 million and $20 million, depending on the year, is forfeited to Her Majesty. But that's a separate issue. I've just focused on al-Qaeda.

The Chair: I understand that those proceeds of crime, when they're seized, are shared between the Canadian authorities in some sort of formula.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: That is right. If there's provincial involvement, there's sharing based upon their involvement in the case. It can be 10% for them, 50% or 90%. Some jurisdictions do their own, in which case they keep everything they seize.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I know every one of you has an enormously busy schedule and extremely heavy responsibilities. It was a lot of time for you to concentrate on our committee, but this is the beginning of this study, and we very much appreciate your time and your input. Thank you very much for coming.

We're adjourned until this afternoon at 3:30.