CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 2, 1998

• 1116

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): I'm calling the meeting to order for Thursday, April 2, 1998, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of recommendation 155 of the report of the legislative review advisory group, entitled Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration, particularly issues relating to removal and detention.

I should have that memorized. I should know it by now, shouldn't I?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: We're very fortunate this morning to have with us our first round-table delegation from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have Sergeant Ian MacDonald, program manager, immigration and passport program, with us. We also have Staff Sergeant Glen Rockwell here, who is the non-commissioned officer in charge of the immigration and passport section at the Surrey, B.C., detachment.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for appearing before us. The forum, as you know, is for you to make your presentation, and then we'll start with the first area of concern or interest presented by the opposition. Then any member of the committee can follow through and focus in on that particular issue. And then we can go on to another issue.

We don't have the full hour simply because we got into the room late. I will stop talking right now and turn it over to you. Go ahead.

Sergeant Ian MacDonald (Program Manager, Immigration and Passport Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for inviting Staff Sergeant Rockwell and myself to speak with you today.

We have prepared a joint statement to present to you today which will outline our national enforcement program and explain the interface between the citizenship and immigration department and the RCMP. We will also discuss some of the challenges we face and strategies we have developed in response. Staff Sergeant Rockwell will discuss the operational realities of the immigration and passport section in Vancouver.

Let me begin by explaining my role at the RCMP. I am a senior program analyst with the RCMP immigration and federal branch at national headquarters. I am regularly involved with various committees or groups tasked with the review and amendment of legislation or in the development of interdepartmental strategic goals and objectives. I also actively monitor ongoing field investigations from several regions in Canada and offer support and advice when required. In addition, I determine national program requirements and identify the best way to deliver service in conjunction with a broad range of partners and clients.

Today there are as many as 125 million migrants throughout the world. For many of these migrants, our political stability, wealth and generosity make Canada the destination of choice. Improvements in transportation have tremendously increased the mobility options of a large part of the world's population. Modern communications have also played a significant role in creating a global village.

• 1120

Today's sophisticated technology has also resulted in the proliferation of high-quality fraudulent travel and identity documents, which presents a challenge to authorities worldwide in determining authenticity.

Let me illustrate this problem. Since April 1997, our program has reported a seizure of 597 fraudulent travel or identity documents. The immigration and passport enforcement program is primarily responsible for the investigation of violations of the Immigration Act, such as the organized alien smuggling. In 1997, our program undertook 888 smuggling-related cases.

Today, the RCMP immigration and passport program is carried out with an establishment of 198 regular members posted across Canada. To fulfil our mandate, five enforcement priorities have been established in conjunction with citizenship and immigration.

The first is combating criminal organizations involved in smuggling illegal migrants into Canada. The United Nations calculates that 15 million members of the world's total migrant population were transported to their present countries by professional smugglers. The International Centre for Migration Policy Development estimates that smugglers are profiting by as much as $9 billion a year, twice the annual earnings of the Medellin cartel at the peak of its power.

There's a great potential for profit in people-smuggling, as it is estimated that a criminal organization will charge a potential migrant as much as $35,000 to facilitate illegal travel to Canada. Groups actively involved in this illegal trade include triad societies from Asia and crime groups from central Europe. Many of these organizations are involved in other criminal ventures and utilize fraudulent travel documents and illegal immigrants to further their activities in areas such as drug trafficking, money laundering, prostitution and gambling.

Over the past three years the RCMP immigration and passport enforcement program, in partnership with Citizenship and Immigration, has been involved in a number of investigations dealing with large groups of improperly documented migrants seeking to enter Canada by ship. As can be imagined, these cases require close collaboration of governments and agencies at all levels, both nationally and internationally. Our efforts have met with success, and vessels and their cargos of inadmissible migrants have been prevented from landing on our shores. Due to our efforts over the past three years, it is estimated that more than 1,000 inadmissible migrants have been prevented from arriving in Canada by ship.

The RCMP immigration and passport enforcement program also analyses and disseminates tactical information concerning alien-smuggling organizations to foreign and domestic law enforcement agencies. The information is entered on an RCMP database. Currently there are almost 16,000 suspects entered on this system and this information is shared with INTERPOL for the creation and circulation of information bulletins to all member countries.

The second priority is the deterring of unscrupulous or illegal activity on the part of professional immigration facilitators. RCMP members are authorized to investigate cases of malfeasance or corruption on the part of government employees. We also investigate complaints against immigration consultants and lawyers, which often come from members of the public who feel they have been victimized by these professionals. These types of investigations can take place in Canada but also at Canadian posts abroad.

The third priority is criminal identification screening investigations of convention refugee claimants arriving in Canada. The RCMP immigration and federal branch members conduct criminal identification and screening investigations on refugee claimants on behalf of Citizenship and Immigration. In 1997, over 26,000 convention refugee criminal indentification screening files were opened. The classified refugee claimant's fingerprints are recorded and maintained by the RCMP until the subject is granted Canadian citizenship, as stated in section 110.2.1 of the Immigration Act, or until the subject reaches the age of 80, as provided by the Privacy Act. This data bank currently contains 165,000 records classified as refugee claimants.

• 1125

The fourth priority is criminal screening to identify organized crime groups and modern-day war criminals. The RCMP immigration enforcement program is actively involved in the criminal screening process as an assistance to Citizenship and Immigration. The purpose of criminal screening is to provide Citizenship and Immigration with information on inadmissible applicants who are applying for Canadian visitor's visas or for entry into Canada as permanent residents or under one of the business investor programs.

The criminal screening process is designed to provide information to Citizenship and Immigration indicating that members or associates of organized crime groups, terrorists, persons with criminality or war criminals are attempting to enter Canada.

There are two areas in particular where we are active with problematic groups: Asian organized crime and east European organized crime. Over the past two years, the RCMP criminal screening process has identified 919 cases fitting the east European organized crime profile. Of these cases, 50% were linked to criminality or organized crime groups.

The RCMP immigration enforcement program is also active in the area of modern-day war crimes and crimes against humanity. To this end, a data bank has been created which contains information regarding these specific types of crime. This information is made available to Citizenship and Immigration and is shared with other involved government departments.

The fifth priority is the arrest of persons with serious criminal history who are the subject of an Immigration Act warrant. It should be clearly understood that Citizenship and Immigration is responsible for the appropriate arrest warrant or removal order, as it determines an individual status or admissibility to Canada. The RCMP is responsible when requested by Citizenship and Immigration for assistance in the actual arrest or removal of an individual where, in the view of both agencies, the individual poses a danger to the public due to a history of criminality or resides in a geographic location known to be hostile to law enforcement personnel. The RCMP provides this service across Canada, responding as needs or circumstances dictate.

The Greater Toronto high-risk arrest unit is an exception to this arrangement. Created in 1995, this is our only fully dedicated arrest unit. Other areas were also considered, but no other jurisdiction has so clearly demonstrated the need for a full-time unit of this nature. The unit is comprised of twelve regular RCMP members and five Citizenship and Immigration investigators. In 1996, the high-risk arrest unit was directly responsible for 175 arrests. In 1997, there were a total of 171 high-risk arrests nationally, of which 110 were effected by the high-risk arrest unit in Toronto.

It should be recognized that these figures do not include arrests by other enforcement services which were the direct result of information or intelligence generated by the unit. As a result of its developing expertise, this unit has also been involved in the arrest of persons wanted by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service under the securities certificate provisions of the Immigration Act.

Among those persons arrested by the high-risk arrest unit were several high-profile criminals, including the subject of an “America's Most Wanted” poster, an international terrorist, and a wanted war criminal. Members of the unit have made presentations at various workshops and to other enforcement agencies in Toronto and area in an effort to increase their profile and publicize their mandate.

• 1130

Over the past 20 years, members of the RCMP immigration and passport program across Canada have been providing prisoner escort assistance in deportation cases to Citizenship and Immigration. In 1997, RCMP members participated in a total of 58 immigration-related prisoner escorts.

I would now like to invite Staff Sergeant Rockwell to explain the law enforcement activities of his section in British Columbia. At the end of his presentation I will make a few concluding remarks.

Staff Sergeant Glen Rockwell (Non-commissioned Officer in Charge, Immigration and Passport Section, E Division, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today.

As mentioned earlier by Sergeant MacDonald, I'm in charge of the immigration and passport section in E division, which includes all of British Columbia. This section is comprised of 35 members located at five offices, including Surrey, Vancouver, the Vancouver International Airport, the Douglas border crossing, and Victoria.

Let me begin by explaining the functions of the RCMP immigration and passport section in B.C. The immigration and passport section follows up on referrals from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, as well as from other police forces, regarding illegal immigrants. We in turn investigate these cases and recommend charges, where appropriate, through the court system in British Columbia. In some cases, we assist in the arrest of these individuals and their eventual escort out of Canada.

While it is impossible to estimate the actual number of people violating Canada's sovereignty by entering the country at non-port locations, it is clear that the majority of those who come to the attention of Citizenship and Immigration Canada do so only after they are encountered by law enforcement officials and are placed in the criminal justice system.

Let me be clear that the RCMP immigration and passport section fully supports Canada's policy to protect bona fide refugees in accordance with our obligations as outlined in the Geneva Convention. Our job, however, is to assist in stopping criminals posing as refugees from exploiting Canada's generous social programs and expanding their illicit operations in Canada.

As I mentioned earlier, we have an RCMP unit at the Canada-U.S. border at Douglas, British Columbia. It primarily targets those criminals involved in smuggling illegal aliens into Canada. This border unit also conducts proactive interdiction operations along the Canada-U.S. border in conjunction with its American counterparts.

As you no doubt know, this border is largely unprotected, and people use numerous border trails to cross illegally between both countries.

RCMP members in our Vancouver regional office review, prioritize, and prepare prosecution requests from files presented by immigration enforcement officers in British Columbia. They also assist in gathering information from overseas sources to facilitate Canada Immigration investigations regarding suspected illegal foreign nationals. This information is often used during immigration or refugee hearings.

The headquarters office located in Surrey is the hub for investigations concerning the arrest and detention of high-risk offenders. These are criminals whose apprehension requires aggressive approaches because of their potential for being violent and dangerous to law enforcement officials and society at large.

We continue to work closely with Citizenship and Immigration officials in Vancouver to seek ways to improve our enforcement efforts for these high-risk offenders. Until recently, the RCMP received only a few referrals. Following a reorganization at the Canada Immigration enforcement office, the RCMP immigration and passport members co-located with CIC staff. As a result, the RCMP is receiving more referrals for arrest and are able to prioritize them for action. We expect this approach to be more successful in such high-profile cases.

The division headquarters office also investigates information referred by other detachments and law enforcement agencies, Canada Immigration intelligence, and the general public. Our investigators work hand in hand with other government agencies, such as Human Resources Development Canada, and the B.C. welfare and health systems.

In addition, we investigate organized smuggling groups, using techniques such as informant information, wire-taps, and undercover operations. These operations are often cross-jurisdictional and comply with existing laws and legal requirements in the affected jurisdictions.

Before I close, I want to add some comments about building partnerships. The RCMP immigration and passport section in British Columbia recognizes that in order to maximize our effectiveness, we must continually seek new partnerships and collaborative projects. In this vein, my section was recently involved in a pilot project that was successful in interdicting approximately 40 illegal passengers from boarding flights from Malaysia to Canada. This was a joint operation between the RCMP and Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which was also successful in terms of intelligence and information gathering. We believe this ongoing partnership is the key to effectively combating illegal migration.

• 1135

My unit has conducted workshops to train other agencies, such as Canada Customs and frontline immigration officers, on what to look for in the fraudulent document area. In 1997 and 1998 our investigators attended the Citizenship and Immigration national conference on business immigration fraud. During this conference, participants discussed methods to combat and deter fraudulent schemes carried out by organized crime groups and others. In line with these discussions, E Division formed a team to investigate fraudulent business immigration schemes. Additionally, we are confident that the anticipated proceeds of crime legislation will be revised to include Immigration Act offences, thereby providing the police with another enforcement tool.

Last week we met with seventy people who work with us in enforcing our mandates in order to get their feedback on our methods of doing business. These partners were from Canadian and American law enforcement and civilian agencies. The survey revealed excellent support for the section's way of doing business, a renewed enthusiasm on part of the partners to get involved, and, best of all, increased support for our members and projects. The RCMP were very pleased with this positive feedback.

We also have members on the unit who facilitate ethnic community liaisons. These members do hands-on work within the various and diverse communities within the province.

As you can see, we are fostering our partnerships wherever possible to better protect Canadians.

That is an overview of my section's activities within the force's federal policing function. I'd now like to turn it over to Sergeant MacDonald for a few concluding remarks.

Sgt Ian MacDonald: Today the RCMP immigration and passport program is faced with tremendous challenges over which we have little or no control, often as a result of war, famine, or natural disaster. While we cannot predict the future, experience suggests that we will be faced with ever more complex and difficult issues.

Today vast global migration and improvements in transportation and technology play a significant role in shaping what we do and how we do it. Experience has demonstrated that the surest way to meet these challenges is through inter-agency cooperation. To this end, we cooperate extensively with Citizenship and Immigration, as well as with other government departments or agencies, both nationally and internationally. Our enforcement priorities have been established in partnership with Citizenship and Immigration. It is understood by both of our organizations that these priorities are flexible and will change to meet the challenges of the future.

We also recognize the need to share and develop information and expertise. To this end, we have created a number of information banks and have made them available to a wide range of partners, nationally and internationally. We have also initiated training programs with our partners in Canada and overseas, in such areas as fraudulent document identification, interviewing skills, fingerprinting techniques, team building and problem solving. Clearly, these efforts are indicative of the high level of trust and cooperation engendered between the RCMP and Citizenship and Immigration. Both agencies are continuing their efforts to address complex issues.

Thank you. That concludes our presentation. Staff Sergeant Rockwell and I would be pleased to answer any of your questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the start you talked about 597 fraudulent traveller identity documents. In your program you also indicate 888 smuggling-related cases. You then talk about 16,000 suspects entered on your system. What kind of a system do we have? We've been talking in previous meetings about implementing a scanning system over in Europe before people leave—scan their passports, take their pictures. When you talk about having 16,000 suspects entered on the system, if somebody goes to the border, are they going to come up on the customs system right now?

• 1140

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: I can try to answer that, sir.

In Canada at the front line of the immigration offices—and I'll use the Vancouver airport as an example—if I were to come into Canada and present my passport, there is a system, a scanner in place, that looks at a bar code on my passport and tells them whether I'm bona fide or not. Being a Canadian citizen, that normally wouldn't happen, but if it did, if we have or they have the information in place in that system, it will tell the officer that there's something wrong with this traveller and they take the necessary action.

As far as the warrants are concerned, they are all entered on the Canadian police information computer, so that if a policeman on the street stops somebody and runs a name check, they will find out, yes, there is a warrant for this fellow, or no, there isn't.

Mr. John Reynolds: But just to go back one step, if I'm an American coming into Canada and I give them my passport as a form of ID, is that bar code recognized in the system at customs for any criminal activity this person may have been involved in in the United States?

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: The newer passports, I'm led to believe, are scannable. The older ones are not. But there are a lot of countries that don't have that bar code system.

Mr. John Reynolds: And not necessarily the criminal information attached to them. In other words, the American may have a conviction in the United States, but we may not have that in our system.

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: That's correct.

Mr. John Reynolds: In section 4 you said that over the past two years the RCMP criminal screening process has identified 919 cases fitting east European organized crime profiles. You didn't give us a figure of the Asian ones. You said you've done Asian and European organized crime.

Sgt Ian MacDonald: That's correct, sir. I don't have that information at present.

Mr. John Reynolds: Is that available?

Sgt Ian MacDonald: I'm not sure if it is. I could certainly check it out and get back to the chairman.

Mr. John Reynolds: Finally, I would just ask about the Canada-U.S. border in British Columbia. I took a tour of it, as you know. In your force between Victoria and Alberta, how many people in the RCMP are actively involved in the possible illegal crossings of that border?

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: Each detachment area along the border from Victoria into Surrey, Langley, the Abbottsford police department, Chilliwack, as you go farther east up to as far as Nelson and Cranbrook, have a responsibility to respond to cases or in their normal patrols keep an eye open for illegal crossings.

In the immigration and passport section, we have four people to cover that area specifically and they can draw on the assistance of the remaining 30 of us who are in the office if need be.

Mr. John Reynolds: Do you have any estimate of how many cross that border illegally every year?

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: No, sir, there isn't. We have absolutely no idea.

Mr. John Reynolds: I know you had a program some time in the last little while where you watched it for a period of time. How long was that time, and how many did you catch?

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: There was one operation I can refer to that's over. The court cases are over. We spent 192 man-hours. We picked up nine criminal charges under the Immigration Act. Those were all guilty pleas. There were eight people. One fellow had two counts against him. We also recovered something like $117,000 worth of drugs, some liquor and cigarettes. It wasn't just focused at immigration. It was a wider spectrum. That was the result of one particular operation.

Mr. John Reynolds: I'll get onto the removal side. You catch them and arrest them. How long did it take to get them back across the border?

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: That's a good question, and it's one I can't answer. I'd have to review each one individually. I think at that particular time it was reasonably quick. Some of the sentences—and again, this is public knowledge—ranged from time served in custody up until I think there was one sentence of two weeks or 14 days in jail. Then the appropriate action administratively would be taken by the immigration department to deal with them.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thanks, gentlemen, for coming.

In point number one you talk about the fact that you've been successful in preventing over a thousand illegal immigrants or migrants from coming in by ship. We had a fellow here a week or two ago from—I forget the name of it—the association of shipping agents, as opposed to the actual shipping companies. He estimated that the cost burden to his members, who are agents on the ground here in Canada, to return stowaways once they're found was, I believe, $25 million over the last three years, and estimated to be as high as $40 million over the next few years—a pretty serious impact on their industry.

• 1145

Maybe you could tell us a little more about your efforts, whatever you're able to share with us, in terms of how you've been successful in turning back some of these and finding them out and how it works.

Sgt Ian MacDonald: The figure I referred to in my initial presentation is based on actual investigations we've undertaken over the last three years. Where actual ships were involved, it wasn't a stowaway situation. It was a ship that was chartered by smugglers and loaded with potential migrants.

As to the stowaway problem, we are aware of it, and perhaps my colleague can address that a little bit more from the Vancouver point of view, but our program is actively involved with various shipping companies in the major ports—Halifax being one example—to prevent this. We have in fact done some overseas work in Europe to prevent this type of activity taking place.

Of course there are a number of ramifications as a result of the stowaway, not just the money involved but a number of other issues as well. So we are working quite closely with the officials in foreign ports overseas, as well as an aggressive program here in Canada with Canada Immigration and Canada Customs.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: One of the issues the gentleman pointed out was the safety factor on the seas, of people who might light a fire somewhere, not recognizing that there are explosive or chemical items being stored in the hold, so to speak. They could sink the ship. It could be that dramatic.

Sgt Ian MacDonald: That's correct. In addition to that, of course, when you have people hiding out in containers that may be improperly ventilated or may come loose during a storm at sea and come right off the ship, there is that safety potential that we have to consider as well.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I wonder if you've had any opportunity to talk with this association of agencies and if there might be a role for the RCMP to help them. They're looking for some legislative changes, which I'm not sure are necessarily going to solve the problem of stowaways. People who break the law break the law. You can change the law all you want; the reality is they're going to keep breaking it.

I guess they need a lot of help when they're talking about that kind of financial impact, and the danger.

Sgt Ian MacDonald: Exactly. I think that's something we would certainly be interested in looking at, and perhaps talking with this group. I can't say from a national perspective what is actually taking place. I do know our people in Halifax, again, are actively involved with similar organizations to try to bring this activity to an end.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, maybe the clerk could ensure that these gentlemen get the name and phone number, and so on, of that gentleman who was here from that association, because there may be a tie-in there.

There's been a dramatic reduction in the RCMP involvement at airports. In my community, in Mississauga, the Peel regional police have taken over. They're there now on the job. I believe at all our major airports, whether it's Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, or Halifax—at all but Montreal, if I'm not mistaken—local police have taken over the actual policing. At Pearson they've put in an entire division of 101 officers, and the RCMP, if they're there at all, are there in a token way—visually, at least. How does that impact your jobs?

Sgt Ian MacDonald: I'll take the first part.

I'm pleased to say that the complete immigration and passport enforcement unit at Toronto airport, based out of the airway centre, has been there since 1990 and is very actively participating in Immigration Act violations, directly at the airport, responsible for all three terminals. From 1990 to 1993 I was in charge of that particular unit. So we are quite active out there still.

Staff Sergeant Rockwell can perhaps talk—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are they all plain clothes?

Sgt Ian MacDonald: Yes, sir.

• 1150

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: Four of my men are stationed at the Vancouver International Airport. They're co-located in the immigration office, or very close to it. They deal strictly with the immigration people, but they also have support from Canada Customs, U.S. Customs and Immigration, who have a pre-clearance facility there. These people operate basically independently of the general policing function at the airport.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have one other question on a different item. We've had the problem of people arriving here without any documentation; it seems to disappear from the point of disembarkation when they're leaving whatever country they are leaving. They get on the plane and they've got ID of some kind; they get off the plane and they don't.

One of the suggestions that was made, and I can't remember by whom, was in addition to this concept of some kind of bar code system or some kind of a system where you would take copies in some way, microfiche or whatever.... One suggestion was that all passengers on international planes be required to hand their documentation in when they get on the plane and they get it back when they get off the plane. This would mean that you and I would have to do the same thing. Anyone travelling on business, family vacations, etc., would be required to do the same thing.

I guess from a police perspective I'd be interested in your view. While that might go a long way towards solving that problem, do you see it causing other difficulties if we were to do it?

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: This falls right in with our operation we did in Kuala Lumpur. You are absolutely right, that would help, but to how much consternation to the legitimate traveller. Is he willing to give up his documents? It could cause a problem.

That's why we're taking a look at expanding our operations to the outbound area overseas. This Kuala Lumpur project we did was the first; it's kind of a test. It worked out well. We had two policemen standing right at the gate. When the passenger got through his ticketing process, the policeman looked at the documents. He was headed to Canada, Spain, or anywhere in the world. He knew basically what to look for, and referred this person back for a little bit more closely scrutinizing check. I know we got at least 40 who were coming over on that little trip. That resulted from a two-week project. It cost very little compared to what these people would have cost the Canadian social system had they arrived here.

Again I've got to be very clear: we're not trying to stop bona fide refugees. These are what I consider criminals who are coming here. I think that's what we want to try to do, promote this kind of a program.

The Chairman: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Were you working out of Kuala Lumpur on the basis of a tip-off or on the basis of instructions from Immigration Canada?

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: It was a joint project with Immigration Canada. We chose Kuala Lumpur because it's kind of like a hub for the Asian area. A lot of flights come and go through Kuala Lumpur. We had support from the Malaysian police, the local Immigration Canada representatives here in Ottawa, in Vancouver, and over there. It was just something we wanted to try, to see if it would work, and it did.

Mr. John McKay: Just going back to the larger picture here for a second, as you know, we've been mandated to review the issue of removals and to report to the minister on that. If you stood back from things and looked at it from a policing perspective, what is it that really drives you crazy about the way this system operates?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Glad you added that.

Mr. John McKay: If it were working, none of us would be here. You have a unique perch. And I've never met a set of police officers yet that don't have very strong opinions about particular aspects of the way the system works. So what's your top three? What is it that drives you crazy about the way the system currently works?

Sgt Ian MacDonald: Appearing in front of a committee.

Mr. John McKay: Okay, we're down to two then.

• 1155

Sgt Ian MacDonald: I think we've tried to put forward the idea that we're providing a service to Citizenship and Immigration. We don't make the decisions on who comes in, who's a refugee, or anything like that. We don't make those kinds of decisions. We act as a service to them. Part of that service is investigating allegations of criminal activity, arresting people and removing them, deporting them. Immigration makes that determination. We work in partnership with them and we work in partnership with other agencies.

Mr. John McKay: What are obvious things that keep getting done over and over again that could be readily corrected?

Sgt Ian MacDonald: I find that in the last five or ten years there is a new spirit of mutual cooperation, a realization that we have to work together, because the problem is 125 million migrants globally. It's not an issue that you can simply address with one agency or the other; it has to be in a partnership. And certainly there are issues that arise from time to time between RCMP or police and the immigration department, or immigration and customs, but those things are dealt with in partnership.

If you're asking for a thing that just drives me crazy from a national perspective, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that we don't regularly address or take care of. Perhaps my colleague can tell you something more from the street level.

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: I don't think there are any three issues I can point out specifically. However, resourcing is certainly a problem: we need more resources. The court system nowadays.... You have to be very careful that everything is done properly, because we don't want to go to court with something that is going to have a negative impact on the country. We get good support from the courts. I think overall, with our cooperation and partnering up with Immigration Canada, what you've seen in the past is redundancy maybe. We're starting to break that wall down and make some progress. It's slow, but I think it's happening.

Sgt Ian MacDonald: Just to add one more thing, I think the public is becoming more and more informed on these issues and is perhaps more interested than they were 10 or 15 years ago.

The Chairman: Mr. Reynolds, do you have a follow-up to that?

Mr. John Reynolds: A follow-up to the issues.

When I was in Vancouver I took a tour of the Hastings Street area with the local Vancouver police and some of your officers who are working in conjunction with them. I saw a lot of very interesting things. I saw a young fellow, seventeen years old, who had been in Canada nine days, had his paperwork as a refugee applicant and also had seventeen little pieces of crack cocaine in his mouth wrapped in cellophane, which he spit into the policeman's hand. They just let him go. The explanation was “Well, the prosecutor, because of the way British Columbia operates their system, would tell me I didn't have the right to search him.”

What concerned me was the fact that there was no record that at least he was picked up with crack cocaine on him when he would go back to the immigration people. From a policing point of view, does that bother you people that there are criminals on the street? I mean, selling crack cocaine is a criminal offence.

I just thought, driving home that night, if I get stopped on photo-radar tonight I'm going to get a ticket for $170 plus $170 more on my car insurance, and I'm not really a criminal, but I'm paying the price. And here's a kid selling crack cocaine on the street who has just walked free.

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: Yes, it's frustrating, but we live by the rules we're given. We make the best of it we can. It's a job.

Mr. John Reynolds: I guess it would be fair to say then that you would probably be happy if we could change the rules.

Would you also agree that if the situation in Malaysia worked well and if we had a prescreening process at the major airports where we have problems, this would reduce the numbers of people who are getting here, who are costing us a lot of money at this end—that the cost at that end would not be anywhere near what the cost at this end is?

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: Exactly. That's the direction we're trying to take. It's going to be a slow process, but I think that's the way to go.

• 1200

Mr. John Reynolds: It won't be that slow if it gets into this legislation.

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: No.

Sgt Ian MacDonald: There's another in addition to that one, and not just the one that people in Vancouver finished. Our colleagues in the Halifax I and P section just recently came back from Europe, where they were doing a similar program in cooperation with Immigration Canada and in cooperation with the local authorities at the airports there. It was a multi-pronged effort in investigations, of course, but also in intelligence sharing and education, to bring them up to speed on certain travel documents and areas that are of interest to us as well. We are pursuing this very seriously.

Mr. John Reynolds: I just have one final question, Mr. Chairman.

Since it's our biggest border, shouldn't there be cooperation with the Americans in making sure our computers are all compatible for people going both ways? I just went across the border last week, and they scanned my passport. I assume they can now pick it up and tell whether it's legitimate.

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: The computer systems that operate on both sides are different, but it's the operators who input the information and analyse the information that they see. That's what would result in somebody on the other side being alerted to something. We do have joint operations by which there is specific information put into each other's computer on a certain individual, and this could come from Interpol or anywhere else. So to say they're totally compatible is not the case, but they are kind of compatible.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Minna.

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): I wanted to go back for a moment to look at the fraudulent passport issue from a different angle, if I could. On your first page you talk about 597 fraudulent travel documents having been identified, and then you later tell us about the Malaysia activity. First, I'd like a point of clarification on the Malaysia activity. You say that we intercepted forty illegal passengers, and then the next, small little paragraph of two lines says that officers are trained for what to look for in fraudulent documents. Were the forty carrying fraudulent documents? Is that why they were stopped?

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: I can't tell you how many had actual fraudulent documents, but there was something wrong with the documents in pretty well all those cases. It could have been a picture that didn't look the same as the person carrying it and so on.

Ms. Maria Minna: My question, though, is more fundamental, because I am having some...it's not really difficulty, but I have to feel comfortable. You said we're not interested in stopping genuine refugees from coming to Canada, from getting on these flights. How do you tell who's a genuine refugee or who is not? Many times, genuine refugees are carrying fraudulent documents in the sense that they're the only documents they could get. If you're leaving your country because of torture, you're not going to go to Saddam or somebody in Iran and say that you want a passport in order to get out. How do you tell the difference between a genuine refugee and a non-genuine refugee? I have some serious problems with that.

I understand why we're doing what we're doing. I understand the need for it. But I also have problems with interdicting genuine refugees from coming into the country. That's my dilemma, if you like, and I have to address that.

Mr. John Reynolds: But Malaysia is also a safe country.

Ms. Maria Minna: For some people. Let's not make generalizations.

Mr. John Reynolds: I've been there. It's very safe.

Ms. Maria Minna: Malaysia is a democracy to a point, but some people—

Mr. John Reynolds: It's a member of the Commonwealth.

Ms. Maria Minna: So is Pakistan. So is India. So is Sri Lanka with respect to.... I don't want to make that generalization. I'd like to know how we tell.

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: It is difficult, but that's where the officer at Malaysia, for instance, sees something that doesn't quite make sense and he turns this person back. There has to be a follow-up there. There's a questioning. I'm sure that out of those forty who were stopped, there were others who were probably examined a lot more closely but were allowed to continue. So how do you actually tell? It's very difficult.

Ms. Maria Minna: But suppose I stand by those forty and say that I'm a refugee. If I am inside Canadian borders and say that I'm a refugee when I get off the flight, I'm allowed to go through a certain process. If I say that at the Malaysian airport or wherever it is that we're doing this—we could be doing it somewhere else in Africa as we set up more of this type of activity—on what basis, then, does the officer decide whether to let me go through or to stop me? Is it on the basis of solely the document? I'm not on anybody's lists, because you may not have computer lists. How do I decide, as the officer there, that I'll let this person go through or not?

• 1205

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: As you pointed out, there is a questioning period. There is a Canada Immigration officer present too who assists in that decision. At that point, if he felt this person who was going to be more closely examined was a bona fide refugee, he would do what he could to get him on that plane.

Ms. Maria Minna: Human nature being what it is—we're all human beings—we could also be interdicting some genuine refugees as a result of the process. I'm not saying we don't do that, I'm just trying to look at it. As a country, how do we maintain our responsibilities under the convention while saying that we are receiving refugees and at the same protecting the borders and the integrity of the—

S/Sgt Glen Rockwell: It boils down to a judgment call.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. That concludes this portion of the forum.

Thank you very much, Sergeant Ian MacDonald and Staff Sergeant Glen Rockwell. I appreciate your contributions. There's a lot here for us to digest, examine, and cross-examine. Thank you.

Sgt Ian MacDonald: Thank you.

The Chairman: The second part of our round table will be composed of representatives from the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, Yasmin Khan, and from the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, Meral Kesebi, who is the chair of the equality and justice issues committee.

I'll give the members of the committee a three-minute period for readjusting.

• 1207

• 1211

The Chairman: Order.

Continuing with our deliberations, a second round-table format will be followed.

James Kafieh, are you going to make a presentation also?

Mr. James Kafieh (Chair, Economic and Labour Affairs, Canadian Ethnocultural Council): I'll be making part of the presentation, but Audrey Kobayashi will be beginning.

The Chairman: All right.

I missed your name, Dr. Audrey Kobayashi. I apologize. You're going to be first. Please continue.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi (Committee Member, Canadian Ethnocultural Council): Good morning. We're very pleased to be here. We thank you for making the time to speak with us.

We were told we should make a very brief introductory set of remarks, after which there will be a much more informal discussion. We have passed around some notes.

The Canadian Ethnocultural Council is Canada's only umbrella group representing the coalition of national ethnocultural organizations. We've done so since 1980. Our concerns are the preservation, enhancement, and sharing of cultural heritage of all Canadians. That includes the removal of barriers that prevent some Canadians from participating fully and equally in society. In other words, our concerns are with the issues of multiculturalism, the elimination of racism, and the preservation of a united Canada.

Our position with respect to renewals and detention reflects the ongoing concerns of our member associations to ensure especially that these procedures do not result in unfairness to any particular groups; that they do not detract from the objectives of basically multiculturalism in Canada; and that they assist in combating racism.

I think that goes beyond simply ensuring that racism is not built into the system, especially because nowadays, the majority of the immigrants who come to Canada, and the refugees, are visible minorities.

We're concerned about upholding the principle of equal treatment for all, regardless of citizenship, at the point that people encounter official procedures in Canada. We're concerned that deportation not be seen as a remedy for Canadian problems and that we're not exporting, for example, criminal problems to other countries. We can talk about some details of that problem later on.

Our major concerns have to do with the cultural aspects of the whole process. I assume that's where our conversation might go this morning. The first issue is the denial of appeal hearings under Bill C-41 and the subsequent amendment of the Immigration Act. We've had a considerable amount of correspondence with CEIC recently over this issue.

Permanent residents now subject to deportation as a result of being deemed a danger to society are deprived of the right to a full hearing, especially to appeals of deportation orders, nor do they have any access to assistance—legal aid, for instance. You have a lot of people who end up in very severe circumstances with no recourse and no consideration as to whether the experiences they're having are fair.

• 1215

We believe that such persons should have full access to an open appeal process, that there should be an oral hearing rather than simply written submissions before an independent tribunal. These processes would ensure that they have a right to equal treatment in both legal and quasi-legal processes, basically the right to have their stories heard as other people have in Canada.

The second issue is the determination of affinity for Canada. It's currently assumed that if one has not availed oneself of the opportunity to become a Canadian citizen after three years that somehow this person retains an affinity for the country of birth rather than for Canada. I think this is a problematic assumption in many cases and we need to look much more carefully at what affinity for Canada means.

Affinity to Canada is currently considered irrelevant in hearings or appeals for removal orders. We believe that it should be made relevant and that such persons should have access to a full hearing in order to determine affinity; that this should be based on considerations such as period of time in Canada, age on arrival and current age, family ties in Canada, history of community involvement and employment, educational experience and generally the context in which one's primary values are formed.

We're also concerned that this process should occur while upholding the principles of multiculturalism and anti-discrimination and that those should be built into the process of determining affinity. So we're looking for a process by which affinity can be questioned.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. James Kafieh: Continuing here, regarding determination of conditions of deportation, there are currently no provisions under Canada's immigration law to prevent deportation of someone who fears torture or other forms of persecution. Those deemed a public danger can be deported in spite of such risks.

We agree with the recent finding of Justice Fred Gibson that deportation orders should be superseded “in the face of a credible allegation of risk of torture”. We strongly urge that procedures be developed to determine risks, a practice similar to that already employed through our refugee determination process.

We have some additional concerns. Although the perspective of the CEC is primarily towards those issues that affect the economic and cultural integration of new immigrants, we have also reviewed submissions to this committee from other groups, in particular the CCR.

The following are additional concerns that we feel need to be addressed: detention and removal policy and practices should be conducted with maximum levels of communication among all parties, including detainees, deportees, family and NGOs; the government should resist pressure to shift the burden of proof to the individual who has allegedly failed to comply with immigration regulations, as is suggested in Not Just Numbers; a code of ethics should be developed for detention and removals and personnel should be trained in ethical procedures, as well as in cross-cultural awareness; the detention and removal process should not be overly criminalized; and finally, family unity should be a major consideration in decisions regarding detention and removals.

The Chairman: That's it, is it?

Mr. James Kafieh: Yes.

The Chairman: Do you have anything to add, Yasmin?

Ms. Yasmin Khan (Community Social Planning Council of Toronto): I'm with a different organization.

The Chairman: Oh, I see. She's with the Community Social Planning Council and she's not going to take part in this.

The Clerk of the Committee: No. She's her own representative.

The Chairman: I see. All right then, we'll have to split the time, since you have a presentation of your own.

The Clerk: No, they're all round table. Each group makes their own opening statement, as we have done with the other round tables. She has an opening statement to make and then there are questions.

The Chairman: That's what I asked. Do you have an opening statement, I asked her.

Ms. Yasmin Khan: Sure. I didn't want to be lumped with them. I'm sorry about that.

The Chairman: Please continue.

Ms. Yasmin Khan: My name is Yasmin Khan and I am the former director of Y-CASP. Y-CASP is the City of York Community and Agency Social Planning Council. On January 1, 1998, we amalgamated with other planning organizations in Metro Toronto to form the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto. I'm here today representing the new body.

• 1220

The following is our shared commitment:

The organizations coming together to form the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto (the CSPC) express through this new body a shared commitment to independent social planning at both the local and city-wide levels in order to improve the quality of life for all people in the new City of Toronto. The CSPC is further committed to diversity, equity, social and economic justice, and active citizen participation in all aspects of community life.

We work with community residents and agencies to achieve this end. The former Y-CASP had a long history of working with ethno-specific organizations due partly to the fact that the former city of York hosts a disproportionately larger number of immigrants and ethno-specific groups than anywhere else in Toronto or Canada. We have had years of experience in dealing with immigrants during their most turbulent and difficult time, the settlement period.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you on the matter of detention and removal from Canada and how this impacts on the large numbers of immigrants in our community.

A brief comment on the environment and demographics of Toronto is again worthy of note, even though I'm sure you have heard it before. Toronto is the largest city in all of Canada, with over 2.2 million people. Our city is the key destination in Canada for immigrants and refugees. We receive 56% of the total number of newcomers to Ontario and about 30% of the total number of newcomers in Canada. Of refugee claims in Ontario, 60% originate in Toronto.

These are the numbers, but behind the numbers our community is made up of real people who have often been through incredible trauma, with a total dismantling of their lives, before arriving in our city.

And it is important that we remember this when laws, policies and procedures are being developed and implemented. For the benefit of all Canadians, not just immigrants, we must ensure that we are creating a humane and compassionate society. If our society has harsh, punitive and uncaring laws directed towards some of our most vulnerable members of our society, this will have an impact on all Canadians.

We must remember that our nation is a nation of immigrants. Our government and our laws must create an atmosphere which is welcoming and supportive and which increases the perception of the average Canadian that immigrants are our strength and are not a burden on our society.

I must mention that the issue of systemic racism is notably missing from the report Not Just Numbers.

Ms. Maria Minna: It's not our report. Sorry to interrupt.

Ms. Yasmin Khan: It's not your report? Okay.

Many members of our community fall into the category of “undocumented convention class refugees in Canada”. Many of our community residents are in limbo because of an inability to produce identification. The Somali community estimates that this affects approximately 10,000 Somalis, and about 90% of them are young people, youths, according to the Somali immigrant aid organization—they are drawn to organizations.

This inability to produce documentation results in decreased access to higher education and meaningful work, yet this is not something which is in their power to rectify. Many immigrants come from countries where there is no functioning government or have left their country during persecution and war.

I am expanding the definition of detention to include these members who are detained within our society even when they are not held in detention centres or jails, since they are detained or prevented from full participation in community life. Likewise, rejected refugee claimants suffer a similar fate. Thousands of people are living in Canada without any status whatsoever. How long do we intend to make these people wait?

• 1225

In particular, for the youth, this matter of being held in limbo over periods of several years is something that must be immediately addressed or we will have a whole generation of newcomers who are disconnected from life's usual experiences and expectations while being surrounded by others with unlimited opportunity. In the city of Toronto, we must be mindful of what kind of society this will create, given the large numbers of immigrants we have in our city.

One other issue that causes me great concern is that of the recommendation to establish a governmental body to replace the Immigration and Refugee Board, which is a move from a largely independent and objective body to one in which people's lives will be determined by civil servants, a move that I consider unacceptable and unnecessary.

In conclusion, my recommendations are as follows:

—First, that civil servants receive anti-racism training, the content of which is developed in collaboration with community agencies.

—Second, that the government develop a public relations strategy that will ensure that any references to immigration and immigrants are of a positive nature.

—Third, that whatever laws, policies and procedures are developed, they take a comprehensive and holistic approach to the protection of individuals. We want Canada to be viewed as a leader in the international community, not somewhere in the middle, and certainly not at the bottom with the reputation for avoidance of humanitarian issues and immigration acceptance.

—My fourth recommendation is in agreement with the Toronto Refugee Affairs Council: recognition that detention is a source of trauma for detainees and re-traumatizes torture victims and should be avoided for refugee claimants, as stated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; and that detainees must have full access to telephones, legal counsel, and community contacts.

—Fifth, I recommend that the Immigration and Refugee Board continue in its current independent capacity and that progressive reforms be undertaken to address any shortcomings, in consultation with the community sector.

—Sixth, I recommend that the issues of convention-class refugees and rejected claimants be addressed immediately. Since it is unlikely and of course undesirable that most of these thousands of people will ever be removed from Canada, we must acknowledge that they are here to stay and allow them to get on with their lives. Anything else is simply inhumane. For the good of Canadian society at large, we want to get this matter dealt with immediately.

—My seventh recommendation is that the impact of deportation be considered even in those cases where deportation has been deemed warranted. Canada has a history of denying or delaying extradition to the United States of America in criminal cases where capital punishment will be the result, because of our own beliefs. Why, then, would we deport to a country that has a history of torture and death?

—My eighth recommendation is recognition that the immigration laws we impose are also implemented on one class of Canadian citizens; that is, the children who are born here of parents without status. They are denied the basic rights that are extended to all other Canadian citizens. We are discriminating against a totally vulnerable segment of society: minors who cannot speak for themselves and whose parents are effectively silenced by our laws.

Similarly, for immigrants who came to Canada as very young minors—as was stated by our previous speaker, too—and commit a crime many years later as an adult and subsequently face deportation to a country to which they have no ties, we must recognize that these people are products of our Canadian society and provide them with the same treatment as for any citizen.

• 1230

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Yasmin Khan: Thank you.

Mr. John Reynolds: I'd just like to ask this. In the first presentation you talked about how people can apply after three years. Has your group got any program that works with people when they are eligible to become Canadian citizens to encourage them to take out their citizenship immediately after the three-year period?

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: We don't work directly with communities, we work with the national groups. So it varies among the various groups, but a number of them are very active in providing information to their communities in order to encourage the citizenship process.

Ms. Yasmin Khan: Could I add to that one? I work in primarily now the community of York. There are very, very low-income people. We work with many, many volunteers in our community. The cost factor of taking out citizenship, the dollar factor for them and the children.... One volunteer who works very closely with us said that she really wanted to take out Canadian citizenship, but this month her car broke down. Then she needed medication. That's been going on for years. So it's not that they don't want to become citizens. Sometimes, but not in all cases, the fee is a factor for people taking out citizenship.

Mr. James Kafieh: You should also bear in mind that families, whole families, would become eligible at the same time. Often, when we look at these bills, we're looking at one person in isolation. We ask what the amount of money is in exchange for becoming a Canadian. When you're dealing with a new family that's trying to get settled in a new country, it essentially becomes a barrier.

Mr. John Reynolds: We should have a program maybe that allows them.... If you're living here and you're not a citizen, you can't vote. You can't participate fully in your rights. We should have a program. We have a loan program for refugees and other people that come in, so maybe there should be a loan program for citizens.

Mr. James Kafieh: Or maybe a better idea is simply looking at this as something that people wouldn't actually buy. You could waive the processing fee entirely. Get rid of the head tax for the obtaining of citizenship. Maybe that's a more sensible approach.

I think it's acknowledged how fundamental and how important it is to have citizenship if you're eligible for it. That kind of a barrier is just unnecessary.

If we want to reverse this—I think it's the right way to put it—in view of the period of time that this new citizen is going to be in Canada and the amount of taxes they're going to pay over a lifetime, then hitting them up with a front-loaded charge, such as what we're doing with this head tax, makes no sense whatsoever. It's really a drop in the bucket. It's more of a public relations charge from the point of view of established Canadians, but it creates a real burden on the part of new Canadians.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Minna.

Ms. Maria Minna: First, just to clarify, I think the right-of-landing fee is not the same charge as the $200 for citizenship. They're two separate issues.

I'll just add to the discussion with respect to the lack of citizenship. For Mr. Reynolds' edification, unfortunately, with a number of cases we've had coming up—these are the ones I can think of, but there are many more—in which people who have been here for three months, one year, two years, five years, or whenever they came, quite often—this is the case with a lot of people who get into crime—there were mental health problems there.

If you have a youngster who has a mental health problem and the family may not have taken out citizenship at the time, the young person isn't.... If you're not functioning normally, the last thing you're going to remember or think about is the fact that you're not a citizen, and that's a problem.

Sometimes our young children assume that they are citizens. If you came here at the age of five months or a couple of years and you're going to school with a lot of kids, then you don't even question whether you're a citizen or not, because this is the only country you've ever known. On top of that, you may have other problems.

So some of the difficulties are just in coordination. There are a lot of community organizations. I know that Ms. Khan's group and also the Canadian Ethnocultural Council—I was at one time a member of it—do a lot of work. There are thousands of families who are assisted in getting their citizenship.

• 1235

Unfortunately, when you're dealing with some of the dysfunctional cases with children, they carry that with them to adulthood. While they may have been here all their lives, they've had difficulty, and that's not sometimes something that becomes part of their life. I think what the witnesses are asking of us is to look to see whether that in itself is enough to prevent people from leaving the country if they've been here all their lives and are products of our nation. It's an issue that has come up, as you know, in the previous committee discussion and in other committees. It's gone around for some time.

Basically, for my part, the recommendations are pretty clear. I don't have a whole lot of questions, except for Ms. Khan.

If I could just take you back for a moment to recommendation 6, there are two things that I wanted to mention. One is your suggestion about people who have convention refugee status, or those who have been rejected as well. Later on, you then talk about other deportation cases. Am I correct in interpreting your recommendation to be saying that at the end of the day, regardless of whether someone has been accepted as a convention refugee or not, there should be no deportation of anyone? Is that what—

Ms. Yasmin Khan: Sorry, but could you say that again?

Ms. Maria Minna: Am I correct in understanding your recommendation to mean that whether or not a person has been accepted as a convention refugee, we should allow them to proceed to landing in any case, regardless of the outcome of the hearing or the status?

Ms. Yasmin Khan: I think this is primarily what I was hearing from our community. There are two groups especially. One is a group from Afghanistan, and the other is Somali. It takes seven or eight years in all before they find out. I mean, if they were criminals, we would never say to keep them. Yes, they should be deported.

Ms. Maria Minna: I know that. For most of the ones who are waiting, the issue is not that they're convention refugees; the issue arises because of the documentation they've obtained for themselves. I understand that issue very clearly, and I know of the problems there. I was trying to clear up the recommendation from another perspective. You're saying we shouldn't pursue deportation even for those rejected claimants, those whom the refugee board has not accepted as convention refugees—

Ms. Yasmin Khan: And who have appealed and the process takes forever and—

Ms. Maria Minna: Are you saying we should simply allow them to go through to landing? Is that what you're suggesting?

Ms. Yasmin Khan: Especially if they're not criminals and all. We would never support criminals staying on.

Ms. Maria Minna: No, that's a given.

Mr. James Kafieh: Our position regarding deportation is that there should be a reasonably expeditious process. If somebody has come here claiming to be a refugee and is found not to be a refugee, there should be an opportunity for appeal expeditiously. There should be an opportunity for humanitarian grounds to be considered, perhaps as it exists now. After that, they should be expeditiously deported.

Ms. Maria Minna: If I could just interject for a moment, it's those appeals that take time. In your mind, what would be expeditious? This is a thing we've been grappling with for a while now around this table. Some people say six months is too short, that we need to give people more time to prepare documents, to get proper legal advice, and so on. In your mind, what would be a timeframe?

Mr. James Kafieh: In terms of the appeal portion, we're talking about an oral appeal, for example, but in front of an independent tribunal and not just another collection of civil servants.

Ms. Maria Minna: Right, I understand that.

Mr. James Kafieh: The point is that this appeal doesn't have to be a very intense process. But the principle should be respected.

Audrey, do you have anything in terms of timetables?

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: I think it's reasonable to assume that this process is going to vary depending upon the circumstances, depending upon the individual and in some cases depending upon the country of origin. There are different sets of circumstances that produce more or less information. I think what's important is that it be done as expeditiously as possible, and a matter of months is probably reasonable.

I think there are two aspects to the delay. One is the delay because of bureaucratic reasons, because they just can't get through the process fast enough. That's a resource issue.

On the issue of documentation, I think this is a very serious question. You do have a lot of people who are waiting a very long period of time and their lives are indeed in limbo. I think it should be possible to look at alternate forms of official papers. It's because they have no papers that they're unable to go through the process expeditiously. I think this is where you could draw upon the communities.

• 1240

I understand the problem that you may have people who, for example, have papers but—

Ms. Maria Minna: I'm sorry to interject, but I think we're mixing the two things. You do realize that.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: Yes, I do realize that.

Ms. Maria Minna: Because we were talking about expeditious removals, those that were rejected by the system. Now you're going at expeditious landing for those who don't have documents.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: That's right. Maybe you don't want to address that issue here. I know it's a bit off detention and removals.

Ms. Maria Minna: The committee, at this point, is not in a position to deal with that issue.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: So we'll leave that one.

Ms. Maria Minna: Sorry. That's why I was trying to keep us focused on the timeframe of the expeditious removal. That's the issue we are charged with.

Ms. Yasmin Khan: Related to this, and related to our committee over here, is that what I'm hearing from our community is that the RCMP and others are able to prepare documentation to deport people, even if they don't have their documentation, but are not able to prepare papers for people to stay here. That's the dilemma for me.

Ms. Maria Minna: I see. That's a fair comment.

Mr. John McKay: Let me play devil's advocate for a few minutes—this is a fairly small group, and we're a bit informal—to get your ideas. This report presumes a system that's going to take about six months. As I listen to witnesses, there is some consensus that time exaggerates rather than eliminates problems. I think both sides agree on that.

There also seems to be a consensus that there is an absence of integrity in the system. Decisions are all over the place, and there doesn't seem to be a great deal of consistent decision-making.

Given those two parameters, and given the presumption of this report, is it your view that it is possible to design a system, be it through a modified IRB process or the civil servant system on which you've already expressed your opinion, that will provide justice and fairness and brevity to people within a period of, say, six months? I'm picking six months as an arbitrary figure here. Is that possible, and if so, how would you do it?

Let's say the minister is here. Tell her how you would move the person from the airport to either the landed status or to the exit door at the airport within a six-month period. How would you do it? Where would you squeeze it?

No one wants the question. I don't understand this.

Ms. Yasmin Khan: I will go with the system. I will go with the majority of people being honest. The majority of people are law-abiding. The majority of people follow the rules, and the majority of rules made are made for the exceptions. There will not be a foolproof system whatever we do. Criminals somehow seem to outsmart us.

These are the presumptions we're going with. If we say, yes, the majority of people are here for legitimate reasons, then I think we can devise a system. But if we want a 100% system that says no, we have to check everything, and no, we have to have documentation that cannot be obtained legitimately, then I don't think we can have a system. The question, then, is what are the basic conceptions you go in with?

I don't know whether I'm answering your question.

Mr. John McKay: That's another issue.

Ms. Yasmin Khan: Not really. Okay, fair enough.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: There are issues of principle and issues of process involved here. I think the principle needs to be a presumption of innocence in the same way it is in our justice system. It shouldn't be different for immigrants and refugees. That in itself would speed things up.

Mr. John McKay: Then the burden would be on the department to prove something other than what the individual is claiming.

• 1245

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: Yes.

Ms. Yasmin Khan: I talked about this—

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: And that is a principle that would speed the process.

Ms. Yasmin Khan: Yes.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: And obviously there is a resource question, unfortunately, but—

Mr. John McKay: When you talk in terms of resource questions everybody reads “money”. No one goes to the other side of the equation because it's politically incorrect, and far be it from me to go into the realms of political incorrectness, but what about cutting back on numbers?

Mr. James Kafieh: Of refugees?

Mr. John McKay: With refugees it's pretty hard to make a cutback. But the two systems.... The resourcing of the immigrant and refugee streams is in the same departmental envelope, shall we say, so the question is this: if the decision is that we're not putting any more money into the system, should numbers be cut back?

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: Most credible research shows that immigrants are an investment and that when you look at the bigger picture, not just the immediate picture of processing, immigrants pay off in a fairly major way.

Mr. John McKay: But we are talking processing.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: Yes, but what I'm saying is—

Mr. John McKay: You won't get much dispute around the table as to the benefits of immigrants.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: —that you are cutting off your nose to spite your face—I think that's the expression—that in order to save costs in the processing area, you actually incur a cost to the nation on a larger scale.

Mr. John McKay: Short-term gain for long-term pain.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: Yes. It doesn't make—

Mr. John McKay: I understand that concept.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: —any sense.

But I think there are two issues about resources as well. One is how many resources you put into the system and the other is how well you use them, so obviously there are questions that can be asked there.

I'm sure everybody around the table knows about Sami in Toronto, who has been standing vigil for the past number of weeks. The question is, why doesn't he just get his hearing? It would cut down on the expense. It would cut down on the continuation of a very traumatic situation. It would do a great deal for public relations if they would just end that situation by processing it.

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

Mr. James Kafieh: In fact, just to add to that, the fact that the program may be under-resourced is undermining the integrity of the system, and that's something that we, as an organization concerned with genuine refugees, have an objection to. It's often presented like this, that it doesn't matter who they are or whatever, “we want everyone to stay here”. The fact is, we know we need to have a system. As Canadians, we understand that we need to have a system that works, that is efficient. And it not only has to work, it has to be seen to work. And there's that principle that justice delayed is justice denied. It's really a question of priorities.

I don't think there's a serious issue with the number of refugees that we're taking in presently and the ability of a country like Canada to process them when we look at the obligations of countries that are much closer to the sources of refugees and at the numbers they have to deal with. I think it's well within our ability to accept this challenge.

Mr. John McKay: So you wouldn't accept the proposition that we should just cut back on numbers.

Mr. James Kafieh: Once they come to our border, I think we have international obligations. So we have legitimate refugees inside Canada. What are we supposed to do with them?

Mr. John McKay: Okay. You've gone to the point of presumption of innocence and, if you will, departmental...it has to prove the case, almost like the crown, rather than the other way around. And you've gone to the issue of resources. What about within the system itself? What about all of the little bits and pieces of how you can jump here and jump there in terms of refugee determination, humanitarian and compassionate grounds, risk determination and all that sort of stuff? Are there efficiencies that could be obtained there that may actually lead us to our goal of making a determination quickly?

Mr. James Kafieh: I think they have to be seen as independent steps. You have your two-person adjudicator system in the IRB to determine whether somebody is a refugee, and then there has to be an appeal process.

Mr. John McKay: Why couldn't that be done at the same time?

Mr. James Kafieh: An appeal?

Mr. John McKay: No, not the appeal, the other issues of humanitarian and compassionate or—

Mr. James Kafieh: One reason is that there's a big fee attached to it, and why should somebody incur the cost of applying on humanitarian grounds if he or she is a legitimate refugee? That's one—

Mr. John McKay: Absent the fee. Let's take the fee out of the equation.

Mr. James Kafieh: Then I suppose that you could save time, but then you would still have the same administrative burden. You're still funding people who are going to have to review the humanitarian dimension.

Mr. John McKay: Why couldn't the same person do it?

• 1250

Mr. James Kafieh: I suppose that would be possible and that somebody is determining whether or not this person is a refugee and understanding that it doesn't mean they couldn't determine that the person has humanitarian grounds.

Mr. John McKay: Exactly.

Mr. James Kafieh: In fact, there's the case of the Bahsous family in Toronto, who are holding up in a church, Our Lady of Lebanon, right now. I read the report and my sense is that they're clearly not refugees, from my own reading of it. The people who wrote the report wrote it in a very intelligent, sensitive way. They dealt with the issues one by one and they said that although they are not technically refugees they could see that there was a special case in terms of humanitarian grounds. They were alluding to it and that the factors—

Mr. John McKay: What about risk review at the same time?

Mr. James Kafieh: I'm not sure that the people who are capable of determining whether people are legitimate refugees are also technically trained to do an effective risk assessment.

Mr. John McKay: We're in a design model here.

Mr. James Kafieh: The one critical aspect is that the body that will review these decisions has to be a separate and independent body.

Mr. John McKay: Fine. That's not an issue. We know that there's, if you will, a trial level and an appeal level.

On the three criteria, refugee determination, risk review, and H and C, is there any compelling intellectual reason or moral reason or experiential reason as to why one individual could not make that determination at one time?

Mr. James Kafieh: I believe in terms of risk review it may require a much higher level of expertise, maybe a judicial—

Mr. John McKay: Let's deal with the issue of risk review, again, just for argument's sake.

Mr. James Kafieh: Sure.

Mr. John McKay: Let's say that the country of origin is on a schedule of countries where people are clearly at risk. It's a country in chaos. We've talked about Afghanistan, Somalia. If that's determined to be the country of origin then there's not much to talk about. There is risk there. Some countries in—

Ms. Yasmin Khan: I think it could happen, but then are we vesting a lot of power in one person at one level? That would be the only—

Mr. John McKay: Clearly it would.

Ms. Yasmin Khan: That is a risk that we would be taking then. It could be done.

The Chairman: Okay, I think we've gone over that point critically.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: Could I just make one more point in respect of that?

The Chairman: Okay.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: I think that there's actually a great deal of merit in what you're suggesting, and you wanted to separate it from the appeal process, but I'd like to suggest that there's merit only if we know that there is an appeal process that works—that it's open, that it's oral, that it's available to everyone—and that you get rid of the conditions under which the appeal is denied.

Mr. John McKay: What would be the restrictions to the access to the appeal process? In law, you have the concept of appeal on facts and appeal on law. In certain instances you only are able to appeal on the basis of an error in law.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: That is a major problem.

Mr. John McKay: So let me hear....

Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: That's quite all right. I was going to ask a question very similar to that, so go right ahead.

Mr. John McKay: Okay, this is the Dromisky question then.

On the appeal process, would you have the appeal process as an entity that reviews all of the facts again?

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: You would. How does that get you—

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: We recognize that this does perhaps increase the bureaucratization of the process, but it's a question of checks and balances, if you can streamline the process in other areas, reduce the number of people who are actually going to be in a position to appeal and put more resources into the appeal process itself.... But the fundamental principle is that everyone should have a right to have their story heard before an independent tribunal.

Mr. John McKay: Why wouldn't the individual then always appeal? If I lost, I would always appeal.

The Chairman: And continue the process.

Mr. James Kafieh: Again, the principle is that it be an independent party that's handling the appeal. It doesn't mean that you have to have a labour-intensive or costly approach in implementing and running that appeal process, but just to have another set of eyes that are not part of the immigration ministry.

• 1255

The reason I have a concern with it is because I come from the Arab-Canadian community by my origin, and my feeling is we have an extremely politicized system in terms of who gets detained and who doesn't get detained. It's not so much the actions you've taken but what's politically correct, the political biases of Canadians who happen to be in the system.

At least if I can appeal to a second body, then I feel that at least I've had a good hearing. It's a check and balance.

The Chairman: As a question that's related to that—

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: You can say the same in the criminal justice system.

Mr. John McKay: Yes, but you see, in our criminal justice system, again, you get a trial, and your appeal is limited to an error in law. I can conduct a $3-million lawsuit on the basis of trial division, and if I lose my lawsuit, I can only go up to appeal on the basis that the judge has made some error in law. So that's why I'm curious about your response, that you want, in effect, another entirely—

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: It's just that the problem is that the compassionate grounds or the consideration of torture at the country to which they'd be sent need to be considered at an earlier stage, in which case the appeal process could take place only on the matter of law if we could be sure that those issues had been heard beforehand.

Mr. John McKay: That's what I was assuming, that it's addressed—

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: If that could be the case, then I would agree with you.

The Chairman: All right. Carrying on with the same line of discussion regarding Bill C-41 and the permanent residents deprived of their right, as you're claiming, to a full hearing and so forth—

Ms. Maria Minna: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, just a correction, it's Bill C-44, not Bill C-41.

The Chairman: Yes, that's what I thought, but I couldn't remember for sure—Bill C-44.

When there is absolutely conclusive proof we have with the individual who's on Canadian soil and we feel that person should be deported because we know this guy's a mass murderer, or whatever, do you still feel that this individual should receive the same rights and privileges as any other Canadian citizen—

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: Yes.

The Chairman: —even though we had absolute, positive proof, documented and everything else, that all of a sudden we've discovered that this guy is a mass murderer?

Mr. James Kafieh: It's a principle of Canadian justice—

The Chairman: I'm talking about this principle, yes.

Mr. James Kafieh: —yes—that people are equal before the law, that if somebody commits a crime, they're going to be held up against the same justice system. They're going to go through the same courts for trial and sentencing. If somebody is a mass murderer, it doesn't mean they're not entitled to a legal defence, for example.

We have all kinds of horrible people in our society, and we don't say we caught the person red-handed, we know they did it, and whether they're a citizen or not we don't just put them off into prison. There's something called due process. Just because you're not a citizen doesn't mean that you should be disqualified from due process. It's not a principle of retribution against a mass murderer; it's just a Canadian principle.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: The other thing is the question of affinity. If someone came to Canada as a very young child and became a mass murderer, that is Canada's problem, and we should deal with it as Canada's problem rather than simply deporting that person to become the problem of another country because a technicality in law allows us to do so. That's one side of it.

The Chairman: Yes, but I'm looking at the other side.

Dr. Audrey Kobayashi: But the other side of it is those people.... Let me give you an example.

I had a call recently from the Prison for Women in Kingston, where I live. They had a woman who had come to Canada from Greece when she was a very young child, a couple of years old, and had been convicted of...I think it was second-degree murder in having murdered her common-law husband who was 60 years old. There was a long story behind it, of abuse and various other things, a very sad, unfortunate case. She had been given the lightest possible sentence because of the circumstances surrounding the case, but she was in the Prison for Women.

As a point of law, because of the kind of crime that she had committed, she was automatically subject to deportation without any right to appeal. That's the kind of case where it's very important that she have the right to appeal and that the principle of affinity for Canada should be brought into play so that it is recognized that despite the fact that her parents—she had committed this crime when she was 15 years old—had never gone through the process of ensuring she would become a Canadian citizen, she is basically a Canadian.

• 1300

The Chairman: Okay, you made your position very clear.

I have a question to direct to Madam Khan regarding her eighth recommendation. You're referring to the denial of basic rights to these children. Can you be more specific and give us some clarification there? What basic rights are you referring to?

Ms. Yasmin Khan: There are a couple of them. Sometimes the parents face deportation and the children are technically Canadian citizens. I'm not a lawyer. Maybe in the eyes of the law it's a legal matter that the child can stay while the mother or the father can be deported, but it is a basic right, for me, for a child to have a parent. The other one I have heard is they are not then eligible for OHIP. I understand OHIP is provincial, not federal.

Those are the kinds of stories. We are not a direct-service organization, but these are the kinds of stories that filter through. I don't know if that is helpful.

The Chairman: You gave us some indication. I think we can explore that even further. Yes.

Thank you very much. We'll terminate this session.

Mr. James Kafieh: Could I just ask one question?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. James Kafieh: In the spirit of a round table, perhaps we're doing this in the wrong order. We should have gone before the RCMP.

Have you looked into the issue of profiling and whether profiling is being done at our airports and borders? If you don't understand what profiling is, I'll amplify. Basically they're just looking for certain kinds of names. Again, for example, Islamic names seem to be quite popular these days in terms of the vilification of people of certain backgrounds.

The concern is that this process, which is practised in the United States, is not necessarily effective and really just leads to discrimination. Without going into details of what we're doing in Canada, are we doing it? Never mind what the criteria might be. Is the principle of profiling being used in our detention and immigration system? We have anecdotal reason to believe it is being used, and people of colour, for example, are being grilled and held to a different standard, but it's anecdotal information.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you very much for alerting us. We appreciate that very much.

Thanks very much for appearing. You gave us a lot of information. I'm sorry we didn't have the full committee here today, but so much is happening on the Hill at the present time. But we did have some very good questions directed to you and I appreciate the responses you gave. Thank you very much again.

The meeting is adjourned.