CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 9, 2000

• 1530

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Colleagues, I wonder if we can get started. It's nice to be back. I understand things went smoothly when I wasn't here. At least phones were beeping and whatever.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we shall resume our hearings on all aspects of the refugee determination system and illegal migrants.

Our first witnesses today are from the Canadian Council for Refugees. I want to introduce Sharryn Aiken, who will introduce her guests.

We would ask that you make a presentation of about 10 minutes, to give us an opportunity to ask you some questions on your presentation as well as your brief. I think most of us have read your brief, so what you will probably do, or hopefully do, is summarize it so we are able to enter into a dialogue to learn what your experiences have been.

Thank you very much for coming to this committee.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken (Past President, Canadian Council for Refugees): Thank you, and good afternoon, honourable chair and committee members.

I'd like to begin by telling you a little bit about the Canadian Council for Refugees. We're a national organization consisting of approximately 140 members from coast to coast, from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, British Columbia. Our members consist of front-line settlement service agencies, faith organizations, community legal aid clinics, and university-based research and policy institutes.

I'm a past president of the Canadian Council for Refugees. Appearing with me this afternoon is Mitchell Goldberg, a refugee lawyer in practice for the past ten years and chair of our working group on refugee protection. He is also chair of Actions Réfugiés Montréal, a non-governmental organization based in Montreal. Janet Dench is the Canadian Council for Refugees' executive director.

I'm going to begin with brief opening remarks. They are actually addressed very specifically to the second theme on the committee's terms of reference, namely the deterrence of future arrivals and interdiction abroad in particular. What we were hoping to do by way of opening was to give a concrete and perhaps more human face to the concerns addressed more broadly in our policy brief, which you have.

The Canadian government acknowledges that it actively intercepts or interdicts approximately 6,000 people per year, thereby preventing people bound for Canada from reaching this country. I want to share with you a very concrete example of one case, one such interdiction.

It happened two years ago, in February 1998, when the Canadian government actively participated in intercepting a boatload of 192 Tamil asylum seekers. Our government funded the chartering of an airplane which returned these asylum seekers back to Sri Lanka. Soon after their boat was intercepted off the coast of Senegal, the Tamils were being forced to sign consent forms that they were voluntarily returning to Sri Lanka. In fact, it was not voluntary at all.

Upon return, these 192 asylum seekers were all arrested and held in detention for several weeks. At least one of these individuals was subsequently re-arrested and severely tortured. In the only public acknowledgement of this interdiction action, almost a full year later, Canadian government spokespersons boasted of their success in saving the country from “illegal economic migrants”.

I'm sure the committee is aware that Sri Lanka is a country in which the arrest, abuse, and torture of Tamils by state security forces continue to be widespread. Sri Lanka continues to be a major refugee-producing country and a major source for bona fide refugees received here in Canada.

The Canadian government's comments with regard to this particular case were reported in an article in the Globe and Mail way back in January of last year. The real story, however, had surfaced some five months earlier in two Amnesty International bulletins. I might add for the committee that this story in particular is going to be televised a month from now, on March 1, on TVOntario.

• 1535

This is the human face of interdiction. The Canadian Council for Refugees is not saying Canada should not be cooperating with international initiatives to address the very real problems of people smuggling and people trafficking in particular. But we need to ensure that we do not do so at the expense of violating our international human rights obligations and sending bona fide refugees back to countries where they will be persecuted.

A number of prior witnesses underscored our obligations under international law as well as under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I want to underscore this afternoon that international jurisprudence clearly states that our obligation under the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees requires that we not return refugees to persecution. In concrete terms, that means at a minimum that people interdicted abroad or on the high seas must be given an opportunity to make a refugee claim. Bona fide refugees must be distinguished.

Current interdiction practices cast far too wide a net. What concerns us most is the fact that government proposals, in the white paper and afterward, are aimed at reinforcing that net, which is already too wide and already too blunt.

As I mentioned, that's one example of a concern we have that is very broad based. I'd like to turn it over now to Mr. Goldberg, who will address a number of other issues from our brief.

Mr. Mitchell Goldberg (Chair, Working Group on Refugee Protection, Canadian Council for Refugees): Thank you for this opportunity to address you.

I also want to use one concrete case, which will illustrate three points we made in our brief. The first point is that there is no necessary connection between arriving illegally and abuse of the refugee determination process. The second point is with regard to the appointment process for Immigration and Refugee Board members. The third is with regard to an appeal on the merits.

This is the case of a man from Nigeria, who I'm going to call Tony. In 1989 he was a student and he participated in pro-democracy demonstrations. He was arrested and taken to jail, where he was held for a year and a half, interrogated nine times, and subjected to extremely severe torture.

With the help of a military friend of his brother, he was able to escape and ultimately he acquired a false British passport. I think it's important to state here that he had no realistic way of acquiring a genuine Nigerian passport without the Nigerian authorities being able to know his whereabouts and therefore put him back into prison and subject him to torture again.

Of course he would not have been able to get a Canadian visa as well. Why? Because had he gone to the Canadian embassy, assuming he even had a genuine passport, their duty is to determine whether there's any chance that he might stay in Canada. They would want to see proof of his employment. Of course, given that he had been in prison for the past year and a half and had escaped, he would be unable to provide any such proof.

So Tony arrived in Canada at Dorval Airport in Montreal, made his refugee claim, and had his hearing. Despite considerable documentary evidence in support of his claim, the board members were sadly unable to distinguish between what I believe were irrelevant details and the symptoms of somebody who had been seriously traumatized, which should have at least alerted them to the possibility that he could have been tortured and that his claim was authentic.

After being refused, he was forced to go underground in 1993 to avoid removal. Over the next six years he pursued no fewer than nine legal and administrative recourses. Ultimately the United Nations committee against torture ordered Canada not to deport him until a final review could be made of his case. Canada agreed to that request.

• 1540

In the meantime, the initial humanitarian compassionate review was overturned by the Federal Court, which stated they had ignored the medical evidence of torture. Indeed, two medical experts in Montreal had conducted detailed interviews with him and had concluded there was physical and psychological evidence consistent with a pattern of someone suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome.

With all of this evidence, it took six years and nine recourses for him to be allowed to stay in Canada. He was ultimately accepted in 1998.

So regarding the three points I mentioned earlier, this case illustrates, as I mentioned, the lack of any connection between the way Tony arrived in Canada, with a false British passport, and the likelihood or unlikelihood that he could be a refugee.

I would submit as another example, how many Jews escaping Nazi Germany during World War II could have arrived in this country with authentic documents?

With regard to an appeal on the merits, I believe it would have saved taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars had there been an effective appeal on the merits in that case. It also would have spared him six years of the insecurity of living underground, terrified that he would be arrested and deported back to Nigeria.

This case also illustrates the importance of having only the most qualified board members sitting on these life-and-death decisions.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before we get to questions, just let me answer a question as to why the committee chose to, in your words, link genuine refugees to illegal migrants. To tell you the truth, I think you posed some evidence as to why this committee chose to do it that way: so that we can better inform the public. Hence your testimony will prove to make the point that there is a big difference between genuine refugees and illegal migrants. In dealing with them together, we can understand the differences and so inform the public and inform ourselves, so that when it comes to drafting new legislation or regulations, we can clearly understand the difference.

While you raise that concern, there's a method to our madness sometimes, and that is to deal with it in a comprehensive way so that one can make the determination or the distinction between them. So I hope your concerns are somewhat alleviated, but I'm sure there will be more about that.

We'll go to questions. The first one is Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's great to be back here after a bit of time in the constituency.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for coming.

My first question has to do with the Chinese claimants who came over the summer. You referred to them in one of your briefs. You're saying way too much emphasis is put on what amounts to about 2% of the total claims each year. That's a valid point, and I do agree with that.

I have a question about the claimants. Some who have been accepted as refugees—and very few have, of course—were accepted on the basis of the one-child policy in China. I would like your thoughts on whether in fact that should qualify claimants for refugee status or not.

Ms. Janet Dench (Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees): We take the position that people who meet the convention refugee definition should be granted refugee status, and we're not in favour of creating separate subcategories, such as to say anybody who is fleeing the one-child policy should be given automatically refugee status.

The way the Canadian system works, or is supposed to work—and in this we support it entirely—is that each case is reviewed individually. Where a person can show they do have a well-founded fear of persecution—and it may be related to the application of the one-child policy—they will be recognized as a refugee. So it's not across the board. It is an individual determination.

You will find that many people who make that claim are not accepted. Sometimes it may be in relation to the part of China they come from, because there are different applications of the law, different individual situations they find themselves in.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What would be your rough guess or estimate as to the number of people who would claim on the one-child policy who might qualify, or should qualify, I guess, using those criteria you laid out? Of the 1.2 billion Chinese people, a majority adults, all affected by the one-child policy, how many would you guess would be accepted under the current rules for refugee determination?

• 1545

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: I think that would be a very difficult question to answer precisely because we don't have access to the statistics from the refugee board that would give us any indication of the basis for the claims that are currently being accepted.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We do know that some have been reported as having been accepted due to the one-child policy. Just in the past few months the minister has also said that she fully intends to make it easier for the Chinese who want to come as visitors to come. I see a bit of a problem, because having accepted people for refugee status based on the one-child policy and at the same time the ministry having made it much easier for visitors to come, you can see a situation developing that could allow thousands, and potentially millions, of people to apply for refugee status based on the one-child policy when they've come as visitors. The potential is there, and I would just like your comments on that.

Ms. Janet Dench: I think our comments would be to emphasize that refugee protection is a human rights issue. We're talking about people who are fleeing human rights violations. When we're looking at avoiding the problems of refugees, we're looking at avoiding human rights violations. So if there are a number of people in China who are suffering human rights abuses and who might therefore seek refuge in Canada in order to seek protection from those human rights violations, then our position would be not to stop the people coming here but to stop the human rights violations. A key goal of Canadian foreign policy should be to address human rights abuses wherever they're happening in the world.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Of course I fully agree with that, but that doesn't solve the problem. You see a situation developing here where on the one hand the minister said we want to make it easier for people from China to visit. On the other hand, her department is accepting refugee claims based on the one-child policy. I think we have an impossible situation developing here, and I would like your recommendations as to how you'd handle this situation.

I agree definitely with trying to deal with the problem. I believe it's a serious situation. Australia, for example, has said they would not accept refugees claiming on the basis of the one-child policy. What do you think Canada should do?

Mr. Mitchell Goldberg: I think it would be irresponsible of us if we were to advocate that any particular claimant from a given country should be denied refugee status. I don't think you would mean to suggest that we should particularly focus on Chinese refugee claimants and deny and restrict their access more than for other people.

Obviously the Canadian government has to weigh various policy concerns. One is our trade interests with China. As Ms. Dench pointed out, there are very serious human rights issues that perhaps need to be addressed as well.

But in terms of the refugee claimants who arrive here in Canada, I think it would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and basic common sense if we were to make a ruling that people from a certain country or a certain group of people from that country should be denied access to the system.

I understand your concern. You're worried that there will be tens of thousands of people arriving. I think that has not happened. In fact, Canada has been receiving a very stable number of refugee claimants over the past number of years. We have received a tiny fraction of what the European countries, the United States, and any other country in the developing world especially have received.

Given that we're one of the richer countries in the world and given that our population is actually likely to decline unless we have more immigration, I don't see the urgency of the hypothetical situation you're raising here today.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Of course it isn't hypothetical if the minister makes these visitor visas much easier to obtain. By the way, I do fully support having freer access, for business reasons and for other reasons. I think where this has to be dealt with is within the refugee determination system. We have to send the right message so that we can have this free exchange of people back and forth.

I'll get on to another question. You mentioned that the time the Chinese migrants who came by boat have been detained is too long. I fully agree with you on that. Here we are, six months after the first group came, and some are still in detention. Clearly, what has to happen is that the process has to be sped up dramatically.

• 1550

Now, we put forth our ideas on how that should happen. I would like you just to outline quickly what your proposals are for speeding up the process so that we don't have people detained for six months, which will become a year and a year and a half in many cases.

Ms. Janet Dench: I'll be happy to do that. Just as a preliminary remark, though, in relation to the Chinese in detention, I want to point out that even after people have been refused refugee status, they're still in detention and continue to spend months in detention because there is not an agreement with the Chinese government. I think that brings us back to the problems we have with the Chinese government and the degree to which human rights are or are not being respected in China. So you can push people through the system really fast and have them refused, but if they're still going to spend six months in detention, then you haven't really changed much in their situation.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's my understanding that's not the reality of what's happening. We do know that some people who came by boat have been deported from Canada. I understand that in fact China does make available the information requested in quite a reasonable timeframe and that they will take people back. That's the understanding I've been given, a very clear understanding, from the department itself. So I just wonder if your concerns are valid.

Ms. Janet Dench: Perhaps we might want to look into that, because my understanding is that the only people who have gone back are the ones who did not make a refugee claim.

In any case, in response to your question about the refugee determination system, what we would like to see happen is that, first, the first stage in the process, the eligibility stage, which can take months and which only serves to exclude a tiny number of people, should be abolished or transferred. Any eligibility provisions that are appropriate should be dealt with by the Immigration and Refugee Board. That would be one way of speeding things up.

Secondly, within the Immigration and Refugee Board, we would like to see the board use as much as possible their expedited process, which is a faster way of having claims determined.

Thirdly, we would like to see the risk evaluation, which is currently a separate process run by the immigration department after the refugee decision and what is now the post-determination refugee claimant in Canada class, done by the Immigration and Refugee Board. The board members who are hearing the person's claim are already familiar with the details of the case, and it would be much more effective and efficient to have those same people make the determination.

Following that, we would like to see an appeal within the Immigration and Refugee Board so that errors can be corrected.

Those are the main points of the process that we would like to see in order to shorten the process and to make it fairer.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. I have just a quick question. On the right of landing fee, we've advocated—in fact we put a motion before this committee, which was rejected by the government side—to remove the right of landing fee for refugee claimants. What's your position on that?

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: We entirely support your motion. The Canadian Council for Refugees has been long advocating for the eradication of the right of landing fee, since its inception, and we've been very disappointed by the current government's unwillingness to revisit that policy, particularly in light of the budget surpluses we're seeing today.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: If I could, just for the information of members—

Mr. Rick Limoges: Is it about the vote?

The Chair: Yes. It's in 30 minutes to deal with the orders of the day. We'll go for 25 minutes, and then we'll suspend and come back.

Thank you, Mr. Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Thank you.

We've heard about specific instances, for example the one-child policy in China, and I know I heard from members opposite that they have a concern about that because of the population in China and so on. But we have to be careful that we don't take away discretion from the refugee board, simply because each of these situations can be very different.

• 1555

For example, somebody could be suffering a human rights violation through the one-child policy because they either have or plan to have more than one child. Having travelled to China and having many friends there, I know there are certain situations where, since the government controls their residence, their employment, the amount of money they make, and everything else, if they violate that policy, they could be systematically discriminated against—for example, moving a larger family into a smaller apartment, giving you a demotion, or refusing you any promotion, and so on.

I guess that just speaks to the need for some discretion on the part of the board, if you would like to speak to that, and also with regard to, in particular, what seems to be the big issue of the day, even though they're a relatively small percentage of the refugee claimants we get here in Canada: the sensational nature through which people have arrived here by boat, because of the large numbers, and so on. Is there anything you can say with regard to those issues that could help to clarify the situation or help us in developing policy to deal with it?

Mr. Mitchell Goldberg: I'm glad you brought up the point about the need to allow the Immigration and Refugee Board to exercise its discretion, because the Canadian Council for Refugees advocates that the refugee board be allowed to be independent. In fact it's crucial that we take further steps to ensure their independence, because right now, frankly, when you have a process where, in two or three years, board members know their contracts might or might not be renewed—and the process appears to be, at least to outside observers, rather arbitrary, from what we hear—there is unfortunately a very deep concern that some decisions are less independent than others. We think it's extremely crucial that properly trained, properly qualified board members be allowed to exercise their discretion independently.

With regard to your second point about the sensational nature of people arriving in this country, of course it's our position that policy should not be made in the context of media-driven sensationalism. When you have a few hundred people arriving by boat, it can appear to be very dramatic, that we're going to be swamped by millions of people coming to this country. But when you place it in its proper context, we quickly see that this is very far from any kind of emergency.

I think it's crucial that we take a very lucid look at the events and weigh everything, because frankly we are very concerned that if there is new legislation coming down the pipes very soon, it will be extremely influenced by this media sensationalism, whereas had this same legislation come up six months ago or perhaps six months from now, other issues would be in the news and there would be a push towards very different policies, perhaps much more liberal policies.

So we urge you and we wish you courage in resisting that temptation to be driven by the media.

The Chair: Rick.

Mr. Rick Limoges: I've also heard, for example, that the Chinese government, in order to try to stop this problem of people claiming refugee status and so on, has actually instituted a policy of jailing for a two-year period people who are brought back. I heard two years from one of my connections in the Chinese community. I don't know whether that's true, but if it is, certainly that brings up another concern over people who might not have been considered refugees and then all of a sudden this policy could in fact impact on that.

Do you have comments on that as well?

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: Certainly with regard to your question about people who may not have been refugees when they left their country but become so after they've gone, the refugee definition specifically recognizes that fact. People can become refugees in what's termed a refugee sur place claim, which means that—for the very reason you said, for example—although they may not have had specific reasons for leaving that fit the definition at the time, as a result of events that have transpired since their departure, they have in fact become refugees. In the case where someone will be subjected to severe sanctions upon return, those are the kinds of conditions the current Immigration and Refugee Board examines when it assesses the claim and when it assesses whether or not someone meets the definition.

• 1600

Many other examples of risk after the fact crop up. An example is individuals who may have been in Canada on visitor visas or student visas. As was the case with the Tiananmen Square incident over 10 years ago now, students came to Canada with no intention of claiming refugee status, but things changed in their country such that they had to claim refugee status, and their claims would be recognized.

Ms. Janet Dench: In relation to returns to China, one group that's particularly of concern to us is unaccompanied minors. You may be aware that a group of unaccompanied Chinese minors have been in detention for over five months in Montreal, and until maybe this week they have not had any education at all. But in terms of what happens to them, we're very concerned that there is no institute, agency, or government body really taking very seriously the issue that if they are returned to China, to what they are being returned and who is going to make sure that their well-being is looked after.

Mr. Rick Limoges: That's a good point.

Mr. Goldberg mentioned earlier the situations that give rise to the fact that it's virtually impossible for somebody to come over by more legitimate or recognized means because they're forced to lie by their very own situation. Do you have recommendations as to how we might be able to avoid the situation where we're actually forcing people to take an end run or another route to get here and to have to lie about their situation until they actually land?

Ms. Janet Dench: One of the ways we have been advocating for the Canadian government to take a more active role is by having the source country category active in all countries. At the moment we have a category that allows us to select people out of certain countries if they are at risk of persecution. They're like refugees except that they're still in their country of origin. But at the moment that is only functioning in a very small number of countries. It doesn't apply, for example, to Nigeria and China. In the vast majority of the countries of the world you can go to the Canadian embassy and say, this is my situation, I'm about to be jailed and tortured, and the visa officers have no mechanism for giving them protection through resettlement in Canada. That's one option we would like to see made much greater use of.

We think the Canadian government can play a really key role in bringing people to safety. It has been done in the past, in particular in El Salvador and Guatemala. Many people, including the president of the Canadian Council for Refugees, were able to be resettled to Canada, and many lives have been spared in that way.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I'd like to welcome you, and even more so because you're two steps away from my riding.

First, let's get to basics. In your statement, you said that you didn't understand that the committee was examining the matter of the process of determining the refugee and illegal immigrants' status. I'd like us to go a bit further on that because maybe that will lead us to understanding your view of the matter. In theory, the United Nations' 1951 convention allows us to define a refugee based on a right of asylum for political refugees. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the basis of the definition of a refugee under the convention.

As for the matter of illegal immigrants, let's not be blind to the fact that some of them are not here simply for political reasons, but also for economic reasons. I think you recognized that in your December brief that I read last night. You say that one can't deny that the substantive reasons for clandestine immigration have a lot to do with flagrant economic inequalities around the world.

Am I to understand that you hope to see a broadening of the definition of a political refugee going as far as including economic parameters? Is that your fundamental wish?

Ms. Janet Dench: That is not our position.

• 1605

When we talk about illegal immigrants—and we don't necessarily like to see that concept linked to the one of refugee—we have to realize that there are people in Canada without documentation who are not necessarily claiming refugee status. For example, it could be a visitor who's just not gone back. However, when you talk about illegal immigration, you're almost always talking about refugees which is very dangerous for refugees because they often have no other choice than to get here by illegal means. The convention recognizes that, for refugees, it's often the only way of fleeing persecution.

At the Canadian Council for Refugees, we're very conscious of the fact that this hurts the interests of the refugees whenever there's an association made between them and illegal immigrants. It has an impact on their daily lives because these are people who have had to use illegal means to get to Canada to save their lives. And now they're being treated like illegals.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I have a question on the Montreal IRB. You know that the lawyers practising immigration law use pressure tactics, when they're not on strike, for two reasons. On the one hand, some of them have very heavy agendas and, on the other, some object to how officials are dealing with claimants concerning the choice of certain lawyers who, it is alleged, have been blacklisted. The new structure had three objectives: first, speed, then, efficiency and, finally, fairness. Do you think we're increasing the speed with which refugee claims are being dealt with to the detriment of efficiency and fairness?

Mr. Mitchell Goldberg: As I'm a lawyer from Montreal, I can answer that one.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes—

Mr. Mitchell Goldberg: Yesterday, we sent our position to the press on all of this. We're neither for nor against the strike, but we think it's very important to maintain fairness while speeding things up. I think there are a lot of claimants who want to speed up the process. The challenge is in finding the balance.

Some are afraid that the IRB wants to decrease the timeframe to 30 days after the arrival of the claimant. This poses a problem for some claimants who show up without their documents and want to have them sent over. It can sometimes take a couple of months for the documents to get here. Of course, if they go to their hearing without documents, chances are they'll be refused. I think there are ways of finding some sort of balance in all this.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Are you confirming your association's position that some claimants were approached and told not to go to see such and such a lawyer because he was handling too many cases already and wouldn't be able to deal properly with any extra case?

Ms. Janet Dench: I think it's rather difficult to comment on this because we don't have the details. We think it's important for the claimant to be able to choose his lawyer. However, we recognize that it's not reasonable to recommend a lawyer who's not ready to proceed for a year because he has too much work. It's more reasonable to ask the claimant to find another lawyer.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Did I...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Sorry, Mr. Bigras. I'm at the will of the chairman.

I was talking with one of my Liberal colleagues before coming into the committee today and—

The Chair: Congratulations.

Mr. Rob Anders: —he had what I thought was a very interesting suggestion. I would like to get feedback from our guests this afternoon.

• 1610

His idea was to disallow people who've been convicted of drug dealing from being able to make applications for refugee status. I'd like to get a feeling from the people we have here before us as to whether or not drug dealers should be able to make application as refugees.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: Sure. In fact a very recent Supreme Court of Canada decision addressed the question of whether or not drug trafficking was a crime sufficiently heinous to constitute a reason to exclude a refugee. In fact the court ruled no, it wasn't, very clearly, in the case of Pushpanathan.

Certainly that was a case that the Canadian Council for Refugees intervened in. We felt, albeit we had concerns along with the rest of the Canadian public—we do not want to be encouraging crime in this country—that refugees who are facing persecution if returned to their countries of origin deserve our protection.

The definition recognizes a balance, in and of itself. In the process at the refugee board, reasons, including drug trafficking and other kinds of crimes, are considered in terms of whether or not the crimes at issue are sufficient to justify removing protection. The board makes those decisions on an individual and individuated basis, subject to the facts of the particular case—the reasons the person fled and the risk they're under if returned, as well as the nature of the offence itself. Certainly the Canadian Council for Refugees would not support flying in the face of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling or suggesting further—

Mr. Rob Anders: Ms. Aiken—

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: —that any sort of blanket label be sufficient to exclude someone from status.

Mr. Rob Anders: —I realize that a particular court or a justice may have taken a position on this. You said you intervened. What I'm looking for here is your position. I'm sure I could call the justices before me and the justices could speak with regard to their decision. I'm not asking for their decision. I'm asking for your position.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: Yes. In fact I was stating our position. We advocate for a large and liberal interpretation of the Geneva Convention because we believe that the human rights violations that motivate people to flee from their country in the first place need to be considered very seriously. The prospect of returning even a criminal to a situation where they are at risk of torture, for example, flies in the face of Canada's international human rights obligations.

In particular in that regard, I would mention that the convention against torture, which Canada has signed and ratified, essentially creates an absolute bar upon returning people to torture, whether they're criminals or whatever. We have a criminal justice system to deal with crime. Our refugee system is not the appropriate vehicle.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'd like to follow up on that question. You've already stated that if somebody is convicted of drug dealing before they get to Canada, due to a large and liberal interpretation of the convention, as you stated, which I don't necessarily agree with... What about if they're found drug dealing here in Canada? Does your large interpretation of the convention also allow for people who are charged with and convicted of dealing drugs here in Canada? Does it also apply? Doesn't that merit or have grounds for sending them back?

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: I'll deal more generally with your question in regard to crimes committed within the country.

These may not be reasons to exclude someone from refugee status under the current application of the refugee definition here in Canada, but any crime committed in Canada can be a reason for someone to potentially face deportation proceedings. That happens today. People who have committed crimes and are convicted of crimes in Canada, even though they may be refugees, may be subject to refoulement, in other words returned to their country of origin, if, according to the refugee definition, the nature of the threat they pose constitutes a serious public danger or a serious threat to the security of the country. The refugee definition has that exception built right into it.

I would add, however, that where there's a basis for believing the individual would be at risk of torture, no circumstances justify return.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: There's no special reason to separate out drug trafficking from a broader range of other criminal offences.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

• 1615

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the council for a very interesting brief and a very interesting presentation. I want to thank Mr. Goldberg for helping to sensitize this committee to some of the issues used in the example of the Nigerian fellow. That took six years. Everyone here would probably agree with you that this is fundamentally wrong, on any number of levels.

I was interested to see in your brief that you, as I am, are critical about the way this committee's study has been framed to link the study for refugee determination with the issue of illegal immigration, because that kind of negative label does hurt genuine refugees. To even frame it in that same context or debate it in the same context creates a tone or an atmosphere that's unfair to genuine refugees. I'd like you to talk to that for a minute.

Also, I'm interested in one point actually made in another—

The Chair: Pat, I'm sorry. Maybe you could have the witnesses answer that question, because we have about six minutes until the vote. Maybe they could answer that one, we will suspend, and then come back and resume with your questions.

Mr. Pat Martin: Sure. That would be fine.

If you could, then, please expand briefly on the idea that the negative labelling hurts genuine refugees when we try to deal with those two subjects in the same context.

Mr. Mitchell Goldberg: There is a concern about that, in fact, about the topic of our discussion here today, and the way the title was put together does trouble us. The concern is—and this relates to the question that was asked earlier—about the context in which these deliberations are taking place.

In my opinion, had this discussion taken place about eight months ago when the Kosovars were arriving in Canada, we probably would have used a different way of framing this discussion today. In a few months from now, there might be some other very significant event that will be shaping our opinion.

Again, I think we need to be careful in order to ensure that we don't prejudge refugee claimants because of what we force them to do. Let's face it, Canada has a policy that we will not allow refugee claimants to access this country, so people are forced to find other ways. Perhaps had we put more resources into selecting people overseas, if we had a fairer system in that regard, there might be less need for people to arrive here, and in large numbers.

The Chair: Thank you.

We're going to suspend this. Hopefully we'll be back here in about 10 or 15 minutes. Thank you for your patience.

• 1618

• 1648

The Chair: Colleagues, I wonder if we might reconvene.

I see Pat coming in. He has approximately two and a half minutes left in his question-and-answer time period, so we will recommence with Pat.

Mr. Martin, who's still huffing and puffing.

Mr. Pat Martin: I think another interesting point you made in your brief and that others have made as well is that... Well, I'm not sure I do see it in your brief, but I'd like your ideas on it. Some people say there should be legislated time limits on the decision-making process of the board. Obviously six years is too long, and too many other people are languishing in some type of limbo.

Do you have any recommendations, or is there a formal position by the CCR, that after a certain point in time, if the government has been unable to prove there's any good reason why this person should not be a refugee, the fallback position would be to grant them status?

• 1650

Ms. Janet Dench: We haven't taken that position. We hesitate to work towards too-firm limits, because we know that each case is individual, and that there are some cases that do take longer than others. We would want each case, as much as possible, to be dealt with as soon as it reasonably can be, and as it fairly can be, without putting pressure on people who need, for example, to be able to have an extra month in order to get documentation that supports their claim. They should be given that. Other ones are ready to go in a very short amount of time and should be given that possibility.

So we haven't taken the position about people who are left in limbo for a long time being granted something automatically, although that is something we'd be prepared to look at.

I'd just like to take the opportunity to emphasize another point in our brief, that there is a lot of talk about the need for speeding up the refugee determination process. We support that as long as the system is fair, but we're also concerned that there are other processes that are very long. There should be more attention paid to speeding those up.

One of our concerns, for example, is family reunification. People who have been recognized as refugees continue to wait years to be reunited with their spouse and children. This is unacceptable, and we think this should be a preoccupation of this committee.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Pat Martin: Do I still have time?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Pat Martin: One quick comment is that I agree with you that we shouldn't be, as they say, setting our course by the lights on passing ships. In other words, what's happened on the west coast of B.C. is an anomaly, and it would be wrong to set policy or legislation based on what is really an anomaly. You drew the parallel that had the mood and the tone of the Canadian people been influenced by the Kosovar flood of refugees, there might be a completely different tone to the workings of this committee. So following those blips of public interest would be fundamentally wrong.

I wonder if you'd like to talk about that a little bit more. That's sort of where we left off when we were interrupted. In order to establish legislation that's useful to us for a long period of time and that accurately reflects the tone of most Canadians, we can't let ourselves be influenced by the anti-immigration community. It was really capitalizing on the overt racism building up over the plight of the 600 desperate migrants who have drifted onto the shore of B.C.

Any thoughts about that?

Mr. Mitchell Goldberg: I think it's extremely important to look at the history of refugee determination in Canada before we come to any decisions. One thing that I think pretty much everyone will agree upon across the political spectrum and that is an issue of concern to Canadians is the way refugee board members are selected. It's quite alarming.

When I speak to ordinary people, whether they have a lot of experience or very little experience with refugee determination—and I'm talking about people in the public, friends I meet, family members—they can't believe that there are many individuals, making life and death decisions, who are not qualified. They don't have life experiences. They're paid $90,000 a year. We can find the best people in this country at that kind of salary. There's no excuse for it.

In Quebec just last month a decision by a superior court struck down an entire tribunal. It's the largest tribunal in Quebec. The court ruled that the tribunal was unconstitutional. Why? Because it was not seen to be independent enough. It was seen to be too partial. Why? Partly because of the appointment process, where after five years, rather than three years in this case, they are evaluated, and there's a lot of political involvement in deciding who is renewed.

So I put it to you that if you folks don't act on this, eventually the courts will. I think the Canadian public, taxpayers and refugees, really deserve only the best-qualified people getting to sit on the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I'm not sure that directly answers your question, but I think that's one of the issues that need to be addressed.

• 1655

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Leung, and then Mr. Price.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a couple of questions for our panel.

On the illegal migrants, we know they are really non-educated, misled people from many lands who are given the promise of a brighter future in North America. In some ways we feel they are exploited people, and for their interests and safety we should protect them and their human rights in terms of stopping this kind of criminal activity. What I'm trying to raise is that I think it's important that we understand they come here not as refugees. They do not come here as refugees, because they come here for an improvement of their financial status, their future.

I would like you to comment on that, because there are quite different viewpoints. We as compassionate Canadians should help to stop this kind of victimization for them.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: One of the reasons I cited the example of the 192 Tamil refugee claimants from Sri Lanka in my opening remarks was to highlight the fact that it is absolutely critical to understand that the only way for bona fide refugee claimants to reach safety in a vast majority of cases is to use illegal means, to take advantage of people smugglers, for example.

We're really looking at a very slippery slope when we generalize and when we suggest that the law should just bluntly keep everyone away from our shores. The Canadian Council for Refugees has long advocated for the position that refugee determination must be an individuated decision-making process. It must be focused on the facts of the individual case. Even in a boatload full of so-called economic migrants, people who are merely seeking a better life, there can be legitimate refugees. It's very important not to forget that.

Not all boats are full of illegal migrants. Many boats arrive here on our shores with very real refugees. We really want to underscore that.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I'd like to mention that regarding the landing fee, which one of my colleagues talked about, the Liberal Party has actually discussed that and we have a request to look into not just elimination for the refugees. If we do believe this is a financial burden for any new immigrants, we shall remove that for all new immigrants. I just wanted to clarify that for you to hear.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: We certainly support that position.

The Chair: Good. Now we're all in agreement.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Yes, this is my point.

The Chair: In relation to Sophia's question, I think she was trying to get to the point that there is a phenomenon called human smuggling and that some people would subject themselves to human slavery in order to better themselves.

I understood your answer, but perhaps the question was that people in fact are being victimized by other people who are trying to exploit them by virtue of human smuggling. Why would some of these people have to pay up to $15,000, $20,000 and $50,000 for the rest of their lives in order to work for some of these snakeheads and people in order to come here or into the United States, for that matter?

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: As I mentioned, we're as concerned about human smuggling and human trafficking as anyone in Canadian society. We do believe Canada should be supporting international initiatives to address human trafficking, to address the plight of the victims. Those efforts must not be taken at the expense of refugees. That's what we're underscoring. There has to be a sophisticated mechanism by which there is an ability to distinguish. When people are fleeing because they're facing persecution, they need to be afforded a different system.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Mr. Chairman, can I just comment?

You're probably aware that the government has carried on quite a bit of discussion and now we're talking about illegal migrants. China and Canada in the ministerial level... Last September, three of us went there to discuss this with the Chinese government. That's exactly what we like to do: reduce this kind of criminal activity. In the meantime, of course, if there are refugees, we'd like to protect them.

• 1700

I want you to be very clear on what is a refugee in our mind and what's a refugee in your mind. We have to be very fair.

Ms. Janet Dench: I'd just like to comment that this is a very complex issue. You're dealing with human rights in many different ways. One of the concerns in relation to discussions that may be going on between the Canadian government and the Chinese government is what are the consequences of those discussions. In what way might the Chinese government choose to discourage the human smuggling?

There have been reports of people being jailed. Who are the people? Are they being jailed in a fair process for crimes they've committed or is it in a preventive sort of way? We don't want the Canadian government to be involved in encouraging human rights abuses in China.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for being here today. I think we're gaining a lot and hopefully we can try to improve things.

I'd like to follow up on Mr. Goldberg's speech about the IRB appointment process. Recently the Canadian Bar Association was rather decrying the fact that IRB appointments are partisan. Often they're not lawyers and yet they're just about practising law. I'd like to hear how you regard this.

You've also expressed concern about this process. You'd like the appointment model suggested by Professor François Crépeau. I'd like to know what model that is.

Mr. Mitchell Goldberg: I can answer the first part of the question. Maybe my colleague could answer the second part with regard to Professor Crépeau.

With regard to lawyers, I think your question was whether the IRB should be composed of lawyers. I think having knowledge of refugee law is one of the criteria, but not the only one. I know board members who are lawyers and who do a very poor job, and I know board members who are not lawyers who do an excellent job. So that's not an exclusive criterion.

In addition to knowledge of refugee law, I would say the board members should have experience with human rights research and analysis, overseas experience, cultural sensitivity, experience with mental health issues, and experience with administrative tribunals. So whether they're lawyers or not is not the crucial aspect to that.

Ms. Janet Dench: François Crépeau's model is very structured and lists a number of criteria and a number of players who he feels should be involved in a process of selection. What we liked about it was that it gave a lot of weight to the qualities of experience a person should have, the sort of sensitivity you would need to have to allow you to hear a refugee who may have been a survivor of torture tell their story and to pick out what is their experience. But you also have to have a very transparent structure that allows you to be confident that the people who are being selected are people who have been shown to have the competencies that are required.

François Crépeau in fact did present to this committee, or a former version of this committee, and we would also be happy to resubmit to you his paper, if that is useful to you.

Mr. David Price: It probably would be for me. I'm newer on the committee. I have not heard that presentation before.

To change subjects a little bit, we know we're heading towards a new immigration bill. Several studies have been put out. Everybody's been looking at the different proposals that have come out that might end up being in that bill. I'm sure you have.

You very rightly pointed out the fact that we're reacting right now to media hype on all the changes that are going on. It does worry us a little bit that the bill was supposed to be on the floor in October and we still haven't seen it yet.

Therefore, is there adjustment going on? I know you say there are certain things in the proposals that you're comfortable with and there are others you're not comfortable with. But completely out of that, are there three to four other things you might like to see in the bill that you could suggest to us?

• 1705

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: One thing we touched on already is the absence of an appeal mechanism for refugee claimants who are refused in the first instance by the refugee board. It's well known here that a Canadian citizen has more rights to appeal a parking ticket than a refugee claimant has with respect to a failed refugee claim. That's a serious problem. That's an injustice that we believe needs to be corrected, and to date we've had very mixed signals as to whether the minister is even willing to consider the possibility of implementing an appeal mechanism at the refugee board.

For reasons that have already been stated this afternoon, we believe an appeal mechanism within the board itself would in fact make the process more expeditious.

Mr. David Price: So we don't have to resort basically to—

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: Six years of alternatives; exactly.

The Chair: Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses, but before I let you go—and we have to get on with our next witnesses, and unfortunately Mr. Mahoney is not here—can I just get a clarification? I think in your opening statement you talked about interdiction of 6,000 last year.

Do you feel that interdiction may very well be... You said perhaps the net was cast too far and wide. Do you feel that might not be an appropriate mechanism in order to try to achieve some of the things we've talked about over the course of the past hour, hour and a half, to be able to deal with it at the point of origin, as to whether or not certain people are in fact genuine refugees and those who may be either exploited or in fact may want to come in illegally, understanding full well what you said, that sometimes a refugee has no alternative but to get to where they want to go by whatever means... I'm trying to understand whether or not there's a contradiction in interdiction as a mechanism by which to try to deal with some of the questions we have talked about today.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: One thing we are trying to make very clear is that if the government insists on continuing with its practice of interdiction, it has to implement a mechanism that will ensure that bona fide refugee claimants are not caught up within it. At present, that doesn't happen. At present, if it's discovered, for example, at a border point in some third or fourth country that you do not have proper documents from a Canadian official, you'll just be sent back, no questions asked. That's a serious problem.

Ms. Janet Dench: I just add that one of the main ways in which the interdiction program is worked out is through the carriers, and you'll be hearing from them later today. What we see happening is that people who are in some cases refugees are prevented, not by a Canadian official but by an airline official, from getting on the plane, and as a result they may be jailed in that country or refouled back to their country of origin.

The Chair: That's why I asked the question, because it just flows into what we're going to be talking about next with the shippers and the ATAC, about the responsibilities they may or may not have.

Steve, I was just about to close it off, unless you have a question you want to—

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Actually, a lot of mine have already been asked, so that's fine.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you for your cooperation.

Thank you very much for giving us the benefit of your wisdom and experience. I'm sure that will go a long way to helping us look at those policies and regulations that we need to do so. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we'll move quickly, because we want to end by 6 o'clock—I promised you that—to invite the Air Transport Association of Canada as well as the Shipping Federation of Canada to the table so that we can hear their views on this particular issue.

We'll just wait for our guests.

Thank you to the Air Transport Association of Canada and the Shipping Federation of Canada. Of course, I had the pleasure of meeting some of you in my role in my other committee, in transport, so it's nice to see you in a different role.

• 1710

I want to welcome Warren Everson and Gilles Bélanger to the committee. Perhaps you can introduce your guests. I think you're both going to make separate submissions. Then we'll be able to ask you some questions. Thank you very much for coming and taking the time to give us the benefit of your experience and wisdom too. Bienvenue.

[Translation]

Mr. Warren Everson (Vice-President, Policy and Strategic Planning, Air Transport Association of Canada): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I'd like to proceed to introductions. I'm Warren Everson and I'm Vice-President, Policy and Strategic Planning for the Air Transport Association of Canada.

I'd like to introduce my colleagues: Ms. Bridget Siwik, Manager, Facilitation, at Air Canada, and George Petsikas, Government and Industry Affairs Director at Air Transat. My colleagues represent both the scheduled airline and the international charter components of the Canadian air transport industry.

Following my short presentation, they will be available to help answer any of your detailed questions.

[English]

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I've held my current position for only five days. So you'll understand how important the presence of my colleagues is going to be to our proceedings today.

[Translation]

First of all, let me say that we are very pleased that the committee invited the air carrier industry to participate in this study. A large proportion of the illegal migrants who find their way to Canada arrive by air. Because of that, there is a long history of close communication and co-operation between international air carriers and Canadian immigration authorities.

[English]

Canadian air carriers also work closely with the immigration and border control authorities of many countries, particularly those countries that tend to be frequent target destinations of illegal migrants and the organizations that profit from arranging their transport.

As you may know, the laws of Canada impose on carriers specific obligations. They have to screen passengers and passenger travel documents at overseas points of embarkation, they are required to remove or arrange and pay for the removal of passengers who are determined to be inadmissible, and carriers face financial penalties in circumstances where passengers arrive without documents or when they are determined by immigration authorities to be improperly documented. Another requirement of immigration authorities is that air carriers provide transportation for individuals who were legally admitted into Canada but subsequently are ordered to be removed. Although those deportations are at public expense, there are issues of aviation and crew safety when the individuals to be deported are criminals or they require some kind of supervision.

For these reasons, carriers have a keen interest in the work of the committee and the issues you're examining. We recognize that the immigration file is an extremely sensitive and politically charged issue. Air carriers do not have a position on the broader policy issue of immigration. With my tongue in my cheek, I'd say we're quite desperate not to have a position on the immigration file itself, insofar as you members of Parliament are paid the really big bucks to discuss these issues.

The Chair: Could you remove the words “big bucks”?

Mr. Warren Everson: It was a colloquial kind of thing, Mr. Chairman.

Once you've made your conclusions about how the system should work, we have a very active interest in ensuring that it not be abused. The air carrier industry fully endorses the stated goals of the standing committee to speed up the refugee determination process to deter the future arrival of illegal migrants and to hasten the removal of individuals with no legal right to be in Canada. Our recommendations today, which I'm going to go through one by one, are fully consistent with those objectives.

I'd like to focus on specific issues where the government can help the air carrier industry meet its obligation to ensure that only properly documented and bona fide travellers embark on aircraft destined for this country. I'm going to identify a number of steps ATAC believes should be taken to remedy circumstances under which current practices expose air carriers to penalties for events over which they actually have no control.

The first priority we bring to your attention is the urgent need for a replacement of the IMM 1000 card. Section 89, part 5 of the Immigration Act obliges air carriers to ensure that passengers are properly documented for entry into Canada. CIC also imposes financial penalties on the airlines based on a formula that relates to their past performance. Carriers are routinely investing heavily in the training of passenger agents at check-in and in additional security personnel to conduct document checks, particularly at high-risk embarkation points abroad.

• 1715

One particularly frustrating and expensive problem that is getting worse by the day is the fraudulent use of genuine Canadian IMM 1000 resident cards by illegal migrants. The cards are notorious for their vulnerability to fraudulent use. There is no photo ID on the document. The IMM 1000 incorporates no modern validation techniques. In short, it's an open invitation to manipulation by professional movers of illegal migrants. It's impossible for airline personnel to detect when a genuine Canadian IMM 1000 is fraudulently used in combination with a genuine foreign passport. CIC nevertheless subjects our carriers to financial penalties when that card is used by arriving passengers who are subsequently identified as inadmissible.

ATAC has pressed the CIC to introduce a secure replacement for the IMM 1000 for many years, but to no effect. We fully understand the department is aware of the risks. We know they have investigated technologies that would be involved in replacing this card. We are told each year that the budget will not permit it. We're not really impressed with that answer given that airlines are facing a monetary penalty because of the impossibility of detecting when a genuine document is being used fraudulently. We're being subject to financial penalties precisely because of the vulnerability of a card for which we have no responsibility. So if there is a single recommendation that we think this committee could make that would help the airlines reduce the fraudulent use of the Canadian document, it would be to insist on a replacement of the card with a document that uses currently available technology.

Let me just enunciate a comment that I probably should return to you several times today. It's really far more expensive for Canada to deal with illegal migrants who come into the country and must later be processed and removed than it would be for Canada to make sure they don't get in in the first place. Until the problem, which is not of the airlines industry, is satisfactorily resolved, ATAC suggests the committee recommend that air carriers be exempt from financial penalties in a circumstance where a genuine IMM 1000 card is used fraudulently in combination with a genuine foreign passport.

Our second point relates to the refuge determination process. We propose a sunset provision for carriers in their obligation to remove inadmissible passengers at our expense. We don't challenge our responsibility to remove people if they're found to be inadmissible because they weren't properly documented or they have no documents. Other countries impose similar obligations, but Canada is different from other countries in that the process of adjudication can take many years—sometimes five years, and sometimes more—and these lengthy delays create a burdensome tracking and financial obligation. The carrier is literally carrying that potential liability forward. In some cases, our members have found that they no longer serve the country to which they are eventually obliged to return the person.

We have proposed to CIC that a two-year maximum period from the date of arrival to the issuance of a removal order would be a reasonable timeframe for completion of our obligation. This would require an amendment to the Immigration Act. Although CIC hasn't acted on our request, they have proposed any number of amendments to the act on occasion.

The Chair: Mr. Everson, I know this is the first time you've appeared before our committee, or perhaps any committee. I should tell you that you only have 10 minutes between both of you. You've already used six minutes and thirty seconds, which means you're taking from your good colleagues, the shippers. We've read your brief. I know you're trying to touch all the bases, but you may very well get some questions with regard to some of the rest of your brief. If I could, I would therefore allow the others to also give us their views.

Mr. Warren Everson: Certainly. I'll just touch one or two more of my points as I go through, and I'll try to be very quick.

We have raised a series of other fairly pragmatic suggestions that have been made. The one I would like to push hardest or bring to your attention most forcibly is the increased use of immigration control officers abroad. We find they demonstrably improve our performance in interdiction. They easily pay for the cost of additional personnel by the reduction of demand on the refuge determination or immigration process for illegal migrants. It's the same story. It's substantially cheaper to have more resources at the front end than to have to deal with the problem later on. In the same vein, we propose that if an immigration officer cannot be there, a hotline should be available for our members.

• 1720

The final point I would make is that when an air carrier begins to quiz passengers regarding their admissibility, regarding their documents, it's not uncommon for the passengers to demonstrate considerable resentment. We don't have any kind of document from the Government of Canada that describes our role and our action, not as an agent but in policing the act. We have requested that CIC prepare a multilingual document that we could use to reduce, first of all, the level of frustration and discontent among passengers. There's a substantial embarrassment factor for people who are quizzed. It's not always possible to do it privately. It exposes us to allegations of discrimination. It just seems an easy request to make of the department.

I'll stop, and I'll invite questions when my colleagues from the Shipping Federation are finished.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Everson, not only for your presentation but for your excellent suggestions.

The clerk has sufficiently chastised me by saying that each and every one of you, each organization, has ten minutes. Sometimes I forget what committee I'm at, and there are different rules in different committees. So I owe you about half a minute or 45 seconds in your answers, and we'll do that. Thank you.

Mr. Warren Everson: Thank you.

The Chair: Now to Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Gilles Bélanger (President and CEO, Shipping Federation of Canada): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Gilles Bélanger, and I am president and CEO of the Shipping Federation of Canada. With me today is Ms. Sonia Simard, director of policy and government affairs. We wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to submit the views of the federation on issues relating to refugee status determination and to illegal migrants.

[Translation]

The Shipping Federation of Canada represents almost all Maritime transporters doing business in the Atlantic, St. Lawrence and Great Lakes ports. I must mention that today we're also representing the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia which, until very recently, did not have to deal with the problem I'll be addressing which is that of stowaways or clandestine passengers. We noted recently that this problem has been showing up on the West Coast. So I'll also give you their views on the situation our federation and that chamber are both facing.

[English]

Our comments will not relate to immigration policy either. We are concerned with the process, and we are concerned particularly with one aspect of the problem, which is the stowaways. Deserters concern us to some extent, because sometimes we have crews deserting their ships when they are at dock in Canada, but the main problem is that of stowaways.

Stowaways have traditionally arrived in eastern Canada, as I mentioned, and more recently it has become an issue in western Canada as well. Their passage is arranged by people traffickers or people smugglers, and it is a critical situation because whatever security measures—and I'll address the security measures—we put in place at origin, the smugglers have enough means to find ways of bypassing all sorts of security means that we've put in place. In a number of ports in Europe we have CO₂ detectors, we have special patrols, we have security rounds, etc., at great cost to the shipowners. But every time we put a new security measure in, the smugglers find a way around it.

So that's a problem we have to address, because the stowaway on the ship puts his life at risk, puts the crew's lives at risk, and puts the ship at risk. There are all sorts of situations. Sometimes you'll find the stowaways stored in a container on board the ship. Well, in the north Atlantic in the winter the storms are so bad that often containers on deck are smashed to pieces or thrown overboard by the waves, and if stowaways happen to be in them, well, we know what happens. At other times they're at the bottom of the hold and there's no way to access that container; they are there for the duration of the voyage. And generally nobody knows they are there; therefore they are at risk of hypothermia, hyperthermia, intoxication—all sorts of problems could happen. So the risk is great.

• 1725

What we're seeking here today is a way to prevent that process or that means of accessing Canada. Of these potential solutions to the problem, we think that... Very rarely do the stowaways come from their country of origin. If they're from a country where they have problems—persecution, whatever—they're no longer there when they embark upon the ship. The most common ports for stowaways recently to eastern Canada have been Genoa and Livorno in Italy.

From our perspective, then, stowaways come from a safe country; their port of embarkation is in a safe country. Canada should have agreements with these safe countries whereby stowaways are returned to these countries as a deterrent measure. They can apply for refugee status in Canada from Italy, from these safe countries, where they have gone in order to flee their own country.

The second deterrent measure we're recommending for speeding up the process... and I've heard everybody talking about speeding up the process. These people come here at an enormous cost. To give you an example, our information concerning the recent arrival of 14 stowaways from Asia to Seattle is that—there were 14 in one container—the cost was $100,000 U.S. per person. Of course they don't have that money, so they'll be working as slaves for decades in order to repay that amount.

If we speed up the process and if the determination process is implemented in a quicker fashion, then it will serve as a deterrent. Nobody is going to pay $100,000 to be here for one month, two months, or six months. It's well known that when they come to Canada, they can be here for anywhere from five or six years to ten, twelve or fourteen years because of the current process.

Another aspect that needs to be improved is the removal process, or the weakness of the system when it gets to the removal process. At the end of the process, somebody whose claim is denied receives a letter to present himself or herself to immigration officers to be deported. What happens, do you think? They won't show up, obviously, or very rarely will they show up, and we don't look for them. So we will find out ten years later when somebody crosses a red light and there's a policemen that happens to be there and stops that person. They are found by accident, generally through infractions, many years later.

This is an invitation for these people to come here. They know they're going to be here ten or twelve years or eight years, and it's sufficient to take the risk.

The last recommendation is somewhat different. As is the case with the airlines, we are financially obligated to stowaways. When stowaways are found, the shipowner has to deposit $15,000 for each stowaway found on board, and of that, $3,200 serves as administrative costs and the balance is retained for eventual costs. Now, because the deportation may take place ten or twelve years later, and sometimes at great cost, the agent who represented the shipowner at the time will receive an invoice ten years later. We've seen recently an invoice of $72,000, $73,000, or $74,000 to deport an individual back to somewhere in Asia, I believe.

• 1730

We know how the shipping industry works. A lot of the times, the agent is an agent for that ship for a single voyage and that ship may never be back here. The agent has no contact, no relationship, no connection with the owner. Our act puts the onus on whoever happens to be in Canada, and that is the agent, and the agent cannot recover these costs from the shipowner.

So the first $15,000 is collectible from the shipowner because the ship is in the port, and if the owner doesn't want to pay, the ship is seized. But ten years later nobody has the capability... and in that particular case of $70,000-plus, the agent is not capable of finding the owner. Therefore, it is a financial obligation that creates a problem. We have made overtures to the department to try to work with an insurance guarantee or something that would be supported by the shipowner, who has the responsibility, and we hope we will be able to advance that matter further.

I will stop at this point. I don't know if I've been within the ten minutes.

The Chair: Right on the money.

Mr. Gilles Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bélanger.

Just before we get to questions, just for the record, Mr. Everson, I know you talked a little bit about your frustration with regards to the IMM 1000. Perhaps you didn't know, or you would know that you might be gaining some ground. We in fact have launched that pilot project in both Toronto and Montreal with regards to the IMM 1000 in terms of turning that particular card over and doing some stuff. I'm sure there might be some questions, but that has begun, finally.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, all of you.

I've looked at your recommendations, and to me, every one of the recommendations you have made seems to be just a practical recommendation. I look at them and wonder why these haven't been acted on. I understand that many of these recommendations you have been making for years. For example, you have concerns that you're made to take responsibility for people well into the future, people who have disappeared, and you express difficulty with the problem of when they suddenly reappear and you're responsible for removing them to the country of origin. I can understand your frustration with that.

I'd like to ask both of you this. The recommendation made by the airline shippers is that after two years from the date of arrival, you no longer would be penalized for that person having used your airline. I didn't notice a specific length of time from the shipping association, but I'd like to ask how long you've been proposing to government that they shorten up the time period of responsibility. I'd like to ask both these groups that.

Ms. Bridget Siwik (Manager, Facilitation, Air Canada, Air Transport Association of Canada): Thank you. It's a reasonable question.

I cannot personally give you the exact length of time, but I can say that I have been involved in a facilitation area at Air Canada for six years now, and when I first came into the job, that was an old chestnut.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

Mr. Gilles Bélanger: I understand that the representations started being made on that issue in 1996. Contrary to ATAC, we have not come up with a definite period, but we have been addressing the issue of the period of time being far too long and creating all sorts of problems.

• 1735

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm not surprised that it has been some time, because I know we've been down here as a group since 1993 and we've been recommending changes to the IMM 1000s to make them into a much more effective identification card. We've been recommending a streamlining of the system so that very few cases would ever go beyond two years. In fact, most would be dealt with within the first few months. Now they tend to drag out for an awfully long time.

We've been calling for more resources to be put in the front end of the process—for example, immigration control officers, more in overseas offices, more at points of entry, and better trained, more experienced people. So these are all things that have been called for, for some time. I feel frustration knowing we've been asking for these things and they haven't come about. You must feel that frustration as well. I understand that and I understand why.

The Chair: Is that your question?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I don't think there's a question in there; I don't think there has to be.

Specifically, I'd like to ask you about what you would like to see in an IMM 1000 card. For example, is there any particular model of a card being used in Canada, maybe a driver's licence, maybe the Alberta OHIP card, that would work for this purpose—or perhaps in another country where it is used for a similar type of purpose?

Mr. Warren Everson: Mr. Benoit, we kicked that around a little bit this afternoon. We finally decided that we haven't undertaken any kind of comprehensive study, and if we put a proposal forward, it would offer the department an opportunity to critique the proposal. We'd prefer that the shoe be on their foot. It's their responsibility to come up with protection and validation documentation, and they're very qualified to do it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You have suggested that there should be biometric identifiers, which would seem to be something that would be fairly easily implemented.

Mr. Warren Everson: Once again, I think it's probably an error for us to talk about how easily it would be to implement or what it would cost, and so forth. That really is a question that should be put to the department when they appear before you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

If there were a proposal put forth by the department to put in place some kind of electronic monitoring system where documents could be easily scanned by computer scanners at the point of entry when people are getting onto your aircraft, for example, and then these cards could be cross-checked when people get off, do you think the airlines or the industry would be willing to foot some of the bill for this changeover, if it would save you money overall?

Mr. George Petsikas (Director, Government and Industry Affairs; Legal Counsel, Air Transat, Air Transport Association of Canada): I think that's a bit of an open-ended question. Clearly we would have to see what kind of numbers we're talking about.

Right now, I think we need to emphasize the fact that we are putting money into the system in terms of interdicting people who are not properly documented. I guess what we're saying is, yes, we need whatever technological help we can get out of the department.

As far as cost-sharing is concerned, as I said, we're willing to look at that. I certainly can't commit the industry to that. I can say, on the part of our airline, it has to be cost-effective; it has to make sense for what we're spending now to stop this flow. It's kind of hard to commit to anything at this point, but we can look at it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: To me, your general comment would make a lot of sense, that it would save the government money if a system were put in place that would allow for better identification. I think it would then allow, too, for people who do board a plane and have this proper ID and don't have it when they get off. It would be completely legitimate then for immigration officials or any involved customs people, or whoever, just to turn them around and send them home.

If you got on the plane with proper ID and you don't have it when you get off, but we have evidence that you had it when you got on, I think that would certainly help solve a lot of problems in the system, not just from your point of view.

On the two-year timeline, I think you're being awfully generous to say that only after two years would you want to be let off the hook in terms of responsibility. That's a long time. A system should operate much more efficiently than that. Certainly, I think that is generous on your part.

• 1740

Why did you pick the two-year period?

Mr. Warren Everson: There wasn't any science to it. It's a question—

The Chair: It sounds a lot better than eight.

Mr. Warren Everson: Yes.

We were sort of hopeful to take what we could get, but we're conscious that refugee determination is a complex process and that it needs to be done sensitively; we were listening to the previous witnesses. However, it does seem unreasonable that if Canada should have such a long process, a private company that is serving as a policeman to the process should have to pay.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Have you done any kind of study at all to determine just what percentage of removals you might be able to avoid if you had a much better identification card—IMM 1000, for example? Could you take a guess as to what percentage you might be able to avoid?

Ms. Bridget Siwik: I guess the only way I could answer that at this moment is to provide an example.

There is a specific category of fines that carriers are faced with, called the genuine passport fine. That is, a passenger arrives with a genuine document that was fraudulently obtained.

I guess initially when we started an MOU process with Immigration about... Was it five years ago?

Mr. George Petsikas: It was at least five years ago, or six.

Ms. Bridget Siwik: A small proportion of the fraudulent documents would have been in that category.

At Air Canada, that specific category has gone from about 8% of our violations to well over 20% at this point in time, so it's definitely a growing matter of concern to us.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask both groups if you could tell us what it cost your organizations collectively last year to remove people, to take them back.

Ms. Sonia Simard (Manager, Policy and Government Affairs, Shipping Federation of Canada): It might be difficult to give a final figure, but from the marine side, let's say last year we had about 120 stowaways. I cannot give you a final figure because, as we said, it's growing all the time, but if you look at the average cost of removal, which is $15,000 to $20,000, I'll let you calculate the numbers. That is when the person is not resisting removal. When the person is resisting removal, we're seeing bills of $30,000 to $40,000, up to the special case of $70,000. But to give you a number, let's say $15,000, $20,000, or $25,000.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And for air?

Mr. Warren Everson: It's a really tricky question, because CIC imposes penalties on our members, and the penalties move depending on a carrier's performance. So a really good citizen doesn't face very high fines.

However, order of magnitude for the larger carriers is millions of dollars, and for the charter carriers, it's probably million as well, but certainly hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If you were to compare this to the cost of security measures that have been implemented to deal with terrorism particularly around the world... In our walk of life, we all travel a great deal. We don't necessarily travel by sea, although sometimes we do that as well, but we see the security arrangements that carriers, airports, your entire industry have implemented, and I assume that they have as well. I know they have in the passenger shipping industry for cruises and things of that nature. They're very similar to air.

So millions of dollars have been spent there to try to eradicate those problems. Without some of the terrible examples, like the one in London, by and large it has been a successful move on the part of the industry. Notwithstanding, then, the fact that perhaps we could improve things like the IMM 1000 and some things like that, which I quite agree should be minor, although no matter what you do there's probably a way to create some kind of fraudulent use of technology, I'm curious as to why your industry wouldn't even wait for government, why you wouldn't do what you've done in terms of security, take charge of this thing.

I think of the containers, why there aren't systems. I know there are systems. There are even four-legged systems, called dogs, that are able to find people who are stowaways. There are even more sophisticated systems, in terms of heat sensors, that can go into a ship and find stowaways.

• 1745

I just wonder why there isn't a greater effort in both of your industries to eradicate this problem, notwithstanding any government, Canada or otherwise, coming forward with this. You seem to want to take a hands-off approach by not necessarily taking charge, and I think, Mr. Everson, not to put words in your mouth, you said you'd rather it be their problem than your problem to come up with some of those solutions.

Mr. Warren Everson: I was going to gracefully give Gilles the first answer here.

I hope I didn't say that. We have a unique situation in this circumstance in which a private company, by law, is obliged to play a role in the enforcement of Canada's laws. I'm going to ask my colleagues to document it, and we may follow up with the committee later. Air carrier expenditure on security, and specifically on security pertaining to immigration issues, has been substantial and is very large.

We do want to make the point, however, that we constantly encounter a circumstance in which a carrier is known to have done everything they can. The procedures were followed with exactitude. The person was very well trained. Maybe they even consulted officials. Nonetheless, the individual who entered Canada is deemed inadmissible and they're fined for it. There's no question that CIC agrees that we tried hard. They don't think we slipped up. However, the fine is still applicable. So this is the source of our frustration.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But let me use the example... I think Mr. Benoit brought it up, and in fact I brought it up at committee a year or two ago. It is the concept of a scanner. I come, way back, from a municipal background where there was a lot of concern about the fact that people would show up at Pearson, for example, and get off the plane with no ID. They obviously threw it in the toilet or they gave it to a carrier, whom they had paid for it.

Why wouldn't you almost insist on some form of scanner equipment at the point where these people are getting on board, to ensure that at the other end, if they get off... If I get off in Toronto, having come from Chicago, and I don't have my passport or my ID, they're going to say “Where is it?”

Mr. Warren Everson: I'm going to turn to my colleagues who know more about the technical details. Of course, everybody knows where it is, but by the time it's discovered that the individual doesn't have documentation, they're on the ground in Canada and they're subject to Canada's rights. The carrier is penalized, but the individual carrying the passport off for them, the courier who took that passport, has already passed through the checkpoint with a valid visa and is gone. So now you have a person with no documents, and in something like 20% of the cases, CIC doesn't even know which air carrier brought them to the country. The system is very fluid.

Vigorous efforts are made to interdict them at the front end of the process, but once our wheels are down in Canada, they are in Canada and they have access to Canadian law.

I would like to ask my colleagues, though, about specific issues and the expenditure on security.

Ms. Bridget Siwik: I would like to comment a little bit further on Mr. Mahoney's comment as to why the industry doesn't go forward on their own and do some of these things.

An airport environment isn't always the best one in terms of technology, having machinery that you need to plug in. Oftentimes there are not the facilities there. We are restricted by airport authorities in terms of what we can have at different airports. Certainly there is a wide range of things that can be done.

The other side of that equation, that we can do that at departure point, is the way the act is written now we are still required to present our passengers with their documents. So even if we do scan the documents and our passengers arrive without them, and we can prove that they had documents when they left, they would still be arriving without the documents and we would not be relieved of our obligation under the act the way it's written today.

Mr. Gilles Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the same question, but go ahead.

Mr. George Petsikas: I just want to follow up with a comment about the issue about initiative.

I would be a little bit careful about making a comparison with passenger security expenditures. It's clear that there is a fundamental public safety issue about making sure security measures are in place so passengers can travel safely to and from their destination. This is an issue of carriers being told by legislation that they must enforce Canada's immigration laws.

• 1750

We have made investments. I will repeat it: we have expended great sums of money to implement security measures with respect to screening at the embarkation gate—document screening—under circumstances that are not always favourable. I might remind you, as we mentioned before, that airport authorities in other countries aren't always very willing to listen to our problems in terms of what we have to do under Canadian legislation.

There is a fundamental issue in some countries—I won't name them—where clearly the country in question has absolutely no interest in helping you stop that person from getting on your flight, leaving their territory and going to Canada, because basically they have just eliminated another problem for themselves. We operate in that sort of environment. So I think we are making that effort.

On this issue of a scanner, I would like to know what you think this thing could do. I am just asking how this would work. Would this be something—

The Chair: Scan their eyeballs.

Mr. George Petsikas: As long as it doesn't induce blindness, that's fine.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's not what it would do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. George Petsikas: If we are talking about technology where you pass the passport underneath the scanner and it says green is perfectly valid and red is a phoney, that's great. I'm willing to look into that right away and see how much it would cost, and then we'll talk about cost-sharing issues, because that takes you leaps and bounds ahead of what we have to deal with now.

I just wanted to make that comment.

The Chair: Gilles.

Mr. Gilles Bélanger: We have a similar issue to the last comment because a lot of the time... very rarely do stowaways embark in their countries of origin. When they have gone from Romania to Italy, Italy is just dying to get rid of them and they won't do anything to help us prevent them from embarking.

It has happened many times where we have found a stowaway in a container on the dock or on the ship before it leaves. We bring them back out, the port security is called in, they take them to the port gate and leave them there, and they get on the next ship. That is a constant problem.

In terms of investing in security, our members have invested millions and millions in security. In all the critical ports in Europe they are using CO₂ detectors. They are using dogs, they are using patrols, they are using all means. But the smugglers will find a way around the security measures every time.

You were talking about scanners, and I don't know if you were talking about them for containers, but these exist as well. But they exist on a sporadic or random manner, because for a ship that loads 6,000 containers, the scan takes three to four minutes. If we are going to scan everything that arrives in port and then scan it again when it goes on the ship, if we are going to be under security all the time, the ship will never depart, and that will be a major logistical problem. That can be improved eventually, and hopefully it will.

Recently, the arrival of 14 from Asia to Seattle... I was told that container—not that container particularly but all the containers on that ship had been under constant surveillance the minute they arrived in the port of Hong Kong. The stowaways were in that container when they arrived in the port with a sealed container. We can't break the seals unless we have good reason and unless the authorities find there is good reason to break the seal.

There is collusion with shippers. There are all kinds of reasons, and we can't control all of that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think their answers show that they face a lot of difficulties dealing with it on a full-time professional basis, which obviously shows that we have some difficulties as well.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

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

First, my questions will be for the Federation representatives. Last night, I read the brief they tabled and I must say that it is a quality document. I will certainly take under serious consideration a certain number of their recommendations.

• 1755

In the light of the matter raised by Mr. Mahoney before and in reading the third paragraph on page 8 of your brief, it's clear that you don't think that the security and preventative measures had meaningful results. That came out rather clearly when you said that, despite the preventative measures set up by the members of the Federation, a great number of stowaways still managed not to be detected. In your opinion, the security and preventative measures were not fruitful. You recommend instead that we should do something about the process and the legislation to discourage a certain number of citizens from going the illegal migrant route.

I also congratulate you for the documents you have handed us concerning the Romanian stowaways. That is reality. You probably know about the Montreal Senator that came into the port of Montreal last April 14 with three stowaways from Romania who were found dead in containers.

The shipping company clearly stated that it had advised Customs and Immigration Canada of the possible presence of human beings in these containers. Nevertheless, the people at Customs and Immigration Canada decided against going to examine these containers, their excuse being that there were very few inspectors available, that it was Friday, and that it would have been expensive to have employees work overtime. But there was evidence that these passengers were on board. Someone had punched a hole through the container in order to be able to breathe.

I would like to know if this is an exceptional case and if your members have expressed other complaints with respect to the relationship between the shipping companies and Immigration Canada in the port of Montreal or outside Quebec.

Mr. Gilles Bélanger: I will ask my colleague to deal with that. I believe that this was an exception. When we call the Department of Immigration, they usually offer better service and are usually more diligent than they were in this particular case. I wasn't on duty at the time and I'm not aware of all of the circumstances. We may never know exactly what happened. I believe that what occurred is pretty much what you described. As many other people did, I was only made aware of this situation after reading the newspapers. I will ask my colleague to comment.

Ms. Sonia Simard: We are investigating this incident at this time. I would like to take this opportunity to indicate how important it is to intervene so as to solve this problem. These container deaths are not an isolated case. For some time now, that is, since 1993, our federation has been asking the government to deal with this situation and has been warning the government about the possible loss of life in these containers. It goes without saying that when a passenger enters a container, he is putting himself at risk. This happened in Canada in April, and people have died in similar circumstances in London and elsewhere in previous years. This particular incident should be a wake-up call and should encourage us to act in order to avoid a recurrence. We must do something. Unfortunately, this summer, we saw how dangerous it can be for stowaways.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you. I noted a great deal of frustration in the brief that was tabled by the representatives of the Canadian Air Transport Association. In the first three pages of your brief, I found six references to the words "sanctions" and "fines". I'm not sure if that was deliberate and if you wanted to call the committee's attention to this fact.

• 1800

Do the lack of efficiency in the identification system, the fact that your officers are not trained as immigration officers, and the lack of available technological tools mean that in some way you are victims who must assume part of the responsibility for the stowaway problem?

[English]

Mr. Warren Everson: We like to think of our relationship with CIC as a partnership. It's always described that way from the point of view of the department, and we accept our responsibility to play a role. It's a common obligation on carriers from other countries as well. We tend to dwell on the fines because we wish we weren't fined, for obvious reasons, especially in the circumstance when we couldn't have done better. I think our main message would be that, in a partnership, we would like the other partner to be doing the utmost to do the job that we are obliged to do.

Maybe my colleagues would want to add to that.

[Translation]

Mr. George Petsikas: Mr. Bigras, I don't agree when you say that we are victims of our legal obligations. As my colleague Mr. Everson said, we recognize that we have obligations and feel that we are partners with the Department of Immigration in enforcing the law. You are right in saying that you can sense frustration in our brief. As I have said a number of times, we feel that we have done our share in terms of interdiction at foreign ports of departure, and we have made some investments. It's perhaps on the investment side that there are shortcomings at the Department of Immigration. The department should ensure that we have the best possible high- tech tools in order to help us to better enforce the Act. Every now and then, even though we are acting in good faith, we refuse to allow passengers on board even though they have valid documents. We must check certain things, but are not immigration officers and sometimes, if there is any doubt, we must make decisions without the benefit of immigration officers.

Obviously, we want to have all the means we need to exercise such control, but we cannot do it alone. Our industry cannot bear the cost of developing the technologies we would need.

The solutions we suggest, some of which are technological, should not be too costly for the department. A commitment on this by the Immigration Department would do a great deal to improve our situation.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Anders, then Mr. Martin, and that will be it.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I'm following up on Mr. Mahoney's question with regard to the storage of documents. My understanding is that when people travel on cruise ships, their documents are held so that those documents don't disappear while they're in transit. What I'm wondering is whether you face any legal restrictions that prevent you from holding those documents until either the plane or the ship arrives in port, so that you can prevent their disappearance in transit?

Mr. George Petsikas: Absolutely nothing prevents us from doing that, but there are some practical considerations. I can tell you that sometimes it is not the easiest thing to ask a passenger to hand over their passport when they're getting on an aircraft. I ask you how you would like it if you had to hand over your documentation like that to some agent at the counter for X reason that they might give you.

• 1805

That being said, yes, we can take the document, and we can put it in a pouch and bring it over. We can take the passenger off the plane. We can take the document out of the pouch. We can go to the CIC officer at the airport and say it is the document that this person had when he or she got on the plane at such-and-such airport. But if it turns out to be a fraudulent document and the person makes a refugee claim, we're still held liable. We're still accountable for an administration fee. That has to be corrected, for the record; they're not penalties or fines, they're administration fees.

We could do that, but how does it stem the flow? It doesn't really do anything as far as our liability is concerned. It does possibly impose a problem with your customer because that customer my take exception in a very vocal way to handing over the document if they're not absolutely required to do so. But there's nothing stopping us.

Mr. Rob Anders: I have a question, then. Cruise ships seem to be able to do that on a fairly regular basis and their customers don't appear to get upset. I know my mom and dad are busy spending my inheritance that way, and they don't seem to be bothered by their passports being taken. I wish they were sometimes, but it doesn't seem to cause a problem that way. Yet you're alleging that... Fair enough.

Can we have somebody from the Shipping Federation answer that?

Mr. Gilles Bélanger: I could not answer the question. I don't know how it works on the passenger ships, but Sonia might have a comment.

Ms. Sonia Simard: Actually, if I may, sir, aside from the cruise ships, I understand you also addressed us from shipping. I'd just like to make one point of clarification. In terms of container ships, we're talking about stowaways being in containers. The issue of documentation would not be the solution for us. I just wanted to make sure we raised this issue. When they come on board, there is no checkpoint for security, there is no checkpoint for documentation. They are basically going into the containers.

As far as your question is concerned, sir, I don't believe the issue of stowaways on cruise ships is that much of an issue in terms of what we have submitted to you.

The Chair: Leon, why don't you ask one or two questions.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Bélanger, I have a couple of direct questions for you. First of all, would stiffer penalties to shipping companies encourage more vigilance in checking for stowaways?

Mr. Gilles Bélanger: Stiffer penalties?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Stiffer penalties, yes.

Mr. Gilles Bélanger: It wouldn't make any difference. Every security measure we put in place is bypassed by the traffickers. It's not the stowaways who are the problem in terms of breaking security measures, it is the traffickers. They have all the means in the world and all the money in the world to find ways of bypassing things. We've seen situations in which they can enter a container without breaking the seal. With special instruments, they will cut the bolts that hold the hinges to the door, open the door that way, replace the bolts with new ones, and change the heads of the new bolts with the old ones so that they doesn't show. Nobody, and I mean nobody, can detect that it has been tampered with. You can put any penalty in the world in place, but it won't change the issue. We're not going to be able to prevent this.

Security measures have had an impact. In the early nineties we were seeing something like 150 to 175 stowaways a year in eastern Canada. Now we're down to 115 to 120. There has been improvement, but we're not going to be able to bring that down to zero. No way.

Mr. Leon Benoit: According to media reports on the case of the California Jupiter, the people who were coming illegally had access to the deck of the ship throughout the voyage. I think we can only assume the captain and the crew were aware that the cargo was there. Some have suggested that an appropriate penalty under these circumstances would have been seizing the ship and cargo to the extent possible in order to send a clear message that it wouldn't be tolerated.

• 1810

How would you react to those statements and positions?

Mr. Gilles Bélanger: I'll let my colleague answer because I'm not familiar with the exact situation, but I'll come back with some part of the answer.

Ms. Sonia Simard: With regard to the California Jupiter, I would like to take that example and bring it back to eastern Canada. What we have done in eastern Canada is that the members of the federation, carriers, have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the department to establish very serious procedures, such as gangway checking and deck patrols, to prevent that type of situation you're talking about.

As my colleague has mentioned here, our measures have brought fruit. Just to bring more numbers into this, in 1993 we had a peak of 400 stowaways. So we've gone from 400 stowaways to 100 stowaways. So, yes, the measures we have implemented, whether it be to address the California Jupiter type of thing with the memorandum of understanding concluded with the department, are bringing some conclusion. But it's not sufficient and it leads us to the same point. There is an incentive to come to Canada and we have to address that.

Mr. Gilles Bélanger: There is an issue in your question. Maybe I misunderstood the question, but obviously if the stowaways manifest their presence—and they often do when they're far enough from the port so that the ship won't return—then most captains will do their best to accommodate them for humanitarian reasons. They'll share the food they have on board, which is normally just what they need for the crew, and sometimes they'll put them to work as well. But for humanitarian reasons, they will not keep them in the container.

In some cases they do manifest themselves. In some cases they cannot get out because they're at the bottom of the hull and there's no room between the containers and you can't move these 40,000-pound boxes.

The Chair: They might be charging $100,000. You have to pay off everybody down the line in order to do what you said. It seems everybody in the chain is getting a piece of that $100,000.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What would happen if, en route, the crew of the ship discovered people hiding out? If that were reported to the appropriate authorities, would that ship be allowed to go into port?

Ms. Sonia Simard: That's a very serious problem you're raising there. Here in Canada, yes, they will be allowed. In other countries, no, the stowaways will not be allowed to be disembarked, so the ships will be continuing their course with stowaways on board.

So it all depends, to bring you back, because we are an international transportation industry. In Canada, if we do discover them, we will go through the same means. They're going to come and claim refugee status, but they will still have put their own life at risk and those of others.

The Chair: I have one more question before I thank you all for your excellent briefs and your excellent suggestions. If you have anything more to add to your documents, such as the proposal for bonding or some of the other things you mentioned, I think it would be very useful.

Back to the ATAC, can I just ask you something in terms of interdiction? I understand that's a particular problem. Obviously stowaways are a little different. With most of the people who come to Canada wanting to claim refugee status, if they're coming directly by plane and landing in our airports or perhaps coming via the United States or wherever, obviously you ask these people for their proper documentation to make sure they can board the plane. That's notwithstanding the fact that you said some nations may very well be wanting to get rid of their problems and therefore they're prepared to do whatever.

How many times would you have to refer people to our embassy in terms of interdiction? If someone approaches you and you sense there may be something, do you refer them to our embassy for the purposes of their declaring themselves refugees? What's the responsibility there?

You say you're being asked to do a whole bunch of things by Immigration Canada with regard to being the police officer or even the guardian of certain things. How many times do you in fact have to refer them perhaps to our embassies to claim refugee status there?

Ms. Bridget Siwik: I can't give you specific numbers, but what I can say is that if the passenger is presented to us and we have suspicion about his document, if we suspect it is a fraudulent document or doesn't rightfully belong to the passenger who's holding it, we will deny them boarding. We will suggest to them that they go with their document to the nearest high commission or whatever and have their document validated. At this point, if the document turns out to be valid, we receive a call from the commission and we board them on our next flight.

• 1815

Mr. George Petsikas: There's also an argument there for the ICO presence abroad. I think the immigration control officer is a very valuable asset to our work in terms of enforcing Canada's immigration laws.

We have seen, very happily, that the number of officers available abroad right now is being bumped up. I think we should keep going in that direction, because ideally you want to have a situation where you're going to have the resources available at the airport if necessary. If you have a question, if you have a doubt about a passenger's documents, it's important to be able to refer to somebody there and say “Please come and verify this document.”

If you have that sort of support, you don't necessarily have to deny boarding, because perhaps your misgiving or your concern about the document in good faith and on reasonable grounds was incorrect. We would be able to reduce the incidents of passengers holding genuine documents being denied boarding, which is a problem sometimes. We admit it, and that's something that gets us into hot water, but we have no choice. We have to do this sometimes.

Clearly the ICO is a very valid asset. That's what I want to underline. Whatever funding can be made available to boost their presence abroad... I know we've just recently gone from one to two ICOs in London. London is a huge area of embarkation for passengers coming to Canada. I would remind people that there are two airports there, Heathrow and Gatwick, and we had one person covering both. Let's just say that was kind of hard to do.

The Chair: I appreciate that answer, because I think that's very helpful.

Do you keep statistics? For instance, when you suspect the documents are false and a person is making that human plea to get on the plane and not to be sent back because they're at risk... They're trying to flee their country and you're the first opportunity because you would refer them to our embassies. Notwithstanding the concerns you have with regard to documentation, you actually know this person is telling you they are a refugee or they want to claim refugee status.

Mr. George Petsikas: I am not aware of any particular case. If we stop a person and we say we suspect them of not having genuine documents to enter Canada and they are denied boarding, are you asking whether at that point they say “Listen, we're refugees; help us”?

The Chair: That's too much responsibility there. Obviously you refer them to the embassy, right?

Mr. George Petsikas: Yes. There's no question that we will refer them either to the local authorities or to the embassy. I underline that we're not really there to ask why they are going to Canada, what they are doing, what their circumstances are. We're there to check to see if they have the documents. Certainly they'll go to the authorities or they'll go to the embassy, whatever is necessary, but it's very rare that they do that.

Ms. Bridget Siwik: I think my colleague has made a perfect case that there are not ALOs or ICOs throughout the world where we need them. The resource of the 24-hour hotline would certainly help us in determining whether we can board a passenger or not.

The Chair: I saw that suggestion again.

I want to thank each and every one of you. Those were two excellent briefs with some very practical suggestions that, I might add, might go a long way toward—

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): There is one curiosity I have. With the stowaways, what is the profile? What is the age, sex? Could you give me the profile of a stowaway?

Ms. Sonia Simard: What we have seen in recent years are mainly stowaways coming from Romania. More than 70% of our stowaways are coming from Romania and they are males under the age of 25. So we do see a profile there.

The Chair: Thank you again.