CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 25, 2001

• 0909

[English]

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

It's going to be a fairly long day for us. As you know, this morning we'll start with the technical briefing as it relates to border security. I want to tell you in advance that we're not going to get into policy questions on Bill C-11. That will happen with the minister this afternoon at 3:30, in room 253-D, on television. Departmental officials will be there with the minister to answer some of the other questions on the policy.

• 0910

This morning is to prepare ourselves for next week's travel on border security issues. Elizabeth, Tony, and Beverley are going to give us an overview, a technical briefing.

Jacques, do we have the books ready to go, or will they be handed out?

The Clerk of the Committee: They have been distributed.

The Chair: Okay, you have your books.

Why don't we start, Elizabeth, and you can take us through some of the books and the technical briefing. Obviously we'll have some questions, and we'll take it from there.

I should also tell committee members who are asking whether or not we'll be travelling to Washington the following week that I don't have a firm answer yet. The clerk has been working with Foreign Affairs to find out whether the week of November 5 is still fine.

As you know, the situation in Washington is still rather fluid. We hope to let you know as quickly as possible, because we all have planning to do, obviously. If we don't go to Washington, I think what we might want to do on the Tuesday morning, when we're back, is hear from a couple of witnesses, such as the customs union people, who made a presentation to the Senate, and the Canada Employment and Immigration Union. We'll see whether there are any other witnesses we might want to hear.

The following week, of course, is a break week, with Remembrance Day, so it probably won't be likely that we'll travel, which means we would travel to Washington the following week, unless members think otherwise. We can discuss that a little later. After we get through with this technical briefing, we may just want to take a few minutes to talk about future business.

So why don't we let the officials take us through the technical briefing, and depending on how much time we have left, we might want to have further discussions.

Elizabeth, thank you and welcome.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp (Director General, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you. It's nice to be here again.

I'm here today with Tony Smith, who is our director for ports of entry here in Ottawa, and I'm very happy to be joined as well by Beverley Boyd, who is the acting director of the travellers program design and development at the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

What I will be doing this morning is basically giving you a nuts-and-bolts presentation of how our system works at ports of entry. I'll be providing you a fair bit of basic information, and we can take questions as we go through or at the end of the presentation.

First of all, as a bit of an overview, there are some 350 ports of entry in Canada. Immigration is present at 46 of them. That includes 9 international airports, 33 land border crossings, and 4 seaports. Those four seaports are Halifax, Vancouver—I understand you're going there—Sept-Îles, and Trois-Rivières.

We have 561 staff members. That includes 426 full-time immigration officers at these ports. By comparison, Canada Customs has about 3,600 staff members at these same locations. Customs inspectors exercise the authority of immigration officers at ports of entry, and I'll talk more about that, in terms of their primary inspection line functions.

In 2000, over 105 million travellers came into Canada, and about half of those were Canadian citizens or returning residents. Of those, about 19 million arrived at our international airports. So the remainder, the vast majority, came through our land borders and a smaller number at seaports.

Now, 98% of our travellers are cleared by Canada Customs at the primary inspection line. About two million travellers, or 2%, are directed into immigration for a secondary examination. So we only see the 2% who come to us.

The Chair: Before you go on with all of those great statistics, is that something that's in our books, or are you going to provide us with all this great statistical information?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I'm not specifically aware of what's in your books, but we can certainly pull something together and provide you with a summary of my presentation for today, if that would be helpful.

The Chair: We'll take your paperwork before you leave, sure.

• 0915

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Or shortly thereafter.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That's enough for the stats. We'll move on to process. I referred to the primary inspection line, the PIL, and secondary examination. As you know, when they arrive in Canada, all travellers are first interviewed by an inspector from Canada Customs. That person decides, on the basis of the questions they ask and the checks they do, whether to admit the person to Canada or refer the person for an immigration secondary.

In terms of how that decision is made, the customs officer has the discretion to admit the traveller at the primary line, and they are subject to a mandatory referral list. That list includes things like persons believed to be inadmissible; persons, other than Canadians, of course, who have been charged or convicted of a criminal offence; persons for whom a referral has been requested by Immigration, so if there's a watch-out or look-out that says we want to see that person; persons claiming refugee status or asylum; and persons intending to stay longer than six months.

The kinds of referrals we get are wide ranging. Our officers have a facilitation and enforcement role, if you will, and that becomes obvious when I talk about the types of people we see at immigration secondary. For example, someone referred to secondary could simply be asked further questions and then admitted. They could be issued documentation such as a visitor's record or student or employment authorizations. They could be landed in Canada, an immigrant, or an arriving immigrant. They could be reported as being inadmissible to Canada, or they could be allowed to withdraw.

We may effect an arrest of a person, and of course our grounds for detention are the same whether they're at a port of entry or elsewhere. We can detain if their identity needs to be established and we're uncertain about their identity, if they're suspected of being a security risk, if they pose a danger to the public, or if they are unlikely to appear for a further proceeding.

Again, our officers will perform both a facilitation role and an enforcement role, and they may be required to effect the arrest of someone in that context.

In terms of time, you may ask how long all that takes. Well, it will greatly depend on the person in front of you and what they're there to do, and how much information you have on that individual when they arrive. For example, many of them will have been seen overseas by a visa office. We will have a certain amount of information already and we'll be confirming it. In other cases, there will be more intensive work required.

In terms of our refugee determination process and refugee claims made at a port of entry, I'll give you a few more stats. In 2000 we had 37,800 claims in Canada, persons arriving in Canada or claiming inland for refugee protection. Of that total, 54% were claims made at a POE, a port of entry, on arrival. Of those, 64% came to us through the United States. So overall it's about 40% who we know come to us through the United States when they make their claim, which means they're arriving through the States at the land border or they come on a plane from the States and make a claim in Canada.

In 2000 approximately 54% of the total number of persons claiming refugee protection in Canada made their claims at a port of entry. The other 46% made their claims inland, which means they had already entered Canada. They had proper documents at the time. They may have entered on legitimate documentation, or they may—we don't know—have entered on fraudulent documentation, but they make their claims at a later time at an inland office. But 54% make their claims at a port of entry.

• 0920

The Chair: I think, for further clarification, 54% of 37,800 made the claims at the port of entry. Then you said 64% of those came from the United States.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That's right. Again, in terms of our overall numbers, a large number of those persons arrive with improper documentation and many arrive without any documentation. I'll talk a bit more about the process we go through in those cases in a moment.

In fact, what we have always done in those circumstances is to take fingerprints, photographs, do initial paperwork. If obviously there is an indication of a security risk, we would consult the appropriate authorities and detain if necessary.

What we have done recently—in fact on October 3, we issued instructions to our field to put in place a more comprehensive front-end screening process for all refugee claimants at the time they arrive. That means a key component of what we are now going to do—what we are now doing—in all cases is a detailed in-person examination of all refugee claimants who arrive with respect to their admissibility. We will take fingerprints and photographs as we always have done.

The Chair: Could you, just for the benefit of the committee, spend a little time telling us exactly what the officers did with people claiming refugee status prior to October 3 and this front-end screening that we all know about and have talked about in Bill C-11? Then tell us how the October 3 directive changes that somewhat—just so we have some context—if you could.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I think it's important to tell you first off that, in part, the difference depends on which port of entry you're talking about. At some of our very high-volume ports of entry, the interview process would have been shorter. We would always do the fingerprinting and the photographing and we would always take some very basic information. The person would leave with detailed information to fill out later, and the extent of that initial interview varied from port to port.

What we have put in place, then, is a mandatory detailed interview at the front end where information would be collected—there is a series of questions—with respect to the person's admissibility. Obviously, depending on where the questions lead, the officer is to go further and pursue those lines of inquiry, for example, possible criminality and so forth.

They are to collect in a factual, basic way the basis of the claim—why does this person fear returning home? Whether or not the person answers it, they collect that information and it becomes part of the file that then gets forwarded on to the IRB. It's a much more thorough search or thorough investigation or examination at the front end.

The Chair: It is standard at all ports now?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That is standard at all ports. In some ports, we have some operational challenges simply around space and the infrastructure to be able to cope with the volumes. But we are working through that, and notwithstanding its operational challenges, that is now standard policy.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Could I ask just one supplemental on that narrow point?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Paul Forseth: During that particular gathering of information, does the individual have the right to legal counsel at that point?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: No.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. Is all of the information gathered admissible at a later date or does some of that information get thrown out because they didn't have the right to counsel?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: No. When we perform an examination at a port of entry—and this has been upheld by the courts—first of all, you don't have an absolute entitlement to legal counsel. And the kinds of questions we would ask, going to inadmissibility, go to the heart of the Immigration Act and the powers and authorities we have to ask those questions and gather that information. Whether some of that information is then perhaps challenged later by the client...I can't tell you that doesn't happen, but this is wholly a part of the information we are entitled to.

• 0925

Mr. Paul Forseth: So at some point the claimant gets to see that total piece of information because they have a right to challenge it in the hearing.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Absolutely. Anything they say.... Often the story might evolve from the time they're at a port of entry to the time they're before the hearing, for a variety of reasons, including that they were fearful, they were stressed, they were all kinds of things; there's a range of reasons why. Certainly the information we gather on admissibility helps us make determinations of whether this person is someone whom we might want to detain, who may be some kind of risk, who is purposely being uncooperative and perhaps not being forthcoming about who they are and how they've gotten to the country—all of which may be potential indicators of something else. It's this information that makes an initial case-by-case assessment.

But you are right. Any decision taken, for example to detain, any decision taken in writing up a report of a person being inadmissible—whether it's in a refugee claim context or any other context but certainly for something like criminality or so forth—would go before an adjudicator.

They're also given a fairly detailed form to fill out, which would then be forwarded and provided to CSIS, who would do a full security screen. Again, as you know, this is something new, because until recently CSIS would do a security screening only at the time a person had been accepted as a refugee and was in the process of applying for landing. As we've discussed on previous occasions, that has now also moved to the front end of the process. So we will be collecting that information and providing it to CSIS much earlier in the process.

An hon. member: How long does that information take to gather for CSIS?

The Chair: I'm taking supplemental questions, but maybe we can.... Jerry, you're first up anyway, so after....

Okay, go ahead, Elizabeth.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I was going to ask Beverley if she would speak a little bit to the types of systems we have at our ports of entry at the primary line that a customs officer has at their disposal. It is different in a land border and an airport context, so I thought it would be helpful to you to understand the information they have there that helps them make the decisions on whether to admit or refer.

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Beverley Boyd (Director, Travellers Program Design and Development, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency): First of all, I would like to preface my comments by saying that we take our roles and responsibilities as immigration officers extremely seriously. In fact, our officers are trained by the immigration department and those are the first types of questions we ask at the primary inspection line.

When a traveller seeks to come into Canada in an airport, we have as part of our importing of goods regulations a requirement for a written declaration. So, in fact, you are required to fill in an E311 document while you are on the aircraft. Again, it gathers the information as to your name, your date of birth, your citizenship, if in fact you have goods to declare, and the kind of information we ask at the land border because we don't use that document.

So basically when you come into Canada, you'll first encounter customs officers and they will take your E311. They will also ask you for your documents, your proof of citizenship. We have at our ports of entry, in the airports, document readers through which we can then run your passport, your photo identification, your birth certificate, or whatever you provide us as proof of citizenship, to determine if in fact it's a valid document and if your name and date of birth and all of those things are accurate.

We then run that information against our integrated, primary inspection system to see whether or not—either in our system or in the immigration system to which we're linked in a real-time way—there is a look-out for immigration reasons, or there's a reason we would want to speak to you or refer you to Immigration.

• 0930

We also have access to our integrated customs enforcement system. So again, if we have information, if there's a look-out on you through one of the pieces of information we've received from one of our other partners—whether it's U.S. customs, U.S. INS, a police agency—that information is there so the officer then can also refer you for a secondary examination.

All of this is linked to our systems at that primary inspection line. So the officers also have that kind of electronic information to assist them in making their decisions. They also then will ask you questions. They can verify your documents—how long have you been gone if you're a returning resident; if you have any goods to declare; if you're a non-resident and you're coming into Canada, what's the purpose of your visit. Again, the answers to these kinds of questions will determine whether or not we refer you to secondary. If you're coming for the purpose of business, then we'll ask, is it to be employed here, are you coming for a business trip. Depending on your response, again we'll determine whether or not we would refer you to Immigration or for a customs secondary referral.

As I say, if for some reason any of the systems—the electronic system, the passport reader—doesn't work, we also have the ability to key your name into our system manually. Then those automated security checks are done at that time.

The Chair: On the technology, if I could, Beverley, you're telling us this passport reader is directly linked with our database that we have in Canada as well as that which might exist in the United States?

Ms. Beverley Boyd: No, it's linked to our databases. If there is any look-out that's been provided by U.S. INS, that's in the citizenship and immigration department's database and we would be aware of that.

The Chair: Okay. And if nothing showed up, obviously it wouldn't flag it or red flag anything.

Ms. Beverley Boyd: Correct.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Beverley Boyd: As Elizabeth mentioned, our process at the land border is slightly different because again there is no requirement to provide a written declaration in advance. So when you arrive at the port of entry, our primary inspection line officer will have to ask you those questions: What's your citizenship? Where do you live? What's the purpose of your visit if you're a non-resident? We'll ask all this information.

At the same time, what we do have there to support our systems is a licence plate reader system. It's called the primary automated look-out system. It's linked to the licence plate to the vehicle. What it will do is read the licence plate. Your information, your last name, your initials, can be input into our system and it will again do those kinds of automated checks. It will go and look at our integrated customs enforcement system to determine if there's a look-out there. It will also go to the field operational support system, the citizenship and immigration system. Again, if there is any kind of a look-out, any kind of reason we want to refer you, it comes up on the screen for the officers. The officers, as I said, can ask additional questions and, based on the responses to your questions, will determine whether they make a referral to Immigration or to customs secondary.

So we don't have a document reader at the land border.

The Chair: Is every licence plate in those long lineups checked, each and every one of them?

Ms. Beverley Boyd: Yes, and in fact our officers are instructed—

The Chair: You've got to have some pretty good cameras there.

Ms. Beverley Boyd: Yes.

The Chair: I've been in those lineups. I didn't know you were checking my licence.

Ms. Beverley Boyd: If the system can't read your licence plate for some reason, the officer then has to key in the licence plate number.

The Chair: Obviously, because they're coming into this country, a lot of them from the United States, there must be a link to the United States registry system. Otherwise, if there is somebody from Michigan or New York coming into our country, how would you read those licence plates?

Ms. Beverley Boyd: Our licence plate readers are programmed to read the licence plates of all the states, the bordering states particularly. Again, if you were coming through a land border at Niagara and you were from Texas, our licence plate reader would not automatically read that. It's not programmed. The officer then would have to manually input that licence plate.

• 0935

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Sorry, I was going to conclude these introductory remarks.

Obviously, Customs and Immigration work very closely together and need to have a very close relationship at all levels to make the system work. As Beverley said, we do provide training to Customs as part of their all-officers training. There are a lot of initiatives at the port level to build the relationship, and to continue to provide customs officers with information about trends, things to look for, and the like. It is a relationship on which we have spent considerable effort and continue to do so.

The Chair: Okay. We'll go to questions.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'll ask one brief one.

The Chair: Let's not do it on a formal basis of ten-minute stuff. Let's go around briefly. We'll get more questions in.

Mr. Paul Forseth: There has been a lot of comment from the customs officers. They want to change the organization they're in. You've heard the comment, I guess, from union representatives or whatever.

Is there any concern from line immigration officers where perhaps they want to change their organization into more of a justice enforcement group, or even in trying to bring customs and the immigration front-line people together into some kind of working unit? Can you comment on things that have been out there in the media?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Not really. Again, the relationship has been this way, I think, since 1967. Customs has done the primary inspection work and Immigration has been doing secondary examinations.

Certainly, from the immigration perspective, as I've described, we have a dual role at our ports of entry. It's not just an enforcement role; there is a facilitation element, a welcome-to-Canada element, as well. We have a proud tradition of welcoming immigrants, refugees, and visitors here. It is a large part of the work that takes place at a port of entry, in addition to the inadmissibility work.

Certainly, I know comments have been made. I know we continue to listen to, and work with, our employees through some of the issues.

Tony, is there anything you wanted to say at this point?

Mr. Tony Smith (Director, Ports of Entry Management, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Yes, thank you.

Maybe I could preface my comments by introducing myself. My name is Tony Smith. My position here is director of ports and borders for CIC. I'm actually on an interchange program with the U.K. Immigration Service. I bring about 30 years of experience in the immigration and border business to the table. Only about one year of it was in Canada; the rest was in the U.K. My previous position was manager of Heathrow Airport, among other things.

The question, I think, is well made about the relationship between Canada Customs and Canada Immigration. It's something we've worked very hard on. It struck me that this was one of the key issues for our officers at the ports. We had a port of entry conference last year, shortly after I got here, where we asked the officers what their concerns were. It was clearly one of them. Beverley and I have been engaged in regular meetings between the two agencies.

In fact, I took an immigration team to the customs national land border working group in Surrey in May. We also went to the customs airports group in Montreal. Customs attended our national group. We are in the process of developing a new memorandum of understanding. The previous one was made in 1983. The new one is fairly close to signature now. It will redefine the relationship and clarify the relationship.

There have been significant investments on both sides at the national, regional, and port levels. When you go on your tour of the ports of entry, my guess is this will be something officers on both the customs side and the immigration side will want to talk to you about. It's something that I think is fairly unique to Canada in the way the control is constructed.

In the last year, we have managed to achieve significantly greater cooperation at all levels, the port and regional levels, and at headquarters, and a mutual investment in the immigration program. We will continue to work on it with Customs and develop our travellers programs together.

• 0940

Thanks.

The Chair: You've come from the U.K., obviously, to learn all of the better and good things in Canada, and bring it back.

I've been through Heathrow. Could you give us a little perspective as to what the United States might do, or the U.K. might do, in terms of systems? Is this a similar system? Does Customs take the lead and then Immigration? Maybe you can give us a quick background as to what the system might be in the U.S. or Canada.

Mr. Tony Smith: Yes, certainly, Mr. Chairman.

I can't really say too much about the U.S. and what they might do right now. I do have some working knowledge of the U.S. systems. We do have working groups established with INS here that we're developing.

The U.K. system is one that is really influenced by the freedom of movement provisions that exist in European law. For example, since the early 1970s, the U.K. has ascribed to the freedom of movement of goods around Europe. Consequently, the need for a primary customs check is much more restricted.

In terms of the movement of persons, the U.K. does recognize the freedom of movement of European citizens around Europe. Consequently, if you were a European citizen entering Heathrow, the control you would face would be perceived, probably, to be a very light touch indeed. You would have no more than a cursory document inspection at the immigration control. Immigration operates the primary lines in the U.K.

The customs process is handled by way of self-assessment through what we call red and green channels. You would make a declaration with your feet, if you like, by going through the green channel. It would be an indication that you have no goods, contraband, or anything else to declare to Customs. If you get captured in the green line, then you will be dealt with immediately as someone who has not complied.

The controls and the volumes there are rather different. Heathrow is the busiest airport in the world and the volumes there are significant. I think if the U.K. were to try to adopt the Canadian system, or even the American system, of interviewing every passenger who arrives, the airport would very quickly grind to a halt. I think the main difference is the European dimension, where, obviously, a significant number of the traffic is European.

In terms of a North American, Canadian, or U.S. citizen entering the U.K., the process there, again, is to be interviewed by British Immigration. They have their own look-out systems. The questioning would, however, be purely for immigration purposes. Your passport would be examined. You would be asked how long you're coming to the U.K. and what you're coming to do. Then you would probably be admitted without further ado at the primary line.

Beyond that, the immigration secondary area really only deals with people where there is some immigration doubt or concern. Then they would be referred to an immigration secondary area for that matter. The customs process really comes a bit later in the continuum. I guess it's the main difference.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, in respect to the U.S., I don't think I can really give you very much that would be useful to you directly. The U.S. do have immigration on the primary line. I guess it's the difference. The customs examination is also very rigorous in the U.S. You will find U.S. customs officers at some land border ports, on the primary line alongside the immigration officers. The U.S. system, I would say, is probably more aligned to the Canadian system than it is to the European system.

Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you very much Tony. It's very useful.

Art, do you want to take a question?

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for coming to the committee.

I'm always interested. The closer you get to the ground, of course, there are always different viewpoints offered than, for instance, up in the—

The Chair: The hierarchy.

Mr. Art Hanger: —hierarchy that gives the directives.

• 0945

One of our members in our party was at a border crossing a few weeks ago and he saw a memo where the front-line officers were directed not to speak to anybody in reference to any of their concerns. In fact, it came down substantially and very clearly that you just will not voice any opinions to any MPs, especially in our party, or the opposition.

I'm curious as to why a directive like that would be drafted. This question was brought up in question period, as a matter of fact, and put to the minister. But I'm curious as to why a directive like that would actually come about given the fact that I think security is a concern to everyone, and if there's a problem let's deal with it instead of trying to hide it. I'm curious as to what you might reply to that kind of a directive.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: The first comment I will make is I'm not sure I'm aware of the directive you're speaking of—

Mr. Art Hanger: It was in August and it was given to Customs.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That might be one of the reasons I'm not immediately aware. Beverley, you're not aware of that directive either.

We would have to apologize for that, but we could certainly look into it.

The Chair: Do you have a copy?

Mr. Art Hanger: I don't have it here, personally, but I think we could get one. Myron Thompson has one. You'd like to see it though?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes.

The Chair: I'd like to see it too.

Next question.

Mr. Art Hanger: I need a little clarification here. Some 2% of all travellers are referred to Immigration, which really is quite a number if you're looking at, what is it, 1.5 million travellers? Would that include all refugee claimants?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes.

Mr. Art Hanger: It would also include all visitors who may have some question about documents?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That's right.

Mr. Art Hanger: Now we'll go to refugees. There were 37,800 refugee claims in 2000. I gather these were at our points of entry?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That was the total. As I explained before, 54% of those were made at ports of entry. I know I have that number somewhere.

Mr. Art Hanger: So where did the other—

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Those are the individuals who claim inland, and by that I mean they would show up at one of our inland offices and say, “I'd like to make a claim”, or they would phone in and say, “I would like to make a claim for refugee status in this country”.

Mr. Art Hanger: What about the UNHCR refugees? How many UNHCR refugees do we take into the country?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I think the number is around 7,000 or 8,000 a year.

The Chair: Those are government-sponsored, which means we're checking them out overseas.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That's right.

Mr. Art Hanger: I know what the difference is.

The Chair: I want to ask for clarification on a question Art asked. You said that 54% of the 37,800 claimed when they arrived at a port of entry—an airport, port, a border point. The 46% were claims when the people were already in Canada—

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That's correct.

The Chair: —and they would have got in here for some other reason, maybe as a visitor, or a visa of some sort, you would think, and then thereafter.... They might have been here a week, a day, a year, let's say six months, or three months, and then all of a sudden they appear inland and say “I want to be a refugee”. Right?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That's right.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that's a good clarification.

I'm curious then. Out of the 37,800, how many are undocumented refugee claimants?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: The number actually is around 40%.

Mr. Art Hanger: So it's just short of half then. We're looking at 37,000, and of the 37,000 approximately 20,000 or 18,000 would be undocumented?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: It's a significant number and it's a significant challenge obviously.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes. I see you guys have a lot of problems on your hands given the fact that you have 426 immigration officers. Is this at the borders?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes, that's at our ports.

• 0950

Mr. Art Hanger: This falls strictly within the immigration department then?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes.

Mr. Art Hanger: But to even check those kinds of numbers—2% of the total number goes through the immigration line, so that's beyond the primary you're talking about.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That's right. It's about two million or three million people.

Mr. Art Hanger: Where do you get the manpower from, and how can you thoroughly do an investigation or a questioning of those particular people? I don't know how you can do it. Can you do it?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I believe we can. Certainly resources are always an issue, as are the times people have to wait to be seen. In some busier ports that is often how things might get sawed off if push comes to shove, but yes. I will note, though, that the minister has announced a further 100 resources for our ports of entry in the post-September 11 announcement. Those will be resources that will be added to that complement and will help us very much on the front-end screening process I talked of earlier, which again is quite an intensive interview, which is resource-intensive at your front lines.

The Chair: Art, can you just hold on for a minute?

Mr. Art Hanger: Sure, go ahead.

The Chair: Jerry, and then Madeleine.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): I wanted to pursue the refugee side of things as well because a lot of discussion in the last few weeks has focused on what we can do with our new regulations, what we need to do in terms of the streaming of refugees as it occurs, and what happens in those cases.

Just to focus, I think a lot of discussion is centred around aircraft and people coming in on aircraft where they had to have documentation getting on aircraft. Somewhere on the aircraft the documentation disappears. That person obviously has reasons why the documentation that was there getting on the aircraft was not available when they got off the aircraft, and I would guess this would heighten the concern dramatically of anybody, certainly in post-September 11 days. I would like to know what you're doing in those cases.

Number two, when a person arrives in Canada there are different streams they would go into if they were claiming refugee status. After the intense interview, determinations are made. There would be a determination to possibly detain, a determination to not allow that person entry into Canada, or three, a determination to let that person go. The number one question in my mind is, if you decide a person is not.... And I know that under the new regulation the minister would have the right to disallow a person entry without further questions at that time, if it was deemed to be the case. At least it is my understanding that the minister can make a decision when a person arrives in Canada.

If a person is not allowed entry into Canada, what do you do with that person? That's question one. Number two, if your determination is that this person has no papers, I think in the past we've not automatically detained them, but is there not a higher demand at this point in time to make sure the public realizes safety is quite important? In that case, I would guess other measures must be looked at carefully.

So I'd like a response to those issues around documentation disappearing, around what you do when you determine refugee status is questionable.

The Chair: I think those are very pertinent questions, but could you just take us through this, and perhaps Beverley or Tony or yourself might want to tell us about it. Of these people, 40% are now arriving with no documents. Can you assure the committee that every one of those people who don't have documents are in fact not only going to the primary interview, which they would, but would in fact go to the second interview? So within that 2% Art asked about, are you telling me that everybody who doesn't have any paperwork at least gets to that interview, to that detailed interview?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Absolutely.

The Chair: Maybe you can start from that point, because I think Jerry raises some questions.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I think the reason I raised those questions is because many folks have said, and you've heard it, that people will come in, they destroy their documents some place or the documents are taken away, they go into our centres, they're interviewed, and they're turned loose on the streets. That's been said and it's been challenged, and I think we need to answer and respond.

• 0955

That's really where I'm heading. Let's answer with what is happening—how we're handling that and what we have available to handle that. If there are changes required, we can read them from the comments that are made.

The Chair: Start from the point where a person comes and hits Beverley's people without any document whatsoever. What happened to those documentation lists? This committee spent hours and hours ad nauseam talking about documentation and how it seems to disappear from the time they get on the aircraft until the time they get off. I know our bill speaks to documentation and fraudulent documentation and maybe putting some onus on airlines and ships—the carriers—to essentially take some sort of responsibility. But take us from the point that a person doesn't have any documentation. What kind of questions are they asked?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Okay. I would like to just step back. I know your focus is on port of entry, but I think it's important to put it in a broader context as well—what happens overseas before people get on planes—

The Chair: Still.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: —because of course this is a significant issue. It's a significant issue for us and for other countries. This phenomenon is linked in large measure to migrant smuggling and is routinely done because people are told, whether they have any malicious intent or not, that this is the way they should proceed: they should conceal how they've come here and their documentation.

But our screening mechanisms do start overseas. We have, as you know, a very good interdiction program. We have immigration control officers overseas who work with airlines. Airlines screen passengers before they get on aircraft bound for Canada. We do interdict thousands, I think, per year—and I can give you the exact number—that have improper documentation and are stopped at that point from getting on planes to Canada.

If, as you've described, the person shows up at the other end with improper documentation, the airline is liable for that. They are subject to a fee, and they are liable for the ultimate removal of that person from Canada if, after going through process, the person is still inadmissible. So we do have those kinds of screening mechanisms built in. We do have a liability for transportation companies in those circumstances built in. We work very closely with the transportation companies on all these issues.

Now, as to the person who does arrive and has come without documents, one of the challenges can be that the person gets to the primary inspection line and does not have documents, but also doesn't tell you where they've come from. For our purposes, for determining which air carrier is liable, and for intelligence purposes, understanding how the person got there is something we'd like to know, obviously.

What we've put in place at all our major airports are disembarkation checks. This means we have teams who go out to meet aircraft. When people are getting off the plane or sometimes when they're on the plane, the team will ask to see documentation. So if they have ditched their documents en route before getting on the aircraft, we will at least be able to tie them to what air carrier they came on right from the get-go, or prevent them from doing exactly that en route from the aircraft to the primary inspection line. So we have put measures in place like that to try to get at the problem.

And quite frankly, it's working well at our airports. It's obviously more of a challenge when somebody comes up to you at the land border or makes a claim inland and doesn't provide the documentation. But we are making significant strides in terms of our airports.

The person arrives at the primary inspection line without documentation, claims refugee status, or even if they don't, for that matter, they would be referred immediately to immigration secondary. In immigration secondary they would be seen by an officer, who would conduct an examination with respect to that person's admissibility. If they are not claiming a fear, they would be inadmissible. They don't have the required documentation for entry to Canada. In fact, in those clear-cut factual cases, the senior immigration officer can make the determination that this person is inadmissible to Canada. They are therefore excluded. They get an exclusion order, which is a type of removal order. We can return those individuals on the next available flight back out. The air carrier is responsible for taking that person away. That is a non-refugee claimant.

• 1000

The Chair: If we don't ship them out on the next aircraft, do we detain them?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: They often are detained or held for short periods of time until the next flight becomes available, yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Are they allowed to go out on the streets? This accusation has been made over and over again. Do we turn many of these people out on the streets?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: In terms of the quick turnarounds, I would say no. Those people are kept in very short-term detention until we are able to remove them and put them back on a plane. Again, we're not talking about the refugee claimant population, though, which is a different situation. We're talking about the inadmissible persons arriving at a port of entry with improper documentation. Those people are not allowed entry into Canada, and the vast number are turned around in a very short period of time.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: What happens with the refugee claimants?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: As to the refugee claimant, obviously we don't have the same measures at our disposal. If someone claims a fear of persecution, we cannot refoule persons back to situations where they might face persecution. When someone makes a claim for refugee protection, we are obliged to consider that claim. Until we have fully considered that claim, Canada cannot return that person.

In those circumstances, as I've described earlier, we would conduct an interview—a significantly in-depth interview—with each and every refugee claimant. We would ask them, if they had no documents, how they got here, who they are, and all that type of information. We would ask them to provide what they can. We'll ask them questions about their records and so forth. We will take fingerprints and photographs. We'll use that to determine whether this person is known to us, perhaps as a previous refugee claimant now trying again, or whether they are known to us or to the RCMP for criminality or for other reasons. That's the purpose obviously for doing that.

Once we have conducted that interview, an officer has to make a case-by-case decision, or judgment, if you will, on whether to release that person and on what terms and conditions and so forth. They do that each and every day; they make those decisions. Clearly they are armed with any look-out information, the latest intelligence information on things to watch for or be concerned about. If there are any flags or indicators or a sense that there is something amiss, they would bring in CSIS or the RCMP, who would conduct detailed interviews with the individual.

So those types of close partnerships exist to help us identify those persons who are high risk. The vast majority are not high risk. I think that's something we all understand. It's making sure we're asking enough questions and in sufficient depth that officers can make an informed judgment and assessment of the case in front of them. Is this someone who needs to be detained until identity is confirmed? Are there possible risks? Is there an indication that the person won't appear? Perhaps if the person is someone who's known to us, who has been here many times before, who has a pattern of not appearing for proceedings or removal or the like, that might also be an indicator to suggest we would want to hold on to this person. Those are the kinds of things that would come out. Then a decision is made.

The Chair: Madeleine is next up, unless it's related to the same question.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: It is totally related to that. My question had to do with refugees.

The Chair: Okay, go ahead, supplemental.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Let's take a refugee—three streams again. He has arrived without papers and has claimed refugee status. He's coming into a port of entry. His papers have disappeared somewhere.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Okay.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Statements have been made that this refugee is turned out on the streets more often than not. You know he has taken some action to hide something, as his papers have disappeared. If that's the case, do you have any idea of what the percentage is? A large number of them, obviously, are appearing at our borders or ports of entry without papers. We have a responsibility to make sure they're safe. I'm not debating that. But I am questioning how these folks are streamed. So many are streamed in detention, so many are streamed back to where they come from, and so many are let out on the streets. Do you have any ideas of the numbers?

• 1005

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Well, I can tell you that in the context of a refugee claim at the front end, detention is not something done in the majority of cases. It would be done in a small minority of cases.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I'm referring only to ones we've taken action on related to documents. I'm concerned about this document question, where they have done something we know isn't kosher: getting rid of documents between the point of leaving and entry.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes. As I've explained to you, it's a case-by-case assessment, looking at all the factors of the case and based on the information gathered during the examination that would allow the officer to make that kind of decision. There is no blanket directive that says “When someone shows up with no documents, you will detain.” It is completely based on a case-by-case risk-assessment type of procedure where the officer will take all the information before making a determination.

Again, if someone is undocumented and is being uncooperative—not forthcoming—that would be an indication that he or she may have something additional to hide. It would perhaps lean us towards detention in that circumstance—certainly until the identity issues are cleared up, whether or not there's any other sense that there might be anything in play.

Certainly we would not take any chances when it was someone who was potentially a security risk. I don't have a specific.... Do we have with us specific numbers on detention at ports of entry?

We could get some specific detail for you on those numbers.

The Chair: That would be helpful.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I have four questions. The first has to do with training.

It is obvious that the relationships between customs officers and immigration officers must essentially be based on cooperation. In the training process, do both these professional groups receive joint training? It is my background in education that brings me to ask that question.

I am also going to ask you my other questions right away. This way, you might be able to get the answers ready.

It is clear that there are many refugees arriving in Canada without documents. Compared with other countries receiving a fairly large number of refugees, does Canada receive about the same percentage of people without documents as those countries or does he receive a lot more? If it is the case, we must ask ourselves why.

In the case of refugees who speak neither English nor French, how can you get the information that you need?

I have a last question. You said that some refugees claim inland after having lived in Canada for a while. The most notorious cases of course are those of athletes attending international events. It might also possibly be the case of artists. There surely are other people doing the same. Is this phenomenon also happening in other refugee-receiving countries? If it is the case, is it as common as it is in Canada?

[English]

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: For the first question, on whether there's joint training, I think I'll turn to Tony, because he can provide you with more details than I can.

Mr. Tony Smith: Yes, thank you.

On the training side, as Beverley mentioned earlier, Immigration officers do deliver training to customs officers as part of the customs officer's initial induction course. Then there will be a week of that course spent specifically on the immigration program and its requirements. And there is ongoing training on a port-by-port basis, which I think you will find out about more when you go to the ports of entry, where we continue to maintain that kind of on-site training, if you like.

• 1010

As for immigration officer training, these officers will be given a ten-day intensive course upon induction. Beyond that, the training is really tailored to the port they're going to be working at. There will be an ongoing training program for the individual, which will involve an element of orientation and mentoring and supervision for that officer, and there will also be specific training for specific applications that may be required.

For example, access to CPIC to undertake CPIC checks requires specific knowledge, so immigration officers would attend a two-day course on CPIC and how to conduct a CPIC check. Other training that's more generally made available to the department is also made available to our immigration officers, such as diversity training, awareness training, and investment-in-people training.

The training that operates for ports of entry is such that, whether you're Customs or Immigration, you will be given a degree of primary induction training before you're allowed to proceed to the port of entry. Then you will continue to receive developmental training as you progress through your career at the port of entry, depending upon the types of activity you become involved with.

The Chair: Elizabeth, on the other questions of documentation in other countries or the refugee claimants inland from other countries, can you relate our experience, please?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I certainly can tell you—and I was just checking to see if I had anything more specific, but I don't—that the undocumented phenomenon and the improperly documented phenomenon are our concerns across the board in refugee-receiving countries. These are things we are trying to deal with and all countries are struggling with. It's not something just being targeted with respect to Canada.

Similarly with claiming inland, where people come for other purposes and claim inland, we are seeing and hearing from other countries that they, too, are experiencing an increase—not so much in the high-profile athlete phenomenon, but just generally speaking, a rise—in claims inland. This is something happening, again, not just in Canada but elsewhere as well.

There was another question with respect to how we deal with people who speak neither English nor French. I want to touch on that very briefly. Obviously, we have to work with interpreters, and again, in terms of logistic operational challenges, when you're talking about a detailed interview at a port of entry with persons who don't speak the language, it is a challenge and an issue we have to deal with. In our larger ports, we would have some interpreters on call or present. Sometimes I've seen these things done by way of the phone, where you have the interpreter doing the interpretation over the phone.

So there are different ways and means to deal with it. But you have pointed out an operational, logistical challenge we face. That's how we deal with it.

The Chair: Thank you, Madeleine and Elizabeth.

Yvon, and then Inky.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Coming off the aircraft and before arriving at the inspection line, what specific authorities do the people you send have?

[English]

Mr. Tony Smith: Maybe, Mr. Chairman, I can help the committee here from an immigration officer's perspective, or perhaps more from the would-be illegal migrant's perspective.

The main objectives of an illegal migrant would be, first of all, conceal your identity, and secondly, conceal the point from which you arrived in the territory. Those would be your two primary goals if you wished to have a good chance of staying in the country to which you are headed. That is because any country in the world that operates an immigration program, where somebody at the end of the day does not qualify to stay in the country, has to have some kind of removals program.

• 1015

In order to remove somebody from your territory, you usually need to know who he or she is, first of all, because the receiving state will want to know that. You also need to know where he or she came from, because the inbound carrier will be responsible for returning that person for you.

From the immigration perspective, what you're trying to do in the continuum is to keep the person and the person's document together. That's what we're trying to do.

The position on arrival at the airport is very similar. This is not unique to Canada; it also exists in other countries. There is a serious difficulty when people come off aircraft and before they reach the point where their passport would be examined, because airports are quite big and there are a number of places you can go before you arrive at the primary inspection line where you would be expected to produce your passport.

If you look at that from the perspective of the would-be illegal migrant, it is in his interests to try to use that opportunity to either hand his document off to somebody else or dispose of it and stay away from officialdom at the airport for as long as possible, thus making it more difficult for the immigration officer to determine who that person is or where he came from.

What we've done is create a number of teams at the airports here in Canada, which, as Elizabeth said, are called DAR teams, disembarkation and roving teams. Their job is to go to the gate of the aircraft to make sure the persons coming off the aircraft have their documents with them and that therefore at least we know which aircraft those persons arrived on, even if they may have destroyed their documents in flight or even before flight.

We are working very hard to try to make sure—throughout the continuum, not just at airports of entry, but also, as Elizabeth made clear, before people board—that passengers coming into Canada have their documents and stay with them so that we have the opportunity to access the documents, because the only way you can ensure the integrity of any immigration program is to ensure you have access to a person's official travel document. That's what we're trying to do, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Have you got something further?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: It's going to the specifics of what the authorities are. When you find somebody who doesn't have a document...[Inaudible—Editor]...I assume, through the primary inspection line, working with Customs, and on into secondary where you would conduct a full examination.

The Chair: Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: This is what I wanted to make sure of, that is if those people do not produce their documents at that time, they can at least be sure to make it to the first inspection line. They are not immediately taken back to the aircraft.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: No, they are not taken back to the aircraft.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: My second question has to do with the case of someone claiming refugee status. This person undergoes a first interview then gets to a detailed interview. I understand that people can be admitted to Canada in some cases even without documents. What do you give them at that time? Is it true that you give them a cheque, a social insurance number, the right to work and study? What is their status exactly once they have gone through that step? I would like to set the record straight.

[English]

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Persons who have made a refugee claim are not technically admissible to Canada under the act. They would be given a conditional removal order. It's conditional, and in effect there is a stay on the removal order during the time their claim is being considered.

If they were not being detained but were being released, they would be given documentation that would permit them in most cases to go and apply for a work permit or to seek social assistance. We would set that in motion for them at that time, but we don't give them a cheque.

• 1020

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Do you give them the right to work and study?

[English]

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes. We give them the right to work.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Do you also give them access to health benefits?

[English]

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: They would have access to health benefits, yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Do you also give them a social insurance number?

[English]

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That I'm not sure of. I don't think we would do that.

Mr. Art Hanger: A special one?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: A special, temporary one, yes.

The Chair: But that's all for people with...attached to a conditional removal.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Absolutely. It's a conditional removal.

The Chair: That's until such time as the refugee status has been determined and they've gone through the system.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That's right. Once they've been through the process, if they come out the other end not being accepted, at that point the removal order is no longer conditional. They are required to leave Canada, and access to those benefits ceases.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have one last question.

[Translation]

When someone claims refugee status and the claim is rejected after having passed through all the steps to finally be thrown out, what does happen between you and the RCMP regarding the carrying out of the expulsion order?

I asked the question to the RCMP people when they appeared before the committee. I gave as example cases where months had gone by between the determination and the expulsion. They told me that this question had to be put to the ministry, that they were only carrying out the ministry's orders. Why do several months sometimes go by between the expulsion and the last determination? What are your relationships with the RCMP?

[English]

The Chair: Elizabeth, we are talking about border security here. If you want to answer it, fine, but that's a very appropriate question to put to the minister and/or the officials this afternoon. Today I'm dealing specifically with those decisions that are made at the border and with border security. If you want to take a crack at it, by all means, Tony and Elizabeth, go ahead and answer. I'm just telling you that it's a very appropriate question for the minister and the other officials who are going to be joining us this afternoon.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: In fact, that's—

The Chair: That's what you were going to say?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Something like that.

The Chair: I've got ESP.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It is a question that will be announced to the minister in advance. She will therefore have a good answer.

[English]

The Chair: I think she can already expect that.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank all three of you for coming here this morning.

My first question relates to the fact that with respect to refugees, it's so unfortunate that a few rotten apples spoil the barrel. I think that's a concern for all of us.

I just want to pick up on Mr. Pickard's line of questioning.

Do you think the refugee system ties your hands in terms of screening out fraudulent claims? I'll give you an example. When you do the secondary checks and find out that the refugee applicant does have a criminal background, would you rather see a system that gives you the option of either detention or removal at that point?

Also, I want you to respond to the question, how will Bill C-11 change the way you operate today? I think that's what we're trying to get at: how do we find these rotten apples and deal with them in an expedient manner on initial or secondary contact?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Thank you.

I think some of the questions you posed go, again, to issues that are probably going to be discussed in some detail this afternoon, certainly with respect to Bill C-11 and the like. Perhaps it would again be useful to just go over the kind of assessment made in that secondary examination and the kinds of factors that would go to making decisions around that.

If someone has made a refugee claim and they are eligible to make that refugee claim, it would mean 90 days has passed since they were removed from the country after a previous failed claim. They're not back just two days later making another claim. At that point they wouldn't be eligible, and that's a fairly straightforward decision. That person can in effect be turned around without much difficulty.

• 1025

But something complex does require appearing before an adjudicator. It would require in the current context a danger opinion and an inadmissibility finding for an individual to be denied an opportunity to make their claim. In those types of cases we are not in a position to make an instant determination at a port of entry to turn somebody around. The issues are significant enough—someone making a claim for protection—and whether someone does or does not have a criminal record that would exclude their pursuit of that claim is a determination that would not be made in that port of entry examination; they would have to go through further processes.

Mr. Inky Mark: That essentially is my question. Does the system tie your hands when you deal with clear-cut cases where there is criminality involved for individuals applying for refugee status?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: No, I don't think the system is tying our hands at all. The system does require us to go through certain steps to balance off the rights of the individual against the information we have before us. It depends on what that information is—on the seriousness of the offence and so forth—and the next step is having that validated through an admissibility finding before an adjudicator.

As I've said, the balancing with respect to whether a person poses a danger to the public is an important component of the process, and again the decision is not made in a port of entry. It probably would not be practical to make those kinds of determinations at a port of entry. The system has safeguards in it to protect individuals as well as society. We have, again, the tools and the means to identify those individuals in order to detain them if necessary so Canadians are protected.

The Chair: I think Inky did ask about Bill C-11, and perhaps that's something he would want to ask the minister and the officials.

Obviously, you haven't implemented Bill C-11 because it's not yet law. There are a number of provisions in Bill C-11 that tighten security and do a lot more on admissibility at the front-end screening. I was interested to hear that on October 3 you did in fact commence in spirit what Bill C-11 talks about, namely front-end screening and more detailed interviews

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That's right.

The Chair: Have you had an opportunity to look at Bill C-11 as to how it will impact on border security?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Mr. Chair, with all due respect to the committee, I think it's probably a question you would want to put to the minister because the mechanisms in place for balancing are somewhat different. As you know, the type of person you are perhaps referring to—say a serious criminal or someone like that—would still have to go through a process under Bill C-11. It will be a streamlined process, but there will still be a pre-removal risk assessment, for example, as a type of balance for an inadmissibility finding. Those are steps one will still go through, but it's a streamlined process.

The Chair: We'll let Inky ask the minister that this afternoon.

Steve, Art, and then Anita.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman and our staff, my experience has been that I would say virtually all, certainly most, of the staff I have met around the world, in Africa, Europe, the United States, and Canada, really believe in our system and what we're trying to do. My sense is that you don't work for Immigration Canada unless you're really committed and devoted to the concept and the principles that particularly deal with refugees.

The issue of visitors visas is another issue. Our turndown rates are quite phenomenal, actually, as high as 70% in many of the offices I've been in. I've sat in on interviews where I would have let them in, yet the immigration officer turned them down flat.

The Chair: That's why you're here and they're over there.

• 1030

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Exactly. Most people would have let them in too.

I'm assuming you share those values, and if you do, you have to help us save this situation. We have people out there who are saying, both in the House of Commons and in the press.... I won't be unkind to my colleagues, but I will be unkind to someone like Diane Francis, who is just absolutely outrageous in her accusations and her claims against this immigration system. You have to help us fight this kind of nonsense and give us straightforward answers to questions about security and criminality.

We can fight it all politically if we want, but I want it from the people who live and work in the system every day. You're not going to believe a Liberal, and a Liberal is sure as hell not going to believe an Alliance member. Let's just say that's a given, and let's agree that we don't believe each other, okay? Maybe we can believe these people when they tell the truth.

Now I have a couple of questions. Why would somebody show up here without documentation? Why would that happen?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: They do it in the context of seeking refugee protection for the reasons I attempted to describe and Tony spoke about. People are interested in concealing who they are and where they've come from in part—and again there are a variety of reasons—because they don't want you to know. They don't want you to know because perhaps the story they're going to tell you is not entirely a truthful one. Or they could have a very true and poignant story to tell, but if their arrival here has been facilitated by smugglers, they may well have been provided documentation to get them to that point and then been asked to turn it over to a facilitator on the aircraft or to someone else. Alternatively, they may have been told that they had better destroy their documents because this goes to the heart of the smugglers' business. Revealing the documents would let us know more about how they've brought people here.

Many of the people are acting on advice from unscrupulous criminals who are facilitating their arriving here. Some quite honestly—and this is a perspective we hear as well—think it's the right thing to do.

Some might not have the documentation. That's another point. Some might just legitimately not have the documentation. The only way they felt they could get to where they wanted to go was through some fraudulent documentation and so forth.

Others, quite frankly, will be extremely worried about handing over certain information because they don't trust authority figures in general. It will probably take a bit of time before they're willing to be more forthcoming because of what they've experienced. There are a variety of human situations that play into this.

But certainly from a security or integrity perspective, which is the perspective you're asking the question from, I'd say that yes, many think they have something to gain by not telling us who they are. They then have more of a blank slate to work from in terms of the story they will build. In some cases, certainly, they might want to hide unsavoury aspects of their character and their background.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are you satisfied that you have the tools in your organization—the bigger picture—to detect people who are criminals and potential terrorists and to separate these people out from the ones who, for whatever reason, are here without ID yet might be considered as legitimate refugees? If the answer is yes, maybe you can explain it to the committee. As Jerry was saying, even reasonable people get worried about these accusations that certain refugee claimants get turned out into the street. We have to somehow put an end to that lie—if it is a lie. Do you have the tools you need to detect the bad guys?

• 1035

The Chair: Gee, that's interesting, because that's the very question I sent from my RIM to your RIM just about a second ago.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is that what that was?

The Chair: Yes, that's what that was.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Then you bitch at me and tell me to turn it off?

The Chair: Thank you.

Go ahead.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: We have tools. Are they the best they can be? They are good tools. I think one of our biggest strengths is our people, the professionalism and competence of our people, because at the end of the day, you're going to gather information from databases.

We are continually looking at signing additional information-sharing agreements with other countries so we can broaden the type of information we have at our disposal, say overseas, at the time we're making decisions. We are constantly working with our partners, be they the CCRA, the RCMP, CSIS, or others, looking at ways—for example, with respect to technology and systems—to make sure they're talking to each other so we have the best available, up-to-date information at our disposal in as quick a time as we can get it. Those are things we are always working toward.

Certainly, I'm very grateful for those comments you made about our staff, and yes, we believe very strongly in what we're doing. I think our strength, very honestly and openly, also comes down to our people who have to sit across from the person to ask those questions and make those judgments based on their experience and the information they have at their disposal. We do put a lot of stock and faith in them to make the right decisions.

Yes, I think we do have the tools. We'd like to get better tools and we are working toward doing that with our partners. That brings in a whole host of interoperability technology questions as well, which we are looking at.

The Chair: He says such nice things about the staff—and I would too—because they keep stopping him at the border. That's the problem.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's almost like a cult. I shake my head when I see what they have to go through, especially our foreign service people. I don't know why anyone does it. It's certainly not for the money we pay them.

Talk to me about third safe countries. The question being asked—and I think it's a fair question—is why would we get so many people coming here from the United States claiming refugee status? Does the United States have a more open policy with regard to visa requirements around the world that allows people to come into the United States without a visa and then knock on our door to claim refugee status?

Is that a reason, or is there some other explanation for why we would get...what was it, 14,000 or something, who came across the border, some incredible number? It's hard to understand that. If we determine when they come across the border and knock on our door that they're unacceptable to Canada, can we send them back to the United States? What happens when the bus shows up at the U.S. border and we say, sorry, these folks came from your country and we don't want them?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: To answer your question on safe thirds, safe third country is a concept whereby you would determine that a country—it could be the United States or countries in Europe—is a safe third country. That is, they are in a position to provide someone safety from possible persecution. Therefore, if they are coming from such a country, the effect of having that in place would be that you could turn them around and send them back, because they have the opportunity to claim in the country from which they came.

We have a provision in our legislation that allows us to do that, and we currently have no safe-third agreements with any country. So at this time, when someone does make a claim at our land border, we entertain that claim.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But does the United States have a more open policy? How do these people get into the United States of America so they can then come across Niagara Falls and make a claim? How did they get into the States?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: To answer that question, there are many different ways. They're the same ways people might come into Canada and make a claim inland. They could very well be coming on legitimate documentation. Sometimes that documentation will be shared with us and many times it won't be. They could have had status in the United States and decided to come forward. They could have entered fraudulently.

• 1040

In terms of the—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is there any truth to this allegation that people who hold American citizenship have applied for refugee status in Canada and obtained it?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I'm not aware of any cases.

The Chair: During the Vietnam War there were all kinds of things happening, and as you know—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, these are recent. This is another one of these statements in the media that people like to grab onto. I can't understand. If you have American citizenship—

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Absolutely, and I should distinguish that. If someone has protected legal status in another country—is protected, has had a protection claim—then we can turn them around. They would be ineligible to make a claim here if they had already received and had legal status in the United States.

The Chair: We do have better health care, so....

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But if an American citizen showed up at our door and applied for refugee status, we could simply turn them around, and we do. Is that correct?

The Chair: It's not as easy as that.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That's right.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm sorry, I didn't ask you, with all due respect.

The Chair: Excuse me, but I do know my legislation—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, good for you. I want to ask the question so it's on the record, and hear the answer so it's on the record. I'd prefer it come from Elizabeth, with due respect.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: If an American citizen arrives at the border and makes a claim against the United States, that person would be allowed to make their claim. We could argue it on the basis of credibility, but they could make their claim.

If they are a citizen of the United States and come in and make a claim against a third country, they would not be eligible to make a claim because they have legal status in the United States. They have a safe place to be where they have legal status.

The Chair: For the interests of committee members, you will recall that on Bill C-11 there were some discussions on safe third countries. We don't have any agreements now. We are close to having an agreement with the United States and other countries, or at least we continue to negotiate, because that's a very important question. That might be a very pertinent question to ask the minister and the officials this afternoon.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I very seldom ask a question that I don't know the answer to, and I—

The Chair: That's scary.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's right, but I'm asking these questions because I think they're important to have on the record, that they be public, and that our officials have an opportunity to debunk this myth that we're just turning refugees—

The Chair: That's true.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It isn't true. See, there you go. If you say it often enough, it's supposedly true.

The Chair: I would agree.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's why I'm asking those questions.

The Chair: Thank you. I know that.

We'll go to Art. He will ask questions he already knows the answers to also, I'm sure.

Mr. Art Hanger: I'm still searching, to try to make sense of this whole process. I find the refugee claim process has so many twists and turns in it that I don't know how an enforcement officer can do his job. That's my view of it.

There's a large credibility gap here on how enforcement officers can handle the flow of people and issues that come forward under the refugee claim process. I don't understand how they can handle the flow and do it properly. It just doesn't add up, to me.

I want to go through a couple of more things. If a thorough examination is going to be done at a point of entry, it will take a lot of time and a substantial amount of detention for somebody who is undocumented. That would be my viewpoint, number one. And there is no detention, or very little detention, so I don't know how the job can be done effectively, to be quite honest with you.

That said, there's a process every refugee claimant goes through—through the IRB, through the appeal process, and sometimes through the Federal Court—and now I see there's going to be another level or parallel process under the new legislation. I don't know quite how that's going to work—

The Chair: Art, I'm going to tell you that so far, the preamble is not about border security—

Mr. Art Hanger: It is precisely about border security.

The Chair: It goes to the heart of what Bill C-11—

Mr. Art Hanger: It is precisely about border security, because I'm curious about personnel doing their jobs effectively at a point of entry—border security.

The Chair: I got that first part, but you started talking about the refugee system, the appeal system. That's not border security. That's immigration law.

Mr. Art Hanger: I'm going to go back.

• 1045

We have an enforcement officer here, I gather. She's done some enforcement and this is all appropriate, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Art Hanger: These claimants go through a process, and they're determined inadmissible, for instance, or they're failed claimants. What accompanies a failed claimant? Is it a deportation order or a removal order?

So you have this refugee flow through the border points, through the court systems. They're failed and then orders are issued. How many failed claimants out of those 37,800 does enforcement have to deal with, through deportation and removal orders?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Pardon me, that last part, how many of the 37,800...?

Mr. Art Hanger: Of the 37,800, how many failed claimants are there that would have deportation orders or removal orders placed against them? I assume it would be up to enforcement to deal with that, in some form or another.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Again, I know we're moving a bit away from what goes on at the ports and our borders, but I can just, in a factual way, speak a bit to clarify what happens. I don't think I have the specifics with me on failed claimants, but I will look when I have a second.

Mr. Art Hanger: Could you give us some stats on that for the past five years?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Absolutely.

The Chair: We're going to ask that question of the minister, because again, we're into the refugee system and not the border security system. I think it's a very good question, Art, but that's not—

Mr. Art Hanger: What is it?

The Chair: It's not pertinent right now. We're talking about border security. You're asking how many claimants have failed the refugee test, and that's what the minister and the departmental people can answer this afternoon.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: The technical aspect of that, which I will certainly answer now, is the kind of removal order they would have. As I said at the outset, they are given a conditional removal order when they first come in and claim. Once they have been through the process and they are a failed claimant, their removal order is no longer conditional. In virtually all cases, or most cases, there is a departure order, which means we give people 30 days to leave voluntarily. A great number of them do and then others don't. The ones that don't then become part of your enforcement stream and are removable.

They're to confirm their departure when they go. This is something else that takes place at a port of entry. It does happen that people leave without confirming their departures. It's not a fail-proof system, obviously, and it depends on the individual. The incentive for them to do so is that if after 30 days we have no record of their having left, the order then becomes a deemed deportation order, and the consequences of a deemed deportation order, of course, are quite different.

If you leave on a departure order, you can come back to Canada. If you leave on a deportation order you cannot, without the consent of the minister. That's the difference.

The Chair: Last question, Art.

Mr. Art Hanger: At the border crossing, an undocumented refugee claimant comes in for an interview and he or she fills out this form. Do they present pictures of themselves, or what's required?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: We take their photograph.

Mr. Art Hanger: You take their photograph.

Now if during that interview at the border they are found not to be a danger to society, they are then given an interim federal health care card, I understand. Is that correct?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I'm not sure if they're given a card at that point.

The Chair: There is such a thing as a federal health card.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes. My understanding is that after the hearing they are given an interim federal health care card and they're sent on their way into the community to await an intake hearing. Am I correct?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I'm not sure if it's a card or what it is, but the paperwork is initiated.

Mr. Art Hanger: Interim—an IFH, let's call it.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: It's something that would allow them to have access to interim health benefits.

Mr. Art Hanger: So that's done at the intake hearing at the border.

• 1050

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes. That goes to the issue of eligibility and whether the documentation is given immediately at the port of entry or they give an address and that follows closely thereafter. A senior immigration officer makes that determination. In some circumstances they do that on the spot and in other circumstances that is done subsequently. They are forwarded the requisite papers so that they can have access in a short period of time to health and social service benefits and the like.

The Chair: Next is Anita. Then we'll have a short one from Madeleine and one from Paul. Let's go. It's 11 o'clock. Everybody has had a chance. Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Many of my questions have already been asked, Elizabeth.

I want to put this on the record, and I want to confirm Steve's comments. I had the opportunity last spring to travel with the minister to Southeast Asia, and I can't say enough good things about the men and women working there on behalf of Immigration Canada, both Canadians and members of the host countries.

One of the things we experienced there was the training of airline personnel, which you spoke of, and those who dealt with people leaving the country. What can we do to enhance the information that comes from the leaving country to Canada, the receiving country? If somebody gets on the plane with documentation and gets off the plane without documentation, quite clearly something has happened en route. Can better processes be put in place? Should there be greater penalties for people who get on with the appropriate papers or with enough to get through and get off with nothing?

My next question is, how many come through the United States without documentation?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: On the first aspect of whether we are looking at doing more, I think the short answer to that is yes, we are. Again, not wanting to stray too far into issues you may want to deal with this afternoon, in Bill C-11, the new immigration legislation, as well as in customs legislation we will have a legislative basis for seeking advance passenger information from airlines. That will allow us to get better information as to who's on the plane, which, ideally, would occur before the plane takes off at one end. Then you're in a better position to do some of that front-end checking so that when the people arrive, you have a better sense of where your higher-risk individuals might be.

Ms. Anita Neville: Could I interrupt you?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes.

Ms. Anita Neville: Is the training consistent in departing countries? I went to four countries. It was uneven there. Are there obvious gaps where that country-based training should be enhanced, and do you have the resources and the ability to do that?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: As you know, we have recently expanded our immigration control officer network, and I believe we now stand at 44 officers. Those officers are based around the globe, and they would be responsible for providing that training. Often they're responsible for providing it within a region. So they might be based in one spot, but they would be visiting other airline partners on a fairly regular basis and conducting that training. How often that training is conducted and how closely the working relationship on the ground is would depend on the country and where we have people located. Whether or not you have somebody there is a factor.

Could we use more resources? I suppose one could always use more resources. But we believe we have a very effective network, and it works reasonably well. Certainly, where our intelligence suggests that we have a specific movement coming through an airport or, for example, a specific difficulty with an airline accepting a large number of certain types of fraudulent documentation, we would work with that airline and we would do a focused kind of training or liaison work to improve the situation.

• 1055

[Translation]

The Chair: One question, Madeleine.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] Canadians and Quebeckers, it has to do of course with the number of people who were denied refugee status and who seem to have vanished into the countryside. Obviously, the Ressman case did nothing to ease concerns.

According to you, would there be a way to make sure that those who leave voluntarily inform the authorities instead of counting on their good faith? Would there be a way to make sure of that?

[English]

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: The whole idea of a 30-day departure notice, especially when someone has been in the country for a while, is that it gives them time to get their affairs together and leave. Obviously, if people are prepared to leave voluntarily, that is our preference, rather than having to make the arrangements, pay for their flights, and move them out.

We tell people that they must let us know that they're leaving. There is an incentive built into the system. If they fail to do that, they are now facing a deportation order. An immigration warrant is put on the police information system, CPIC, so that if they are picked up by the police for speeding or something else, that will come up on the screen. We have a 24-hour warrant response centre, which could provide that information. That person might well land themselves in detention pending their removal, and it will result in a permanent bar from returning to Canada. So we already have incentives built in and ways and means of tracking those people. I'm not sure what one can do in addition to that, certainly in that initial period, other than to mandate it and to have those incentives built in.

The Chair: Paul, one question, please, and Inky, one question.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Related to some of the things that Tony Smith said earlier, my question is about airline pouching. It's legal to do that, and I understand it does happen—

The Chair: Did you say “pouching”?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes. It does happen once in a while. Why can't Canada, as a blanket policy, require an airline to pouch the documents of non-Canadians and those who don't have landed status so that they have to claim those documents at the counter? I know that at Vancouver airport they get a 747 from Taipei, one from Beijing, and one from Korea, a whole bunch all at once, and it's a real mess. I'm sure it's even worse at Pearson airport. People plan to arrive when other flights do, which creates confusion. It would solve one part of the big puzzle to have a blanket policy and say, airline, you have to pouch those documents of non-Canadians. Why isn't that happening now?

The Chair: This committee did consider that in Bill C-11 in talking with our airlines, but I'll let Tony and Elizabeth answer. Tony.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You'd do it to Americans, the British, and Australians.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Well, we can discuss—

The Chair: Hang on. Let Tony answer.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We'll pouch everybody. Pouch the world.

The Chair: Steve, I'm sure you would want the officials to give us the answer.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your leadership.

The Chair: I know you know the answer, Tony. Go ahead.

Mr. Tony Smith: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

There are a range of measures we can take in respect of airlines. One of them is the pouching of documents. It's not something that's applied routinely because in practical terms it is extremely difficult to implement. It can be done, but it would mean that every single person on that aircraft would have to hand over their documents to somebody—

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's not what I said.

Mr. Tony Smith: —who would have to take custody of those documents and make sure they were presented to us in a proper way on arrival.

We are, however, looking at a range of other options. I'd like the committee to take note of the fact that we do work in partnership with the airlines. This isn't just a stick approach. This is very much a carrot-and-stick approach with the airlines.

I think Canada should be very proud of the system we have in respect of the work that has gone into building a good, secure working relationship with each airline operating into Canada. There are individual memoranda of understanding, which are renewed every six months. They give us a very useful mechanism to adopt this kind of carrot-and-stick approach with the industry.

• 1100

We are looking very closely at technological solutions with them. We are at the table in a number of international fora. IATA/CAWG is one. That's the IATA control authorities working group, which meets every six months with the airline industry.

We're also at a number of other IATA-inspired workshops, which involve technical providers in terms of document imaging, document scanning, the capacity to take good quality images of people and documents and transmit them to us ahead of time before the aircraft arrives, coupled with some of the things Elizabeth mentioned earlier, the new powers that Canada is taking to require information to be provided from airline systems, how that information might be provided at what time, transmitted to us, and how we might apply our intelligence, overlay intelligence onto those systems. These are all very exciting new developments in a constantly changing environment.

Although pouching is one option, and certainly one that would not be completely discounted, I'm much more excited about some of the technological solutions and the new opportunities we have to work with the airlines to actually come to a common conclusion, which is to keep people linked to their documents.

Thank you.

The Chair: Inky, you have one final question.

And to those other committee members who are coming in for the next committee, relax, have a cup of coffee, take an aspirin. We'll be with you in a minute.

Mr. Inky Mark: I have a very short question. Are we still in the catch-up mode from 1993 cuts in the department, even with the announcement of 100 new employees who will be hired? When will these new 100 people be in the field doing the work?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: We're moving very quickly to staff those positions, but obviously that's not something you do instantly. We want to make sure that the people we put on the front lines are qualified and trained to do the job. I can't give you a specific time. It's not going to be next week. It's going to be taking place over the next month.

The Chair: We'll ask that of the minister.

I have a follow-up question with regard to resources. For Art and other people, it's a phenomenal responsibility, obviously, in light of September 11. In interviews, especially as you look at undocumented people, obviously that raises, or should raise, red flags any time.

I'd like to hear some answers as to how much resources are going to be required, over and above what you already have, in order to do what Canadians want you to do, or expect you to do, in the whole security system, because in regard to those 100 people, as I understand it, you said only 46 of the 350 border points are being covered by Immigration.

I'd like to have a picture, and perhaps we will ask that of the minister, because resources, human resources and technology, are obviously going to be very much more required in order to do the job as best as possible—not to suggest that it's not, but obviously that's a big issue. So I'll address that with the minister.

Secondly, Tony, you gave me some food for thought in the sense that Canada and the United States seem to put customs first and immigration and people second. In other words, we seem to be more worried about goods at the front end than we are about people. You said that since 1967 we've had this concept that customs is first line—and that is all about goods and what you are bringing into the country, even though they have an immigration responsibility too—but we're more interested in the person as a secondary line of defence.

So I wonder, and maybe I'm off the wall, whether it should not be reversed, that the primary responsibility should be immigration as people come into the country, and then we have to worry about whether or not they're bringing in anything such as a bottle of booze or a carton of cigarettes, or something. You said in Britain, and perhaps Europe, it was the other way around, that because they have a free trade agreement or there's a customs union there, they don't pay as much attention to goods and customs issues as they do to immigration. That's something we might want to think about in this new environment.

I wonder if you have any other information from other countries as to whether they put customs first and immigration second, or whether they perhaps should be in parallel. Maybe that's what this debate from some employees is all about, that they're doing immigration functions on the front lines at the same time as they're doing customs functions.

Mr. Tony Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1105

It is a fascinating debate, but I wouldn't want to leave you with the impression that Canada is the only country in the world that has customs on the primary line.

The Chair: Well, you said the U.S., too.

Mr. Tony Smith: For example, Australia and New Zealand also have customs officers on the primary inspection line and immigration in secondary areas. In Europe, it's mainly immigration that is on the primary line, but it's not always immigration officers per se that are performing the function. It's sometimes performed by police, for example, in some states.

But I think the crucial point is the focus and the emphasis of the examination, not really who's doing it. What is the focus of the primary immigration control, and how does that support the immigration programs? That does fit very much into the international legislation and the international community and the rules and regulations and the legislative framework in which you operate.

The Chair: I would agree, but then maybe that's why we should change our language and how we do it. From what I understand, an awful lot of the questions that Beverley's people are asking on the front line, be they customs people, are very much immigration questions—about the individual, not so much about things. Therefore, I think this primary and secondary, being Customs and Immigration, is confusing to an awful lot of people and may make some people nervous. Perhaps we ought to say that it's an integrated system of both Customs and Immigration that is very concerned about not only the individual person coming to the border and what they might be carrying or bringing into the country, but essentially who they are as opposed to what they might....

I think we may want to change our language just so that this emphasis thing doesn't trouble me, because as soon as you said that, I said, isn't that backwards? Shouldn't we be more interested in the person coming to our border than the customs stuff?

Anyway, I'm sure we'll have you back for some additional information. Thank you very much.

We'll adjourn now until 3:30 p.m., in room 253-D.