CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 6, 2001

• 0905

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. Welcome back from our tours across the country. I hope the eastern group found their trip as constructive as the western group did.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Ours was better.

The Chair: I know. You called me one day and told me you were having an awful lot of fun. So were we.

To every one of our participants from the committee, let me thank you all. I think we would all say it was very informative and constructive, and obviously we'll have an opportunity to compare notes in the foreseeable future.

Speaking about our travels, Janina, Cres, and Serge, in welcoming you to the committee this morning, let me tell you how impressed we were with your colleagues whom we met at our borders. We were all impressed with their dedication and their hard work, and that both Customs and Immigration were working very closely together. What was even more impressive, of course, was the great working relationship they have with the other Canadian departments and agencies, as well as with the agencies and departments of the United States.

I indicated to them that, as a country and as a committee, we appreciated their hard work in some very stressful times. I know the heightened security has no doubt caused a lot of stress amongst your colleagues and workforce, but we appreciate what they're doing on behalf of the Canadian people and we appreciate very much their hard work and their dedication. They gave us a lot of information, and we had some very good, candid discussions. They were open and frank with us, and that's we wanted. I just want to let you know we heard what they were saying. Those things are obviously going to be taken into account, and that's why we look forward to your presentation this morning.

So I welcome you on behalf of the committee. Who's going to go first? Serge or Cres? It doesn't matter.

Mr. Serge Charette (National President, Customs Excise Union): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for hearing our testimony during what must be a very busy time for you. We greatly appreciate this opportunity and hope you will find our contribution of benefit.

Mr. Chairman, annually, 110 million travellers, many of whom are immigrants and refugees, enter Canada. All must be cleared by Customs through the travellers' stream. Many try to enter illegally. Some succeed, for reasons I will explain.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): We're very pleased to have you here, but I see your text is quite long. I would hope you would not just read that whole text. Perhaps you could go through your remarks and give us the highlights. We're appreciative that you're here, and I'm really desirous of hearing everything you have to say, but I'm just requesting that you not read that whole, lengthy text.

The Chair: Thank you, Paul.

Serge, the first thing I usually do is indicate that the text will in fact find itself, in total, in our submissions. We'd like you to make a ten-minute presentation so that we leave an awful lot of room for a lot of questions and answers. We find that to be a lot more constructive.

Perhaps you can highlight parts of the presentation. Some of us received it beforehand and have had an opportunity to scan it already. But, listen, at the end of the day, we're very appreciative of you being here. But just so you're not reading it word for word, perhaps you can summarize parts of it so that we can ask a lot more questions.

Mr. Serge Charette: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can certainly do that.

Basically, the points that I feel are important are the fact that we have a number of customs inspectors who are... First of all, let me explain this. Customs inspectors are actually the officers who perform primary questioning for Immigration. The important thing to remember here is that customs inspectors do the primary work not only for our pieces of legislation that are specific to Revenue Canada, customs, excise, etc., we also do primary questioning for seventy different pieces of legislation that are the responsibility of several agencies and departments. The difficulty is that this fact needs to be taken into consideration much more than it has been so far by the management of the CCRA, and also by the management of Immigration.

• 0910

The concern that we have—and the problem has been identified by the Auditor General as well—is that our staffing is so precisely matched to the volume of work that needs to be accomplished, that even removing a few of our inspectors from the line and sending them on training becomes a problem. It's a reality that we need more people, and that we need them trained.

The Auditor General points out that 60% of our full-time, long-term customs inspectors have not been trained in immigration matters. That is totally unacceptable. A form of monitoring needs to be administered by the immigration department. We do that on their behalf, but they shouldn't assume the job is being done fully and properly. Immigration should monitor it, and I think the Auditor General pointed that out as well—and not only for Immigration, but for everybody we represent at the border.

Another difficulty that we have is that during the summertime in particular, literally thousands of students—well, 1,200 students—operate at the border, oftentimes representing more than 50% of the staff on hand. That becomes very difficult for us to accept, because those students only get two weeks' training. That's two weeks' training in order to become familiar with seventy different pieces of legislation. I think we would all agree that is totally unacceptable—at least, it's totally unacceptable to us. It downgrades the value of the work done by customs inspectors to the point at which we believe we're not being taken seriously by the management of the CCRA.

We're concerned that the management of Immigration has never sat up and taken notice, even though we are aware of a number of studies. In particular, the EKOS study performed in the early 1990s identified that in a period of four weeks, 50,000 referrals were missed and no action was taken. No training was provided. It is totally unacceptable.

So those are the points we believe the members of the committee absolutely need to consider. There is a great need, a crying need, for better relations and more monitoring from the Immigration side of the House, to ensure that when we represent them at the border as customs officers, we do the job properly. I don't think that monitoring is being done, but it needs to be done.

I want to conclude by saying we believe a proposal made in the mid-1990s definitely had a lot of merit. We would like to see some consideration given to reactivating that proposal, which was to have all of the officers involved in enforcement activities brought back together under one umbrella, one department, one agency—and that's referred to in my closing paragraph. That would be an excellent suggestion, because you need to have a mindset that focuses on enforcement in order to determine how this work needs to be done. So far, it's facilitation, facilitation, facilitation.

Don't get me wrong. Facilitation needs to be done. We can't jeopardize the flow of goods across the Canada-U.S. border. The thing is, the Americans are getting ready to do just that. They have tripled the number of customs inspectors assigned to the Canadian border. Unless we react and do something about it, they're going to be intercepting or stopping people before they enter into Canada. They're going to be asking them a lot of questions that we will definitely have to repeat on our side because, first of all, we won't know what they're asking and they will be concentrating on things that are of no consequence to us. The things we look for are weapons, which are legal in the United States; pornography, which is not defined the same in Canada as it is in the United States; and several other issues that we have to concentrate on.

• 0915

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Serge.

Cres Pascucci.

Mr. Cres Pascucci (National President, Canada Employment and Immigration Union): Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. I'll make some brief comments, Sister Lebon will add a few, and then we'll be open to questions. Obviously, we'd like to thank the committee for inviting us and for taking the time to listen to many of our concerns.

The opening statement is simply that it's unfortunate that we had to have a security crisis caused by a terrorist attack in order to review this type of issue around security at the airports and security at the borders. We should always recognize the need for a balance in terms of more security and the rights and freedoms of individuals in this society. The role of Immigration is two-fold in terms of enforcing regulations and policies, but also in terms of facilitating the integration of new members into our society to enrich it. I think that's very important.

In saying that, other aspects should also be considered around the whole security issue. One is the concern around sovereignty in terms of the decisions that nations make in determining their particular policies and determining what role they feel immigration should have, and in terms of not losing sovereignty in that respect. In order to undertake any of those concepts of security, sovereignty, and facilitation, a commitment to financial resources is needed not just because of the current situation, but on an ongoing basis.

In the brief, we mention to you the shortfalls in your legislation, Bill C-11. It is a piece of legislation so general that, in terms of application, we really won't know how it will be applied until the regulations are written. It gives a lot of authority, but not necessarily any counter-type approach.

Other shortfalls are the minister's announcements around security and the allocation of moneys, and the “generous” offer of a hundred more people. Quite frankly, I can tell you that's nothing. You might as well not give us anybody in terms of being able to do the job and to do all the things the people of Canada, the Government of Canada, and you, as MPs, want the immigration service to deliver.

There has to be a lot more in terms of training and certification, in terms of not having a McDonald's type of training. In other words, we need to have full training programs for peace officers, for recognition during interviews. This is very intensive training that does not try to shortchange because you may be short on moneys for that particular year.

I want to reiterate the point Serge Charette made. One concern that we have—mostly in the summer, but during the year as well—is in regard to the hiring of students to do immigration work. It's not only students, but casuals, people who have no rights under the aspect of belonging to a union and not belonging to a union. We are bringing back retired people to fill shortfall requirements, whereas we should be encouraging more people to be better trained and to be able to do the job.

The other aspects that were mentioned were technology, being able to use the technology, and making sure it works before it's implemented. If you're going to have a resident card or a temporary card, it doesn't do much good unless you're able to identify it. Possibly the aspect of fingerprinting might be very helpful in that regard.

The other concern that we have the health and safety of our members. We know there has been no new legislation in regard to giving more protections for the refusal of dangerous work. We don't want to get into any cases of that, but it is a right that our members have, and it is a right we encourage our members to implement in cases of health and in cases of any incidents of violence that might occur.

• 0920

I believe we've made most of the points in the brief. In it, we have indicated where our members work so that you have some idea, because sometimes people get criss-crossed—if I may use that term—in terms of what Customs does and what Immigration does. I know one of the areas. In terms of referrals, we feel there should be more Immigration input on the primary inspection line. That's something we can work out, and I believe the departments can work it out now that they are definitely two separate departments.

Thank you. Those are my opening comments.

Sister Lebon, do you want to add anything?

Ms. Janina Lebon (National Vice-President, Canada Employment and Immigration Union): I thank the chair and the committee. I will be very brief. I'd like to refer to Bill C-11's 72-hour turnaround and the screening process.

For a normal screening process for an applicant for landing in Canada, it can take anywhere from six months to a year to do a thorough background check. In 72 hours, what I expect we will be able to do is interview the refugee claimant. It has been proven that in terms of the refugee claimant work itself—meaning the number of refugees in comparison to the total work—the time involved is horrendous.

So the refugee claimant will have a chance to present his or her case. But what can be done for security clearance? I'm not sure. A medical examination certainly will not be done in 72 hours. Fort Erie-Niagara Falls had major problems with the multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis several years ago. Individuals came into Canada, and that disease is infectious.

A security clearance from CSIS is certainly going to take more than 72 hours, as will the criminality check by the RCMP. Yes, we will be getting new technology to check fingerprints, but it's still not a thorough, complete, background check. Once those people are in Canada—because they're allowed to enter if the process isn't done; we don't detain except for certain grounds—they will remain in Canada.

My last comment has to do with pre-removal risk assessment, which is part of the new act. Everybody who is under a removal order has to have a pre-removal risk assessment. There are already 27,000 cases in the backlog, according to the newspapers. There are over 10,000 post-claim determination cases. You therefore have 37,000 cases that have to be reviewed before you can remove anybody—and some of those people are security risks. Again, we don't have the position identified, we don't have people hired for the position, and we don't have people trained.

It's my understanding that the department has done a study, and that the trickle of removals is going to be minuscule. If we're doing 4,000 a year now, we may get 400 done next year, if we're lucky. That means we have some people in Canada and we don't know who they are, because they don't have the necessary documentation.

Thank you. Those are my comments, and we can elaborate more.

The Chair: Thank you, Serge, Cres, and Janina, for your excellent presentations. I'd like to indicate to you that I think a lot of what is in your presentations has in fact been brought forward by your members whom we met during the course of the week.

I should point out to you that this committee always wanted to review Bill C-11 in terms of resources and the regulations. When we did the tremendous amount of work that we did on Bill C-31 and Bill C-11, it was meant for this committee to look at those regulations, because we know the devil is always in the details. We were to look at staffing, resources, and technology that Bill C-11... Obviously, September 11 changed that somewhat because of the security threats. That's why this border security study that we're doing is also going to look at Bill C-11, so that we can implement what we think is a piece of legislation containing the tools that will help you.

We heard very loudly and clearly that the 72 hours and the PRRA obviously are of concern. I think it is misunderstood. Obviously, we have met and will be meeting with the minister and the department, and we will in fact deal with those things in much more detail. But your comments are very much in order.

We'll now go to questions, and I'll go to Paul Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you very much.

First of all, I'd like to welcome you and address some comments to the Canadian Employment and Immigration Union.

On the front page, I'd like a few quick numbers and facts on just a few details, and then I'm going to ask the broader question. First of all, you say your folk are split in three, at the IRB and at CIC, with some in HRDC. Can you tell me approximately how many of your people are at the IRB, at CIC, and at HRDC? How many do you have working in each one of those, approximately?

• 0925

Mr. Cres Pascucci: We would have around 12,000 at HRDC, about 600 or 700 at the IRB, and 4,000 and a bit at Citizenship and Immigration.

Mr. Paul Forseth: You say there are three call centres. Where are those call centres?

Mr. Cres Pascucci: Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Where are the case processing centres?

Mr. Cres Pascucci: Vegreville, Mississauga, and Sydney.

Mr. Paul Forseth: You talked about the issue of the minister's announcement of a hundred more officers. In our travels, one of the comments I picked up was made by the regional director or manager—whatever his title is—for B.C.-Yukon. He said he had identified an employee gap of 140-some just for B.C.-Yukon, and that was part of his planning to meet his statutory requirements. Do you have an approximate number for that employee gap on a national perspective?

Mr. Cres Pascucci: We'd really be guessing, but if you were to keep it in proportion, Ontario would be three or four times that.

Ms. Janina Lebon: I found out yesterday that Ontario's gap is 415.

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's just for Ontario?

Ms. Janina Lebon: Yes, just for Ontario.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Do you have any feelings about foreign service people? I take it we have between 45 and 50 in embassies around the world. What kind of a gap do we have there? Do you have any clue?

Mr. Cres Pascucci: We don't represent them. They're represented by the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers.

Ms. Janina Lebon: Some do go on assignment out of the offices in Canada. In our own region, anywhere from fifty to sixty people are on loan for two to three years.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Are they basically doing the same work?

Ms. Janina Lebon: They're doing visa processing overseas. We also have interdiction and control officers in just about every office, doing the passports, doing the liaison work with foreign governments, trying to prevent smuggling, and things like that.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'll just switch topics for a moment before I conclude. You raised the spectre of health concerns, but you didn't really fully describe what your concern was. I got the picture that it's really something you really didn't want to contemplate. Perhaps you could flesh out your description of the real concern that you have, and perhaps give some suggestions on how we could anticipate that in order to protect our people and respond properly to that whole issue.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: We had an issue around the recognition of tuberculosis about a year and a half ago. A couple of the difficulties are that there is no pre-screening and there is an incubation period. We were therefore suggesting that for people coming in especially at land borders, there should be some kind of pre-screening. Usually, a lot of them also use transition houses in terms of dealing with the migration. In any event, because of resources and the huge expense this would entail, the department's response was that, first of all, they should give out the information, because sometimes the issue becomes inflamed. They can get the facts out, but besides having factual things, they have to get over the concern of what tuberculosis can do in terms of dealing with it and in terms of dealing with trying to set up a pre-screening type of system—and post-screening as well.

What we have found is that after the applicant gets through the port of entry, they then become the responsibility of another department or of another level of government in terms of dealing with the health issue. If someone has tuberculosis, they no longer are the responsibility of Citizenship and Immigration, they become the responsibility of the Ministry of Health in the Province of Ontario, or whatever province or municipality.

Mr. Paul Forseth: So you're saying that if a case is confirmed, they should have an obligation to check back and say to this individual that they were exposed a week ago, two weeks ago, or whenever.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: That's correct. How do you validate that one of our members contracted tuberculosis from an applicant when you don't find out about it until six months or a year later? We have to make sure we have accurate records of those particular cases—a medical surveillance type of thing.

• 0930

Mr. Paul Forseth: You have to have sufficient documentation to know which line people dealt with.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: That's right.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay.

You mentioned one other thing, and that was not necessarily doing more of the same. Obviously we have to sometimes redesign and rethink what we're doing. You also talked about working more closely with Customs and perhaps looking at the American design, which uses a little more joint front-line screening. You contemplated some kind of harmonization or better cooperation with the Customs people. What are you really talking about in that regard, and do you have some kind of a vision in terms of at least perhaps trying to run some experiments at some border crossings to just try to do things differently?

Mr. Cres Pascucci: A number of recommendations were made on exactly what you've said, and studies took place in the late eighties and in the nineties in terms of having peer assignments or that sort of thing. In those, immigration officers would be on the primary inspection line for a period of time. Currently, though, the two distinct departments are involved at the border, and there has always been a little bit of turf protection—not a lot, but some—so the operations have been kept separate.

In terms of immigration matters, we believe that unless there is better training for customs inspectors—better in terms of identification—having immigration officers on the front line, even on an assignment basis, will help to improve the referrals, and we'll be able to serve the security of the country much better.

The Chair: Serge, I know you addressed it in your brief. On behalf of Customs, could you answer exactly the same question that Paul has posed?

Mr. Serge Charette: Certainly, I agree with what Cres has said. We need to improve the way we're doing the work at this point in time. We know we're missing a number of referrals, and the rationale or the reason is that a lot of our customs officers lack the proper training. Now, because they are the specialists in this area, we definitely see a need for Immigration to provide the officers with that type of training.

I don't think using immigration officers on the line is a permanent solution, and I'll tell you why. We administer seventy different pieces of legislation at the border. We would have to train the immigration inspectors to the point at which they would become fluent in seventy different pieces of legislation. It's much easier and much more expedient to ensure that customs inspectors are fully trained in immigration matters. I also think they should have to go back for at least a one-week refresher each year to find out what the new trends are, and what modifications have been applied to either legislation or regulations. At this point in time—and I reported that in my presentation—60% of our officers lack training in immigration matters. That was verified by the Auditor General in last year's report, in April 2000. So that's our concern: the lack of training.

The Chair: Thank you.

There's one minute left.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Art will ask a question.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Given that viewpoint regarding the customs officers trained as immigration officers, you wouldn't need any immigration officers at the border points, is that what you're saying?

Mr. Serge Charette: No, what I'm saying is that you need to have good, trained customs officers to do the primary work at the border points. As soon as we identify an individual who needs to be looked at in a more in-depth manner, we would then refer them to secondary, where fully trained immigration officers would take over and do the in-depth review.

Mr. Art Hanger: Would that be a view shared by those in immigration? Or would you rather see an integrated line?

Mr. Cres Pascucci: We have reviewed this a few times. In terms of our membership—because we go by our membership after consulting with them—this is a split call. We have a number of ports of entry at which they feel a fully integrated system would be better, but we have other centres that don't. You must have gotten some of those views when you went out and visited your various sites—and I should mention that I noticed Toronto wasn't one of the sites, or that Pearson wasn't one of the sites.

• 0935

The Chair: We've been in Toronto many a time.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: I just wanted to make sure you had been there.

The Chair: We wouldn't dare miss Toronto.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: I see.

To answer your question honestly, it's a split call at this point, but we do feel there should be better integration. We feel there should be more assignments in terms of immigration officers being on the line to help. But I share the concern that Serge has mentioned about the different pieces of legislation. It's not just strictly immigration matters that they would have to be fluent in, but I think it would help.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Folks, I want you to know that from the perspective of the part of the committee that went east, you and Canadians can be very proud of the work both your groups are doing in working cooperatively with the Americans. Certainly at the land ports that we visited, we were most impressed by the fact that they all are close friends and acquaintances. Some even intermarry in these small communities. A lot of the things we've been hearing in the media, particularly from some American elected officials, just simply don't hold water when you get on the ground and talk to the people. I don't say that in any kind of a defensive way. It's just the reality, it's the fact.

I'm curious, though. A number of people have made statements. If I could, I'll refer to Serge's report, on page 2. At the top of the page, you say your people understand the American reaction. I've had some trouble understanding that reaction, because the concern that I've heard, again from some of the elected officials and others in the States, is that a porous Canadian border is a problem for the Americans. Yet when we went to Lacolle, Quebec, we saw that 5,000 refugees crossed the border, mostly on foot, from the United States into Canada. None of them were American citizens. All of were a third country. They're in an existing safe country in the United States of America, and they're crossing the border into Canada. How does that pose a threat to the Americans? Serge, maybe you could comment first?

Mr. Serge Charette: I'm not sure how that poses a threat. My comment at the top of page 2 was more with regard to what happened on September 11. We certainly understand their reaction. They lost roughly 5,000 American citizens, and obviously that will not go unchallenged and unnoticed. They're very concerned that Canadians appear to think it's going to happen in the United States, but that Canada itself is removed and safe from any aggression. In that sense, that's what I meant by that statement. We understand their reaction, because they haven't seen any reaction on the Canadian part to try to improve security at the border.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But it's their border that they're concerned about. It's the flow into the United States.

Mr. Serge Charette: It's both.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, help me with that. If you have 5,000 people coming out of the United States, that means they got into the U.S. somehow, right?

Mr. Serge Charette: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: At some point, whether it was New York, Los Angeles, or I don't know where—somewhere—they got into the U.S. and made their way up I-95 to the Quebec border. Now they're coming into Canada. How does that pose a threat to the United States? Why would they tend to want to point a finger north and say that, somehow, we're a security risk?

Mr. Serge Charette: My understanding of the situation is that it's easier to get a visitor's permit to the United States than it is to get a visitor's permit to Canada. Therefore, they apply for a visitor's permit to a city that is very close to the Canadian border. Once they're in the United States under a visitor's permit, they then cross the border into Canada and apply for refugee status. I believe that's where the Americans have a major concern.

If you apply for refugee status in the United States, their procedures and standards are much more thorough and much more difficult to meet than those that we apply in Canada. I understand that they only accept 17% of refugee claims, whereas we accept around 80%. That's why they're significantly concerned.

• 0940

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't think those figures are accurate. I recall that it's 54% in the States, and 57% or 58% in Canada. So we're pretty close.

Mr. Serge Charette: Well, those are the figures I heard.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, maybe you want to check them.

But you raise a very important point. You say it's easier to get a visitor's visa in the United States than it is in Canada, but it appears easier to obtain refugee status in Canada than in the United States. If we need to tighten up our refugee program, would it be fair to say the Americans need to tighten up their visitor visa program?

Mr. Serge Charette: Absolutely. I agree with that. In fact, what they're doing is amassing more customs officers on the Canada-U.S. border to do what we call outbound checks. Therefore, they will monitor the flow of these individuals who are trying to come to Canada to apply for refugee status, and they won't allow them to the leave the United States. They'll just send them back.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I want to ask you about exit controls, but you also are aware that some 40% of the refugee claimants who arrive on our doorstep come from the United States. Somehow they got into to the United States. All nineteen of the terrorists appeared to have been living legally, in one form or another, in the United States. Again, not to be defensive—because I quite agree that we need to do certain things at our border points—it astounds me that we're somehow the problem, when it is in fact easier to get into the United States than it is to get into Canada. The results are pretty obvious.

On exit controls, maybe I could ask our Immigration folks if we should be doing exit interviews on everyone who leaves the country.

The Chair: All hundred million of them?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, that's what the Americans do.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: I just don't see it as being very practical. It's like one of those things I was asking one of our border officers about in terms of how we can make the border more secure. The response was that the only way we can make it more secure is to stop every car and see every person. If that's where we want to go, I guess we can go there, but come on...

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Would it be safe to say an exit control system in Canada would in some ways be a duplication of an entry control system in the United States? We check them going out and the Americans check them coming in, so they've been double-checked at every border point.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: Janina, do you want to comment?

Ms. Janina Lebon: Not everybody goes to the U.S.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Good point.

Ms. Janina Lebon: That's one thing. Number two, the U.S. exit system is a card that you drop off when you're leaving, and I don't know how accurate it is. If we were to go that route, we'd be looking at horrendous amounts of resources.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Am I done?

The Chair: No, go ahead.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Can you comment on the common perimeter idea? Do you support what some have called for, that being a total amalgamation, melding, or whatever you want to call it, of the two systems into one, and the setting up of what amounts to—without being dramatic—fortress North America?

Mr. Serge Charette: My understanding is that the concept is still not fully defined, but certainly that was one of the views floated initially. My understanding, however, is that the more the definition appears to take shape, the more it appears to be based on common security, not common procedures or common legislation.

It won't be Canada doing the U.S. application of legislation and vice versa. What they are intending is to avoid duplications and to make it more more difficult for people who are coming from outside North America to enter North America unchallenged or without proper checks being conducted. Once those checks have been done, either in the U.S. or in Canada, my understanding is that they feel those checks should be honoured or validated by the other country as well.

• 0945

That's certainly not what we're seeing in the United States at this point in time. My understanding is that as of April next year, they will be activating the legislation that has been on the books but has gone unapplied for the last five years. Every person crossing the border will have to be registered both ways, either entering the United States or leaving the United States. To me anyway, that is a major problem, because it is going to be an added administrative nightmare at the border. It's going to slow down everybody. It's going to slow down commercial traffic as well, because the drivers will have to register and... Anyway, a number of things happening on the U.S. side are of concern.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Cres Pascucci, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Cres Pascucci: What makes a country is its ability to make its own decisions on its own basis. I think the idea of having a North American fortress security undermines that drastically.

I think you have to look at past history in terms of what American foreign policy has described as refugees or people who have legitimate claims. They certainly weren't very favourable to anybody from El Salvador or Nicaragua during those particular times. We had a different approach. Our relationship with Cuba is also an example.

Any type of fortress mentality will undermine our ability to make the decisions that we should make as a country. In terms of recognizing who we want in the country, that should be determined by us, not by somebody else.

The Chair: Thank you, Cres.

Madeleine, for a five-minute round.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone.

I read through your two presentations quickly, and I have a few questions.

I agree with Mr. Mahoney, who said that what we saw in the field compared with what I read in your document, Mr. Charette, is like day and night. Clearly, if a document like that were to find itself in the United States, it would make the headlines in all the newspapers.

That having been said, I think that the suggestion you are making, both of you, to the effect that we should seriously consider the feasibility of bringing together under the same roof the people who work at Customs and the people who work at Immigration, is a suggestion that we heard in the east. I suppose that those of you who travelled to the west probably heard the same thing. Therefore, I believe this is something we should really consider, because it would seem to be logical. I don't have any trouble with logical proposals, and the government doesn't either, does it?

I was alarmed by some of the things that I read. Since September 11, 2001, we have been faced with a security problem. This is very clear, but I admit that, when I hear you calling for firearms for all the people employed at Customs, that worries me because I feel this is very obviously the result of American cultural pressure. In Canada, we have the Firearms Act.

I would like you to explain to me, if all our immigration and customs officers walked around with guns, in the first place, how would this increase security and, in the second place, how would this reflect Canadian society with its values of tolerance, which you mentioned in your document? I was very pleased to see this mentioned, moreover. But will you reconcile the two? Do you think that, in Quebec and in Canada, people are prepared to see guns around everywhere? I have some difficulty with this idea. If you could answer this question, I will go on to others after.

Mr. Serge Charette: At Customs, what we are pushing for is, in fact, that customs officers be armed. I believe that the perception of the Canadian public is that Canadian customs officers are already armed. I don't see how this would change the perception in a major way. Revenue Canada conducted a study, around 1997 or 1998, and the findings clearly indicated that 78% of the Canadian public, of the people who were asked whether Canadian customs officers were armed, had clearly answered yes. This is easy enough to understand. This perception comes from the fact that, when one enters the United States, the American customs officers are armed. People do not make the distinction. They think that, if the Americans are armed, the Canadians are also. The perception is there. Furthermore, providing firearms to customs officers does not mean that there will be firearms throughout the country. On the contrary, it is the job of customs officers—who are already trained in handling firearms—to intercept imported firearms. We intercept thousands of them every year, and often the firearms are loaded. The officers must therefore know how to handle and unload these loaded firearms.

• 0950

I think that customs officers are coming to the realization that, in the long term, it will be necessary, mainly for their personal protection. We have officers who work alone. You visited some offices. I am under the impression that you asked yourselves the same question as I. How do those people feel when a car pulls up at 3 o'clock in the morning with two or three people inside? I have to tell you that, in some circumstances, especially in locations where the American customs office is already five or ten kilometres away, those officers feel terribly isolated.

What frequently happens is that the customs officer does not ask too many questions. The officer lets those people drive through, lets them go by, and does not do his or her job. Those are the orders at Customs. If the officer feels that his or her personal health or personal safety is threatened, he or she lets the people go through and reports them to the nearest police, giving a description of the car and its passengers. They may be intercepted further on. However, when no questions are even asked, it is hard to reach a conclusion, to determine whether the people represent a risk or not. All we do is let them drive through.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: What you are telling me is that, if they had a firearm, they would be able to do their job better? Is that what I am hearing?

Mr. Serge Charette: What we are calling for is, not only that firearms be carried, but also that there be two customs officers at all points, and that they have computers that would allow customs officers working in these offices during the night to be productive by checking and releasing on the screen what we refer to as the Across entries. This is the electronic system.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I am with you when you talk about having two people during the night—

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Do I have some time left?

[English]

The Chair: No, I'm sorry. You're at six and half minutes.

Go ahead, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I'd like to thank the presenters this morning. I think we're getting a whole perspective that we haven't heard very often, either during the deliberations on C-11 or since the September 11 events.

I think I'm hearing all of you say that what is clearly a critical issue is our capacity, through staffing and resources, to deal with the current situation, never mind C-11 and never mind post-September 11. I want to go through the figures to get a better understanding of what we need and what we could recommend as a committee.

First, on the Immigration side, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that we have lost something like 3,000 immigration officials since 1993. I believe one of the figures that came out of the appearances before the Senate committee—I think I saw it in the newspaper—showed that we went from 7,000 staff under CIC—which would be Janina's and Cres's union—down to 4,000. That tells me we lost 3,000 staff in that period of time. Yet here we are today, dealing with a new piece of legislation that requires more effort and more resources, and dealing with a post-September 11 situation. First of all, tell me if those figures are right, and then tell me what we actually need. I heard you say the hundred new ones announced by the minister are a drop in the bucket and aren't going to make a difference. What do we need?

I then want to ask the same question on the Customs side. In reading all your reports and hearing you today, I think you're saying we need a minimum of 1,200 new officials on the Customs side to deal with people. Never mind goods and services, they'd just be dealing with travellers. I just want to get clear numbers on the record for our purposes.

• 0955

Mr. Cres Pascucci: We'd like clear numbers as well, by the way.

The thing to keep in mind is that one of the reasons for the difference in numbers was the whole reorganization of government and government departments. Immigration was part of Employment and UI, so it was under the CEIC at that time, the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission. In any event, when the numbers were split off, there weren't as many resources in personnel and those kinds of areas as well, because they rested with the main organization.

The other main thing that affected the numbers was the concentration of processing in Vegreville. At one time, clientele or applicants would go to an immigration centre and would be seen by somebody, and then they would get renewed, documents would get done, and the person would stay or not stay. The whole mail-in process, the mass production kind of thing, replaced that. As a result of that, a number of resources were shifted, and you could easily talk about a couple of thousand, for sure.

The most immediate thing that happened was that person-to-person contact was virtually eliminated. If you recall, in the 1990s, people used to line up at three o'clock in the morning to get their interview in Toronto. In fact, one of the reasons they set up Vegreville—I'm not saying this is the only reason—was that they had set up an office in the minister's riding. What they found was that people were sleeping in front of people's homes, waiting for their turn in the line-up when the office opened at 8:30 in the morning. That's okay, except the minister's riding was Rosedale, so I don't think the residents appreciated working people—if I may use that term—occupying wealthy mansions, especially their lawns.

In terms of numbers, then, easily a couple of thousand were deterred. That was also part of the program review in terms of government shedding its role in society and decreasing the number of public servants.

In terms of what we need, I think we're talking about a minimum of a thousand. It depends, too, on what the focus of the activity is going to be. Your main mandate in this committee, on this subject, is ports of entry, but more and more activity is actually taking place at points that we call inland points, where we now have enforcement officers. At one time, we had a full complement of examining officers doing the job at the ports of entry. A number of those jobs are now being changed into enforcement-type positions, or they're being combined. A lot more work is now being done once the person actually is in the country, so I think you have to look at that.

The Chair: Serge, we'll get your response to the same question. It's important that you know the questions and answers must take five minutes, though. I know I chastise the members all the time to be very concise. I can't obviously do that to the witnesses, but if I could, I would ask you to keep the responses fairly short, please.

Mr. Serge Charette: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to be concise.

With regard to our views on staffing issues, we consider 1,200 to be the minimum needed at this point in time to deal with the travellers' side, along with 400 for the commercial side. We say that because we also want to replace the students who are employed on a yearly basis. We don't think that system is appropriate in any way, shape, or form. If you exclude the 200 students, we're really talking about 1,000 FTEs on the travellers' side and 400 on the commercial side. That would be our minimum requirement. We came up with those figures when we reviewed the impact of S-23.

The Chair: Thank you.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming before us this morning, witnesses.

I'll take a view opposite to that of my Bloc colleague in regard to the whole issue of health and safety and the arming of customs officials. As peace officers, they certainly need the tools to do their job. This was reinforced in our visit to Windsor, where we were informed that of the 18% of all truckers who were inadmissible to this country, 40% had serious criminal breaches.

How long have customs officials been requesting that hand firearms be allowed? What is the government's rationale for refusing?

• 1000

Mr. Serge Charette: We did our first review of our membership in 1991. At that time, a vast majority wanted an armed presence at the border. About 51% wanted to be armed personally. Another 25% or 26% didn't want to be armed personally, but they wanted somebody to be armed within the confines of the office, in order to react to any occurrence that would result in a potentially dangerous situation.

Obviously that percentage changes with the stream. For example, our postal representatives, the customs inspectors who work international mail, didn't want to be armed. The ones who really wanted to be armed were the ones at the border, the ones who had direct contact with the unknown. Every time a car pulls up at the border, it's an unknown. You don't really know who you're going to be dealing with.

In the area of marine, for example, you also have to board ships that sometimes have crews of 20 or 25 individuals. A lot of them are drunk or have some kind of a record, so you don't really feel secure. In that situation, a side arm would be a deterrent. It would make you look more like a federal peace officer; therefore, the crews would attach a great deal of additional respect to you when you have that status. Without the firearms, we don't think the status is being recognized.

I forget the second part of your question.

Mr. Inky Mark: It was on the government's rationale for refusal.

Mr. Serge Charette: The government has always indicated to us that it feels this would send out the wrong message. It would make Canada appear to be a more aggressive nation. We're a kinder, gentler society than the Americans, and we don't want to send out a message similar to theirs.

We don't share that view. On the contrary, we think it would make customs inspectors, customs officers, appear to be what they truly are, and that's peace officers.

Mr. Inky Mark: Do you have any plans to take this issue to the labour board, much like the park wardens did?

Mr. Serge Charette: Four complaints are already in front of the labour board right now, and the agency has reacted by agreeing to do an inherent risk survey.

The Chair: Cres, did you have a comment with regard to Immigration on the security issues, on the arming issue.

Serge, I hope you were saying that you don't agree with the government in terms of its perception, and not that Canadians are not gentler and more compassionate than the Americans. Am I right?

Mr. Serge Charette: No, that's not what I meant.

The Chair: I just wanted to correct you there. I now know.

Mr. Serge Charette: No, I meant the perception that would be left by customs inspectors being armed or not.

The Chair: I know. I'm just joking with you, Serge.

Cres.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: Just as an editorial comment, “kinder, gentler society” is an American expression, by the way.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Cres Pascucci: In our particular instance, there isn't a large demand for firearms at the border. It has been coming more from inland, from those who are enforcement officers. It initially came mostly from the Toronto area, from those who were in on arrests and finding illegal people. Now it's much more widespread, as there is now more of an enforcement mentality in Vancouver, and also in Calgary.

The other split that we have is between those who were hired previously under facilitation, under a positive approach—the kinder and gentler type of society that we want—and those who have been more recently hired. The more recently hired are younger and have been hired based more on enforcement aspects, like psychological testing and those assessments.

To make a long answer shorter, before you even get to that, one of the first things we should be able to provide to our membership, and even the membership of Customs, is the proper equipment for this engagement. That involves things like handcuffs, pepper spray, or soft body armour. Those are aspects that should be tried first.

• 1005

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

We're going to go to Jerry, Art, Anita, and David.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Joe.

The time is terrible here in trying to get answers, but I'm going to ask four really short questions, and hopefully, both of you could give me some short answers.

First, would it facilitate your operation and ease some of the pressure if we split lines, those coming back into Canada as Canadians in one line, those who may be potential immigrants or others in a second line, so people who take more time would be in another line and that could be handled in a different way?

Second, because our customs people are front-line people, do goods get a higher priority than immigration on the front line, and if that's the case, what's the answer? Because you talk of 70 different pieces of legislation you have to deal with, and the ones you're best trained in, obviously, are the ones your department uses, and you're the front-line people. So does customs get a higher profile on the front line?

Third, American immigration and customs people told us at Emerson and some other areas, if somebody comes in and applies for refugee status, they're in a safe country already in Canada; we turn them back and tell them we'll do the research there. Would Canada be much better off if we turned people back coming in from the United States until our research was done? We could ease pressure there, giving more time, and they would be in the United States, not in Canada loose on the streets?

Fourth, in the 1950s, when I used to go across the border, they always popped trunks or looked in the back seat from the pill box; the guy would be out and check every five, six, seven cars. Would that increase somewhat the security of goods coming across the border?

The Chair: On the separation of front lines, Serge, what's your comment with regard to that, having Canadian residents and everybody else in two separate lines?

Mr. Serge Charette: That's one of the recommendations I've made to a couple of other committees. That may not be the ultimate solution, but I think it would alleviate some of the current concerns. So we would be supportive of a system like that.

The Chair: What's the priority, goods or people, in the front lines?

Mr. Serge Charette: You're working either on the travellers' stream or the commercial stream. So when you're working commercial, you give all your time and priority to commercial, and when you're working the travellers' stream, as a customs officer, you're dealing only with people. There is rotation between the two, but unless you're working in a very small location, the segregation between the two is maintained and you don't really have that concern. If you're in a very small location where you're dealing with both, normally, the commercial transportation of goods is fairly low in volume, so it's not a major concern.

The Chair: Then there's the safe third country.

Ms. Janina Lebon: If we're referring to the U.S., it would require U.S. approval and consent. For example, Fort Erie has a direct-back policy, but that had to be arranged with American immigration. So we can't do it unless the U.S. is agreeable.

The Chair: Okay.

With random checking, I guess, every six or seven, Cres or Serge, would you respond to that one?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Could I just hold this up?

How can the U.S. do it at Emerson? They said they did. You say we can't do it without U.S. approval. Is it a one-way street?

Ms. Janina Lebon: You're saying the U.S. is sending people to Canada?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Yes. They tell them, go back until we do the checks. Their application we'll deal with, but not on the basis of them being turned loose in Canada.

Ms. Janina Lebon: Then we should be sending them back.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Exactly. If they're doing it there, and they have the authority to do it, why don't we have the authority to do it here, if that's consistent policy?

Ms. Janina Lebon: Good point. It's the first I've heard of it. Normally, when they come to Canada and put in a refugee claim, we don't send them back. The only exception I know of is the arrangement at Fort Erie, and that was a written memorandum of understanding.

The Chair: The third country is in the legislation, but we obviously don't use it. That's one of the things we'd like to hear about, and your input is very helpful.

Ms. Janina Lebon: It was in the previous legislation, and we didn't use it.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: There's an officer standing there saying, you go back, and we'll do the check for you.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What you're talking about is, let them go back until the checks are done.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Exactly—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: They're different issues.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: —because they're in a safe country already.

• 1010

The Chair: All right. Let's come to random checking.

Mr. Serge Charette: Random checking is still being done, it's just that it's being done at a much lower rate than it used to be in the late eighties, early nineties. I guess that's the price we pay for trying to do more with less. The standard has come down. We basically get 30 seconds at busy crossings to make a decision. Either we refer the individual to secondary or we release the individual to enter the country. In the past we had more time and more resources, so we could afford to invest more time. We could look at more trunks etc. Now it's a question of resources. We just don't have the manpower to do that. If we did 10%, the lineups would increase significantly, unless we had more people to do those checks.

That's what I've been recommending to other committees as well. The only way to ensure what we call facilitation and enforcement at the same time is to increase the manpower. Those two mandates are really the reverse of each other: the more you facilitate, the more you're pushing people through without looking; the more you enforce, the more you look and refuse to put people through without checking.

The Chair: Art.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The visit to Windsor was quite significant, I thought, for our committee. The two major refugee points for people coming into Canada from the United States were Lacolle and Fort Erie. We were left with the understanding that about 1,600 to 2,000 people a month come through those two border crossings, which is very significant. To my way of thinking, it would be absolutely consuming to think that immigration and customs have to handle that flow from a country that's not supposed to produce refugee claimants. That was my question, of course, to the American bureaucrats who were at our meeting. Nobody really wanted to answer the question, but when they did answer the question, they sounded like the bureaucrats in Canada when it comes to why these things are happening.

At the same time, there's a smuggling problem from Canada into the United States, where people are paying $300 a head to be transferred from Canada into the United States through various channels. It would put a lot of immigration workers out of work, I would suggest, if some agreement was made with the United States to stop that flow, which was 40% to 50% of the total flow into Canada of refugee claimants.

I'm going to ask the immigration people in particular here, why are you not suggesting that this be dealt with? This is part and parcel of the problem we're experiencing in our refugee claimant system, and yet it's not even part of your presentation here.

The Chair: Janina.

Ms. Janina Lebon: We put it forward as third country. I can remember going back to shared border accord—we're talking 1994-1995—and it's never been put on the table. We, as front-line workers, particularly Fort Erie's 45 employees, would love to see safe third country. They finally got rid of the direct-back, until about two months ago, and VIVA la Casa brought in a whole set of refugees. That was the time they decided to do a pilot project on the 72-hour turnaround, and lo and behold, overnight they had to reinstate the process. We'd love to have it, because that would mean we would not have those refugee claimants coming through.

Mr. Art Hanger: I think that is the key our committee should be working on, to be much more effective at our border crossings, and it doesn't seem to take much of a prominent role here in the presentations I've heard today.

• 1015

The other issue is better access to intelligence. I am under the impression that all the offices now have access to CPIC, that they have access to other forms of information they never had before. That would include broad intelligence. But it doesn't seem to reflect that here in your statement on point number 13.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: We were looking at widening that. Most of the technological support is interfaced with American information. We don't get an awful lot from European sources. We need to have some kind of agreement with those countries. We don't get any type of background material on anyone coming in from Africa, for example. So there are other systems that we have to try to improve, widening the database so that it becomes more effective, not just using American sources.

Mr. Art Hanger: A comment you made right at the very beginning, again directing it to the immigration side, was that 100 people are a drop in the bucket—in fact, it won't make any difference at all. In the Pacific region—B.C. I guess would be considered the Pacific region—Immigration alone required 148 people just to meet the present demand. That does not include the impact of Bill C-11. When you talk about 100 people not making any difference whatsoever, or looking at the present situation and saying Immigration would require x number of people to fulfil their mandate, is that in the context of Bill C-11? What's Bill C-11 going to do with it? Will it demand even more personnel and more time?

Ms. Janina Lebon: Can I start with the PRRA?

Mr. Art Hanger: Start with the PRRA.

Ms. Janina Lebon: The pre-removal risk assessment alone will have to look at 37,000 files that are currently in existence.

Mr. Art Hanger: Outstanding?

Ms. Janina Lebon: We're talking about 27,000 removal cases—and this I'm basing on newspaper articles. The post-claim determination people have at least 10,000—those are the failed refugees. In addition to all that, there's anybody under a removal order. We're not talking just failed refugees, we're talking everybody.

Mr. Art Hanger: I'm going to interrupt, if I may. You're saying 37,000 people are going to be subject to an intense review, which they have not gone through yet. What's going to happen to those people if the personnel and the checks are not dealt with?

Ms. Janina Lebon: There are no personnel to do it. The job hasn't been created. There haven't been competitions run. There's been no hiring process. There's been no training process. We're just talking about the backlog. Everybody from now on will be undergoing this removal. This is a student who's an overstay. This is a mother-in-law who's come to visit. If they show up and say there is a risk in their home country, we're going to accept them, because we've taken the convention refugee definition and broadened it to include protected persons. That is just one area.

The Chair: Mr. Hanger, we'll come to that one. That is a very important one. Hopefully, some of this information is more factual and readily available. We don't get our information from the newspapers, and that's why we want the questions.

The other thing is that the PRRA should be known, and we'll get into that only on request. You're just assuming that it's an automatic—

Ms. Janina Lebon: No, it isn't.

The Chair: I'm not sure that there—

Ms. Janina Lebon: There are two sections in the act. There is section 112 that says you “may”. However, if you go into the removals section, no one may be removed unless they've had a PRRA.

The Chair: Anyway, we'll ask that of the department and the minister again. I think there are differences of opinion there.

Anita and David, and then we'll go to Madeleine and Judy.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming. I appreciate your comments today. I have a number of questions, and I'm going to run through them and see how much time the chair gives to answer them.

• 1020

One of the things I was most impressed with in our travels was the integration of services, albeit done, in many cases, on an ad hoc basis, between all the different departments of the Canadian government and the American government. You've come before us today and you've each made presentations saying you need x number of full-time equivalents. You've also indicated that you believe the customs officers need more training in immigration matters. Have you integrated and collaborated on your own presentations with regard to a realistic number that's required in both areas? That's one question.

Second, I need further understanding from you about the different requirements—and I've heard a little about it—of an urban area and a less populated area, however one wants to describe it.

My overriding concern with what I'm hearing here today and what I heard to a lesser extent in the field is some antipathy towards refugees, towards the processing of refugees, towards the work that's required in dealing with refugees, the skepticism as to who is indeed a refugee. I want to know, with the numbers, particularly in Immigration, of additional people you say you require, how much of that is, in your mind, directed at one or another aspect of the processing of refugees.

My fourth question—and I don't know whether you'll have time—concerns issues related to the integration of services by both departments or the beefing up of services at points of embarkation in other countries of individuals coming to Canada. What could be done there, from your perspective?

Mr. Cres Pascucci: We did studies in our evaluation of what we needed, because we were doing two separate functions, so there was no collaboration in coming up with the numbers. You obviously have to figure out which parts of the operations you want to beef up, whether it's a port of entry, an enforcement by way of investigations, or refugee processing, which IRB would be involved with as well. I can't give you any figures.

As for activity around urban centres and smaller centres, customs does play a quasi-immigration role in small centres, small border points, that kind of thing, so there is better integration in that respect at those areas. With urban centres, you're talking mostly about inland places, and in respect of resources, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, and Montreal would be areas that require a major increase for dealing with enforcement and dealing with arrests and investigations.

Ms. Janina Lebon: On refugee processing, I do know from the department that they've identified a need for 100 people just to staff three offices in Ontario. One is the Fort Erie office, one is the Pearson, and one is the Etobicoke CIC, which processes all those who have been accepted as convention refugees.

There is concern that the process is abused, but it's also a process anybody can apply for, and we are signatory to the UN convention, so we will accept that. We know we have to deal with them, and they're there. We just don't throw people out. If we look at the new act, we see our definition has been expanded to include protected persons, which is back to the old mandate of the special review committee; it's not refugees, but it's persons who are at risk.

We do get a little cynical, I will admit that, when someone comes in and makes a refugee claim against the U.S. for one, but it has to be dealt with. Legally we're there. We have no choice.

Ms. Anita Neville: I understand that. What I'm hearing, though, is a real skepticism, a real dislike, in some instances, of the process. It's cumbersome, it's a lot of work, it's a lot of resources. I understand the legal obligations, but it's the spirit in which the legal obligation is carried out.

• 1025

Ms. Janina Lebon: It's very difficult to deal with day in and day out. People do get skeptical. However, it's there, we are obliged to deal with the persons, and in most cases we treat them with respect and courtesy. It comes down to people saying, we've been lied to. You get very skeptical, but on the whole, I would say most of our members are very respectful and will process, even though they have that skepticism. We're professional at it, we don't have a choice, unless of course the government changes the rules or sets up things in regulations and streamlines it.

The Chair: Thank you.

David.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you very much, witnesses, for being here today.

Mr. Charette, in your statement you said you're looking for 1,200 extra, possibly 1,400, if you eliminate the students. That bothered me a little bit, because I think the students are excellent. You get a lot of good students who end up staying and becoming good staff. Most of the students I know of end up working in areas of high volume, where they do have a lot of oversight. They're not working in the remote stations.

To follow along with that, you mentioned that the remote posts, of which I have many in my riding, are manned quite often by only one person, and that's a problem. I agree with that totally. You say there should be two.

I'd like your comments on a pilot project we have going right now on combining infrastructures with the Americans and the Canadians in the same physical building at land crossings. We already do it, in a way, in our airports. There's very much of an interaction in the airports between customs and immigration of at that level.

And I'll get one more question in. In our travels we also heard—there again I go from experience—of people going from CIC over to customs because of the difference in pay scales—it pays better. I'd like your comments on that. We don't have to build a wall between you two.

The Chair: On the question about students, both parties please.

Mr. Serge Charette: Let me be very clear, it has nothing to do with the quality of those individuals or the work they do. It has to do with the type of training those individuals can be provided with, and that has to affect the end result. If you don't know the rules for immigration, if you don't know the rules for agriculture, if you don't know the rules for several pieces of legislation, how can you enforce them? That's our concern.

Mr. David Price: But is that not just a matter of that extra training at the front end? And also, as I said, they are overseen. They're very rarely totally on their own.

Mr. Serge Charette: I would challenge that. The students, in our experience, are assigned to a lane and they work autonomously. They don't have a full-fledged customs inspector sitting beside them monitoring them. So nobody knows what kind of release decision they're making. We're very concerned also with the fact that there's no assessment performed on those individuals at the end of each summer. They're basically just manning the lines and facilitating the process with minimal basic information. So that's really our concern. We feel that by having students on the line, we're watering down the efficiency and the professionalism of the job of customs inspector.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: We have situations where students work alone, especially in smaller ports, where there aren't many immigration officers, like Cornwall or Prescott-Lansdowne, to give you examples here, or Aldergrove maybe in B.C. as well. They would be working alone in those instances.

Our main point is that the department should have an apprenticeship program and that students should be well trained and become part of the bargaining unit. Basically, this is cheap labour for the employer, and they use it as job experience. If they have the same duties and responsibilities as an officer, they should be compensated in the same way. So we believe they should be part of the bargaining unit.

• 1030

The Chair: There were two additional questions David asked, on remotes and combined infrastructure, as well as the pay scale.

Mr. Serge Charette: On combined infrastructures, we certainly agree with those totally. They have increased the security level at those offices significantly. The main reason is that they're working in the same building as an armed American officer. We have only positive comments from our members in those areas. They see them as very positive developments, and we hope that particularly at the smaller sites, where you only have one or two individuals, that will become the norm across the country. It makes a lot of sense and it increases the security.

With regard to the pay, that may have been a a problem at a certain point in time, but my understanding is that they're all at the PM 2 level now.

The Chair: Okay.

Madeleine, and then Judy, Inky, and Lynne. And maybe the chairman will get to ask a question.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I will ask two questions. The first refers to the very beginning of your presentation, Mr. Charette. You said that 110 million travellers pass through Canadian customs, and you stated that: “Many try to enter illegally...”. I'd like to know how many are involved. What does “many” mean? Are we talking about 1%? What are the numbers involved? I don't know whether you can answer that question.

Mr. Serge Charette: It would be very difficult to give a percentage, but I can tell you that there are many Americans who have criminal records. There are also people who come from outside North America, certainly, but what we really wanted to stress was that there are many Americans who are also affected.

This is not just an immigration issue. We have to check all those who arrive at the border, not just those carrying a passport or those requesting refugee status. We really have to question the 110 million travellers who arrive at our offices. A number of them do not give complete information, they say as little as possible. So, it is difficult to determine a percentage, but I can tell you that there are thousands of people who arrive at Customs, who attempt to enter Canada, but who are not allowed to enter Canada.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Well, there would be a certain number of them, rather than “many”, if you are unable to give me figures. Is that correct?

Mr. Serge Charette: For us, when we are dealing with thousands, that is many, but if we convert to a percentage, I realize the point you are trying to raise and I admit that—

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It goes to show how tricky data can be.

I have another question. In your presentation, you alluded to the identity card announced by Ms. Caplan a few weeks ago. We don't know yet what information will be on the magnetic strip that we have heard a lot about. I'd like to know what data you'd like to see included on this magnetic strip.

[English]

Mr. Cres Pascucci: When we consulted with our membership, they felt the card in itself wouldn't eliminate fraud, people transporting it or transferring it. The suggestion was that there be a fingerprint, which would obviously identify the person. Personally, I have mixed feelings about it, but that's the feedback I got from the members. They want something that can be definitive, and they thought that was the best way of doing it.

The Chair: Is that your last question, Madeleine?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, that's fine.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to raise a general point. We've been going round and round today on this whole question of the appropriate response to a problem we've all agreed exists, the fact that there's a significant backlog. Janina and others have said there are about 30,000 pre- and post-documentation refugees to be handled. We've got new pressures because of the terrorist act. I think the issue at hand here is, what's the appropriate solution? We can adequately resource the system to sustain an immigration and refugee model that's based on Canadian values and, by definition, will be different from the American approach, and it would have to take into account, I think, something Cres said earlier. Some of this depends on how we approach foreign policy. Americans will not necessarily treat Salvadoran refugees the same way Canada would. So we can do that, or we can actually say, let's do what the Alliance has been suggesting all along, detain, deport, and deny. And I'm just worried that—

• 1035

Mr. Paul Forseth: Don't speak for our party.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm just citing from the Alliance resolution.

The Chair: We've been so good for the past too weeks, let's not get too partisan here.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I just want to be clear today. I got a sense from the unions here about which path we should be following. I don't want to necessarily aid and abet an agenda that is reactive, reactionary, and not consistent with Canadian values.

The Chair: Big question, short answer, I hope. Cres, Janina, and Serge.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: It's more important to go through a process than to kill the process for expediency's sake, to make a mistake. I think we should always be very careful in basing our decision on a just society on things we don't have a lot of control over. The desire for more security should never undermine liberties and the advantages Canada gives to its immigrants. If that means going through a lengthy process to become landed here, then we should have a lengthy process. I think that's the key part.

The Chair: Okay.

Serge.

Mr. Serge Charette: I guess I look at it from a different perspective. I know the Americans expect us to do something similar to what they're doing. As I said, they've already announced that they're hiring 3,500 more customs inspectors and that they're going to do northbound checks, which basically is screening the people that are coming to Canada, keeping them in the United States or rejecting them, sending them out of the United States if they don't like them, instead of allowing them to come to Canada. So we have to demonstrate very clearly to the Americans that we understand what they're going through, their concerns, and that we're reacting to it. If we don't send that message, they're going to block off the border, to appoint where commercial importations are going to suffer significantly, and that means thousands of jobs in Canada—the United States as well, but they will be able to justify it to the Americans by saying, we're doing it in the name of your security. We have to very careful, because if we don't react in a way that is acceptable to the Americans, that border will be sealed off, and it will be used as, I think, a non-tariff barrier, and that will have major financial implications for Canada.

The Chair: You might be right, Serge, but some of us indicated that we were impressed that local people on both sides of the border, your people as well as their people, don't believe that to be the case. There seems to be a real big disconnection between what is happening at the local level and what Washington and Ottawa are thinking, or more precisely, the impression Washington is trying to give. That's what we're trying to dispel. There are a whole lot of myths, and there's an awful lot of reality out there that we need to probe and discover. But I think the perceptions are absolutely right, Serge.

Inky and Lynne, and then we'll take another question from over here.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is about process. I'm trying to figure out how we got to 27,000 deportation warrants. I've asked the commissioner about his role when an application is failed by IRB. He says it's not his mandate unless he's asked for help. So my understanding is that when it's a failed application, it goes back to CIC, which writes out the deportation order. I know you have enforcement officers. What happens?

• 1040

Ms. Janina Lebon: I work at the largest enforcement office, the one in Mississauga known as the Greater Toronto Enforcement Centre. We don't deal just with failed refugee claimants, abandoned claimants. We have all the files, all the criminality, all the overstays, every single file. Over the years they have accumulated. Our own office started off four years ago, when it was created with about 250 people. We're now up to 300. We are actually managing to remove people. Part of the problem is finding them. We even have a separate unit set up now called the failed refugee unit. As soon as the IRB finishes with a case, we get to know about it and we manage to get them removed immediately. But it takes time, and it's taken a lot of time to get us where we are.

The deportation order is usually issued right at the start of the process. After they come through inquiry at the port of entry, there is a deportation order. The process with the IRB can be one year, two years, or longer. In the meantime we'll have lost where they live. Those who are accepted, processed through Etobicoke, are not the problem, it's the ones who go into the woodwork, some of whom disappear into the U.S., some of whom just go underground. That why in the past we've had numerous amnesty programs.

Mr. Inky Mark: Would this be expedited or helped if the RCMP were involved?

Ms. Janina Lebon: It's still a matter of locating the persons. Our FOSS system is connected to CPIC. Those who have had the training and the security clearance have access to it, so there is an interlink. We actually have a small link now to the IRB system. Right now they're working on a massive interface for the whole department, so that we will be connected coast to coast. Our files locally at one time were not in the national system. Having the RCMP find them is one thing, but to find them, you need to have their addresses, you need to do the ground work, the investigative work, and just track them down case by case.

The Chair: Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I'm wondering about the level of refugee acceptance. Our minister says there are going to be so many refugees we're going to accept per year. We're going to try to keep in line with that. Should we link that number of refugees with the target for immigrants as a whole? You have so many immigrants coming in as entrepreneurs, some sponsored. What about the refugee limit? Should we link that target she's making with a percentage of our total? What do we do? You're not going to get your resources, you can pretty well figure that out. You're not going to get your 2,000 people. So we have to start working the other way. What can we do to fix this? That's one backlog that could be really helped.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: There are refugees who arrive here, but there are also refugees overseas. I know one of the things our members really support is doing more processing overseas. Hopefully, the committee has more influence and can get us more resources, but that's another issue. I don't think you can put a limit on the number of refugees.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I'm wondering if more should be done overseas, because of the queue jumpers. The people overseas are suffering, the real refugees who aren't getting here, because of the ones who are taking your resources and landing. I don't think it's fair.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: We've done that in Kosovo. We did it in 1956 with Hungarians. We've done Vietnamese. We've done those special programs. We should do more of them. But before you can agree to do more of them, you must get rid of this concept that there's a limit in the number of refugees you are going to accept.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: She has the concept that there is a number we are going to take in.

I want you to expand, Janina, on your concern about the PRRA. I understand there's a buzzword that puts you into the system. The buzzword is “I can't go home” or “it's not safe to go home”, and that's it. If you don't mention that, you are sent back.

Ms. Janina Lebon: Bill C-11, now an act, has two sections. The one with the PRRA words says “a person may apply”, but if you go into the removal section, it says that before we can remove someone—and since my office does removals, it's of major concern—they must have a recent PRRA, in person or in writing.

• 1045

The Chair: Janina, as a follow-up, I've got the act right here. Section 112—and that's the way we design it—says “may appeal”, but subsection 49(1), which is the removal section, says “a removal order comes into force on the latest of the following dates”, which means that if you've got a removal order, you don't need a PRRA, or anybody appealing to a PRRA, to remove, because it says:

49. (1) A removal order comes into force on the latest of the following dates:

(a) the day the removal order is made, if there is no right to appeal;

(b) the day the appeal period expires, if there is a right to appeal and no appeal is made; and

(c) the day of the final determination of the appeal, if an appeal is made.

So I think it might be interpreting a lot more, without seeing the regulations, into section 49 and giving the impression that in fact nobody will be removed, because everybody will be able to exercise a PRRA appeal. That's not the case at all.

Ms. Janina Lebon: Then why hasn't the department done a study that indicates removals will be down to a trickle as a result of that?

The Chair: I hope they're doing studies, because you want to test what may or may not be possible, but until we get the regulations... I understand your concern, we've heard it, and we will test it on the minister and the department. But I think you're taking it to the worst-case scenario that says everybody's going to do it.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I understand as soon as they say, it isn't safe for me to go home, that gives them a PRRA. So if they're well educated or come over intentionally to use the system, they know that will put them into the PRRA.

Ms. Janina Lebon: Let's not forget that they will have legal counsel.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I have just one more thing. I wanted to go through your numbers. You said 12,000 were HRDC, 600 to 700 IRB, and 4,000 Citizenship and Immigration. So where would you take these resources and put them, Citizenship and Immigration, that's your officers, your interviewers, that level? Then HRDC, who are those?

Mr. Cres Pascucci: No, HRDC wouldn't be involved in this process at all. We're just talking about those who are working for Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The extra resources would obviously be for the front line, but also for enforcement officers, to clear the backlog in warrants.

The Chair: Quickly, one question, Steve, and then Anita.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: With estimates of the 27,000 who are in the country “illegally”, any number between 10,000 and 20,000 of them are working in the construction industry, building homes in Mississauga, Janina might tell you, with a lot of folks waiting for their closing date. The construction unions, of course, are interested in having us grant an amnesty, so that they can bring these people out from underground and give them workers' compensation and representation within the bargaining unit, etc., etc. Many of them, I would submit, are violators of visitor visas, not refugees. I don't have hard evidence, but I strongly suspect, from all the research I've done, that the vast majority of them would fall into that category. They're not criminals. They're not certainly terrorists. Many of them, in fact, have been here for a number of years, have had children here, and live in the community. But they're working underground.

So the question is, do you support an amnesty for these people, so that we can maybe wipe out that 27,000 backlog, or waiting list, or whatever you want to call it, and start from—dare I use the term—ground zero? We can then clean up the system more quickly, not worry about PRRA and all the workload and backlog your members would endure if that happened. Then on top of that, the people who come out will get to pay union dues to the construction unions, and they'd all be really happy about that. What do you think?

Mr. Cres Pascucci: Well, leave things wide open, eh?

We don't make the rules, you know that. Any time there's an amnesty program announced, they make criteria. Some of that is what they've contributed to society and what they've done during their stay here, and there will be a minimum period of time. As a union, we wouldn't have a position.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do you agree with my analysis of who they are, though?

Mr. Cres Pascucci: I do, yes. We're not generally looking at hard-core criminals in these outstanding 27,000 warrants, but there are some, and I think those are the ones everyone would be concerned with. So let's go after them. Let's not get into stats. If you remember the Baylis situation in Toronto, and the shooting there, one of the reasons that occurred was that we got involved in stats. We did easy claims.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Just desserts.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: Okay, yes.

The Chair: Lynne.

• 1050

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I just wanted to make a comment. I compliment you guys. Everybody saw it at the level where we were at, and it was fantastic. The work done within the American and Canadian Customs and Immigration was fantastic. So I'm really shocked when I read the National Post and Bush is sending directives that we have to get together with Canada and start working together, because it was really impressive. I'm very surprised.

There seem to be some differences. What I saw in Dorval airport sounds like it's already the front line and you are meeting. Or are they going to just start that pilot project now, where they're going to meet the customs and immigration right there? I'm surprised that a pilot project like that isn't even suggested yet, that you haven't even started something like that. But Dorval airport is doing a pilot project, and it looks just excellent. It will help your students as well. I'm just wondering, as it seema you haven't even thought of starting pilot projects, or they aren't out there.

Ms. Janina Lebon: I do know, for example, Pearson at one time had a disembarkation team, in other words, a team of immigration people right at the plane's door doing a quick check at that point. So there have been pilot projects, but nothing consistent and nothing really joint.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before I say thank you very much, and it has been very informative, I wondered if I could get a couple of clarifications.

We'll ask this, of course, of the department at your end. There was a question asked earlier with regard to how many people have been lost since 1993-1994. Everybody seems to be guessing. The union should know how many people they had at one time. We don't need to get that information from the news people. We are very concerned about human resources. We need to understand where you were before program review and where you need to get to, whether or not 2000 is a wish list or is a number out there. Maybe you can clarify that with us in writing.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: Sure.

The Chair: What is the measurement you would use? Customs is based on flows. It is based on cars, trucks, coming through. I would very much like to understand the criteria for how many people you need. You can answer that now or give us something a little more in detail.

Second, with regard to this 72-hours concern you raised, and it was raised locally with us, again, I think we'll have to wait for the regulations with regard to Bill C-11. You're absolutely right, intelligence and criminality take an awful lot of time. If nobody is in any system, CPIC or Interpol, you'll never find out who they are, especially if they're undocumented. Again, I think there's a misperception here as to what we expect in 72 hours—hopefully in 72 hours.

Again, we will try to clarify this with the minister and department. One could make a determination, based on the human intelligence of a customs person or an immigration person, that if you feel someone is not cooperative, doesn't have documentation, you, in fact, can detain, remove, or send back. Hopefully, the system isn't that we're going to get all of this information from overseas in 72 hours. In fact, that criminality security check at the front end is to make sure the most undesirable people are not let into this country at all. Surely, the criminality checks will come thereafter. Even while the people are in the refugee determination system, once we find out they've got serious criminality, we can stop the refugee claim and deport, detain, or whatever we have to do.

Perhaps you can tell me where you are coming from with regard to the 72 hours. Where in the bill do you see that 72 hours means all of this work has to be done? I agree with you, it can't be done. So let's not fool anybody. Even the best technology and a whole bunch of human resources aren't going to get you an awful lot in 72 hours. Maybe you can expand a little bit on that.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: One of the points you've addressed yourself we made originally, that the regulations are going to dictate what's going to happen. So we have to see them specifically, because many parts of Bill C-11 are just so general in that respect. Let's get the specifics, and then we can make a better determination.

The Chair: My final question concerns what you both addressed, and we heard it very clear. In Europe they put people first, and therefore the front line people, because of their customs union, are immigration people. In the United States there is shared jurisdiction between immigration and customs. In our country we put customs at the front end as the primary, and immigration second. I think I heard both of you indicate that perhaps it should be a joint function, customs and immigration having equal say or jurisdiction, call it what you will, in priority setting, as opposed to this putting goods before people. Can I just make sure that I have it right?

• 1055

Mr. Serge Charette: That's not really the position of the Customs Excise Union. Basically, our position is that we have to rely much more on Immigration to provide us with training. If we are going to share those responsibilities, then the immigration people would have to be trained not only in immigration, but in all the other legislations that have to be applied concurrently. That's a bit of a difficulty. If you're going to put immigration people on the line, that's a decision that belongs to the government. You can go ahead and do that, but you have to keep in mind that when you're there, you're not only applying immigration legislation, you're applying 70 different pieces of legislation.

The Chair: Serge, as to what you indicated about the American perception, the last time I heard, people cause terrorism, not goods. I'm of both minds now, but if I'm going to err, I'd like to err on the side of putting people first, or checking people out before goods. I don't know how your members, having to deal with 70 pieces of legislation, can also do the human side of things, which is where immigration is coming from. Either it's done jointly, thus more effectively, in my opinion, or you give the primary function to perhaps immigration, maybe at the airports, or maybe in designated areas. If you're going to check for terrorists, you have to check people out.

Cres, may I have your comments as to where your priority would be.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: I think it should be recognized that at one time immigration was the primary inspection line, many years back—

The Chair: It was 1967—

Mr. Cres Pascucci: We were there, right?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: I think what we want is more of a presence on the primary inspection line, whether or not we're the first line. That's an issue I think the departments will work out with the government, but we need more of an immigration presence on the line.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The front line folks at Lacolle, Quebec, who deal with 5,000 refugee claimants coming from the United States, said the 72 hours—just for your information—would not affect them, as they currently do make that determination well under the 72 hours. So you might want to talk to them.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee and Canadians, I want to thank each and every one of your members for the hard work they're doing for the country.

Thank you so much for an excellent presentation, for being open and frank and giving us some insight as to where we need to be going with regard to border security and Bill C-11. I'm sure we'll be talking again.

Thank you so much. Good-bye.