STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 25, 2001

• 1534

[English]

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

To the minister and her officials, Mr. Dorais and Joan Atkinson, it's nice to have you here. We became very intimately involved last year as we reviewed and passed Bill C-11. As you know, Bill C-11 is in the process of being passed in the Senate and hopefully we'll get royal assent very soon.

Minister, since Bill C-11, this country and the world have been in the midst of some really remarkable events that have shaken us all. The purpose of the committee meeting is to review the new bill within the context of what happened on September 11.

• 1535

As you know, the committee will be travelling next week, east and west, to look at security at our border points. The week following we hope to meet with our congressional counterparts in Washington as we all try to collectively reassure our own populations and each other that we're doing everything possible within the context of immigration.

So I want to thank you very much, Minister, and your officials for taking the time to come to our committee. I know you have opening statements, and we have, I'm sure, a lot of questions. We met with the RCMP and CSIS last week, and the IRB. This morning we had a briefing on our border security issues with some of your officials.

We have approximately two hours with you. So without any further ado, welcome, and we look forward to both your opening remarks and your answers.

Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

[English]

First, let me thank you for inviting me to speak to you about security at our ports of entry as you begin your study on this very important issue.

I do have opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to answering questions after.

Since the terrible attack of September 11, the issue of border security has taken on new meaning. Many people are looking at the world differently as a result of these horrific attacks. Naturally, many have reacted with fear and anxiety. They are asking what the Government of Canada is doing to protect our nation from the scourge of terrorism. They're also determined, as we are, to see that these acts strengthen our resolve to protect and uphold our fundamental values.

Earlier this year, I spoke to you about Bill C-11, the proposed Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which will provide a range of new tools to deal with threats to safety and security of Canadians. But I want to be clear that the current Immigration Act already contains tough measures to protect our borders. We can and do use these provisions now to examine new arrivals; to deny entry to inadmissible persons; to detain those who pose a concern in relation to their true identity, their likelihood of showing up at hearings, or the threat that they may pose to Canadians; and to deport criminals and other inadmissible persons.

Long before September 11 we had already established strong alliances and excellent working relationships with our partners, both within Canada and with other countries, to deal with the threats of terrorism and international crimes.

Border security has always been an important component of this work. Citizenship and Immigration Canada works every day with domestic and international law enforcement partners to share intelligence and advance our joint efforts to combat terrorism as well as irregular migration, organized crime, and the smuggling and trafficking of human beings. We know that we must build on this cooperative work, in particular with our international partners, because it is clear that terrorism is an international problem.

My department works closely with other departments and agencies concerned with border security issues. Among them are Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Department of the Solicitor General, the RCMP and CSIS, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Our cooperation with our closest neighbour, the United States, in managing our shared border is long-standing and has deepened over the years.

In 1999, in the context of our border vision strategy, we signed a statement of mutual understanding on information-sharing with the United States, allowing us to exchange key information and intelligence, including information on possible terrorist activities. Together we have developed various initiatives that use technology to accelerate the flow of people, goods, and services between our two countries. We are employing joint enforcement teams to combat illegal border crossing activities. Together we're able to permit the free movement of legitimate travellers who represent the overwhelming portion of cross-border traffic while doing our part to ensure the safety and security of our two countries.

• 1540

We also profit from information-sharing agreements with our other allies, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, which are also vulnerable to illegal migration and terrorism. We participate in a range of multinational forums dealing with such global issues as illegal migration, people-smuggling, organized crime, and terrorism.

I understand that over the coming weeks the members of this committee will be travelling across the country to visit a number of Canada's ports of entry. You will meet the men and women on the front lines, the hard-working officers who protect and serve at our airports, seaports, and land ports of entry. I encourage you to talk to them at length to find out how they do their jobs and ask them what questions and concerns they may have. I'm sure you will be very impressed, as I have been, with their dedication and professionalism.

Of the 110 million or so people who come to Canada each year, customs officers refer approximately 2 million for examination and screening by immigration officers. Last year, immigration officers at our ports of entry wrote over 41,000 reports on persons who were in violation of the Immigration Act, ranging from the lack of a visa to serious criminality. These reports resulted in a variety of enforcement actions.

At our ports of entry, immigration officers fingerprint and photograph refugee claimants. They have the authority to detain persons where there are concerns about security, risk of flight, or identity. And this is a very important authority. But the job of screening those who enter Canada starts long before many even reach Canada's borders.

At a conceptual level, we might think of our border as something that begins at our embassies and visa posts abroad, where our officers interview and screen prospective visitors to Canada. It continues at our international airports, where our officers work with airlines at various departure points for North America. And it is supported through both the criminality and security databases and the sharing of information with our partners well before people arrive on our soil.

I think we all agree that the very best way to deter terrorists is to stop them from reaching Canada, stop them before they get here. To this end, we have over the past two years expanded our work of overseas interdiction by increasing the number of immigration control officers abroad from 31 to 48. Last year Canada's immigration control officers intercepted more than 6,000 improperly documented passengers attempting to board airlines for Canada. Over the past six years, our officers have stopped 33,000 people without proper documents from doing so. Our success with such interdiction activity has in fact encouraged the United States, Britain, and Australia to initiate similar interdiction work.

Since September 11, the Government of Canada has increased vigilance at our ports of entry as well as overseas. Customs and immigration officials are conducting intensive examinations based on heightened security concerns and are working closely with the RCMP and CSIS to identify persons who may pose a security risk.

We have strengthened our partnerships, both within Canada and with other countries, and we have increased information-sharing with our allies.

Canadians recognize more than ever the need to be vigilant against the threat of global terrorism. And the Government of Canada is devoting more resources to protect the security of our borders.

Mr. Chairman, on October 12, at our port of entry in Niagara Falls, I announced new funding of $49 million to help my officials in their work to protect our safety and security. Among other things, this means that we will employ about 100 additional new immigration officers to staff our ports of entry.

• 1545

My officials are moving quickly to produce a secure identity card for permanent residents. Starting in June of this coming spring, the maple leaf card will be issued to all new immigrants. It will replace the piece of paper, today's Record of Landing, that has been subject to abuse. The new card will be the only document that gives proof of permanent residence status, and as such will greatly facilitate travel abroad and return to Canada. The state-of-the-art security features of the card will help us to crack down on fraud, and make it much harder for terrorists to make use of this document to travel to Canada.

We have also been conducting intensive security screening for all refugee claimants arriving at our borders in an effort to immediately identify potential criminals or security risks. With the new funding that has been made available, we will be increasing our use of detention, as required, particularly in relation to concerns about identity or security. We will also be expanding our removal activity, to send a message to those who would abuse our rules that they will be apprehended, and either charged or deported.

At the same time, my officials are hard at work on plans for the regulations to accompany Bill C-11, and for the implementation of the strengthened security provisions that this bill and its regulations will provide. Many of you will recall, when Bill C-11 was introduced earlier this year and studied at length by this committee, it was criticized for being too tough. I think Canadians recognized then, just as they do now, that we need to be tough—tough on those who would abuse our rules and tough on serious criminals and security threats. We must not, and we will not, allow this small minority to hijack our long-standing traditions of openness and diversity and of welcoming newcomers to Canada. Our immigration and refugee protection programs are far too important to Canada and to Canadians.

Bill C-11, the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, will provide increased security provisions and new grounds of inadmissibility. Serious criminals and persons who pose a security risk will not have access to the refugee protection process. Those who are serious criminals and persons who pose a security risk will also lose appeal rights. Simply put, the new bill will allow us to remove these people faster.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as you study the issue of border security you will have the opportunity to observe the screening process at our ports of entry. You will see some of the technology in use and witness the enhanced cooperation amongst partner departments and nations. You will observe the everyday work of our dedicated officers as they seek to find the appropriate balance between measures necessary to both maintain integrity and security at our borders and allow the movement of goods and people that have become so vital to our economy, our society, and, yes, our way of life.

I wish you well in this work. I look forward to your questions.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am ready to answer your questions.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

We'll move immediately to round one. I have the pleasure of welcoming the leader of the opposition, Mr. Day, for the first round.

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and Madam Minister.

In your presentation, and we anticipate in the legislation, there are words that say authorities would “have the authority to detain”, and that people “will be detained” in relation to their true identity. But there is something more required here. On Tuesday the Canadian Alliance put forward a motion, a proposal, that said people who arrive here with their identity documents destroyed—destroyed by themselves, in most cases—or without documentation, or under suspicious circumstances, should not simply be detained but detained until it is absolutely proven they are not a security risk.

• 1550

So when the minister is saying “they will be detained”, that's truthful. They may be detained until they're fingerprinted, or a picture taken. They may be detained for a couple of days or even longer. But they must be detained until it's established they are not a security risk.

When we proposed that in a motion, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the minister and her Liberal colleagues voted against it. That's what we're trying to get at here.

It flies in the face of a House of Commons committee in 1998. At that time a majority of Liberals on that committee, including several members who are still on that committee, specifically recommended, and I quote:

Citizenship and Immigration Canada should detain in cases where the identity of a person is not established. That detaining must continue until that person is cleared of any risk.

So why is it the minister is reluctant to add, if not that clause, certainly that intent? Will the minister say today that people who arrive here who have destroyed their documentation on the way here, or have some story as to why the documents evaporated, will be detained until it is determined they are not a security risk?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I want to be clear that the immigration officials at our ports of entry today, under the existing Immigration Act, have the authority to detain anyone where they have reasonable grounds to believe that this person poses a security threat, where they have evidence as to concern about their identity, or reasonable grounds to believe they are not going to show up for hearings. That authority is already in the existing act.

In the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, both in the bill and in the accompanying regulations, that will be further clarified, and I might say enhanced, by determining that if someone is undocumented and uncooperative, we can, again, detain on grounds that they pose a security risk, that we're not satisfied as to their identity, or that there are reasonable concerns that they will not show up for hearings.

But what I hear the leader of the opposition asking for—correct me if I'm wrong—is mandatory and automatic detention of anyone who shows up undocumented. If that's what he's proposing, Mr. Speaker, it would result in the jailing or holding in detention of perfectly innocent people over whom my officials and experts, dedicated professionals, have no concern, and no evidence that they should be concerned.

The Chair: Mr. Day.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I'm glad the minister is being forthright in saying why she doesn't want to do this. You used the words “they have the authority to detain”. A police officer has the authority to stop someone from speeding, but if police officers never stop the speeding, people will eventually get killed. I agree they have the authority, but it is not acted on. I'm glad the minister has really stated the case. It reflects what she said—

The Chair: They seem to stop me every time I'm speeding.

Mr. Stockwell Day: And I'm glad they do, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad they do.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has said that if we proceed this way, if we would detain people who arrive here suspiciously, it would be a dark chapter in our history. Remember, these are people who, for some reason, while they're flying here—because they had to have some documents to get on that plane—destroyed their own documents. That act alone should require, absolutely, that they be detained and not let go. It would not be a dark chapter in our history.

There have been, I acknowledge, dark chapters in Canada's history. In the Second World War Japanese Canadians were interned in camps. That was wrong and dark. In the Second World War there were many cases. One quite famous case was that of a ship, the St. Louis, arriving here with Jewish refugees and being turned away, and they had all their papers in order. In both cases, it was Liberal governments, with respect, that perpetrated those dark chapters.

Others of our allies—the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia—have this policy, and yet we do not. In the United Kingdom, very close to Heathrow airport, they have just opened a new facility to detain people who arrive there without documentation. That does not mean there's going to be a massive detention required, because when the word goes out to the other points from which people leave to come to Canada that people are detained if they arrive here without documentation, this activity will come swiftly to an end.

Is the minister saying that these other countries, our allies, are also creating dark chapters? We're simply asking, will you please detain these people until they are absolutely cleared of being a security risk? What is wrong with that?

• 1555

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm pleased to answer the questions of the leader of the official opposition. I want him to know that there are 23 million refugees worldwide. Many flee for their lives from persecution with no documentation. Some use smugglers to help them flee. That's called humanitarian smuggling. It's something that is recognized in our law today. When it can be proven that someone assisted for humanitarian reasons, such as people fleeing persecution, the Minister of Justice does not prosecute in those cases. Often it is church groups and organizations that help people.

At our ports of entry in the last couple of weeks, we have had people arrive—families, women, and children—from war-torn countries in central Africa and from parts of the world where there is torment and persecution. They've arrived here—perfectly innocent people, women and children—without documents.

Mr. Chairman, the immigration officials interview all of those people. They take their fingerprints. They take their photographs. They run the checks through the RCMP and CSIS databases. If they have any concerns that those individuals pose any kind of a safety or security risk, if they're not satisfied as to their identity, or if they believe and they have reason to believe that those individuals won't show up for their hearing, they have two options. They can detain them or they can impose terms and conditions. Actually, a third option is that they can let them enter Canada with every reasonable expectation that Canada will in no way be in any way concerned about those individuals.

Before I finish, Mr. Speaker—

The Chair: Mr. Day.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Further to that, the minister said, if there's any reason to detain them. They can't get on the plane in another country unless they have some documentation, so in-flight, en route, they destroy the documentation. That is sufficient reason to detain them.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the official opposition is acting as judge and jury, prejudging cases without even looking at what the facts are. These are exactly the sorts of judgments that our immigration officers make.

I would suggest to him, when he talks about other countries and their experience with detaining for reasons of deterrence, that in fact they have not been successful. They don't detain for security reasons; in fact, they do detain for the purpose of it acting as a deterrent so that people will stop coming.

If you look at the experience in Australia, they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars detaining people who pose no security risk in the hopes that it will stop people from getting in boats. We just heard of another boat, unfortunately, where people were drowned trying to get to Australia.

So if the leader of the opposition is suggesting that these camps, these detention camps, these jails, deter people from coming, he's wrong. The experience in Australia proves that.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Chairman, the minister has no way of proving that point because in fact we do not detain people right now. They roam the countryside. And talk about establishing yourself as judge and jury, the minister is supporting legislation with something called “preventative arrests”. That means the minister or her colleagues will be saying, you know, we think you're thinking about doing something bad, so we're going to arrest you.

That is being a judge and a jury if nothing is.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No, no—

The Chair: Minister, let the member pose the question.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: All right.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I would simply ask that we do as these other countries do and send the message out, especially in this time of heightened alert around the world, especially in a time where true terrorists are looking for a place to hide. The caves of Afghanistan can't hide them all. They're being bombed out. They are looking for those countries where they think they have an opportunity to enter without documents, or after destroying their documents, and then take a hike and disappear.

• 1600

Now more than ever, we need to have it clearly sent around the world.... Absolutely, we need to be there with humanitarian aid in these countries, helping refugees, but people are getting on planes, destroying their documents, and arriving here knowing that if they just will be patient, with some detention time, they're going to be able to walk.

A detention is not good enough. They must be held until there's no security risk.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Chairman, with respect, it is wrong to equate all undocumented refugees with terrorists and criminal security threats. That is just wrong.

In order to protect Canada, we have instituted, since September 11, in-depth interviewing and screening at the ports of entry and inland. We have the ability to detain, and we do detain, whenever we have evidence that anyone poses a security risk or a danger to Canada. That's happening today, and to suggest it's not happening is not correct.

I know the leader of the official opposition would not want to give the wrong impression to Canadians, so when he suggests that detaining will stop people from coming undocumented, that is not the case with what's happened in Australia. The evidence is absolutely clear. More than that, you are jailing innocent women and children who pose no security risk, punishing them because they had to flee for their lives without any identification and often resort to humanitarian smuggling.

I have to tell you something, Mr. Chairman; I stand absolutely and completely opposed to doing that. If some people pose a risk to this country, I say detain them and deport them as soon as possible. No one will be tougher on those who pose a risk to our society. But jailing innocent people—women and children—without any evidence simply because they show up not properly documented is not the Canadian way.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'm going to ask the questioners and the people answering the questions to keep it short. We have a lot of people wanting to ask questions. The answers to the questions are fine; the speeches are also fine; but that's left for another place.

Mr. Mahoney and Ms. Neville will split the Liberals' 10 minutes. Go ahead.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Minister, the issue I hear the opposition stating—I wrote down what he said—is that they should be detained and held until there is no security risk.

Could you just tell us, is that what happens now?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I've tried to be really clear, but let me state again: If we have any evidence, upon interview, that anyone poses a risk to Canada, we detain them until we're satisfied they don't pose a risk or until we're able to remove them. However, there are regular detention reviews, because in this country we have the rule of law, and we have to have evidence to support our concern.

Mr. Chairman, it's very important for people around this committee to understand that we have the authority and we do detain whenever we have evidence they pose a risk, or we don't know who they are, or are concerned they're not going to show up.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's very important that we nail that point down. We cannot satisfy ourselves as to their identify; and/or we feel there is a security risk; and/or we believe there is a flight risk—in other words, they may not show for a hearing to determine their eligibility to be a legitimate convention refugee.

My understanding is we detain them under those conditions, if any of those situations occur. They are then allowed certain appeals within reasonable periods of time, at which time it's up to the government to put forward evidence—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: To make the case.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —to substantiate their fears. For instance, they are either uncooperative, which should be reasonably easy to do—they won't tell us their name, for starters—or they're a security or flight risk. Certainly the onus should be on us, CSIS, the RCMP, whoever, to put forth evidence. Surely to goodness no one is suggesting we put people in jail without any evidence, regardless of where they're from. I would hope they're not, although maybe they are.

So we already do all of these things. Our people at the borders are in fact authorized to detain, and do detain.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: In fact, you're correct, but beyond that—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What's the issue?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: —we have initiated intensified security screening for everyone who arrives, whether it's at a port of entry or inland, when they come in to make a claim. But as I understand it, what the leader of the official opposition is proposing is automatic, mandatory detention without evidence, or the evidence being that someone shows up without documents.

• 1605

I repeat, where we have any concern that someone is posing a risk, we have the authority to detain, and we do detain.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I wonder if you might comment on my final question as to how the confusion seems to spread among the Canadian public and the American public...even among senators, including Senator Clinton in New York, or another senator—I forget where she was from—holding up a document claiming we were some kind of safe haven. When asked where she got her information, she said it was news media clips. Very accurate, I'm sure.

I wonder if you have any thoughts as to how this kind of information spreads when it's simply not the truth.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Well, it is extremely unfortunate, because it does give the wrong impression. While everyone feels, I think, sick at heart about the events of September 11, one of the amazing things that's happened in the United States is a bipartisan approach and a coming together. And there has been, here in Canada, an attempt to blame Canada, and I think unfairly. We know that all of the 19 hijackers had been in the United States for quite some time.

So when we give that wrong impression, the American media pick it up, and Americans read it and think, gee, if it's been said by parliamentarians, and reported in the news media.... They sometimes believe what they read and regard it as accurate.

Then there's the myth that I think Commissioner Zaccardelli exploded very well when he appeared before a parliamentary committee. He said we should strike the terminology “safe haven for terrorists” from our lexicon, because it is simply not true. If we stopped saying it, we would be doing all of Canada a very big favour by finally telling the truth. I know that came from a report many, many years ago. Many actions have been taken and many departments have worked together. For unfortunate partisan reasons, I guess, Mr. Chairman, some have seen it as an opportunity to tarnish Canada. And the results have been appalling.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So we should stop lying is basically what you're saying.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think that's accurate.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's fair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Yvon Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Madam Minister, I want to take this opportunity to ask you a question that often arises in debates and in the media, and that some MPs had to deal with in managing their own files.

It is about the time that elapses between the final rejection of an application for refugee or immigrant status and the expulsion of the individual. This may sometimes take days, weeks or even months. It is embarrassing when these cases are reported in the media, but it is also embarrassing when they crop up in the relations between us, the MPs, and the department. We do not know exactly who is accountable.

What are your relations with the RCMP? How come the RCMP does not take charge of these persons and does not expel them the very next morning or immediately, when the application is denied? What is going on? Why are we waiting for months and weeks?

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I want to thank you for that question, because nobody is more frustrated than I am with the complexity of the existing system or how long it takes. As I have said, the reason I brought forward the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, with the streamlining of our procedures, is that I believe it's in the interests of Canada to look at how we're doing things today, and make it faster while staying fair. I think we've done that with Bill C-11. As you all know from studying the bill, in what's existing today, even after there is a rejection as a convention refugee, there are still many steps. In fact, I think I can count four steps. Each of those steps is subject to review by the Federal Court, and it can take years before you finally get to the point where someone is ready to be removed.

And then do you know what happens? I get requests from members of Parliament to consider on humanitarian and compassionate grounds allowing individuals to stay, because during that time they've gotten married; they've had children; they've established in the communities; or it's very difficult in some cases to get travel documents.

• 1610

We want to speed up the procedure so that we can say yes, as quickly as possible, to those people who are in genuine need of our protection. But we also want to be able to say no to those people who don't need our protection and encourage them to get on with their lives elsewhere quickly.

I do want to make one point. We do remove those who are inadmissible to Canada as quickly as possible. If they are criminals, if they pose security risks, while the procedure today is cumbersome, we can bar access to the refugee determination system. There's such a thing as a security certificate and a danger opinion. The new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act streamlines that process as well.

In the case of people who are not in need of our protection, and are not telling us the truth when they ask for asylum, we want to streamline the procedure and say no, and remove them quickly.

But for serious criminals—security threats—we are also streamlining the security certificate procedure. We're streamlining and denying access to the Immigration Appeal Division, eliminating all the steps and the numbers of judicial reviews, so we can remove them more quickly.

Mr. Chairman, I am as frustrated as anyone else about how long it takes today. It takes just too long. I believe Bill C-11 will give us the ability to remove and make these determinations more quickly, while still remaining fair and meeting our charter obligations.

The Chair: Second round. We'll go to Art, and then Madeleine, for five minutes.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for coming before the committee.

I'm very interested in your words when you reflect on the present Immigration Act and pretty much state that it really can do the job as it sits right now. As far as covering this whole issue of admissibility or inadmissibility, the sections are in the act to be able to cover all of that, I understand. So if a claimant comes forward and lies to the immigration officers, and they determine later on through their own sources that this individual has done so, does that make him still admissible? Does lying to the immigration officer make him inadmissible?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay, how many...?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: If someone has claimed status by fraud or misrepresentation, their refugee status can be vacated. If somebody attains permanent residence status through fraud or misrepresentation—

Mr. Art Hanger: And these are all present sections—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: —then their permanent residence status can be revoked, or they can just be deported.

Mr. Art Hanger: Right. And they—

The Chair: Madam Minister—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: He asked a question, and I'm answering.

The Chair: Please keep it short.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: If someone obtains citizenship through fraud and misrepresentation, while the process is cumbersome, we also want to be able to take action.

However, I want to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that the member is absolutely wrong when he says that I say everything is fine.

Mr. Art Hanger: I never said that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The immigration and refugee determination procedures we have in place today are far too cumbersome and much too difficult. It takes too long for us to be able to make determinations. I believe, if we have the information in advance that they're lying and are inadmissible, we can deny them access more easily to the refugee determination procedure.

The Chair: Thank you. You've answered the question.

Art. Next.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The new bill's a big improvement.

Mr. Art Hanger: I would like to know what plans the minister has, or is preparing to implement, in cases where a person overseas applies for and is granted a visitor's visa and then, after arrival here in Canada, claims refugee status. What are you going to do to stop that?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: In fact, the Geneva Convention requires us—

Mr. Art Hanger: They're granted a visitor's visa, and then they come over here and apply for refugee status.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Canada and many countries of the world, Mr. Chairman, signed the Geneva Convention. We're proud to have signed that convention. It requires us to give a fair hearing to anyone who comes to Canada and asks for protection.

In fact it's a very serious thing, and we don't prejudge it. We have an arm's-length Immigration and Refugee Board that sorts out those who are in fact in need of protection and those who are not.

If someone has applied overseas for a visitor's visa, we would hope that if they are in need of protection they would apply overseas, but we know that many people who are genuine refugees are looking for a way to come to Canada to ask for protection because they're afraid.

Mr. Art Hanger: What are you going to do to stop the ones who—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: So we don't prejudge why they come here first and make a claim.

• 1615

The Chair: Thank you.

Art, I'm going to get back to you a little later.

When you have three heavy hitters from the Alliance.... I went to Mr. Day, and should have gone to Paul. So you get two, he gets one for his remaining two-and-a-half minutes, and then we'll come back to you a little later.

Go ahead.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, how far along is the government in negotiating with the U.S.A. that we won't give them any refugees and they won't take any of ours—the trading of refugees back and forth through the Canada-U.S.A. border? It looks as if Canada is having somewhat of a credibility problem, especially with Congress and even with their border authorities. They don't really trust us. So we now have the natural response—long lines at our border. We're certainly concerned about it hurting us economically. We need this bilateral deal. It should be a very high priority. It would be a great relief to our resources. Can you tell us how the negotiations are going and what you can report on that particular file?

The Chair: Good questions.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: First of all, Mr. Chairman, comments and statements such as the ones the honourable member has just made create exactly the wrong impression for Americans who may be reading the Hansard of this committee. In fact, what you're referring to, I believe, is a bilateral “safe third” agreement. I'd be happy to explain how that works, because I think there's some misunderstanding about it.

The Geneva Convention permits countries to enter into bilateral agreements where they don't trade refugees, but where the rule is that a person seeking asylum, a refugee claimant, leaves their country of origin, and, if there's a bilateral agreement, is expected to make a claim in the first safe country. If they leave that country and come to another one, such as Canada, and we have an agreement with the country they were first in, then we can return them to that safe third country. There is the country they left, the first one they went to, and Canada—that's why it's called “safe third”.

Now, it can't be imposed unilaterally. It is something that is permitted in the Geneva Convention. In fact, the department a number of years ago attempted to negotiate this with the United States. Frankly, at that time, they weren't particularly interested for a lot of reasons. There seems to be some interest now. We are conducting discussions with them. But I want to caution the member, because in Europe they have the Dublin Agreement, where all the European Union countries negotiated a safe third agreement. We're watching that very carefully, because they're having some serious problems with that agreement. Not only do individuals make asylum claims at ports of entry, they can also make those claims inland. There's often difficulty figuring out, if you will, where the person actually arrived from.

What happens with safe third agreements is that you sometimes find more claims being made inland rather than at the ports of entry, and you waste a lot of time and energy trying to figure out where they came from rather than getting on with an expeditious hearing of their claim, and, if they're not a genuine refugee, being able to remove them.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: So it's not the be-all and end-all. That's the point I'm making.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I have two questions for you, and the chairman will give me the floor again later on.

The first question is about Bill C-11, which is still before the Senate and which will get royal assent in 2001 or in early 2002. My question is about the regulations. Madam Minister, given that C-11 provides that the regulations must be tabled in the House and referred to the committee, could you assure us that the committee will have a reasonable amount of time to study the regulations and that there will be no possibility of applying the regulations before the committee has studied them?

I will get right down to my second question. This will give people time to prepare the answer. A few weeks ago, you announced that an identity card would be issued very soon, to replace the long-standing document; this is something with which I personally agree, as does my friend the Quebec minister.

• 1620

However I am very concerned about one thing. This worries me even more because last week, I asked the Commissioner of CSIS what information he wanted to see on the famous magnetic stripe, and he responded very sweetly that he wanted as much as possible.

My question is clear, Madam Minister. I want to know whether the information contained on the stripe will respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as privacy. In other words, as a citizen who will have to have a card, will I agree with all the information recorded on the stripe?

[English]

The Chair: Minister.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: First, thank you for the question. It's a very good one.

Second, as a citizen, you won't be eligible to have a card. You can have a citizenship card, but the maple leaf card is for permanent residents, not for citizens. I know there's some confusion about that, because my mother asked me if she could have the card—she likes the idea of the maple leaf card. I told her what I've just told you.

It's a travel document to facilitate permanent residents coming back into Canada and to identify them as permanent residents of Canada when they're travelling. If you're in Canada, you don't have to have a card unless you want to leave and come back.

Your question, however, is a very good one about what's going to be on the card. A number of security features will be on the card. If the committee wants in the future to have an opportunity to look at the card in more depth, I certainly think it would be something you'd find interesting.

At the present time, the intention is to have all the information on the card that is currently on the Record of Landing, called the IMM1000. It will, however, be compatible with American technology. Further, it will have the capacity for future biometrics, which could be the prints of thumb, palm, or eye. The technology is there to make the card as tamper-proof and fraud-resistant as possible, but it does have implications that I hope this committee and others will discuss. With national security issues, the challenge, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, is the balance protection of national security and protection of privacy rights.

We know that using biometrics sometimes enhances personal privacy, because it identifies only you, and no one is able to use your card. So it can be a very good thing. I want to suggest to you that it's an important debate to have so we understand why this can be in both personal privacy interests as well as national security interests. But I know a lot of people are concerned about it.

With regard to the first question, on the prepublication and the regs, I made a commitment to this committee that the regulations would come before the committee. We're working diligently now to prepare them in anticipation of having the bill. As you know, until the bill is passed by the Senate, we can't start our official work. It's going to take some time to get this done properly and correctly in accordance with parliamentary procedures.

I'm hoping, Mr. Chairman, that this committee will consider the regulations a priority. Until the regulations are passed, we can't have the official implementation of the package, and this is a fundamental overhaul. It is the first time in 30 years that the immigration and refugee protection systems in this country will have been overhauled. We want to get it right, but we want your input on regulations. We would hope that you would have the foresight to start looking at the papers that were tabled.

There were two papers. The second is the most up-to-date, where we have been working on proposals for future regulations. The more work in anticipation that you can do, the better it will be for us in getting your advice to ensure the regulations achieve the policy objectives in Bill C-11.

The Chair: Minister, our work plan—had September 11 not occurred, of course—was going to be on the regulations. As you know, with the discussions we had with the public and with the officials, the regulations become so much important with framework legislation. We were given the concepts, or the general outline, of what those regulations would be.

• 1625

In fact, we want to get on with the work of doing the regulations so we can get them implemented as quickly as possible and not wait. There was some concern about actually implementing the bill until May or June of next year. I think your commitment is that the sooner we can get it done and publicized, the earlier we can get on.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Obviously the challenge before all of us today is to find the right balance between security for people in this country and maintaining some adherence to our traditions with respect to open and humanitarian immigration policies.

I am diametrically opposed, of course, to the position being taken by the Alliance. But I'm worried that in fact the pressure is on your department, Madam Minister, to actually cater to some of that kind of sentiment. Based on some of the incidents we're starting to hear about with respect to foreign students, based on hearing about detentions of groups of people based on race or ethnicity, I'm wondering in fact if we're in any way panicking in the face of what happened on September 11. Are we overreacting to the kind of sentiment being expressed by the opposition leader and other members of his party?

I specifically want to ask about some concerns that have been raised about racial profiling, and if there`s any evidence of front-end screening being done on the basis of racial profiling.

I also want to ask about some of the new procedures around front-end screening. As I understand it, there are sort of three parts to that new procedure. One is referral to CSIS, in terms of security. Another is a check in terms of criminality. The third, as I understand it, is for immigration officials to interview on the basis of a refugee claim. That seems to me to be contrary to tradition and to our normal way of dealing with people coming into Canada. So I just want to check on that.

Third, with respect to the safe third country issue, legitimate concern has been expressed about this proposition, also advanced by the Alliance members. I'm a little concerned that we may also be going too far down that path. I wonder—and I don't have the documents in front of me—if in fact the responsibility-sharing agreement with the United States is in any way some attempt to cater to this sentiment of denying refugees who come from a safe country.

The Chair: These are very important questions, but you have only two minutes to answer them.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Well, let me start by going backwards. I believe there is some merit in negotiating a safe third agreement. What I am saying, however, is that I don't think it's the be-all or end-all, or the magic bullet. I do think that sometimes people choose Canada because they have friends or family here. At other times, the numbers of individuals coming through the United States who are coming to Canada and making claims would suggest that a safe third agreement would be beneficial. In fact, it would be beneficial potentially to both countries, because there are a number of people going to the United States who we would take back in Canada. Perhaps that safe third agreement would act as a deterrent to people who could apply from outside Canada to come as refugees.

So I'm not saying no to a safe third agreement. I just think you should understand it, and that it is not a quick fix.

The second question you asked was what CIC's role is going to be. Citizenship and Immigration Canada does not assess the claims. That is left to the Immigration and Refugee Board. We do have the responsibility to assess eligibility and admissibility. That's why Bill C-11 gives us the authority, which we don't have now, to not give someone access—we call it “claw it back”—to the IRB if they are inadmissible. And the Geneva Convention has an exclusion clause.

At the present time, under the existing legislation, we can't deny anyone access to the IRB unless we can really prove that they are a serious criminal or a serious security threat. That's very long and cumbersome. Under Bill C-11, if someone is inadmissible, we'll be able to deny them eligibility.

The 72 hours has been misunderstood; we don't have to do it within 72 hours. We can do it right up until the time they have their hearing of determination at the IRB.

Even after that, if we find that they have, through fraud or misrepresentation, made a claim, and they are ineligible, we can move to vacate that claim.

• 1630

That's why I say Bill C-11 gives us new tools, but it does not change my department's role. We still assess eligibility and admissibility.

The first question you asked had to do with screening and the issue of profiles. We give instructions to our officers based on advice from CSIS, the RCMP, the FBI, and others. It's unfortunate that some of that information has been on the front page of the newspaper, because in fact it then makes their job more difficult. But when it comes to security screening, I want to be very clear, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, that all refugee claimants are subject to security screening, and all applicants to come to Canada as permanent residents are subject to security screening before they are given status in Canada.

All immigrants to Canada and all refugee claimants at our ports of entry or inland are subject to full security screening. What we have been doing since September 11 has been to intensify that, but even before September 11 we took fingerprints, we took photographs, and we ran the names through the databases. But the full and intensive security screening that we have begun to do now was being done at the point at which permanent resident status was applied for. We have moved that now to the front end so that we can deny access to the IRB to those who are inadmissible to Canada, and we want to remove them as quickly as we can.

The Chair: Minister, what was your answer on racial profiling?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I said all claimants are security screened.

The Chair: So you're saying there's no racial profiling.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'll repeat what I said. We do give instructions to our officers based on intelligence information, and that information is given to professional immigration officers, who then use their judgment when it comes to not just refugee claimants, but anyone who comes to a port of entry in Canada seeking admission to Canada. It's not just refugee claimants that the immigration officers have the authority to detain if they have a concern that the person poses a security threat.

The Chair: Okay.

Inky—I'm being so generous to the opposition, as the Liberal chair.

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

First, let me thank the minister and the department for coming here today. What we're debating or discussing today has been well studied by this committee over the last couple of years. Unfortunately, it takes a major event to bring these back to the forefront.

Let me say, as the Coalition representative, we certainly support an open immigration system and don't support locking up people who come to our borders. Unfortunately, the press and the media always key in on the negative, and I think it probably does a greater disservice to the immigrants to this country than it does anyone else, including myself. So I'm quite aware of that.

At the same time, I'm also aware that the system has many holes that need to be plugged. We've discussed many of these holes at this committee, including the refugee determination system. I think Canadians are looking for reliability and dependability so that the system can assure them that potential terrorists and criminals don't come into this country, but the reality is that terrorists and potential criminals could come into Canada as students, as refugee claimants, as legitimate refugees, and as visitors. I know we're looking at a very small number, probably less than 0.5%. So there is a huge challenge trying to find these rotten apples in the barrel that ruin the whole barrel.

Here is my question to the minister. Through this summer I've asked, through Access to Information, for the number of ministerial permits that were issued in the year 2000. Almost 4,000 were issued by the minister. I also asked for a breakdown, but they refused me on that count. So I would ask you, what is the breakdown on 4,000 permits that you signed for those who otherwise would be inadmissible to this country?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Let me answer the first question that was asked. The one thing that has not changed since September 11 is the demographics in Canada. We are still getting older, we are still experiencing skill shortages, and we are still seeing the lowest birth rates ever.

• 1635

Immigration is accounting for 75% of our labour market workforce growth today. By the year 2011, which is just a few years away, 100% of our labour market growth will be because of immigration; and 20 years after that, all of our population growth will be because of immigration. This is a country that was built by immigration and whose future prosperity is reliant on immigration if we're going to have the people to support our social programs and buy our houses when we're ready to retire.

I think it's extremely important that we understand that the events of September 11 were a failure of the intelligence networks worldwide and that all the countries of the world are determined to do whatever they can to share intelligence so that we will not see those kinds of horrific events.

In regard to your question on the minister's permit, my officials tell me that I signed about 380 permits. There are the permits that are given at the ports of entry, delegated authority to immigration officers. Most permits are issued for technical reasons, such as early admission because someone doesn't have a visa, and a minister's permit is issued at the border.

Another reason—and this is something that does happen—is that our laws are tougher in many ways than the U.S. laws. In one area, you are inadmissible to Canada if you have a drunk-driving charge. Driving while under the influence is a criminal offence, and that means you are inadmissible to Canada.

Sometimes people who did stupid things when they were teenagers and have had a completely clean record for five or ten years show up at the border. They're a truck driver, or they want to come into Canada as a visitor. They come to our officials and say, yes, I have a criminal record, and I'm inadmissible, but I have a completely clean record and I'm a law-abiding citizen now; I did something really stupid when I was young, many years ago. That person will be issued a minister's permit. That's the sort of thing the officials will do at the border.

By the way, in Bill C-11 we've said, to streamline that, for a minor offence, after 10 years with a clean record, you will no longer be inadmissible to Canada. That's fair.

Mr. Inky Mark: Canadians are alarmed to hear numbers like 27,000 warrants having been issued for deportation. I know how this comes about, but what is the department doing about these huge numbers?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I share the concern that has been raised that there are all kinds of people who may pose a risk, but in fact that's not the reality.

There are three kinds of deportation. There's the serious criminal or the person who poses a security risk, who we actually not only take to the border but escort either on an airplane or to the country where the deportation is taking place.

The second is the individual who is a criminal. They may not be a serious or violent kind of criminal who we actually have to escort all the way home, but we escort them as far as the airplane and make sure they get on the plane and leave.

Then there's the third variety, the garden variety of visitor visa overstay, the student, perhaps from the United States, or France, or Europe, who comes and overstays. They get picked up and are given a deportation order. They're given 30 days to leave, and most of them do.

You have the failed refugee claimant who has had a full security screening. They're waiting, we finally get travel documents, and they report in. They don't want the indignity of being deported, so they leave voluntarily. We don't have exit controls. We're worried about people coming into the country. We don't stop them when they're leaving. They don't check in, because if they check in, that gives effect to their deportation order and they don't want that stain on their record. We believe the majority of them have left.

• 1640

By the way, it's really interesting, because in the United States, as you know, with all the problems on their southern border with Mexico, the estimates of the number of people living underground in the United States are in the millions.

All western democracies share the same challenges of removal. We also know that sometimes innocent people come and overstay on a visitor visa or a student visa, and sometimes failed refugee claimants don't leave on the day they are supposed to. It's a challenge, but it's important to know that these people do not constitute a risk to Canada. By the way, some of those unexecuted warrants are for people in jail who are waiting until they have served their sentence before we can take them to the airport and escort them home.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You have five minutes.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you very much for attending, Madam Minister.

I think you've done a lot to explain some of the problems we read about in the press, including innuendoes or statements made that aren't quite in sync with what is happening in reality.

You more than anyone else have contact with other countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and European countries, and you know what practices and procedures are going on there. We sometimes read comments from bureaucrats in the United States, and, according to the latest articles I've read, they've been very supportive of the cooperation between Canada and the United States. They've been reassuring to the effect that Canada is the safest country in the world. When the Commissioner of the RCMP was here, he assured us that was the case.

Are the types of steps and actions we are taking consistent with those of other powers we deal with? Are we more stringent in some areas, and if so, where are our rules more stringent than those of others? I would like you to assure Canadians that we don't just send a lot of people out into the streets, that we do protect the country. I think we need to make a comparison as well between Canada's policies and those of the United States and nations in Europe, who are our closest allies, to demonstrate where we may have some even stronger points.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's a really good question you've asked. I can tell you that there are a number of forums we work in where we share information. For example, there's a forum called the Four Country Conference, where the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia meet regularly, share best practices, enter into information-sharing agreements, and look at the different laws as to what works, what doesn't work, what's effective, what's ineffective, and what's cost-effective. Through that sharing, not only do we develop better and greater expertise, we're able to improve our practices.

We have the Metropolis Project, which is an international research network. Canada was one of the leaders in the establishment of that research network. They provide us with evidence on which to base our public policy. Because it's international and there are conferences around the world where we share best practices, we benefit enormously by learning about what others are doing.

Canada is also considered a world leader with our ICO network, the Immigration Control Officer Network for staff posted overseas. We started that 12 years ago. In fact, when I was in Paris a year and a half ago, the Europeans were looking at our model and they wanted to develop a network where, instead of having every country having an immigration officer at every port, we can share. We can share information, work together, and train the airlines on what to look for in the way of fraudulent documentation to stop improperly documented people from getting on airplanes to come to North America. That's the kind of work where we are considered world leaders.

Let's look at war crimes. Successes with our war crimes database and with the work we have done in the war crimes unit within both my department and the Ministry of Justice provide the kind of good news you're not going to read about because it is good news. That kind of expertise is the sort of thing we share with our international partners.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: What you're saying is, Canada has a record of traditionally being leaders in dealing with terrorism and criminal activities and in trying to sort out a system that's workable and affordable.

• 1645

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The one thing we know when we're dealing with transnational organized crime and the kind of terrible terrorist organizations that make us all so concerned is that countries have to work together. I mentioned a few minutes ago that it's knowledge and intelligence that is needed. We have to share. We've learned the importance of working together and entering into information-sharing agreements so that we can have not only state-of-the-art technology and the very best communications systems but also the knowledge we need to prevent those terrible people from succeeding.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I have one other question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Do it quickly.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: This has very specific application to potentially bringing U.S. immigration officers onto Canadian soil and Canadian officers onto U.S. soil because of the concern that our structures are so valuable and so accessible at this point, where somebody can drive through and drop their quarter in to get onto a bridge or through a tunnel, or can access some very valuable transit routes. What is your view and that of your department on securing those in other ways, where we check people further back so that dangerous people may be eliminated from actually accessing those routes?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Actually, I think it's a great idea. We already have U.S. customs and preclearance people at some of our major airports in Canada.

You mentioned doing it before they enter. The other place we're doing it is overseas. Our visa posts have what they call anti-fraud working groups. Not only do we take a reasonable approach here in North America, but we are looking at the opportunity to work with like-minded countries and partners internationally to identify routes and to identify, through intelligence-sharing, criminal organizations and terrorist organizations and individuals who might try to gain access to North America.

We have to do more and we have to do better, but it's not as though we haven't begun. We have. We have those contacts. We're working very cooperatively not only with our American neighbours but also with other like-minded countries. We have to do better if we're going to be able to stop the kind of atrocity and terrible acts that we saw on September 11. We have to redouble our efforts.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Next is Paul, followed by Carolyn and Art.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am a guest at this committee, but I can never resist speaking. Nor can I resist—

The Chair: I'm sorry, Carolyn, but Paul is next.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said I was next. Forget the preamble.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I want to ask a supplementary to the other question about the bilateral agreement with the United States. I certainly think we need it. I'm not creating an impression. Citizens can see what the lineup is like for those trying to get down to the United States. The borders are crammed, and there's a lot of busyness around borders now. A large part of the big lineups that are backing up into Canada is due to the greater concern and scrutiny of the United States authorities. That has to do with their lack of trust with us.

So one of the ways of responding to that is to get on with the bilateral agreement so that refugees from Canada are not going down there and refugees from the United States are not coming up here. There'll be a tremendous relief to our resources so that they then will be able to concentrate on looking at backgrounds and doing the other duties. I simply ask the question, then, how are we doing on that file?

I'm very pleased to hear the minister say that she is sympathetic or whatever to that type of agreement. But I just say, how far have the negotiations on it gone? Can we have some specifics about where we're going in that regard? Could you perhaps give some advice to the committee? I understand that the committee is going to be going down to Washington, D.C. Perhaps our committee can play a vital role in pushing that agenda along.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Chairman, let me make a very important point. When you're visiting our ports of entry, you will be struck by the very good working relationship between Canada Customs and Canada Immigration staff and their U.S. counterparts. We have the highest level of a good, trusting, working relationship with our neighbours to the south.

• 1650

But all the ports of entry are on the highest state of alert. That's the reality. We are doing everything we can to speed the movement of legitimate travellers while still maintaining that high state of alert to stop those who pose any kind of risk from coming into Canada, the United States, or North America.

With regard to the point you're making on the bilateral agreement for a safe third, here's the reality. More than 40% of refugee claimants to Canada come from the United States. A very tiny percentage go from Canada to the United States.

The reality is that we are working with our neighbours and friends—

Mr. Paul Forseth: So we're the dumping ground?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: What's your question?

The Chair: Paul, let her answer the question.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm sorry, but I just want to get this in.

Does that mean we're the dumping ground, then? Is that what you're saying?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No. What I'm saying to you is that over 40% of the refugee claimants who come to Canada come through the United States and make claims at our ports of entry. Canada, in terms of the total number of refugee claimants we receive, is in fact not out of line with other countries in Europe. In fact it's among the lower numbers.

Let me see; I think the number in the United States last year was about 130,000 claimants, or.... In Canada last year it was about 37,000 claimants.

Was that the U.S. number?

Last year there were 52,414 claimants into the United States....

We'll get you those numbers. Perhaps you should take a look at the numbers not only for the U.S. but also for Europe. Many countries have claims in excess of 70,000, 80,000, 90,000. A few years ago Germany had 400,000 claims in one year. They're now down to about 120,000 claims.

The reality is that there are more than 23 million refugees worldwide who are desperate and in need of protection. We can't take them all. Last year we had 35,000 claims. This year we're expecting in excess of 40,000 to 45,000 claims. Those numbers are consistent with what is happening around the world. That's the reality.

A safe third agreement is of interest to us, obviously, given those numbers, but there are other measures we are exploring as well.

We're proud of our tradition of welcoming those in genuine need of protection, so I resent this connotation of dumping ground.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay.

You mentioned numbers. Perhaps in your next major report to Parliament, the statutory requirement, that report can contain a lot more of the detailed numbers that you keep getting requests for from the media and us. We can never seem to get a numerical description of, really, what is the truth on the ground.

Now, we should have no argument on what the numbers are, but I would just make that plea in general. The kinds of numbers that have come from the department in the past really leave the media, us, and the average citizen still in the dark about the overall operations. Talk about—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that any questions members of the committee—

The Chair: Excuse me, Minister, one moment.

Paul, you're new to the committee, and so is Art. I can just tell you that any time a question is asked with regard to the performance report or anything about the department in terms of numbers and everything else, if you're not getting it from the department, and you ask for it here, we will make sure you get it here.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: And could you add that the department has been very forthcoming?

The Chair: Oh, they have been very forthcoming. It's just that Paul hasn't been here.

Mr. Paul Forseth: So I'll ask about some easy numbers related to security. I say that we need trained immigration officers and skilled people to evaluate people. That's what the new protocol about personal interviews is all about. But I understand that not all border points have immigration officers. I'm told that a large percentage do not have that capacity at all.

Maybe you can tell me how many border points we have and how many border points don't have immigration capacity, and where they are. I would just make the observation, doesn't that leave us a little vulnerable?

The Chair: We were given those numbers this morning. I think it's a skill-testing question for the minister.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm happy to answer.

There are some 350 ports of entry in Canada. Canada Customs is present at most of them. As you know, they are empowered as immigration officers, and act as the primary inspection line. They refer to immigration only as a secondary inspection.

• 1655

Immigration is present at 46 of our ports of entry. We have nine international airports, 33 land-border crossings, and four seaports. Ports of entry are currently staffed by 561 Citizenship and Immigration staff, including 426 full-time immigration officers. Canada Customs, however, has some 3,600 staff members at these locations who are empowered to act as immigration officers at the primary inspection line.

And that doesn't count the almost 300 people at our visa posts around the world, plus, of course, the very fine locally engaged staff who assist the Canada-based officers.

The Chair: Minister, it's amazing, but Elizabeth gave us those same things.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Well, what do you know.

The Chair: The members are going to have that deck tomorrow morning in their office, so we will all be singing, I think, from the same songbook.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There is one thing, Mr. Chairman, and that is, given the new resources—we had $9 million—we will be adding at least 100 additional members to our ports of entry.

The Chair: Final question.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Just as a comment, you did also say that we do have ports of entry where we have neither customs officers nor immigration officers. You also did say that, didn't you?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I thought I heard you say that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Again, I would caution the member to not give out information that is going to suggest something that—

The Chair: Well, let's clarify here; 46 out of the 350 have Canada Immigration; the rest of them all have Canada Customs people who in fact act also as immigration agents.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's correct.

The Chair: So everybody's covered at the 350.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Which means there no pile-ons left covering the country.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Perfect—unlike the American border.

The Chair: Carolyn.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I was out of sync earlier.

As you know, Madam Minister, we just had a huge conference for NATO here in Ottawa.

Mr. Hanger attended, and I'm sure he'll support the comments I'm about to make.

Ambassador Cellucci, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hastert, and Bereuter, who's head of their delegation, all complimented us on the fact that CSIS works with their security agencies and that our immigration departments work well together. He said he wasn't going to point fingers at anybody, because their immigration needed tightening as well as ours. One of the things he did point out, after we shared some of Bill C-11 with him, was that you were visionary.

I'm just passing that on to you. He thinks our new bill is something that they're going to be looking at rather closely in the States.

Now, we often hear in the news that people destroy their papers. They get on the plane somewhere and in the process of coming over here they destroy their papers. I've had some of those people come into our office. They're very desperate people. They're leaving a country where their lives are in danger. They know they have forged papers, and they are counselled to destroy those papers on the plane because they will be subject to legal prosecution here for being in possession of false documents.

Can you please explain to everybody, just so that I stop hearing about this, that these people are not all criminals? These people are actually following instructions given to them by people who are trying to be helpful. Their lives are in danger, and that's how they end up here without papers.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: You're correct. As I've said repeatedly, just because someone shows up without documents it doesn't mean they pose any kind of risk or are a criminal.

People come to our ports of entry, come to our inland offices. They walk in, they ask for protection, they tell their story. They are subject to an interview, and if there are any concerns, they can be detained. But if there are no concerns that they pose any security risk, if there's no concern as to what their identity is, or where they're from, or that they're going to show up for hearings, because of course that's in their interest, then we want them to be working and paying taxes, not being a burden. If they are in genuine need of protection, they're going to be welcomed. They can get on with their lives in Canada and help us to build this country. Many people who came to Canada as refugees have been enormously successful in helping us to not only build a great country but also to be innovative and dynamic in our economy, creating fabulous businesses and jobs and so forth.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I would make one last point.

I want to say thank you to Ambassador Cellucci. I did meet with him. The Americans are very interested in our Bill C-11. They've asked for a full briefing and for all the information, particularly on our approach to the refugee determination system and procedures. They told me their system takes much too long.

• 1700

The Chair: Well, we're going to do our part, hopefully, when we're meeting with our counterparts. I know, Carolyn, you did that with our NATO partners, and I think that's important. We can always share information and learn from one another about best practices, I'm sure. The United States has some too, and we can learn from them. Information-sharing is important.

Madeleine, Steve, Inky, and Art, and then hopefully we can wrap this up.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me comment on what I would call the obsession of our Alliance colleagues and their leader with the idea that all undocumented refugees are criminals. Personally, I do not think so and I am very concerned to see the official opposition repeatedly insisting on this.

That being said, it does not mean that there is no problem. Madam Minister, let me remind you of the situation of the two Basques the newspapers are talking about, who came to Canada and applied for refugee status. I think that their application has not yet been heard, and in the meantime, Spain has asked for their extradition. Spain has signed the Convention Against Torture, for which I commend it. On the other hand, these young Basques maintain that their confessions were obtained under torture.

Given these circumstances, I want to know whether Canada will extradite them, since there are certainly agreements between Canada and Spain, and if there is any concern about evaluating the risks before sending them back. The Convention Against Torture may have been signed, but sometimes despite that, some persons break the rules. I can understand that. I would like to know what happens in such cases. And then I will have another question.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much for your question.

[English]

It's very important that we not discuss individual cases publicly for a number of good reasons. We don't want to break the privacy laws, and we also don't want to prejudge or prejudice the outcome of either investigations or possible actions.

As you know, extradition is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice. Deportation is the responsibility of this department, Citizenship and Immigration, and since you've asked about extradition, I'm going to refer you to the Minister of Justice. She can describe to you the authorities and how the system works if you need additional information.

It is interesting that one of the issues that was raised was whether there are countries signatory to the Geneva Convention we should exclude claims from. In fact, the Geneva Convention does not permit exclusion simply on the basis of whether a country has signed the Geneva Convention.

Secondly, I would point out that if we are concerned about security threats and terrorists, it is unfortunately the refugee-producing countries that are often the breeding grounds for the terrorist organizations. It's important not to prejudge, and I speak generally, not specifically, to any cases.

The Chair: Madeleine, ask your final question, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: My other question is about what we have heard recently, in connection with the Ahmed Ressam case. In Montreal, there might be a dozen Algerian terrorists affiliated with Bin Laden. When this identified group arrived in Canada, and some of them even returned to Algeria with the blessing of the RCMP, was there any specific factor that allowed this to happen, that allowed a dozen terrorists to settle peacefully in Montreal, although they could just as well have chosen in Toronto or anywhere else?

• 1705

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I mean this very respectfully: We are parliamentarians, we are not detectives. We must leave the detective work to the experts, and we must not do anything to interfere with their investigations.

While we may be curious or even titillated by what we read in the newspaper, we shouldn't believe everything we read. If the FBI says no comment, and the RCMP says no comment, then you're not going to be surprised when I say—

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No comment.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It strikes me that there were terrorists living all over Florida and other places for many years.

I wonder if you could comment on this. I know you've taken a number of trips, Minister, and some of them I've gone on, to London, to Nairobi, Moscow, and other places, to actually see first-hand how it works. I hope our critics, particularly from the official opposition, will take up your invitation to go and see it, because some in the past have not done so for their own reasons, and have refused to go.

The Chair: Obviously, this is just to review the—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: On some of the trips it's been gruelling work, but it's extremely eye-opening to see what goes on around the world.

I have to tell you, when I came to this place I was very concerned about undocumented people arriving on our shores. As a former municipal politician some years ago, I was always concerned about the cost, etc. What I've learned about that system as a result of being on this committee for almost five years, and having the opportunity to visit some of our foreign and domestic posts, has been a real eye-opener.

There have been some suggestions made as to what we could do. People make them, and phone you about how you can deal with this issue of the undocumented. But I heard a couple this morning that, frankly, I'd like your reaction to.

One of them was exit inspections of all passengers. Anyone who is not a Canadian citizen who gets off a plane that lands in our country from anywhere has to somehow go through an exit inspection so that we know who came off what plane.

The other one that I found most bizarre was something I hadn't heard before, called “pouching”. I don't know if you've ever heard of this. When a person gets on the plane in Heathrow and they have a document, they put it in a pouch and hand it to the airline staff, who then give it to them when they de-plane. That way they can't flush it down the toilet. The suggestion was made in this committee this morning that this could be done to anyone who is not a Canadian citizen.

I was wondering whether you think Americans, British, French, Germans, and a lot of other folks might get a little upset at having their documentation pouched, if you will, every time they get on a plane as they travel around the world on business.

My third question has to do with visa requirements in this country. Are we more or less restrictive than is the United States in dealing with countries that require a visa to come here?

The Chair: Minister, could you respond quickly.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'll try to be quick.

We do disembarkation checks now, based usually on intelligence information or spot checks on certain routes. And if you have ever experienced it, or if you've had a constituent who has experienced it, you've probably had a complaint to your office, because it does cause delays and people really don't like it. But we do it, and we do it now. We don't do it on every flight; we do it where we have information or where we're doing a spot check.

On the issue of airlines, airlines now are responsible and actually financially responsible. If someone gets off their flight without documentation, they are required to pay. It's a serious expenditure for the airlines. I can get you the exact details on costs, but the airlines or shipping companies are responsible to ensure that people have documents when they get on, and if we know what flight they came off, the airline is held responsible.

• 1710

On the question of “pouching”, it's the first time I've heard that expression. It is possible to do, and if this committee wanted to give me their advice and recommendations, I certainly would be interested to hear what you have to say. I'm not sure that there's any quick or simple solution, but certainly there are a number of ideas and suggestions I've heard floating around.

As well, on the question on visas, there's a couple of good examples. I used one this morning. Canada imposes a visa on Argentina. The United States does not. They don't think they have a problem. We have a problem. Argentina is a democracy. We have a lot of refugee claimants coming from Argentina, and very few of them are successful. We would like the United States to look at their visa policy, because what's happening is that the Argentinians are flying in to the United States, without a visa, and making a claim at our port of entry. So the Americans are looking at that as we look at visa convergence in discussions with them.

Another example is that the United States has a visa on Mexico, because they have a big problem on their southern border. We don't have a visa on Mexico and there's absolutely no problem. Mexicans who come to Canada do not try to go into the United States illegally. There's no problem with Mexicans. They come to Canada, they go back to Mexico. There's a lot of business and trade. Those are two examples.

However, there are other areas where we do look at the reasons for imposing visas. We have some small countries that, you might say, sell their passports. They have economic citizenship programs. Both the United States and Canada, and other countries, are very concerned about that. We look at visa imposition when we think there's a country that should not be a refugee-producing country and we have people coming and making refugee claims. We review that all the time. We have ongoing discussions with the Americans, particularly as we look at our regional approach.

I would say that sometimes there are different policy objectives, or they have a problem and we don't; and we have a problem and they do. We have to work very closely together to make sure that our policies understand the problems of our neighbours and that, if it's possible for us to respond, we do. The important thing is that we have those discussions, and we do have them.

The Chair: Thank you.

Inky, you have one question, please.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

This question follows up on the questioning of the RCMP commissioner, who was here. There are two areas I believe need to be addressed. One is the refugee cases that have been denied by the IRB. As you know, the Auditor General indicated that awfully high numbers of people get lost in the woodwork and end up staying in Canada.

The other one is refugee claimants who don't show up, or don't return with their forms filled out. In other words, what is the follow-up in the department in terms of ensuring that these people are apprehended and deported?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: This is where I think Bill C-11 is very important. On your first question, however, there are priorities for removal. The first priority for removal is criminality. We pursue criminals vigorously. Last year we had 8,636 removals. Over 1,700 of them were people who were criminally inadmissible to Canada; they had committed a crime either before they got here or after they arrived, and they were out of here in a snap. Last year it was 1,700.

The others, the second priority for removal, are failed refugee claimants who are on social assistance. We're working with the provinces so that we can identify those individuals who are not eligible to stay. They're not eligible for social assistance, and we want to be able to remove them as quickly as possible. There we get travel documents as quickly as we can, and they are removed.

The third is failed refugee claimants in general, and the fourth priority are other over-stays. And I told you about the three streams of removals.

On your second question, which related to....

Mr. Inky Mark: Applicants who just don't show up with the forms filled out.

• 1715

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Actually, you were referring to withdrawn and abandoned claims, people who don't show up. Under Bill C-11, we will stop an abuse called, I believe, the “revolving door”, where you withdraw your claim and then you come back and make another claim. Bill C-11 says one chance at the IRB. If you withdraw, you cannot make another claim to the IRB. You can come to Canada and ask for protection, but the pre-removal risk assessment is where your case will be considered.

So you have one opportunity under Bill C-11 to have the refugee determination procedure. We think that will be a great deterrent to people who come here, withdraw or abandon their claim, and then want to come back and make a second attempt.

Mr. Inky Mark: Why would they do that if they know you're going to boot them out? If they don't show up with the forms filled out and make the claim—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: You'd be surprised; there are people who withdraw or abandon their claim and then come back again. Similarly, there are people who are refused. There are repeat claims. Right now the legislation permits someone to make a repeat claim in Canada after 90 days. We're changing that. If you are denied refugee status, under Bill C-11, you will not be eligible to go to the IRB a second time. Instead, you'll have your case reviewed to see if you are at risk under a pre-removal risk assessment. If you're not at risk, it's a very short procedure: you're going to be removed.

The Chair: Art, one question.

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

I'm curious about something you mentioned in your presentation, Madam Minister, where you said they will lose their appeal right; simply put, the new bill will allow us to remove these people faster. That's basically what your comment was right here. I'm very much aware, as you probably are, that there are countries that will not provide travel documents for people who are on the deportation or removal list.

One country that is very difficult, I am told, for removing people to is Vietnam, although there is some sort of an agreement between Canada and Vietnam to remove individuals. However, I'm told that those of ethnic Chinese origin, even though they may be coming from Vietnam, are not accepted back by that country. If this is the case, how do you plan on dealing with that matter?

The other matter is the one dealing with the Algerians. I'm told again, and I'm going to go directly to you, Madam Minister, since I understand this directive came from you, that no one who is of Algerian background is to be removed from this country. Is that correct?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No, and I'm happy to clarify. Notwithstanding the fact that we do have a list of countries that we do not generally remove to, if someone poses a security risk or if they are criminally inadmissible to Canada, we do remove them even if the country is on that list. If we have evidence—

The Chair: Excuse me, why would those countries be on that list? I think it would be good for the committee and perhaps people to know why such a list exists.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think that's a very good question, and again I think it's something the committee might want to take a look at. We have a list of countries where, because of the situation in the country—a state of war, for example, where people would be at risk—we do not remove to that country until the country is more stable or at peace.

We've just put in place a new process within the department to review how you get on the list and how you get off the list. That's in order to watch and see what the situation is around the world so that when we remove people, we fulfil our international obligation on refoulement, which means we will not remove someone to place them in harm. That's an international obligation we take seriously.

That said, there is an exclusion from that obligation for those who are inadmissible because of criminality or because they pose a security risk, terrorist and otherwise. As you know, there are some very high-profile cases in the courts where we are trying to remove individuals who are claiming they are at risk.

The Chair: Mr. Hanger, I'm going to allow you a supplement.

• 1720

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The last point I want to make is on Vietnam. I did discuss, when I was in Vietnam with the Vietnamese government, the issue of removals. We have an agreement with them. There have been some problems on some occasions. We discussed, quite bluntly, that there is a visitor visa requirement for that country, as there are for many countries, and that if we have difficulty in removing, we are that much tougher, and the higher is the refusal rate in issuing visitors' visas.

So it's important for countries to work together.

The Chair: The committee should consider sending Art Hanger to further investigate this matter, upon further deliberation.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: But it's important for you to know that these are exactly the kinds of issues I discuss with my counterparts when I visit our visa offices internationally. I not only meet with our staff, who do such a great job on behalf of Canada, but I also take the opportunity to discuss exactly these kinds of issues with countries. They have an obligation to take their nationals back, just as Canada has an obligation to bring Canadians home.

The Chair: So far, Art, I have you on one-way tickets to Russia and Vietnam.

Mr. Art Hanger: I don't think I need to go that far, actually, but I'd be more than happy to look into this matter further.

I have a final question for the minister. I have learned that there are more than 7,500 Algerian refugee claims that are outstanding. No decision has been reached. A great number of them have gone underground and have no intention of showing up for the hearings.

At the same time, an additional 3,000 are roaming the streets with no status and no background criminal checks. They're commonly known as “stateless”.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'd ask you to table the documents you have. I haven't seen any of that evidence.

I would also suggest that the Immigration and Refugee Board is an independent body. If you have any information, if they've given you information, I'd be pleased to receive it. I haven't received it.

The Chair: Well, we do have the IRB. I think specifically, though, to the question....

I wonder if you would just repeat the question.

Mr. Art Hanger: This is a very legitimate question that has been—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No, I'd like you to present the evidence. I haven't seen that evidence.

Mr. Art Hanger: I'm not saying I'm going to necessarily produce the evidence. I'm making a statement, and saying that this is what I have learned.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Well, I'd like you to share with us the evidence.

Mr. Art Hanger: I'm just asking if it's true.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I don't think it's true.

Mr. Art Hanger: But it could be?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'd like you to produce the evidence.

Mr. Art Hanger: But it could be? Or you don't think it's true.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I have no evidence to suggest that what you've just said is true. If you have evidence, please produce it.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay.

The Chair: And the committee would be happy to receive it.

We're just about done, Minister, but if I may, the chair would like to ask a couple of questions. This morning we had a very good briefing from some of your officials with regard to security at the borders. Obviously, that's what we're doing next week.

A concept was put forward. As you know, Canada, like the United States...and perhaps the figures bear this out. At 350 border points, the majority of them are covered by Canada Customs people and 48 are covered by Canada Immigration people, probably where there is the most traffic. Some of those customs people have to take on the dual duty of not only being customs officers but also interviewing, or at least asking the very important questions.

It would seem to me that in Canada and the United States, customs and goods become that much more important than people. In other words, I suggested that perhaps we shouldn't use this, but the priority seems to be customs on the front lines, and immigration is the secondary line of defence, so to speak. Even at our borders now, people go to see customs officers first, and then they get asked questions of immigration. As you indicated in your speech, customs officials refer people of question to your immigration people.

Now, in Europe, where there is a customs union, and in other countries, immigration becomes perhaps more important than customs. This gets me to this whole question I want you or your officials to comment on. I think there's a determination on our part as a committee. I think we did it on Bill C-11, and perhaps post-September 11.

• 1725

There's no doubt that pre-screening, interdiction, enforcement...and based on some of the questions that have been raised by all of my colleagues at this table, all refer to making sure that we have as foolproof a system as we possibly can. How many resources are you going to need? I know you'd like Paul to give you as much money as possible—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: You just answered the question.

The Chair: No, I know you did get some, but honestly, in order to do the new job for Bill C-11, there are some high-technology requirements. I want to make sure, to tell you the truth, that I have immigration people at all of those borders. It's not that I don't trust customs people. They're doing a very good job for us. I heard that this morning, and I'll probably hear it again.

How many resources is it going to take overseas, at our borders, and in technology, to make sure our system, as we want it, works as best as possible?

I know in 1993, 1994, and 1995 there were cutbacks. You've gotten some of that money back, but in light of September 11, and in light of Bill C-11, how much more in resources do you need? As a committee, we'd like very much to be able tell the Government of Canada how much money immigration really needs in order to do its job to the best possible degree.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Let me make a comment on the first point you made and finish up with the last request.

Customs officers are very important partners with Citizenship and Immigration. Customs officers are trained in immigration matters and procedures. In fact, they act as immigration officers.

There are some places where we are trying some pilot projects with the Americans, in fact, where their immigration officers on the front line and our customs officers are working very closely. There are some joint facilities that we've been piloting.

We also have some pilot projects where, to speed access to Canada, we have customs and immigration officers together. We're also looking at some innovative approaches at some of our airports. So we're trying out some new things.

But you should know that customs officers who act as immigration officers are not only trained; they also have access to our FOSS system, which gives them the data they need and the chance to do a check to see if there's anyone of concern in our databases.

So when you suggest customs, please don't for a minute assume they don't have the training or access to the tools they need.

The Chair: No, I didn't assume that. I'm talking people, human resources.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Right.

So it's a partnership, customs and immigration working together in partnership.

On the issue of resources, with the approval of Bill C-11 we received $139 million. As a result of recent announcements, we received an additional $49 million.

I was asked a very similar question at the Senate hearings, to which I answered that I can't imagine any minister of the Crown coming before a standing committee of Parliament and saying “I have all the money and resources I need, I don't need anything more”. I've never heard a minister say that, and I'm not going to be the first.

The Chair: So how much more money do you need?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: To be honest, we've been given some substantial resources to implement the bill. We've been given additional resources, in light of the events of September 11, to fast-track the permanent resident maple leaf card, and also to put in place additional human resources at our ports of entry.

As we implement the bill and identify additional needs, we'll be making the appropriate representations. I believe the Government of Canada is committed to giving us the resources we need to do our job as best we can.

The Chair: I'd like to tell you, Minister, that as we continue next week, and with our meetings in Washington, in addition, I would hope.... We'll learn an awful lot, I think, from the border security points and in Washington, as well as from our discussions on the regulations.

We want to take this opportunity to invite you and your officials back again, because I'm sure we will have an awful lot more. We'll want to discuss a lot more how much in human and technology resources you in fact need.

On the enforcement end, I don't know who's on the front lines of enforcement, but I'm sure it's the RCMP. I know the questions relate. But when immigration officers in my community have to be both intake and enforcement officers...and to make sure that those who are supposed to leave the country don't, and those who are supposed to be deported don't, obviously that raises a whole bunch of questions as to whether or not our system is working and the country is secure.

• 1730

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Chair and colleagues—

The Chair: I think we believe it is, but also I think there needs to be a lot more discussion on that end.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'd like to just say one last thing on the issue of resources. When you consider resources, it's not just immigration you should be looking at. Our partners, the RCMP and CSIS, who have also received very significant additional resources, help us to do our work. They do the security screening for us, for both the immigration and the refugee determination systems. It's not only in Canada, it's overseas as well. Our partners at the RCMP and at CSIS are the front line on criminality and security screening. We have expertise within our department as a partner, but we rely on them. In fact, we contract with both the RCMP and CSIS to do all criminality and security checks for immigration applications as well as for those who come to us and make refugee claims.

It's also important to know that we're not talking just about our ports of entry here in Canada. As you rightly pointed out, Mr. Chairman, all the visa posts overseas maintain security and help to bring to Canada those good, honest, hard-working people who are going to help us build our country. We have our overseas network of dedicated immigration officers in our visa posts as well as immigration control officers who do important interdiction work, stopping certain people from coming. As you've just said, they are part of the whole picture of my department as it works with its partners to meet our dual mandate. It's a matter of keeping out the bad guys and gals and bringing in the people we need, just as we've needed them in the past and are going to need them to ensure future prosperity.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and Michel and Joan, your officials.

To the committee, I guess we're all going different ways next week, some of us to the west and some of us to the east, to find those border points. When we come back, we'll compare notes, and hopefully we will have some answers for when we go to Washington. I know the clerk is just trying to finalize when that might be, taking into account that the situation in Washington is still in a state of flux.

Thank you all very much.

Meeting is adjourned.