Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 28th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Humire. Some of the concerns I have include recourse mechanisms and due process for individuals who believe they are mistakenly targeted or prevented from travel. It's already happening in Canada, for sure.

For example, in my riding we receive many requests from constituents for support for temporary resident visa applications; they feel that their family member was unfairly denied or arbitrarily denied, and then would like some help from my office. In many cases, it's a family member who is looking to come to Canada to celebrate a family occasion or a family holiday.

One example is a gentleman who came to my constituency office for help with his sister's application. He had invited three of his siblings to come to a 25th anniversary party in his family. Two of the siblings were approved, but his sister, despite having property in her home country, a good job, a spouse, and children she'd be returning to, was denied. When she reapplied, she was denied again, this time because the visa officer questioned her purpose for the visit and the family ties she had in Canada, even though the two other siblings from the same country of origin were approved for the same visit for that same purpose—to celebrate the family's anniversary. And all three of them were invited by the same person in Canada.

We've heard testimony from the Office of the Auditor General, some of which you mentioned as well, that quality assurance practices—checks to make sure the system is working—need to be strengthened for the admissibility determination process. The AG's office argues that in a system that is there to help protect Canadians, “it is just as important to review the decisions to grant visas as it is to review the decisions to deny them”.

Our Privacy Commissioner has also stated that failure rates of 1% are quite common for many biometric systems, which have had a significant impact with the system that can include thousands or even millions of people when you take into account the volume that we actually go through.

How would you address recourse mechanisms that address the issue of failure rates in biometrics programs for temporary resident visas? And what remedies should be made available to people who are erroneously matched through biometrics?

[Joseph Humire]

Without stepping too far outside my area of expertise, and having never been a consular officer or worked in law enforcement directly, let me just say that the case you presented is essentially a case of civil liberties, if I'm not mistaken. It's a case of somebody trying to come across for a lawful and just purpose, but being denied on grounds that are maybe a little fuzzy.

My first recommendation has to do with creating evaluation and measures that could prevent some of this, looking at certain policies, and even going past the policies and looking at certain initiatives that are being put together, such as biometrics or different types of biometric protocols being put in place at your visa pre-screening processes, and judging them on five different levels. Those five levels are to look at the history, see if there's any precedent for having that type of security policy or initiative—

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Sorry to interrupt you, but are these the same five you were talking about earlier?

[Joseph Humire]

Yes, ma'am.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

I'm going to change gears a little, Mr. Humire. Thank you very much.

You were talking about verification with respect to biometrics and data collection. Could you elaborate a little on the privacy risks of verification? When we had the Privacy Commissioner come to visit the committee, she was concerned. She raised quite a few concerns about verification, such as safe collection of information, storage, and transmission of personal information. Would you please elaborate on your argument? You made a strong argument for enrolment. So if you could, please elaborate on some of the privacy risks that Canada would face and that people would face based on verification.

[Joseph Humire]

The sound cut off a little, so I'm going to rephrase your question. It was to comment a little on the risks of privacy if enhancing intelligence information sharing abroad. Is that correct?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Yes, with respect to using biometric data for verification, rather than just identification of people. Your argument was that we should have a strong enrolment process, and hence use the data for verification rather than just identification. So could you identify or elaborate on the privacy risks of verification itself?

[Joseph Humire]

Essentially with any type of biometric, or what I call intelligence collection, there's a privacy risk by default. The only way that I think you can measure that privacy risk is by enhancing the actual abilities—the technological as well as human capabilities—of the enforcement officers abroad. What I would essentially say is better training of your law enforcement intelligence officers who go abroad to provide this intelligence collection activity, particularly anything that has to do with source operations, or things that have to do with espionage.... Those individuals have to be the most highly trained before they go on assignment. That would be the first step, because if you don't have these measures in place, the privacy of the individuals who are being investigated, which is already by default at risk, will grow by tenfold.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Humire.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Go ahead, Mr. Hsu.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Humire, I want to follow up on the remark you made about Islamic extremism and terrorism being the greatest threat. I'm curious about what you would consider to be the second or third greatest threats.

[Joseph Humire]

Aside from Islamic extremism and terrorism, I'd probably put cyber warfare as an imminent threat, which is not actually mutually exclusive, and narco-trafficking or, in a broader category, transnational criminal organizations.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Do you think cyber warfare is related to immigration policy or visa policy?

[Joseph Humire]

That's a good question. I'm not entirely sure, because in a way it doesn't directly travel through physical elements across borders. But it definitely is a law enforcement issue, and I definitely think that immigration authorities need to be aware if any means of cyber warfare are being transferred across the border.

I'll give you a small example. In November 2011, our drug enforcement administration caught an element in Mexico that was working through the Iranian embassy—Mexicans working through the Iranian embassy—to transfer different types of parts to do cyber warfare. They were arrested because they were trying to obtain the codes for the servers of defence and intelligence agencies here in the U.S. That was a law enforcement issue that was a collaboration of the border patrol agents and the drug enforcement administration, which aren't the typical entities that focus on these types of threats, but they caught it because they were well aware of the situation. In that sense it might cross over a little, but I wouldn't entirely put it in the category of immigration.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'd like to switch a little bit. I just want to ask you about your organization a little bit, since you're very kind to provide recommendations to Canada but you're sitting in the United States. I'm curious as to who you worked with to come up with the report or the statement you just read out and the recommendations in it. Who did you work with to put it together?

[Joseph Humire]

Frankly, I didn't have a whole lot of time. I was actually just given notice of the testimony a week ago, so there wasn't a whole lot of time to work with anybody specifically. In the network that we work with, we tend to work with all kinds of think tanks in Washington, groups that are particularly focused on economic policies and security policies. If you would like me to list a few, I could. I don't feel it would be right in a public forum, but I do have some of the documents, such as—

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

What are two or three of them?

[Joseph Humire]

One of the studies I looked at very carefully was the study done by the Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute is probably most well-known for its economic work, particularly its economic freedom index. In this case, it actually did a very lengthy study on immigration security as it relates to terrorism and Islamic extremism. That study was published in 2008 in—

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Were there any other groups that you consulted?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have to let him finish his comments.

Go ahead, sir. The question was, are there any other groups?

[Joseph Humire]

Yes. I worked also with a group called the Macdonald-Laurier Institute out of Ottawa, another think tank we collaborate with from time to time, and with a couple of friends who work in the business of business continuity.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

So what is it that you bring to the remarks you made and the report you're going to submit that's distinct from the groups you consulted?

[Joseph Humire]

Essentially the centre that I direct has a vision, and I think the vision is perfectly aligned with the remarks made in my testimony, which is that security is necessary for prosperity, and that prosperity is therefore necessary for long-lasting security. That's essentially at the heart of the reason why I started my testimony with that quote from Benjamin Franklin. I think it's at the heart of the issue when it comes to sovereignty and civil liberties versus making sure that Canadian citizens are safe. I think that's where we find our nexus.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

Where does your funding come from? Who funds your organization?