Evidence of meeting #25 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was muslim.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
There was a report by Janet Cleveland. I think she appeared before you at a previous proceeding. I think she included some discussion and did some research on the number of kids in detention. I'd refer back to that.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON
Thank you very much.
Mr. Brouwer, I interrupted you. You were continuing your testimony.
5:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Thank you.
The other comment I wanted to make about detention was in relation to some evidence you got about the monitoring of detention conditions by UNHCR and the Red Cross. I think it was Mr. Davies who asked whether the Red Cross is paid by the Canadian government to do the detention monitoring. Mr. Linklater, of CIC, I believe responded that the Red Cross is not, and that was the end of that conversation.
What I wanted to make sure this committee knows, though, is that the monitoring of detention conditions by the Red Cross is done on a strictly confidential basis. So while it's true, I understand, that the Red Cross regularly monitors the jails where immigrants and refugees are detained, they report back to immigration and CBSA on a confidential basis. There's absolutely no public reporting about their findings. There's no transparency in the process. So while on paper it looks as if there's some degree of accountability, in fact there's not. Obviously a private and confidential report to the government about its own detention practices, in the absence of any public disclosure, is not accountability. I wanted to make sure that this committee was aware of that.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON
Thank you very much.
You and Mr. Bissett seem to come at the security issue from very different perspectives. You described sections 34 and 35 as too broad and arbitrary. If I understood Mr. Bissett correctly, and I think he has been pretty clear, we have inadequate security procedures to deal with terrorism, and in particular, with Muslim terrorism.
From your perspective as a lawyer, I'm wondering what thoughts you might have to share with us about Mr. Bissett's testimony today.
5:10 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Thank you.
Well, there are a few issues. I'll try to limit it.
I guess one of the key points is that what Mr. Bissett was talking about is pretty different from what I was talking about. Our subjects are different.
I was talking about the problems specifically in the law and in the application of the law. I don't think it's sustainable to argue that the act itself isn't broad enough to cover the kinds of so-called terrorists Mr. Bissett was talking about. The act is extremely broad and certainly is broad enough to cover the kinds of people he was referring to when he used his examples of the shoe bomber and the others.
Mr. Bissett's comments about the need for more overseas screening doesn't appear to be rooted in any direct experience of threats to Canada by people who weren't screened overseas. I think it's probably obvious to you that I'm going to have concerns, and I would assume that they are shared fairly broadly, about Mr. Bissett's comments, repeatedly, specifically about Muslim terrorism. I think the issue for national security has to do with terrorism and national security and what's required to keep Canada safe. Turning it into a religious or ethnic problem is obviously a problem from an equality and human rights perspective.
In terms of Mr. Bissett's suggestion that every single person seeking to come to Canada be screened first, I frankly have no particular problem with that, if it is doable. I can't imagine that CIC has the resources to send off well-educated and trained officers to interview every single person seeking to come to Canada.
5:10 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
I don't think they do. If it were workable, it would be fine.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Gentlemen, both of you are presenting fairly dichotomous views of the process of evaluating applicants for immigration into our country.
Mr. Brouwer, you're presenting a point of view that information obtained for individuals in sub-Saharan Africa, where record-keeping and other intelligence gathering may be less than robust, still is flagged on a file for years and years to come even after the individual presents himself or herself to Canada for years.
Mr. Bissett, you present an immigration screening system that basically could not tell you whether or not a current applicant has so much as a criminal record or any affiliation with a potential terrorist organization. If immigration officials were here before us, particularly the deputy minister, I think they would want to say that you're both wrong, which I think probably presents some interest to this committee in terms of what you had to say.
Mr. Bissett, I'm going to zero in on some of your comments, because I think as a committee, as parliamentarians, we really need you to uncover your suggestion, to provide further evidence to your suggestion that there really is basically no screening that occurs to the thousands and thousands of would-be landed immigrant applicants to Canada. Can you elaborate on what evidence you have for that particular suggestion?
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
We have the evidence of the deputy director of CSIS, Mr. Hooper, who gave evidence before another parliamentary committee that one in ten applicants in Pakistan got the security screening. That was two or three years ago, when the volume of immigrants coming to Canada was not nearly as large.
Very few are being screened for security. On top of that, there's the problem I mentioned, that in many countries it's somewhat meaningless. I know of cases myself. I did a full investigation of a Chinese Triad member from Macau—he was running all the rackets in Macau—who ended up in Vancouver. Our investigation revealed that he had a completely clean criminal certificate from the Macau chief of police. Obviously he bought it. Bribery and corruption in many countries are endemic and you can get any document you want.
We used to take ministers of immigration into the marketplace in Islamabad or Delhi and ask them what university they would like to have a graduating certificate from—Harvard, Columbia, Oxford? For a few rupees, you got such an authentic copy of a degree from Cambridge that only a professional would know the difference.
I think that more important than the security screening is the fact that at one time experienced visa officers working in Islamabad or in Dhaka interviewed the immigrants and their wives, and through a series of questions and counselling could tell very quickly whether the person was someone who could come to Canada and live comfortably here according to our basic principles, traditions, and values. And they had, at that time—this was controversial, and they still have it in the act somewhere, but it's not being used—the discretion to maybe turn people down or to accept people who didn't meet the point system. They used their good judgment about whether these individuals coming to Canada would be able to quickly establish themselves, get a job, be on their own within a year without government help and do well.
The immigrants prior to 1990 did well. We didn't have to spend millions of dollars on their integration or their settlement. They came here and got settled themselves. We never had problems with integration as such. The immigrants who have been coming since then, because there are so many of them, are not being interviewed or counselled. They don't know about Canadian values or principles or our traditions of free speech, gender equality; none of those principles are taught to them or counselled. They don't get it. They used to get it personally. They used to get it in group counselling sessions.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, Mr. Bissett.
Mr. Chong, welcome to the committee. You have seven minutes.
March 6th, 2012 / 5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bissett, I have some questions for you, to continue with Mr. Byrne's line of questioning.
You stated that at one point experienced visa officers screened applicants who were applying for entry to Canada. Were all applicants screened by visa officers at one point in our country's immigration policy?
5:15 p.m.
As an Individual
No. Some of the family migrants—parents, grandparents, and children—were not necessarily seen. In some cases, yes, but in most cases it was the principal applicant, the independent immigrant, who was interviewed.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Is it safe to say that at one past point in our country's immigration policy all primary applicants were interviewed by visa officers?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
As an Individual
It probably started in the early nineties when the volume of immigrants started to increase to a quarter of a million a year, and the visa officers abroad simply couldn't see everybody, so they had to just do it by paper.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
You referenced testimony given by the former deputy director of CSIS, Mr. Hooper, who said that, out of Pakistan, only one in ten applicants was screened for security purposes.
Do you know the current levels of interviews being done for primary applicants today, setting aside the security screening, but just the interviews by visa officers at our consulates and embassies abroad?
5:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I don't know the percentage, but visa officers who I know and talk to on a daily basis tell me that very few are interviewed.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative