Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 6th, 2012

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank both of our witnesses for your presentations here today.

Before I start my question, I think it's important that our witnesses know that what we're studying here as a committee at this point in time is security. More specifically, our orders of the day here are that pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our study is called “Standing on Guard for Thee: Ensuring that Canada's Immigration System is Secure”.

We're trying to gather as much information as we can. We want to get your views on the security of our immigration system and perhaps hear your suggestions as to what you think we should be doing to strengthen it and make it better.

I have a question for you, Mr. Amble. At Global Torchlight, you provide your clients with analysis of critical trends and developments in the global political and security environments that impact directly on their overseas business and investment decisions. What types of trends have you identified that might implicate Canada's security and the integrity of our immigration system?

[John Amble]

I mentioned three broad principles that I think should inform any truly effective and secure immigration policy. One of them is that the law should facilitate maximum awareness of not only who is entering the country, but, and this is critical, of who is travelling between Canada and those regions of the world with which terrorism dangers, as I said, are most closely associated.

As I mentioned, there is a huge and growing amount of travel between the U.K. and Pakistan, which has been tied to some significant security issues for the U.K. Something similar should at least be on the radar of both the U.S. and Canada with respect to militants from Canada and from the U.S.—not necessarily new immigrants, some of these are even second-generation Americans or Canadians--travelling back to Somalia, equipped with a U.S. passport or a Canadian passport, to earn some credible experience in a very real battlefield in Somalia. The danger is that they could return.

The second thing the immigration laws have to support is an awareness of not just who is coming to the country but of who is leaving the country, and when are they coming back? I think there is probably some considerable room for improvement, not just for Canada but for all countries that are perhaps targets for terrorist groups.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Amble.

Again, I'm directing my question to you. In our last committee meeting, one of our witnesses talked about organized illegal immigration into Canada. He used the example of illegal immigrants first going to Latin America, using fake passports, and then moving into the United States and then sometimes on to Canada. How can we stop such organized criminal immigration rings from occurring in Canada?

[John Amble]

It's an excellent question.

There certainly are examples of individuals moving from various countries in the world to Latin America. There has been considerable attention paid to the threat of terrorist groups exploiting the U.S.'s relatively porous southern border. But I think it's important to keep in mind that as porous as that border is, and as much as it is the source of the majority of illegal immigration into the U.S., the northern border is much longer and is watched over with considerably less manpower and resources, both on the Canadian side and on the American side. That means that as easy as it is for individuals to come illegally into the U.S. across the Mexican border, it's perhaps easier for them to cross the Canadian border.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Let me ask you this, then. What recommendations would you make to the government to strike the right balance between the security of Canadians and Canadian values and the flow of visitors and genuine refugees coming to Canada? More specifically, what about some recommendations that strike the right balance in terms of the security of Canadians and their civil liberties?

You heard from my colleague about the issue of biometrics and sharing information with other countries. Some people might suggest there's a security or a privacy issue there. I don't share that opinion. I think we need to protect our borders as much as possible.

Can you share your thoughts on that?

[John Amble]

Yes, I can.

Fundamentally, what it comes down to is providing an accessible means of legally crossing the border. As long as that can be done, the appeal of crossing the border illegally will be dramatically diminished. Doing so by incorporating, let's say, metric scans or other security measures but doing that in ways that aren't deemed to be too intrusive will, as I said, encourage such legal border crossings.

To be honest, I've flown across Canada many times. I grew up in northern Minnesota and spent quite a bit of time in Winnipeg and crossed the border many times. Frankly, there's no reason that this information, when I cross the border, can't and shouldn't be available to both my government, the U.S. government, and yours.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'd like to make my last point to Ms. Rajaratnam.

Ms. Rajaratnam, I understand your plight, the situation. I feel for you and your family. I don't want you to misconstrue my questions as being disrespectful to you in any way, shape, or form. I certainly understand your situation.

We're studying security. I'm positive, from listening to you and your comments, that the rejection of one of your siblings coming into Canada was not a security issue. I just wanted you to know that.

I'm done.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

A point of order, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Mr. Chair, I think trying to discredit a witness who was talking about the fact that her sister's experience.... This is about a Canadian citizen and her different experiences in trying to bring three siblings to this country. Not being given a valid reason is an example of a security measure flaw in our system. This is the message this witness is trying to get out.

I find it very abrasive that my colleague is trying to discredit this witness and a Canadian citizen's experience with the security measures that were taken in her application process.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to make it abundantly clear that there is no way I wanted to discredit.... I did the opposite with the witness. I have no intention in any way, shape, or form of discrediting anyone. And that's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you want to get on this too?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Sure.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

It's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with discrediting.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Byrne wants to join the fray.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In terms of my own questioning of the witnesses, I had established a direct linkage or a context to a security issue that the committee is indeed studying. Not to be argumentative here, but the marginalization through what is perceived in either perception or reality of an arbitrary process does indeed present the fostering of a potential security issue or security risk to the country. And it is therefore in keeping with the order of reference the committee has been tasked with.

Therefore, following on Mr. Weston's intervention, following on Mr. Weston's point of order, by questioning whether or not these topics are relevant to a security issue, I think we've established that both witnesses are providing the committee with valuable testimony in terms of determining what is a security risk and what Canada can increase its performance on with regard to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis, you have 25 seconds.

Mr. Weston wants to join the fray. Okay.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Not to belabour this, but for the benefit of all of us, I would propose that at an appropriate time we have an in-camera discussion around the terms of reference and how we can make sure no witness feels discredited yet every witness is relevant to this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Look, I thought we'd dealt with this issue.

Mr. Weston has raised a point of order, and I rule his point of order out of order.

Mr. Menegakis, you're coming very close to discrediting the witness. You have 25 seconds to either make a statement or ask a question.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to make a statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good show.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I have no intention here of discrediting a witness. I was merely explaining to the witness the terms of reference, as I understand them to be in my interpretation of them.

Thank you. That's all I want to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Groguhé, you have five minutes.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Rajaratnam, thank you for your remarks, which I consider very pertinent. You raise a question that is important in every case: how do we distinguish between individuals who pose a potential risk to our security and those who do not?

We all agree that it is important to ensure the security of the system. However, we need a fair and transparent system. When a temporary visa application is filed, it is important to get clear answers if it is refused.

With your permission, I will briefly share the example of a family living in my riding. You have two parents who are both permanent residents, and the father filed a temporary resident visa application for their two-year-old daughter so that she could join them since she was born outside Canada. They submitted two applications, and those applications were refused on the same grounds. That is to say that the parents were told that the person in question could not return to her country if she entered Canada, and for good reason: she is a child. Here we see the inconsistency and lack of transparency of the decisions that are made.

This morning, Don Davies proposed that an appeal measure be put in place so that people who submit a visa application can file an appeal and have their application reviewed. I would like to know what improvements you consider necessary for the issuing of visas. Thank you.

[Renuka Rajaratnam]

I strongly believe in the full background being checked on the sponsor, the history, and the credibility of the sponsor. It's very important.

Looking back 26 years ago, when I sponsored my family, the visitors' visas that were issued--they sent out the letters--have I ever violated them? Here I have presented all these relevant supporting documents, and these are very important to me. At one point I thought to myself, “What did I do wrong?” I have been a very valuable employee of the Royal Bank for 25 years. I have been a good citizen of this country, and I'm very grateful to be a part of this country. This is my heritage now. I have the values of where I came from, my roots.

Somehow or other I feel like I have been let down at this point. I asked for my sister to be here for three weeks, and they did not give the reason. If two members of the same family have been entitled to come to Canada, why not the other person? It is important for closure, and not to pursue it again and go through the ordeal, to know the reason, what you have followed, and on which grounds you were rejected. It's so important.

I know initially when I sponsored 25 years ago for permanent residence, they told me my sister was not politically affected by what was happening. Somehow or other my brothers were let into the country, and my mother was let into the country. I don't see grounds where this is stipulated. It's kind of mind-boggling.

What do you follow? What are the immigration rules? That's what made me to go to the lawyer and say “I am covering all the angles to get my sister here so there won't be any reason for rejection”. I covered everything. Some other things didn't work out the way I wanted. It was just one visit. I didn't want her to come to stay here. I didn't want her to enjoy any benefits. I said I was going to take care of all expenses during her stay.

I just want to know what rules I have to follow the next time when I'm sending out a visitor's visa.

Thank you.