Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 8th, 2012

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I found that very interesting. Thanks to both of you for joining us today.

I really liked those two books, Animal Farm and 1984, even though the implications are quite shameful.

I heard the following:

“the security people have to get it right all the time, but the terrorists only have to get it right once”. I guess that would explain some of the reasons, Mr. Bohbot, for our going with biometrics.

Here are my questions.

We've heard from a previous witness—and I direct my question to my fellow British Columbian, Mr. Cheema—that because of increased provisions in the consulates in India, the officials believe that many people who might have otherwise been tempted to apply are not applying, so they're screening themselves out. We are in fact proceeding in a cost-effective way.

My question to you, Mr. Cheema, is this. If medical screening is improved, do you think that would also discourage people who would be inadmissible, saving us costs and helping us be more effective? And how can medical screening be improved?

[Dr. Gulzar Cheema]

Thank you for asking that question.

I think medical screening on the whole is pretty good. What I'm concerned with is a practical problem. For example, if a future immigrant first has to go through a medical examination and the medical examination is done by a designated medical practitioner, and they are certified by the Government of Canada, we don't have a problem there. The problem will come when you have to go to a lab. When the lab is testing an individual for a special test, we have no guarantee that this is the same person.

For example, if I send somebody in British Columbia for a urine test or for a special blood test, I will first sign, and then the lab person signs, and then we get the information back. So it's foolproof; it's totally proven. No one who can tamper with the result you had. But there is a possibility in that country, in some places—I'm not saying all around, but there is a possibility....

I think the way to avoid that possibility is when the X-rays are done. If there is any problem, they all go to New Delhi, and then they're examined properly. For the labs, if you have a collection centre that is certified, and you collect the sample and then send it to New Delhi or a special place, this can be done very effectively. It will save time. It will have more control. It will have accountability. Once people know that they cannot cheat, it will discourage the fraudulent applicants. I think that can be done.

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

Mr. Cheema, you're saying the chain of evidence has to be more secure, I think, and that makes a lot of sense.

Do you see the changes you are recommending as slowing down the whole application process or making it cost more? These are some of the things Mr. Bohbot was concerned about with other provisions that we're talking about.

[Dr. Gulzar Cheema]

I don't think it's going to slow down the process. Actually, it will enhance the process.

For example, in Punjab now, once you go through the visa application centres, you put in your application and then they will call you if you are qualified or you are able to come to Canada, either as a visitor or as a potential immigrant.

As a potential immigrant, if you are given a specific doctor.... For example, if somebody comes to me, I have to send them for a lab test. If I believe that the lab may or may not be doing the right thing, how do we actually screen them?

It's not going to slow the process; it will enhance the process.

And costs should be transferred to the potential applicant. I don't think it's the Government of Canada's responsibility to pay the cost. It should be given to the applicant, and I don't think anybody who wants to come here—who is up front and whose medical history is good—will have any problem. So it will not cost us a huge amount of money, and I think it's very well done.

I'll give you a couple of examples. I think what happens at—

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

Mr. Cheema, can I interrupt you?

[Dr. Gulzar Cheema]

Sure.

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

Before you give examples, do you see any incursion upon the person's privacy rights, with the recommendations that you're making?

[Dr. Gulzar Cheema]

Absolutely not. They're going to go through tests anyway, whether you send them to place A or place B. I'm simply asking to have more accountability and more control, so that the officials will have more access.

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

To me, as a fellow British Columbian, these sound like good recommendations, and I thank you for your good service to our province, sir.

[Dr. Gulzar Cheema]

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Madam Groguhé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to our two witnesses. And welcome, Mr. Bohbot. As you indicated, AQAADI has been working in the immigration area for 20 or so years. The expertise you are contributing will likely be quite significant.

You raised a few questions about biometrics. You asked what would happen if the biometric data were incomplete and what means applicants would have at their disposal to have a decision reviewed in case of difficulty. You also brought up the question of gathering and preserving data. Previous witnesses have also brought up the current lack of recourse in the use of biometric data, a recourse which would really allow us to move forward on this. So my questions will be about that.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act currently in force contains important provisions that allow the authorities in charge of applying the act to protect Canadians without compromising the constitutional rights of foreigners entering Canada. Mr. Bohbot, I would like to ask you in what way would the current inadmissibility measures be insufficient and would fail to ensure national security.

[Dan Bohbot]

Currently, IRPA allows Immigration Canada to take fingerprints of all refugee claimants anyway, so they are being processed. Biodata is being kept by them and they are being screened with other countries already. So the idea of a fraud is already covered, if you wish, by the current legislation.

What we see now with the future legislation is that basically people who need to apply for a visa are the only ones targeted by biodata information. That information will be kept in the archived file.

I would think that most of those people are honest. So do we need to penalize a huge number—99%—of visa applicants for the 1% or less who may be dishonest? That's the issue. How cost-effective is it, with the limited resources that are available to the government?

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

Okay.

You also mentioned the idea that this could go counter to personal rights and freedom. I feel that idea is very important. We are also starting from the presumption that people are potential fraudsters, and not from the presumption that you mentioned, that people are by nature honest. That clearly changes the nature and the analysis of the questions.

Nowhere in the act is there a definition of what is meant by “national security”. In your view, Mr. Bohbot, what danger does that omission represent for freedom of the person?

[Dan Bohbot]

That's right, yes. Of course, if we make it a very large net, then it means that everybody is a security risk for the Government of Canada; even citizens are a risk for the Government of Canada. Do we all need to give biodata? That's a big issue.

The government can say that if people have nothing to hide, then they should give it. I disagree. I think people have a right to their privacy and the right to have their intimacy respected, or else we become like those we thought of as terrible in books such as 1984 or Animal Farm by George Orwell. I think we have to refrain from going in that direction.

Security risk is something that is very vague and general. Of course, if biodata information is kept for these people who have given this information to the government, there are then two categories of Canadian citizens: those who have given biodata information, and those who haven't, either because they were born in Canada or because they came from countries for which no visa was required in the first place. That creates discrimination between two individual people who are supposed to have equal rights.

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

Thank you.

My next question deals with the huge influx of foreigners. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service is responsible for preventing a huge influx of illegal aliens in our country. Do you not think that we need to strengthen the act governing our intelligence services in order to put more tools at their disposal to gather information abroad?

[Dan Bohbot]

The purpose of CSIS is to gather information for the security risk of Canada. CSIS is really not here to provide proof, evidence, or testimony in front of the courts or to Parliament.

We're talking about very limited powers of information. Once that information is gathered and communicated to Citizenship and Immigration Canada or to the Canada Border Service Agency, then it's up to those officials to act upon that information, but it remains only information.

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

Thank you, Mr. Bohbot.

To finish, could you please take a few words to make some recommendations on this matter to the committee?

[Dan Bohbot]

My recommendations were at the end of my testimony, when I suggested waiting a few years to see how it works with Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. How cost-effective are the measures? Is it really improving the security there? Is it increasing the cost? Is it worth it?

It doesn't cost anything to wait a few months or a few years to see how they fare, and if they fare fine, if the government thinks that this is the best way, and if the government feels that there is such a security risk that we're going to be invaded by visitors who have fraudulent intentions, then of course, they have to go ahead with such biometric data.

Then again, I remind you that more than a year ago there was the underwear bomber who made an attempt in the United States. The United States already had his biodata, but could not prevent that man from boarding the plane and trying to attempt his terrorist act. Even the father of that man, who had tried to advise U.S. Immigration of his son being a dangerous man, was ignored.

There's always a risk that, even with all the biodata, it won't change the intentions of an individual who wants to commit a terrorist act. That's why I think the security risk is not necessarily at the level of biodata.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank both presenters for their presentations.

Having said that, Mr. Cheema, I have a couple of questions I would like to ask you. I thought your comments were interesting, given that, just before the two of you came before the committee, we actually had the immigration program manager from New Delhi make a presentation, and I think he picked up on both of your points, Mr. Cheema.

One of them was in regard to these anti-fraud measures that are necessary, and we learned this afternoon that there's going to be one established in Chandigarh sometime this summer, we're anticipating.

You were going to send us an e-mail. Can you explain what you were going to be sending the committee?

[Dr. Gulzar Cheema]

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

I will e-mail this certificate, and I think everybody from your committee should examine it. It's such a fraudulent document that anybody sitting in Canada or in any part of the world could produce it very easily.

I think we need to have a standard that would meet our code of conduct in this country. If I have to get a clearance certificate in Canada, the RCMP has to go through a vigorous exercise. They have to examine my whole past. In India, especially, these kinds of certificates have been issued, and I think that has to stop.

The only way this can be stopped is if we have a system that will make sure that the investigation is done by people who are approved by the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada can work with the Government of India, or the Government of Punjab, all the intelligence services, but the final say must come from officials in Chandigarh or in New Delhi to make sure these kinds of certificates are not accepted.

I think once you have a look at this, you'll be shocked that any stamp or any certificate can be produced. I think this will prove what I've been saying, that this has to be done, and it should be for everyone. I think there are a lot of law-abiding citizens who want to visit our country, and we should welcome them, but it's our home. You can't allow somebody who has a bad record, a past record that is not acceptable.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Doctor, I know you've been involved in the community for many years. If you were to generalize and give your best estimate, in your opinion is the number of fraudulent documents going to the embassy on the increase, or is it stagnant? Do we have a higher percentage of people turning to fraudulent documents to support their files?

Do you have any sense of that, because I do know you have a lot of communication with Chandigarh.

[Dr. Gulzar Cheema]

I think overall there has been a significant improvement, but the recent action by the Department of Immigration here, and in Chandigarh and New Delhi, will be very helpful. You have to clamp down on all this illegal consulting. I think they are giving the wrong information. They are exploiting everyone, so I think there has to be an effort by both governments, and so far there has been an improvement, but we need to do more. I think it would be unfair to say that everyone is a crook. That may not be true.

I think a significant number of applicants—if you look at all the records of everyone within the community saying they just came, they didn't have to work hard, they just had a document, and it was done very quickly.

There must be clear-cut guidelines. The message now, through the media and through the Government of Canada working with the governments of Punjab and New Delhi, is very effective.

I must say that Mr. Kenney has done a very effective job conveying the message that fraud is not acceptable, especially by making a bold statement about marriage fraud. That should have ended a long time ago. It's about time the government said that's not acceptable.

Immigration is not open to make money. Our system is to come here, and work here, and build this country.