Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 15th, 2012

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Do I have a minute?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have more than a minute.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

I'll share my time with Rick, sir.

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

Thank you, Chair.

There is one area I want you to comment on—quickly, because I know we don't have a lot of time. The fact is that this is the actual issue. The timing for a lot of these applications is, from the applicant's perspective, of the essence. One of the complaints many of us get in our ridings isn't so much about whether somebody has been denied a visa, for example, but that it has taken so long for a conclusion to be driven to that it doesn't matter whether they get an approval or a denial, because the reason they wanted to come here—the purpose of the visit—has lapsed.

What in your experience have other countries been able to do in terms of the process they use when time is a factor? What countries can we look to from that perspective to assist us in working through this process so that we can come up with a conclusive and right decision 99% of the time, and one that is done in an effective and efficient manner?

[LCol Walter Perchal]

Respectfully, the timing issue has to be secondary to the consideration of our national interests. What that means is to ask what other countries do. One of the things other countries do is operate foreign intelligence services, precisely, among other things, for the purpose of gathering information to lower the degree of risk they would be exposed to with respect to decision-making processes.

I fully appreciate the great difficulty a member would have when getting pressure from a group of people or a community of people seeking to expedite something. While that is understandable, it is secondary, I believe, to the concerns of the security of the state.

Again, what we need to do is put into place those systems, those procedures, and if necessary those additional capabilities to allow us to do the job in an efficient and timely manner, and with a view to our primary consideration, which is national security.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Perchal, our notes indicate that you're a lieutenant-colonel with the Canadian armed forces. Is that correct?

[LCol Walter Perchal]

I am a reserve officer with the Canadian armed forces.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Let me address this to Mr. Platsis and Lieutenant-Colonel Perchal. You seem to be men of data, men of fact, and you've used the term risk assessment. I'm going to examine some of the underlying suppositions that I think inform this debate.

We had a person testify before this committee who gave us data on the last 11 years of Canadian court decisions and IRB exclusions. What the professor found was that the number of potential refugees who were excluded because of terrorist concerns is infinitesimally small—it's 0.01%. She also indicated that this is notwithstanding that the definition of terrorism has expanded considerably over the last 10 years, since 9/11 in particular, and that she thought that many people caught under this label are actually quite remote from any actual activity, let alone any kind of threshold. But as we have expanded our definition, more people are caught under this.

She also gave us a chart that showed that we excluded 63 people out of 20,000 decisions in 2000 prior to 9/11, and that 71 people were excluded in 2001—about two-thirds of which was prior to 9/11—and that in 2006, 2007, and 2008, we excluded 79, 65, and 79.

I'll put this as a thesis to you for your comment. Is there really a factually based problem that shows that there has been any increase in terrorist-type immigration problems compared with 9/11, or are we just more sensitive or alive to that now?

[LCol Walter Perchal]

I'm not going to take issue with the 0.01%, if you're looking at terrorism. I think what has changed is fundamentally the capability of a single individual to perpetrate very significant acts of terrorism against the country.

It's not the number that is critical; it's what's doable. In the 21st century, with the downloading of technology, as I said in the paper I wrote, it is now possible for a single individual to make war on the entire planet with the application of technology for the purposes of leveraging intent.

The issue is not, however, confined to terrorism. There is a second concern, and that is criminals and criminal operations and criminal networks. One of the other things we're seeing in the 21st century is a convergence between criminal organizations and terrorist organizations. So the absolute number is no longer 0.01% but is greater.

Having said that, whether it is less than 1% or not is not the significant variable. The significant variable is whether the threat is potentially greater to Canada as we go forward in time. The answer to that question, sir, is absolutely, yes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

If I might just say, is that much different from what it was before 2001? Was there not a convergence of criminal behaviour with terrorist behaviour, say, in 1995, and is the technology that much different in 2012 from what it was in 1999 in your view?

[LCol Walter Perchal]

Absolutely, sir, and I say this respectfully, your computer in 2001 and your computer in 2012 are substantially different. That's a very commonly held item. The reality is that the threat level has multiplied exponentially, not even in a linear manner.

I'll defer to Mr. Platsis for additional comments on that.

[George Platsis]

I'm echoing that completely, because when you consider there are certain laws in technology, there's the—I forget the name—18-month rule where technological capability can double in 18 months.

Just consider this scenario. At the end of 2008, the fastest known supercomputer could do 1.5 quadrillion calculations per second. That was in 2008. We're already in 2012. Many of the capabilities that you can do from a technological perspective—be it anything from biological, chemical to explosive warfare—is stuff that you can readily find on the Internet on open source, it's just a matter of digging. And further to that, there are cookbooks out there, where the single individual does have the capability to do this.

In 1995, as you mentioned, first of all, you did not have the access to the information. Now the information is scattered all over the place in multiple languages going across a very different context. This also includes—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Do I have any time?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's it, I'm afraid. Thank you. We're out of time.

Mr. Zimmer, you are our guest today, and we're going to give you a whole minute.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you for that minute. I'll try to use it wisely.

This question is for Mr. Platsis. You spoke of biometrics, and I guess you spoke about it with some, I won't say disdain, but I guess you had some questions and issues with it. I would just ask you back, what is your opinion regarding sharing that biometric information? Would that not help alleviate the questions you have with biometrics and using other countries' data? Can you answer that?

[George Platsis]

I think I'm going to answer that question very quickly and tell you that I'm a NEXUS cardholder. I think that's your answer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Elaborate on the whole theme of biometrics, though, and what we're talking about in a broader sense.

[George Platsis]

To take this from a flip perspective and using the NEXUS reference as an example, I do travel to the United States frequently, and to make my life and my travel easier, I recognize I am going into another sovereign country and I have to respect their laws and their rules—much the same way anyone coming into Canada would. For all that, to make my life easier, I realize that I need to give up a part of my individuality, in this case fingerprints, which I had already given for a previous visa, and an iris scan.

So on that point, I do not have an issue with biometrics being used, because it is used against a larger database to confirm, number one, my identity, but also to confirm that I'm there for a legitimate intent. So when I go down to the United States, I'm going there for a legitimate intent, and this is why I use a NEXUS card.

The flip side of that is that if the NEXUS system was simply just to identify who I am by matching biometrics to iris, or to fingerprints, if there was no database to compare it against, my card can say Joe Smith, and when I show up to a border it will say Joe Smith, and yes, this is Joe Smith. That's the issue I have with biometrics.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you. You got a whole two minutes.

Mr. Platsis, Mr. Perchal, Mr. Singh, I'd like to thank the three of you on behalf of the committee for your contributions to this committee. Thank you very much for coming.

This committee is adjourned.