Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 14th, 2012

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

Much has been said about the benefits of working with partner countries such as New Zealand and the United States, but there has been no mention of Mexico, which is also a North American country. Is there an exclusion for Mexico? What is our relationship with that country?

[Les Linklater]

When we look at our interaction with partner countries, we have a traditional association alliance with like-minded countries like the United States, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand that truly are trusted partners. We have a lot of cooperation and collaboration with them overseas.

Regarding Mexico, the visa requirement in place ensures information sharing with our Mexican colleagues. That being said, we do have a working group, which was created after the visa was imposed and which I co-chair with a Mexican counterpart. The work group deals with visa-related issues between the two countries. We discuss ways to improve relationships and visa services on the ground, in Mexico—for instance, by opening VACs—in order to also improve client services. In addition to that, we are trying to come up with ways to improve the Canada-Mexico partnership in terms of visas.

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

Thank you.

I thought my colleague Ms. Sitsabaiesan's question was very interesting. She talked about what we do daily in our constituency offices. In your opinion, what is the most useful work we do as parliamentarians, and what work is the most problematic? In other words, what work doesn't contribute to the protection of our safety? Is my question clear?

[Claudette Deschênes]

No.

[Pierre Sabourin]

Could you repeat it?

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

We're very involved in immigration as MPs, so where do you find that helpful, and where do you find that very unhelpful in promoting security interests for Canada?

[Claudette Deschênes]

Do you want to try that one?

[Les Linklater]

As Madam Deschênes was saying earlier, as parliamentarians you see particular types of cases or trends that you find questionable or require clarification. You can identify them and bring them to senior management's attention here in Ottawa to help us deal with the quality assurance issues you perceive.

As we move to more simplified processes and more of an e-environment with forms that are available online, that will help with client service as well. It should take some of the work out of your offices to allow you to focus on other important constituency work.

The initiatives we're discussing today, like biometrics and ETA, will help us secure identity and make faster decisions that will be much more helpful to the public than a paper-based system. They will understand more clearly what they need to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Madam Groguhé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, everyone.

My question is about detention problems. A number of articles were published on the detention conditions of refugee claimants in Laval. I would like you to provide me with some clarification. There are some statistics and procedures according to which detention should last about two weeks. How do you explain abnormalities such as cases where individuals spend three months in detention while their identity is being verified? Why is the detention period extended? How do you explain that?

[Pierre Sabourin]

The average length of detention was 25 days for the 8,800—almost 9,000—people who were detained last year. I believe that over a third of them were detained for less than 48 hours.

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

Did you say over one third?

[Pierre Sabourin]

Yes. I could confirm the exact figure, but it's about one third. So detention periods are very short in many cases.

Most people being detained are waiting to be removed. On any given day, about 500 people are being detained in the three detention centres mentioned earlier, in Laval, Toronto and Vancouver. We also have about 200 spaces in provincial prisons because those individuals must be incarcerated, since they endanger the safety of Canadians, other detainees or our officers.

For instance, if someone must be removed from the country, the legislation stipulates that the removal should be done as quickly as possible. However, there may be many obstacles to the removal. For example, we may have difficulty obtaining documents from someone. The country to which the person is being removed also may not cooperate.

Forty-eight hours after someone is detained, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada decides whether that person should remain in detention or not. So there is a quasi-judicial process, if I may call it that, whereby the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada determines whether detention should continue. If so, it is extended by 7 days, and then by 30 days at a time.

Therefore, all the cases you mention in which people were detained for longer periods involved a process where the board decided they should be kept in detention.

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

Okay. That would explain the extension of detention periods.

[Pierre Sabourin]

Yes.

[Peter Hill]

I could add some comments to what my colleague said.

Under the IRPA, the CBSA is permitted to detain individuals for three reasons. These are where there's a question of identity, where there's concern about a danger to the public, and where there may be a concern about flight risk—that the individual will fail to show for a hearing.

I can also tell you that the agency has a strong quality assurance program that involves access by the Canadian Council for Refugees and representatives in Canada from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who come into our detention centres to monitor, to ensure that Canada is complying with international norms, and also respecting our domestic legislation.

These are some of the factors that help the agency manage the detention population on an ongoing basis.

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

I have another question. I have been told about certain individuals detained in Laval who are suffering from very substantial and problematic psychological distress.

I want to know whether you have any statistics or figures you could share with the committee regarding the mental health of people detained in those centres. Are any measures being taken to remedy the situation? If so, what kinds of measures?

[Peter Hill]

Yes, we can provide you with some data that reflect the issues that you have raised.

I can tell you that in partnership with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, under arrangements, there are health services provided to ensure that detainees have proper medical attention, which includes physicians and psychological assistance.

We do, for sure, have challenging detainees, so we monitor this quite closely. In cases where our detainees are held in a provincial facility, we also rely on their expertise to provide the kind of mental support and health services that are appropriate to the cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Gill.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the witnesses for being here and for the presentation.

We talked a fair bit about fingerprinting and biometrics and stuff. My question is related to fingerprinting.

We hear about cases all the time in the media where an individual has been deported, the refugee claimant or whoever, and then they're able to re-enter the country using whatever means. How is this possible? Can you explain a bit about that.

[Pierre Sabourin]

People can misrepresent their identity. People can “fraud” their identity. People can enter the country between ports illegally. There are a number of means by which people can come back, either by giving fraudulent documents, changing their identity, or entering without us knowing about it.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Once the department becomes aware of the cases of an individual who has been clearly deported in the past and has managed to get back in the country, what sorts of steps are taken to remove them from the country again?

[Pierre Sabourin]

If we identify them, the removal process follows a standard removal process that we have for every person. They would be arrested, and they would be put in detention if they were a flight risk or a danger to the public. We would need travel documents, so we would need to contact the country to obtain travel authority. They would have a 48-hour detention review, then a 7-day detention review, and then a 30-day detention review. They are allowed a pre-removal risk assessment done by my colleagues at CIC that determines if there's a risk to their life or if there's a risk of torture if they return to their country. Only after all those steps are taken, including possible appeals, could we then remove them to the country where they're from.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Are you saying that they would go through all of those steps again, for the second time? Would you not have gone through those steps when we removed them from the country the first time?

[Claudette Deschênes]

Technically, once they come back, they would still be able to go through all of those steps. That's correct.

Of course, we're very good at removing people who want to be removed. If anybody gets caught and says, “Yes, we're going”, they're going to be removed really quickly, I can promise you that. Most of them will seek to avail themselves of every opportunity to remain.