Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 16th, 2012

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

Do I still have more time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have less than 30 seconds.

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

In that case, I just want to say thank you to all of you for the hard work you do. I also have a personal understanding of some of the work you do, as family members of mine are with a couple of the agencies represented here. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

We'll go to Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our guests as well.

I'm especially happy to see a representative from CSIS here today. In the last committee, I actually spoke to CBSA. I was trying to understand why membership in certain groups or member affiliation with certain groups deems someone inadmissible, whereas affiliation with or membership in other groups does not. I wasn't able to get a definitive answer from CBSA. I think they actually referred me to CSIS; therefore, I'm very happy that you're here today.

I'm going to give an exact example. I've had a number of constituents speak to me and ask me why it is that some are deemed inadmissible and some are not. I'm going to use an example. I have it written down, actually. Membership in the South Lebanese Army or the Armenian Revolutionary Front, from 40 years ago, would still make a person inadmissible in Canada today. In comparison, members of the Communist government in Cuba who were involved in the Cuban missile crisis are not. I'm trying to figure out what the process is. Why are some people deemed admissible and some are not?

I'm hoping, Mr. Venner, that you can explain that to me.

Thank you.

[Tom Venner]

I can start the answer, but I'm sure my CBSA colleague will want to chime in when I'm finished, because it does cut across our interests.

I referred earlier to the effort under way to look at IRPA and IRPA's current approach to inadmissibility provisions. Of course, when you're looking at the national security section—subsection 34(1) of IRPA—it talks about terrorism, espionage, subversion, danger to Canada, or membership in organizations. One of the challenges in relation to that is what we would call temporality, which is the timeframe. It's the challenge of membership in an organization. What role did that person perhaps play in an organization that may be of concern? When did they join? How has that organization changed or evolved? Part of the interdepartmental effort under way is to look at whether there should be a different approach to dealing with the issue of membership.

As I said, that process hasn't landed yet in terms of what might be a better approach. Without specific reference to the files or the organizations you talked about, that difficulty is recognized. It is being studied to see if there's a better way to deal with what those apparent anomalies—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[Tom Venner]

Mr. Leckey might want to add to that.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Do you have a quick response? The other gentleman from CBSA could not give an answer, but if you have one, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Thank you.

[Geoffrey Leckey]

I'll do my best. Sections 34 and 35 of IRPA are what we're dealing with principally here: membership in terrorist organizations; membership in foreign intelligence services that don't espouse democratic ideals; and membership in regimes suspected of systematic war crimes or crimes against humanity.

There are lists we consult. There's, of course, the list of terrorist entities that have been so designated by the Government of Canada—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Actually, that was another question we asked. We asked if we could have a list of the different groups that may be deemed inadmissible. Is that possible? I just need a quick answer, yes or no.

[Geoffrey Leckey]

In terms of designated terrorist entities, it's yes, and for designated war crimes regimes, it's yes.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I'm just going to switch the question. My colleague, Mr. Weston, touched on this.

I noticed that in your speech, the member from CSIS, you talked about the number of screening requests. Mr. Weston touched on that. You said there were about 300,000 in the last fiscal year. I'm looking at your speech, and unless I'm incorrect, it looks as if it was 370,000. I'm not sure whether you're including the visa requests.

[Tom Venner]

Visa requests were separate. If you add visa requests, which in our case were about 71,000, the numbers add up.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Okay. I just wanted to make sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Leung.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question has to do with the screening tools employed by CBSA, CSIS, and the RCMP.

When we look at the physical attributes—the name, fingerprint, date of birth, place of birth—that only identifies the person. How do you gather the intelligence or the information to screen them for potential terrorist activity or security issues that could be an issue for admissibility, or for previous war crimes?

I refer to this because we have had a couple of cases recently of two or three individuals who have come to Canada and were here for 10 years before we identified them, and then it takes us another 10 years to get rid of them.

Perhaps you can elaborate on what your screening tools are. And how is this information shared with our counterparts worldwide, at least within those nations that are friendly to us?

It's about the screening tools beyond the obvious physical attributes.

[Geoffrey Leckey]

The first and most important screening tool, of course, is the application form. We have to start with what the applicant tells us about himself. If that hits against certain security screening indicators of concern, then we have the option of asking CIC to go back to the applicant and conduct an interview or request more detailed information from the applicant.

Once that information is as complete as it can be, then the information is shared with our Government of Canada security partners. They may hold information on the individual; we may hold information ourselves. Depending upon what trail we come across in the databases, it may lead us to other government departments or to foreign governments who may hold information on an individual.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Is this across the board, for all three branches of the service?

[Tom Venner]

In the case of the service, we would take those data fields and run them through our classified intelligence databases looking for hits, whether on the name or on other data that may have been provided as part of the application.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Is it the same for the RCMP?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

We would run the indices to check on the names that were provided to us. Depending on the indices check, it could lead to a fingerprint verification. As I said in my speech, under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, in certain circumstances we'll check it against our intelligence databases. That's projected for future.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking, but why are there three sets of databases to contain this? It seems that this is what can sometimes cause us some confusion or misidentify a person or let some people slip through, depending on which database is used.

Do we also share this information internationally with the United States and Interpol or other security services?

[Geoffrey Leckey]

I think the place to start is with the three distinct mandates of the three organizations sitting here today.

CBSA tends to have the most detailed information on immigration and war crimes; the national security agency of Canada is CSIS; and the police agency is the RCMP. In preparing security assessments and writing admissibility recommendations, it's CBSA that plays the coordinating and integrative role.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

I see.

Let's change our thought a bit. If a person has a deliberate intent to come in and he files down his fingerprints or changes his name, how easily are we able to catch these inadmissible elements? Do we have the tools to cross-reference with other security services around the world those who have multiple identities or...?