Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 28th, 2012

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

So without that analysis, we've jumped ahead to a conclusion that what's required is these greater intelligence services. Have you done an analysis of Canada's intelligence capabilities at this point?

[Joseph Humire]

No, sir.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Okay.

I don't think I have any more questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Trottier, go ahead.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, guests.

You mentioned we're dealing with embassies and consulates and high commissions; then there's the border, and then there's the local law enforcement. But the front lines in the overall security question are those embassies and consulates and high commissions overseas. Could you maybe share what the U.S. network of embassies and consulates have been able to do, to screen a bit better?

Another witness at our committee meeting today talked about the challenge of fraudulent documents and about trying to uncover in some of these foreign countries people who really are the people they say they are. What measures have been put in place in some of the U.S. foreign networks to improve screening, to prevent undesirable people from arriving on U.S. shores?

[Joseph Humire]

Thank you for that question. I think that's essentially the key issue. You caught it. The embassies abroad are the front lines of the immigration battle or challenge, so to speak.

Some of the things we worked with may be a little outdated, since I have been out of the service for a while. But some of the stuff we did abroad, particularly when we were dealing with these narco-trafficking groups, was to work with the local law enforcement. That requires a level of cooperation that also is provided by the host country. Things like status of forces agreements and standard protocols host nation to host nation open a tremendous amount of doors for individuals in the intelligence profession to create mutual shared capabilities with the local law enforcement.

When I say “local law enforcement”, I'm not just talking about the national law enforcement; I'm talking about the municipal level—the very local level of where some of these networks operate. In the case of some of the work we did in Mexico, it was not working in the capital, which is the Distrito Federal in Mexico City; it was working with some of the local law enforcement along the northern border.

Had we not had this type of status of forces agreement with Mexico, that would not have been possible. The Mexican government allowed us to go to the north to work with these local law enforcement officers, which tremendously enhanced our capability to source individuals who could be potential personalities of interest.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay. I have maybe one last question before we have to wrap up. It's on information sharing between Canada and the U.S. Obviously we're two sovereign countries who are best of friends in many ways. There are always concerns, though, about sharing of information between countries. What do you think is the appropriate level of information sharing?

We have some mutual security concerns, and we want to make sure we're also enhancing and streamlining economic activity between our two countries. We don't want to impede the flow of people that goes along with the flow of goods and capital.

Could you share some of your thoughts on ways that the U.S. and Canada can better share information with respect to people moving between our borders?

[Joseph Humire]

I think some of this stuff is already in play, according to what I was reading in the Beyond the Border initiative. I think these next-generation teams are quite a monumental leap forward, as far as sharing information. You're sharing more than information; you're sharing resources as well as support—logistical and otherwise.

I will say this, though. The risk of...and this is a lot of what I've heard in the debate with immigration and security that relates to losing sovereignty if you share too much information. I look at it the other way around. If you don't share information, I think you lose more sovereignty. Essentially what you're doing if you're not sharing information is you're kind of defaulting your intelligence position to the host country.

In that case the United States is now doing your intelligence functions and providing information on individuals and personalities of interest. The United States will give you the information how they see fit, as opposed to the Canadians collecting their own information and finding their facts because of their own intelligence professionals.

I think that having—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Humire, we have to conclude our discussion. The committee has to go to vote in our House of Commons.

I want to thank you for giving us your thoughts. We appreciate your expertise.

On behalf of the committee, thank you.

[Joseph Humire]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

This meeting is adjourned.