Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 8th, 2012

[Dan Bohbot]

On the numbers, I didn't say there were problems with 1% of them. It was just an example. It was not from data that I obtained.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Let me just interrupt you, Mr. Bohbot. The Privacy Commissioner appeared before the committee and used the figure of biometrics having a 1% failure rate. That's where that comes from.

[Dan Bohbot]

All right. I understand.

Could you repeat your question? I'm sorry.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

If we have a 1% failure rate, and there are 700,000 people, that means for the 7,000 people entering Canada a year, we can't count on their fingerprints actually confirming who they say they are. I'm just wondering if you have any comments on that as a security feature.

[Dan Bohbot]

I'm surprised because all these people have to come with visas, and to get their visas they have to give all sorts of information to Immigration Canada's offices and to foreign offices in Canadian high commissions abroad. So if 1% of these visitors fail to be identified properly, maybe the problem doesn't lie with the question of biodata—maybe it does. But it seems as though there might be an issue somewhere else and they might try to cover that shortcoming through biodata information. I'm not sure about the context of your question, but that would be my response.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Dr. Cheema, in terms of health screening, I think we've received some disturbing information before this committee. The Auditor General, of course, identified serious problems in her report to Parliament, saying that we were testing abroad only for syphilis and tuberculosis. You, of course, I would imagine, do your examinations in Canada. The issue is this. How are we screening for health before people arrive in Canada?

We heard testimony from James Bissett, who was a member of the Prime Minister's security committee. He testified that there was virtually no testing for health for temporary foreign workers. We let in 185,000 of those people last year. Do you have any information about the health of those temporary foreign workers coming into Canada, and Canada's ability to screen them? You testified that you thought the medical screening was, in your words, “pretty good”.

[Dr. Gulzar Cheema]

I think anyone who is coming as a student or temporary worker should go through the same screening we apply to potential immigrants. I think that's the key. Right now, the Government of Canada has special forms and we have special instructions, and those standards are pretty much the same in the U.S.A., Australia, and the U.K. So that part is good. Anybody who is coming to this country to work, study, or to visit for a long time must have medicals done, and those medicals must be done by approved medical practitioners. These people should go through the same procedure that anybody else would go through.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Dr. Cheema.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to both of our witnesses for appearing before us today and for their testimony.

I think a review of the Hansard will help clarify the 1% that my colleague was speaking about. In his testimony, I believe Mr. Bohbot asked why we should penalize the 99% of the people who apply and don't pose a security risk. Even if we made that 0.1%, at an entry rate of 250,000 residents, that would allow about 250 people into the country who might pose a security risk.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll see what he says.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Talking about the record, the comment was 1% of 250,000, and then Mr. Opitz said 254,000; 1% of 254,000 is about 2,500.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I understand.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

That was what I was trying to clarify.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Perhaps you didn't hear what I said.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm losing control of the meeting here.

You have the floor. Start the clock.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I understand that, and my point—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Don't encourage him, just carry on.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

My point is that if we assume that even 99.9% of the people do not pose any kind of a problem for Canada, that remaining 0.1% would allow about 250 permanent residents into the country per year who pose a security risk.

I was particularly taken aback by your comments, Dr. Cheema, though I must say they tend to justify the purpose of this committee in studying security. You said in your opening remarks that you were alarmed by the number of fraudulent applications. Certainly that is something that is of concern to us. We concur with you. We know there are a number of people who are trying to come into this country. One fraudulent person getting into the country is too many. Our Minister of Immigration is doing the best he can to minimize that, so is this committee and the ministry staff. Our job is to ensure that we make Canadians as secure as possible. If I may take something from the medical profession, Dr. Cheema—Maslow's hierarchy of needs—that second level is security. We want to provide security for Canadians.

What are some of the deficiencies that still exist in the measures used to identify foreign nationals who may be inadmissible either for health, safety, or security reasons?

[Dr. Gulzar Cheema]

Thank you for giving me this opportunity again to explain. I have two specific, very practical ideas that can be implemented without having additional costs for us.

Number one, it sometimes happens that there is a message within a community or in a country that Canada is open—you can go there, you can cheat, you can have your medical done, which may or may not be 100% on par with what is required, you can go to a lab, or maybe send somebody else there. We try our best, but we lose control because a large number of applicants apply. We want to make sure we have the applicants who want to come, who are honourable, and whose health status and security status are good. Those things can be done only if there is a strong, decisive, clear message to the countries of a region.

In my view, this has been lacking for a period of time. Now I think probably for the last couple of years, we have been seeing the result. More recently, I think some of Mr. Kenney's actions have been very effective. Some of the members of the community may be upset, but I think we are sending a strong and clear message.

There are a few other things I would like to say. I might not be able to say those things openly, but probably someone could call me and we could explain those to them. Just for my own physical well-being and within my own part of the community where I can be open and honest about it, I still need to make sure I convey a message that is in line with our values and our system. This is coming from someone who has been here for 31 years. I have worked very hard. When we see that some of the people who are coming are not on par with our Canadian values, it just upsets us. We are part of the silent majority.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Dr. Cheema.

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you, Chair.

It's an interesting afternoon, actually. We've gone from questioning the rejection of visas to talking about George Orwell, and now we're back to the health and well-being of those who live in other countries and want to come to Canada.

I do, in the end, have to note that Orwell did not actually have a “Ministry of Travel” in 1984. He didn't allude to what would happen if people would travel, because his basis was that everyone should stay home and not go anywhere, and that they'd be able to keep an eye on the proletariat, at least, from the objective of staying within the main four cities.

We're doing the exact opposite, actually. We want to ensure that people can come to this country and enjoy what Canada's all about, but do so with the understanding that we have a culture, we have rules, we have values, we have principles, and we have laws that need to be adhered to. So I don't think it's asking too much if, when you want to have the honour of coming to the country of Canada, there are, in fact, some prerequisites for that visit or that stay. While I appreciate you bringing the point up, I'm not even sure that Orwell was going there with respect to trying to gather information on people. That's for a more philosophical discussion, I suppose, than what we have here at committee.

I do want to thank both of you for your work and efforts on this, especially you, Dr. Cheema, for your comments about some of the actions the government has taken. You're not even our witness. You were called by one of the other parties. I appreciate the fact that you've been as forthright as you have.

I do want to just touch base on one aspect of the security side of things.

Dr. Cheema, you brought up the fact that there should be a more strident approach to take with those coming to Canada, who should be subject to further questions, or further research, or the type of research that goes into a permanent resident application. Doing that would cost us, obviously, a lot more money. It would also take ministry officials much more time to do this type of research. Let's face it—some of the concerns we have are about people trying to turn around, get a visa fairly quickly, and get into the country to go to a particular event. So while security is critical, I wondered how you might balance those two things out.

[Dr. Gulzar Cheema]

First of all, I don't think it should be the responsibility of the Government of Canada to pay for the security check. We should pass that cost on to someone who wants to come. I think that can be done very effectively and that won't be an additional cost to us.

The second thing is that if people want to come to our home and our country, if they have to go though a security check, so be it. I think you have to send a strong message.

In communities, this is a common saying: “You don't have to worry. Call an MP. Call a minister of the crown. It will be done.”

I think you have to be very clear that this is a country where you have to respect our values, and when you come here, be as we are.

I think that message has to go out, and I don't think you have to apologize to anyone.

Thank you.

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

No problem.

Mr. Bohbot, there is one aspect I wanted to get your comment on.

Dr. Cheema spoke about health issues, and it was brought up that one of our previous witnesses mentioned that for temporary foreign workers, there really isn't the type of health requirements that at least meet particular standards.

Mr. Davies actually pointed out, quite rightly, the Auditor General's concern around there only being checks for two particular strains of a virus.

You didn't comment much about that in your opening statement, but on the health side of things do you have any recommendations with respect to improving how that part of the security check takes place?

[Dan Bohbot]

I'll disappoint you because I didn't come prepared for that question. I'm sorry.