Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2012

[Richard Kurland]

I'll tell you something—

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

What are you going to say to the Canadian public if somebody gets injured as a result?

[Richard Kurland]

I would say—and you can call on resources for this one—that within three days of arrival, the potential threats among the passengers on that boat would have been identified. Since 9/11 billions have been poured internationally into the intelligence framework. Ours are friends.

If you travel internationally now, if you arrive in Canada now, the biometric collection and identification process is so strong that you may be identified within seconds literally. I don't buy for a moment.... Go and get the expert testimony. When I was walking through a port of entry into the People's Republic of China, they showed me the biometric software recognition with faces flipping on screen until mine was there when I stepped up. We have that technology.

The risk to the Canadian public of a person release from detention is a question of case-by-case analysis in front of our judicial process. The cost benefit analysis has one conclusion only: You either accept 12-hour lineups at our ports of entry or you don't. You either accept two-day delays in the delivery of goods.... Gone is just-in-time inventory, shattering our economy. Yes, you're going to take a hit occasionally and adverse publicity. That's the cost. The benefit is our free flow of goods and services internationally, and that,s well worth that cost.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

In this case I would disagree with you to some extent, in that the technology exists. Do we have it properly implemented yet? No. Is it capable of determining who somebody is in three days? I don't think so. Not yet. If we can try to get to that standard it would be a noble goal because it would improve the situation immensely, but we have to deal with the situation and the circumstances that we have right now.

Would you agree, sir, in the interests of public safety and making sure that the Canadian public is not affected that detention is a valid means of determining who somebody is before they're released into the Canadian public where they could potentially do harm? I ask because it's not just the criminals who work within their own circles, but it could also be a terrorist. It doesn't have to be a lot of terrorists; it just has to be one guy who is motivated to do something. That's all that has to get through.

[Richard Kurland]

With all due respect I must say no.

More factors have to be taken into account. Assessing the individual circumstance of each case, as we have now, is a system that works and is a model internationally. Can it be tightened? Yes, by adding more resources to that adjudication process, but that's not our priority. The system does work.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Madame Groguhé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us this morning.

My question is for Mr. Edelmann.

You think that creating a refugee category based on the mode of arrival would be problematic. How could that be an issue?

[Peter Edelmann]

Regarding the designation of foreigners based on their mode of arrival, I think I can talk about the current system and the proposed system. The designation we are talking about goes well beyond the mode of arrival. Any group—even a family arriving by plane or by car—could be designated by the minister.

The problem with this bill is that the consequences are punitive.That is the main issue with the system proposed in this bill. All the measures that have to do with this designation—be it detention, denial of permanent residence or denial of travel documents—are punitive. I could not really comment on an issue as broad as the relevance of designating various groups for the reasons provided. However, I can say that, when it comes to the bill, the designation's intent and technicalities are problematic.

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

Okay.

More time is needed to obtain additional details, study the bill thoroughly, take into consideration the conditions and applications in order to determine the potential consequences.

Bill C-31 prohibits family reunification in illegal arrival cases. What do you think about that? Does it comply with the charter?

[Peter Edelmann]

I think that Professor Dauvergne, who will testify before you, will be able to tell you about the Australian experience. My understanding is that people bring their wife, their children and other vulnerable members of their family on the boat or other potentially dangerous means of transportation, as they don't want to be separated from them for years on end. If family reunification is prohibited after boats arrive, the consequences of that separation, psychologically speaking, can be very significant. Actually, the Supreme Court has already stated that separating people from their children is a constitutional issue. Only time will tell how this issue will be addressed and whether that will be done as part of those designations, but at first sight, it is problematic.

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

Very well.

Past witnesses have talked about the child's best interest. Some witnesses have claimed that Bill C-31 fails to take that interest into consideration.

You find that a year of detention as punishment for irregular arrivals is unreasonable. Why?

[Peter Edelmann]

The problem actually has to do with this bill's lack of criteria and its punitive aspect. The only criterion is the mode of arrival. People should not be detained on the basis of such a criterion. There is no link or logical connection between the detention and the reasons behind it.

In other provisions on detention, we see that, if a person is detained for trying to escape and that person poses a danger to the public or is suspected of having ties to a terrorist group, the case has to do with national security and the protection of the public. If the system had that kind of criteria, and an independent entity decided that the person in question posed a danger and should be detained, things would be different. However, if a year of detention is imposed based simply on the way the person arrived, there is no connection between the detention and the criteria. The only aspect involved is punitive.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome here today to our three witnesses.

I keep hearing the words “detention” and “prisons”. It's misleading to mention prisons when we talk about detaining someone who comes here to Canada in an irregular mass arrival.

I sometimes wonder if the opposition would like to provide a five-star hotel, with a chocolate on the pillow every morning. I don't think any Canadian believes that's necessary to accommodate people who come here through the back door. These arrivals are not going through the proper channels and applying for refugee status, and so forth, to come to Canada.

Although it's not a five-star hotel, I'm sure these facilities provide adequate accommodation for the people who come to Canada by irregular methods. I don't think anyone in this room actually believes that people who come in mass arrivals come with all of their proper documentation and can be processed overnight.

Mr. Kurland, do you believe that's the case? Do you believe that people who come in mass arrivals, hundreds at a time, on a boat, have proper identification and that we can identify them overnight?

[Richard Kurland]

Traditionally people in fear of persecution will not arrive with appropriate documentation. That's just the normal course of the refugee determination processes globally. Yet somehow, over the decades, that gets sorted out.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I've heard from other witnesses that in some cases people actually throw their documents overboard. Sometimes people who are actually the human smugglers themselves try to come to Canada, and are among the people who land.

Do you think for a moment that it would be wise for Canada just to allow these people to be released into the general public, without proper identification so we can understand who they are? As a Canadian citizen, a taxpayer, and someone who has children, I would be very concerned if we were to simply say, “You've arrived. Let's not process you. Let's not identify you. Let's just release you and keep our fingers crossed”. Do you think that's the proper way to go?

[Richard Kurland]

I've fielded this question for almost a quarter century now. No matter how much money or technology you throw at the problem of illicit migration to Canada, every year since World War II, 30,000 to 40,000 people have entered illegally without ID, seeking access to Canada. Have you costed the detention of that number of people for that period of time? It won't work in deterring future arrivals. It won't work as a valid use of taxpayers' money.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I just want to clarify one other thing. When we talk about this bill, I keep hearing that there will be mandatory detention for one year. That's not correct. I want to clarify that at this committee today, because I keep hearing it.

In fact, once most refugees are identified they can be released. I want to make that perfectly clear, because I keep hearing the words “prisons” and “mandatory detention for one year”, which is not really the case.

Mr. Kurland, I have a couple of other questions. On other options to prevent illegal immigration, some people have suggested that we simply impose more visas on the countries that are currently visa-exempt. What is your opinion of that? Do you think that's the solution to all of our problems here in Canada with asylum seekers, illegal refugees, or fraudulent claimants?

[Richard Kurland]

First, no change will bring us down to zero intake. So if the expectation is that there's a quick fix to cure all of the problems, jettison that idea.

Imposing a visa has a direct effect in reducing refugee intake. Look at Mexico. Look at our friends in Europe. However, did that stop the flow? No. It reduced it, but at what cost? Diplomatically, we take a shot to the head by doing that. It runs counter to our obligation to provide a freer flow of goods and services. You have to balance the cost of saving pennies on the refugee determination side with the risk of having poorly or unsatisfactorily identified individuals among us.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Leung.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Kurland, we hear about this whole issue of detention. If a person arrives at our border without documentation, then I think that to be fair to both sides, we should deport him within three days—within 72 hours. If the person does not provide us with his identity, then he has violated a Canadian immigration law and we should be able to deport him right away.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on a speedier solution to this.

[Richard Kurland]

Oh, that pesky charter, eh?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Richard Kurland]

It is a tongue-in-cheek question and it merited a fun reply. Yes, we would love to have the ability to expeditiously determine every case, but we're constrained by resources and the physical time required to get things done. Yes, we can improve things. The point is that Bill C-31 improves things.

I take issue with mandatory detention and the mass arrival system for the reasons I've made known. Don't overlook the positive aspects: the glass is more than half full on this one. We can do a better job on the front end if we have the resources. It's a trade-off with other sectors in government.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

You mentioned that with this bill we are trying to close a loophole in the whole immigration framework. Can you expand a little bit more on how the speedy enactment of this will allow us to move forward? I also take into consideration the previous comment about how lawyers like everything written down. Let me tell you that there have been all of these irregular arrivals via the Komagata Maru and the St. Louis—and even in my case, when I was in Canada on a Republic of China passport. Then, overnight, Trudeau recognized Communist China. I was made a stateless citizen, and I was technically an illegal immigrant in 1970.

Anyway, please comment on that.