Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Sept. 26th, 2012

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here with us today and sharing a legal perspective on this thing.

As you may well know, we're currently studying security. It's obvious from your testimony so far that you have a fairly intricate knowledge of our processes and people coming into our country. I want to ask you a few questions in relation to what we're currently doing and perhaps get your feedback on where you think there are some deficiencies or where we can improve.

Can you name some of the specific deficiencies that exist in the measures that we use to identify foreign nationals who may be inadmissible for a variety of reasons, be they health, safety, or security?

[Lorne Waldman]

Is that question addressed to me?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Well, it's to both. Yes, sure, I'll start with you, Mr. Waldman. Maybe you can tell us where there are some deficiencies at the moment.

[Lorne Waldman]

As Ms. Des Rosiers said, when we're talking about trying to detect people who may pose a danger for whatever reason, prior to their coming into Canada, there are only two ways to do that.

One is to impose a visitor visa requirement. We would have an opportunity at that point to screen the individual, which would give us an opportunity to check with intelligence agencies, and if we were concerned about their health, we could require them to do a medical.

The difficulty with imposing visitor visa requirements is that it costs a lot of money and impedes our tourism and our ability in terms of people coming into Canada, because we have to be selective. However, if we were to require everyone in the world to get a tourist visa, then we would obviously be able to pre-screen every person coming to Canada.

There's a balance between the cost of doing that and the benefits. Clearly, that would be the most efficient way of protecting our society, but we don't do it because it costs too much money. We don't have the resources. We can't afford to close our doors in that kind of way.

The second way is by improving our intelligence sharing. This issue has been discussed repeatedly. Hopefully, the intelligence agencies have made steps. There are still a lot of steps that need to be made, but we have to ensure that we share intelligence, that we get reliable intelligence from agencies that are reliable.

Those are the two ways in which I think we could improve our methods of ensuring that undesirable people don't get into Canada.

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

In relation to security, we have another committee in which we talk about security, and I think there's certainly coordination between the two. I think the work being done to ensure the right balance must continue to be done.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

This is our study. This is why you were called here as witnesses, to comment and to give us information that could be valuable in preparing our assessment of the situation and what we would like to do.

One of the things we've been looking at is biometrics. I would like to hear your comments, hopefully from both of you, on whether you think that would be an effective tool in preventing fraud and keeping security threats out of our country. I'm sure you, like the rest of us, would not want security risks in our neighbourhoods, around our families, walking the streets, shopping where we shop, and so forth, so perhaps you could give me your feedback on biometrics.

This time we'll start with you, Ms. Des Rosiers, and then we'll go to Mr. Waldman.

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

Any mechanism to determine people's identity is not in itself wrong. What you have to ensure is that there are some procedural safeguards around it and that you balance the privacy interests of the people and so on. We always want to have accountability. For us, accountability is good governance; due process is good governance. As well, you don't want discrimination, because that's the wrong message.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Nobody's talking about discrimination.

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

You need to ensure that it's being deployed in a context where you meet accountability needs and you meet good governance and legality requirements. We also think there should be a prior assessment by the privacy commissioners on how to manage the data bank to ensure that it cannot be hacked and that it's being done properly.

That has always been our view: work within a governance and an accountability framework.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm talking about its effectiveness as a tool in identifying who the person is. Let's make the assumption that the legalities.... We can bring all kinds of lawyers here, and I'm sure we'll get the same kind of information coming out, with respect.

Mr. Waldman, would you care to give me your opinion on the effectiveness of biometrics and whether you think it would be a good tool to be used by CBSA, CSIS, and so forth?

[Lorne Waldman]

When I started, people weren't even being fingerprinted. More recently people are fingerprinted, and the use of fingerprints has proven to be an effective way of detecting fraud and being able to identify people, so obviously, using biometrics appropriately and in a fashion that respects privacy is not a bad idea.

That said, it would be vitally important, if we're going to start talking about using biometrics, to ensure two things.

One is accountability mechanisms, because without accountability, when you're now further increasing the power of CBSA, it would be extremely dangerous. You would have to also be very careful about how we did it so as to protect privacy concerns, and that would require a detailed and careful consultation with the Privacy Commissioner.

However, it's not a bad idea.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Waldman.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Go ahead, Madam Groguhé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

According to a witness, foreign criminals on Canadian territory should be brought to justice either in Canada or in their country of origin.

What do you think about that suggestion, especially when it comes to asylum seekers who have been declared criminals, not based on the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather based on the standard of balance of probabilities as laid out in the idea “if there are reasons to believe” that they have committed crimes? That is very specific.

Ms. Des Rosiers, you also talked about that issue. So perhaps you could both give me some answers.

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

Under the law, that standard is not sufficient to meet the needs of justice in Canada. There is an obligation we should take seriously. Canada is certainly part of a world that does not want war criminals to go unprosecuted. We have an obligation to prosecute, share evidence and ensure that people are brought before the appropriate courts, regardless of whether we are talking about the International Court of Justice, a court in another country or a court in Canada. However, this cloud of insinuation worries us. Finally, we are preventing those people from walking free without really assuming our responsibilities.

In Canada, if allegations are made, they are presented, the person is brought before justice and we wait for the outcome. People may be found guilty or not guilty. We want to be fair. If someone is guilty, they should certainly pay for their crimes. However, if they are not guilty, they should not have to continue having to respond to unproven allegations. That is important for the sense of justice and for our system.

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

Mr. Waldman, do you have anything to add to this?

[Lorne Waldman]

If we're concerned about bringing people to justice, deportation will sometimes be the most ineffective way of doing that. If there is no effective mechanism for trying the person in the country where he is being deported to, a war criminal can get off scot-free by being deported. That has happened in some cases. We have to consider what method is the most appropriate in the circumstances.

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

Thank you.

Unless I am mistaken, both of you talked about more vigorous screening methods before entry to Canada. Could you explain that further?

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

This is also a matter of economics, which is something the committee will have to take into account as well. The more access to Canada becomes limited, the more Canadian tourism and the Canadian economy will be affected. It is a matter of balance between certain interests.

I think we should continue making evidence-based decisions. We must continue understanding the economic and sociological repercussions of the methods we want to promote so as to ensure that the costs are not actually greater than the benefits. We must also understand that the costs of measures that tend to slow down tourism or arrivals have real consequences in terms of security. That understanding must be ongoing.

I suggest that, for instance, every five years, an assessment of costs and benefits involved be carried out. An enduring responsibility makes something like that possible. It allows us to build knowledge on how the situation is developing.

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

That's very good.

Mr. Waldman, what do you think?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, the time is up.

Mr. Opitz, you have until the bell rings.

Ms. Des Rosiers and Mr. Waldman, we will all have to leave at 5:30 to go vote.

The floor is yours, Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will start with Madam Des Rosiers.

Madam, you talked about some things and suggested some things. You mentioned the overall fairness, appropriateness, and access to courts and adjudication that is happening, and the greater information sharing between not only ourselves and the United States but with other allies, as well as the implementation of biometrics, which are like fingerprints or eye scans and which NEXUS cards do. You see people moving fairly rapidly back and forth because they have that. It sounds very much as though you are satisfied with the direction we are going in being able to accommodate these things, and then of course to accommodate travel to Canada in a more rapid method. Would that be a fair statement?

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

To the extent that there's no accountability mechanism to CBSA, our point is that you should do it. You should really put in your recommendations that any time you increase power, you should increase the accountability regime. It's just good governance.

To the extent that you are getting the privacy commissioners looking fairly at the issue and that you have a good accountability mechanism and adequate fairness, yes, there's no issue. However, the accountability piece must be there, and there must be an audited, evidence-based evaluation.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

But that's what evidence sharing and information sharing will do. It will help eliminate any speculation, which is what we don't want to do.