Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 1st, 2012

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

The ETA, the electronic travel authorization—

[Peter Edelmann]

I think ultimately the tools.... In terms of the implementation of the tools, I think there's a number of tools that can be quite useful in terms of implementing border security and whether we implement that security at different points.

My suggestion at the beginning, and I would underline my point here, is that.... I would suggest that the committee and the government take a long-term vision of security. In terms of when we say we're going to keep the bad people out and let the good people in, what we're ultimately talking about is creating a safe community, or a gated community, that separates us from the rest of the world, that somehow Canada—

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

That wasn't my question—sorry.

[Peter Edelmann]

[Inaudible—Editor]...going to be unsafe.

Sorry?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

That wasn't my question, Mr. Edelmann. I was just wondering if you had something to say specifically about the ETA, the electronic travel authorization.

Maybe I can move on to my next question, if that's okay with you.

[Peter Edelmann]

That's fine.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes.

I'll direct my next question to you, Mr. Salter. As you may be aware, with the electronic travel authorization the government will be able to know every single time someone enters or exits between Canada and the U.S., even at land crossings. In your opinion, do you think this will help the government crack down on residency fraud and people wanting Canadian status without living here or paying into the system?

[Dr. Mark Salter]

Thank you.

I think if the entry and exit control system works, it will help with residency fraud.

But on the previous question about whether or not the ETA is functional, whether it's a good idea, it depends upon what you're comparing that information to. I think that's my concern: that the two things you can compare that information to are either abstract risk profiles or specific watch lists, and we've seen deficiencies in both.

That's my concern. It's not just the generation of the data, but what that data will be used for. As a student of the case of Maher Arar, I'm also going to be concerned about where that information is going.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

You spoke earlier about how you would prefer the “eyes on the file” system versus electronic information. I noted that.

You also noted that your colleague who is going to be appearing before us later on in the week would be more in line to speak on the specifics of biometrics, but let me ask you a general question about biometrics. The RCMP, the CBSA, and CSIS have testified before our committee and have told us they see it as a 21st century identification tool.

Do you think biometrics would be an effective tool to prevent fraud and keep security threats out of the country, as a tool for the eyes on the file, in addition to what they're doing in their assessment of whether or not someone should come into the country?

[Dr. Mark Salter]

Again, I'm excited that my colleague Professor Muller is going to come to speak to you on Wednesday. For myself, I would say, in the same exact way, that the biometrics only put a pin in the isometry between the body of the file and the story. They don't tell you anything about the character of that person. They don't tell you anything about the history of that person.

They just sort of seal, at a moment in time, that the photo or fingerprint is associated with that dossier. If that information isn't good, if that information isn't verified by a person or if it doesn't have any inherent character back in the country of origin, then it is absolutely irrelevant. If I obtain a fraudulent driver's licence in the name of Santa Claus—speaking of my seven-year-old—and if that document looks genuine, biometrics aren't going to do anything other than confirm that I am Santa Claus, which I am not, just for the record.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, well, I'm pretty sure Santa Claus won't be trying to get into the country illegally.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Dr. Mark Salter]

I think there's a question about customs.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Let me ask you this, Mr. Edelmann. I would ask you pretty much the same question about biometrics.

There are people who have been refused entry into this country for a number of reasons. They happen to have six or seven names. They come back under different names, trying as many as five, six, and seven times to get in. Biometrics would identify pretty specifically that it's them trying to come back in under a different name.

Do you think it's an effective tool to prevent fraud and to keep security threats out of our country?

[Peter Edelmann]

Biometrics is a tool that we've used for a long time. A passport photo is a biometric tool. So in the sense of saying that we use biometrics—fingerprints are used commonly in the immigration system as it is now—we do use biometrics.

I think the question you're asking is whether imposing a biometric requirement on every person who enters and leaves Canada is a worthwhile security trade-off. I think that's the much more fundamental question that this committee needs to ask. There's an enormous cost, not just in terms of the economic cost but in terms of the trade-off that will be involved in imposing those requirements.

Is it a tool that can be used to solve the problems that you're describing? Undoubtedly it can. Is it worth the trade-off? I think that's a different question.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move on to you, Sadia.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank our two witnesses for their willingness to answer our questions. Both of them talked about balance, which is a key notion in security.

My question is primarily for you, Mr. Edelmann. What do you think is the best way to maintain that balance between protecting the security of Canadians and protecting individual rights, if we move forward in terms of security. What is your opinion on that? How should we proceed?

[Peter Edelmann]

That is a good question, which is fairly complex and very difficult to answer. It raises many questions. Different people will be affected in different ways. The committee must decide which of the affected people will be taken into consideration and who the stakeholders are, with regard to this issue.

I was talking about communities in other countries. Let's take for example a person charged with assault, such as sexual assault, who was not treated appropriately and was removed to a country like Somalia. Is the community being taken into account? What does that mean for the potential victims in that country? Is this something that is important to the Government of Canada? Basically, this is a philosophical question.

That's certainly important for family, friends and personal ties Canadians have with the community in Somalia. For those people, security is a much broader issue. It's not enough to say that the person in question will be removed or that the problem will be resolved. It's also important to know how the problem is defined. Basically, the same question applies to detention, biometrics and any other tools that may be used.

I encourage you to think about the fundamental question. It is a matter of determining what the repercussions are and whom they apply to. It's about knowing whether the Canadians who are here now are the only thing that matters, with the situation in the rest of the world being irrelevant, or whether the ease with which Canadians travel and cross borders is unimportant. The answers to those questions will be very different.

This is quite an issue. We must understand that, the more we focus on security, the more we lose in other areas. I won't try to answer this question in three minutes. I do not want to insult you by saying that I have an easy answer to this question because I don't.

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

Your statements are interesting, in every instance. I see in what you are telling us the importance of looking at this security issue in a much more broad and holistic way. That kind of an approach takes into account not only our country's security, but also all the repercussions it could have beyond our borders.

I will now move on to another question.

Do you think the current provision on the inapplicability of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act makes it possible to screen out war criminals? If the provision needs to be amended, how should that be done?

[Peter Edelmann]

I think that the act is currently worded in a very broad way. I have not seen any cases where it was impossible to remove a convicted war criminal. It's a matter of knowing whether the legislation is too broad. We are talking about the application of the legislation here. We are talking about the decisions made by officers or other civil servants. In each case, it's a matter of knowing how broad we want the legislation to be and what we want it to include.

That being said, I have not seen any cases where a convicted war criminal could not be covered by the current provisions. However, the opposite is not true.

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

Okay, very well.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I thank our two guests who are here today.

I want to direct my first question to Mr. Edelmann.

You've made a few comments that I'm very concerned about. Just listening to some of your terminology with regard to a question on tougher rules on deportation.... You made a comment about pushing the problem onto other communities or about how some of our families may be from some of these countries.

I'm not quite sure whether you agree that deportation is necessary or whether you think we should keep here in this country the people who are foreign nationals and are convicted criminals. I just want to ask that question straight up. I'm not fully understanding where you're coming from.

[Peter Edelmann]

I work in both the criminal justice system and the immigration system. To take an example in the criminal justice system, there have been attempts—and I believe the Mayor of Toronto recently made comments to this effect as to whether—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Actually, I'm sorry, but I'm just going to interrupt because I need to understand, really, whether you believe that deportation is a necessary tool that Canada must use or whether it's not. It's just a yes or no answer, because I have a lot of other questions that I need to ask you. Thank you.