Evidence of meeting #51 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was security.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
In which case.... I don't have a yes or no answer for you, if that's what you're—
October 1st, 2012 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Actually, I thought you might say that, because you were talking about keeping the bad people out and letting the good people into Canada—and I think most Canadians across our great country would think that's a good thing to do—and you seem to put it in a very derogatory way by saying that we're going to turn into a safe community or a gated community, gated from the rest of the world.
I have to tell you that as someone who was elected to represent my great riding of Scarborough Centre, that is my first priority: to keep my constituents safe. If you are implying that a gated community is something to keep bad people out of this country, I'm really not understanding why you think that's a bad thing.
I'm going to direct my next question, actually—
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
—I don't think Ms. James allowed the witness to answer any of her questions, and, frankly, I do think that's the point of questioning a witness.
If he could just give an answer to what she said, at your discretion, Madam Chair....
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Madam Chair, there actually wasn't a question to my second part. It was a statement. I would actually like to ask Professor Salter a question that I think is very key.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
I want to remind all committee members that we do have witnesses here, and it's always good, even if it's a brief question, that when we have our time we do make it into a question as well.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually asked a brief question and he was absolutely unable to answer yes or no to whether he believes deportation is necessary, so I'm just moving on to the second witness, if I may.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Professor Salter—I hope I pronounced that correctly—I have a particular question. I know you've indicated that you do not agree with just the watch lists and the profiling, and I know that you haven't really wanted to touch on biometrics. But you did mention one particular individual, Mr. Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber.
Now, particularly on biometrics, because he was convicted of a crime, biometrics would actually prevent someone like him, the shoe bomber, from coming into Canada at all in the future. Would you agree with that?
4:25 p.m.
Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Only if the biometrics in the passport will be connected to other criminal databases—so does that mean that Canada will request integration with the American, U.K., and French criminal justice systems?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
That's a good question. One of the key aspects of biometrics is being able to compare it against other databases in the world, because obviously we don't maintain all fingerprints here in Canada. I thank you for that question so that I can clarify that.
I also notice that you're not completely satisfied that imposing visas on certain countries is the right way to go.
4:25 p.m.
Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
You were mentioning the Czech Republic. I actually have some statistics on that. In 2010 Canada actually had only 30 claims coming from the Czech Republic, versus 2009, when we had 2,085 claims. The difference between 2,085 and 30 claims was actually imposing a visa restriction on that particular country.
I just want to mention as well that in 2009, when there were 2,085 claims—people coming to Canada as refugee claimants—it was actually 99%, but only 10% were actually approved as being legitimate refugees.
I understand that maybe imposing a visa is not the only way to go, but you must certainly agree that in this particular instance it did satisfy and solve the problem that Canada was faced with. I mean, when we have close to 2,100 people claiming refugee status at a cost to Canadian taxpayers, surely you can agree that the visa restrictions at that particular moment for that country were effective.
4:25 p.m.
Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
As I understand the way that CIC adjudicated their claims, slightly less than half of the 196 claims that were finalized in 2008 were granted status. That means that it is not a rejection rate of 91%. Rather—
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
[Inaudible—Editor]...sorry. I was referencing 2009 with 2,085 claims. There was a huge jump between the two years.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Maybe we'll let Professor Salter finish his answer, please.
4:25 p.m.
Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I apologize. My reading of the CIC data indicated that of those claims that were retained, the proportion that were accepted as legitimate refugees by the IRB did not change between 2008 and 2009; it was simply a case that the raw numbers increased.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Thank you very much. Your time is up.
We have two minutes. Over to you, Mr. Opitz.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
NDP
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to continue on from Ms. James's point about the Czech Republic.
While you're pointing to the end result of a claim of only 186 claims actually being adjudicated, the fact is that 2,085 people from the Czech Republic applied for refugee status here in Canada. They did so here in Canada. Therefore, they went through this entire process and then decided at the very last minute, mostly because they weren't really true refugees, that they wouldn't have their files or their claims proceed through the process, because they knew they would have failed and would have had to go back to the Czech Republic.
The reason I think it's important to point that out is that when the visa restrictions were implemented in 2010, as Ms. James points out, only 30 people actually applied for refugee status. Based on your earlier comments—that profiling is not a good idea, that we need to move to a process that would see each and every person interviewed, regardless of whether it's for a visa or for anything else, because if you think visa applicants should be interviewed, I think it would have to proceed that everyone else should be interviewed, depending on the type of status they're seeking in Canada—I can't quite comprehend how....
Maybe I need to understand what your meaning of “profiling” is, because there has to be some profiling that occurs. To say that those visas were.... The only way they were confrontational, or they didn't like them.... The Czech Republic government didn't like them, but no one in Canada complained to me about the fact that we were going to have fewer non-refugees applying for refugee status here in Canada.
So I think you need to combine...or think a little bit about the fact that you're suggesting that we shouldn't be profiling with the fact that there has to be some data collection, some management, some process in place that shows that if a person meets the following criteria—
