Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2012

[Dr. Benjamin Muller]

Sure, in terms of profiling. The unfortunate thing is that up to this point, in most cases profiling does not appear to be terribly effective. It certainly hasn't effectively stopped people such as Richard Reid or the underwear bomber—these sorts of individual.

The other point I would make is that the recent study specifically on biometrics suggests that one of the problems is that over time the biometric can become highly unreliable. In terms of repeat movement over a time period, that's a problem.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm going to get to that; it's actually my next question. Just before I get to it, I want to stick with the ETA for a moment.

Do you think it will help the government crack down on residency fraud—people wanting Canadian status without living here or paying into the system?

[Dr. Benjamin Muller]

Possibly. I think if anything this would be a potential area in which it might be effective.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay.

The impetus behind biometrics, the reason we are considering implementing it, is that it has been identified by law enforcement agencies who have testified before us as a 21st-century identification tool. I'm referring specifically to the RCMP, the CBSA, CSIS. They feel that this type of information would be very useful in identifying someone, particularly in cases in which someone has five or six or seven names in their name, have been refused a number of times because they were deemed to be a risk to the country, and have come back with a different derivation, if you will, of their name.

Do you think this is an effective tool for preventing fraud and keeping security threats out of the country?

[Dr. Benjamin Muller]

It's not as effective as, shall we say, human intelligence. My research has not indicated that there's any reason we ought to simply be jumping on board the use of biometrics.

I'm well aware that law enforcement agencies tend to be reasonably happy with it, until you get to the sort of high point of it, which I would say is what the AVATAR program at the University of Arizona has come up with, because then it starts taking their jobs away. You clearly and obviously have labour issues at that point.

But in terms of gathering information, it's good to gather information. What you do with it, how interoperable those bits of information are.... I think there are obviously privacy questions as well as questions of reliability. For the most part, I feel that these biometric technologies are relatively under-studied. That's why we're only now getting some of the longer-term studies, which are what is useful.

At the moment, most of the research we get is from the manufacturers themselves, and I don't think I need to tell everyone that there could be problems with that.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Certainly the manufacturers and the biometrics have been tested by law enforcement agencies before they recommend them, but let's talk from a practical perspective.

You speak about human intelligence as being an alternative. If someone shows up at our border today—right now, as we speak—and says, “I want to come into your country”, there's an officer there who will be looking at and interviewing them as they are going through this process.

He doesn't know who you are; you could tell him anything. With a biometric, he can look you up in a computer, with your picture, possibly your iris scan, and your fingerprint, and he'll know exactly who you are.

Would that not be a useful tool for that intelligence officer?

It's not a question of coming in without having human interaction anyway. No one is saying that someone is going to walk to the border, walk into a booth, and the door will open and they'll get into Canada. There will be a person there who's going to be using that as a tool.

That's what the law enforcement people who presented before us testified: that it's an additional tool they could use to help them in the identification of an individual. The whole point of this is to ensure that we know the identities of individuals before they walk our streets, shop with our families, or are around our kids. We need to know who they are. That is the main thing they kept bringing up to us.

Do you not think that could be a useful tool for a CBSA agent at the airport or someone at the border to have in deciding whether they're going to allow someone into the country?

[Dr. Benjamin Muller]

If we assume that the technology can't be defrauded, I would agree with you. But there is increasing research that suggests one can basically mess with biometric readings. High-resolution photographs, for example, will get you past facial recognition technologies, in some cases.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

And fingerprint—?

[Dr. Benjamin Muller]

Fingerprinting is actually one of the easier ones. Of course, it happens to be a cheaper one as well, so it's more prevalent.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Isn't it a little bit more secure than someone just making a judgment on what you're telling him?

[Dr. Benjamin Muller]

A judgment has been made when that biometric—

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

No, I mean in addition to that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

You have ten seconds left.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

My seven minutes are up?

[Dr. Benjamin Muller]

To assume that those judgments are somehow not made with the use of biometrics.... They still are. There's a sort of misapplied faith, in a sense, to the technology.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much. My time is up.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

Ms. Sims, you have seven minutes.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to direct my first couple of questions towards Dr. Tyndall.

I want to thank both of you for coming to make the presentation. I appreciated the presentation you made about public health. There isn't a greater area of security, for me, than public health. It's one that has no boundaries. So thank you for your presentation.

Often, when we sit around and think about security, we only think it means what happens at the border and that it's about deportation. But we know that security works both ways, and that we must ensure the safety and security of newcomers, especially vulnerable refugees. And security of health is very critical.

You've had first-hand experience, Dr. Tyndall, with treating refugees at the hospital. I'm interested in how the cuts to the interim federal health program for refugees are impacting their security.

Last week, Doctors for Refugee Care released a report that said:

Three months after dramatic cuts to federally funded refugee health care services took effect, the program that manages these services is marred by confusion, unnecessary costs, and compromised care.

The report goes on to detail dozens of cases and says that pregnant women and children are being particularly affected by the cuts.

In one particularly shocking example from the study:

A young female refugee claimant is 18 weeks pregnant as a result of a sexual assault while being used as a sexual slave. She has no IFH coverage to address the pregnancy.

Can you share with the committee any cases you are aware of and how the cuts are affecting the refugees you see?

[Dr. Mark Tyndall]

Sure. Thank you very much.

The report that was submitted last week showed a number of cases. In Ottawa itself there are probably 50 people in the clinic with some IFH coverage. Many of the people we see are being treated for tuberculosis and HIV. As I mentioned, the treatment of these two infections is still protected, and people still get their pills.

Most of the people, then, have already had a relationship with us, and they continue to get their pills. What is problematic now, however, is other services that they need. They come to a clinic with hypertension, for instance, or some have diabetes. They're running into difficulties with getting these medications covered and they have no fallback.

So there are cases of people we're still following for their HIV who no longer get coverage for their other medications, which in some respects have everything to do with their HIV infection.

Picking out only the pills for their HIV is not enough.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

Dr. Tyndall, I have a point of order from Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I believe this is a point of order.

We said at the beginning that we are studying border security. I listened very intently to Ms. Sims' questions and nowhere did I hear a question such as how can we prevent people from coming into the country who have communicable diseases, as opposed to just case studies or examples of someone who is already here and who may have been asked to leave.

I just want to redirect the committee back to our original focus of this study, which is on border security, and I would hope that future questions will be dealt with in that particular strain.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

In regard to it being a point of order, Ms. James, the committee has demonstrated, and we could probably cite back to the last time we met in terms of the types of questions and answers that were being given.... I believe this is, in comparison, just as relevant. But I appreciate the sensitivity on the issue, so I'll say it's not a point of order.

I will let Dr. Tyndall continue and hopefully we can get through the process.

[Dr. Mark Tyndall]

I can also comment, as you were asking what happens to new patients coming, that doctors cannot be put in the position to be the border guards. People get to the clinic and seek medical attention long after all these safeguards have been put in place.

So part of our concern is that some of our tools are taken away from us through these cutbacks. People who come really need health care, and some of that health care can be very important to the community at large. They will not be able to access that any more.

As doctors, the program right now is in such disarray that we're only told to call Blue Cross and find out if this particular diagnostic procedure or drug could possibly be covered for a specific person. Obviously it takes hours to get that information back, and the person is there. Currently, as things change, it's a moving target, where most clinics now are in a very bad way when they see new patients come to them. I have no control over who comes to the clinic.

If they have a problem—in my case, an infectious disease problem—I feel, as a physician, it's my duty to provide them the best care that I can. Saying “I'll have to check to see if I can provide you with any care” is difficult.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Dr. Tyndall. I have a very short time and I do have another question for you. And thank you for focusing in on infectious diseases, which definitely has a lot to do with our overall security.

A particularly troubling aspect of these changes, the ones that have been made recently, is that potentially legitimate refugees from so-called safe countries, under the recently passed legislation, Bill C-31, will be cut off from even basic medical coverage. Eventually we will learn what these so-called safe countries are, but we don't know yet.

Can you talk about how the cuts affect these particular refugee claimants, especially when it comes to infectious diseases and overall security?

[Dr. Mark Tyndall]

My understanding is that some of that class will receive no health care whatsoever. From a public health point of view, I think that's a disaster. People do have infectious diseases that they need to be treated for to protect our public health system, and if they are denied any care at all, it's really a problem for our own security and our public health system.