Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 15th, 2012

[Debbie Douglas]

When we look at the examples from our allies around the world who have alternative to detention programs, they do a test based on vulnerability and therefore risk.

For example, women who are travelling with their children are often not detained when there is a reasonable belief that they do not pose a threat. Often they are put in alternative shelters while their identity documents are being worked out.

Sometimes folks come from countries where it is not possible to determine their identities. We do have failed states and people make their way to our country. The question then becomes, do you keep those people in detention indefinitely, or do you take the reasonable risk that they are not a threat to us and place them in more appropriate shelter or living arrangements? That is certainly something we could take a look at.

What was interesting when we were having this conversation in Buffalo with our U.S. counterparts is they said that over the last four years Homeland Security made an intentional decision to switch their focus and resources around issues of criminality. Instead of going after folks for immigration purposes, for ID purposes, and detaining them, they put all their resources into going after those who had committed crimes, whom they had deported but who had come back into the country and were continuing to commit crimes. Then they worked with, unfortunately in the United States it's for-profit organizations, to create an alternative to the other folks whom they were dealing with on immigration and ID issues only.

I think there's a conversation to be had here in Canada in terms of what we should be doing other than detaining everyone until we determine their identity or because they've come in through what we deem to be irregular arrivals or whatever the implementation of Bill C-31 is going to bring.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Grant, we know that people can be detained for three reasons before they risk being deported. Do you recommend any grounds on which these rules be changed or are the current grounds good enough for deportation?

[Angus Grant]

In my experience as a lawyer representing individuals, the vast majority of people whom I've represented have been detained for identity purposes. I understand the logic behind that and I wouldn't argue with the logic behind it. However, sometimes I would argue with the way in which it is used by immigration decision-makers, because there are times when people come from situations that are inherently virtually impossible to come with identification documents that are satisfactory for the immigration division.

The only thing I would encourage in this respect is for the committee to urge Parliament and decision-makers to think about creative ways of confirming identity. There are creative ways out there that immigration division members and I have fashioned to allow someone to be released, to recognize it is in no one's interest to detain anyone, to come up with these creative ways, such as several affidavits confirming identity in lieu of formal identity documents, and have the means for letting people out earlier than they are being let out right now.

I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I was really glad to hear what you had to say, Ms. Douglas. I'm also someone who cares a lot about human rights. We probably have a lot in common. I created the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which is there to stand up for Canadian individuals when governments are pushing them around.

I think if we ask the wrong question, we may end up with the wrong answer. If we ask whether we have concerns about people who are wrongly detained, I would say yes, I regret that there are people who are detained who ultimately should not have been detained. If instead we ask whether we should close down the whole refugee system because we can't identify people, or because we don't have the security measures in place, then obviously, we'd be denying all those people who are truly being persecuted in their far-off lands. You and I and everyone else in the room would say that this was a wrong decision.

I think the parallel, and I'll get Mr. Grant to comment on this in a second, is whether we abandon our criminal justice system for fear of a wrongful conviction. We're humans, and we have imperfect human institutions, and there will be mistakes, no matter what we do. But most people would say that we still need a criminal justice system. Then we work progressively to improve its accuracy.

What I understand we're doing by looking at things like biometrics is improving the accuracy of our decisions so that we are, in fact, going to be detaining the right people. We will still detain people who ought ultimately not to have been detained, but that's the price for having the refugee system, isn't it?

I looked back at your comments in April when you were discussing Bill C-31. You said that you were concerned about the characterization of refugees and that the Canadian people may develop an increasingly negative perception of refugees. Wouldn't it be true that they would be even more negative if we didn't have security provisions in place to give them confidence that we can continue our refugee program?

Could you comment on that?

[Debbie Douglas]

Absolutely, and thank you for the question.

I think that all of us who have presented here as witnesses, even though we say that Canada should not be concerned about our security as a nation, absolutely we should, but what I am saying, though, is that as we build in these security measures, we must be cautious that we put in place conditions that will minimize the harm we do to the vast majority of people. It means that when we're looking at detention, we pay attention to things such as profiling and the kinds of groups we're going after because of race, as an example.

We pay attention to the fact that we want to know the people who are coming into the country. Is keeping a pregnant woman and her child in detention the only way to determine their identities, or is there another way to have them live within an alternative setting and still go through the process? We have determined that they pose a minimum risk, whether it be a risk of flight or a risk of security.

It is not all or nothing, as you just said. Do we protect our systems? Do we protect ourselves as a nation? Do we ensure that we have security measures in place that will continue to protect us and continue to protect our systems, including our immigration and refugee determination system? Absolutely. At the same time, should we ensure that we are building systems that minimize the harm that happens to a vast majority of people? Absolutely. Those things are not mutually exclusive, I would suggest.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I don't know the facilities that you know well. You're from Toronto, I believe.

[Debbie Douglas]

Yes, I am.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I visited the facilities in Vancouver as part of our study, and I found them to be very humane. They are built to attend to the function of detaining people while their identities are, in fact, being confirmed.

Again, I am mindful of the fact that if our populace loses confidence in what we're doing, they push elected officials to start narrowing. We believe that we have the most generous refugee program in the world per capita. We want to make sure that we stand behind that banner and let it fly very proudly.

Mr. Grant, we share a profession. I heard you say just a minute ago that we need to improve the tools at the disposal of border security people and to improve communication among the agencies involved. You're not an expert in biometrics, you said, but don't you agree that being able to confirm a person's identity through unerring measures, such as fingerprints and iris scans, gives them the tools to do exactly what you were prescribing?

[Angus Grant]

Again, I don't really want to speak to biometrics because it's not my area of expertise. I'll say a couple of things, though, because I've been asked a question twice now, so I understand from the committee that there is interest in this issue.

The first thing I'll say is that I think courts and lawyers are and should always be somewhat skeptical of new scientific approaches that are presented as being utterly infallible, because if we've learned anything, it's that very little in this world is infallible. If we could be 100% sure that x would provide y, then it's all very simple. The problem is you can rarely do that. I'll leave my comments in that respect at that.

I'm sorry, did you want to say something?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Just give me a second. If you don't mind—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't know whether you have a second.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

We're not aiming at perfection, because should we do so we'd be paralyzed. We'd have to close down all of our programs. We're aiming at improving progressively all the time so that we can continue the refugee program. You're right in that we shouldn't say it's infallible, but it's certainly going to be a better security provision and enable us to prevent people from unfairly claiming welfare and other programs in Canada once they do arrive here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Weston.

Mr. Benskin, you have a minute.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Great, wonderful.

I want to touch on the human factor. We've been talking a lot about detention and how it's relevant to the security issue. I think the security issue we're talking about, or that we should be talking about if we're not, is the overall security. It's one thing to have border security, but it's another thing to have social and community security.

I'll ask either one of you if you agree. When you treat people in a certain manner, when people come to this country and are detained, it sets off a chain reaction. These young people grow up feeling unwanted and persecuted in this country, and therefore they take that into the community and act out, to oversimplify things.

Do you think that would be an accurate assessment of what detention can do?

[Debbie Douglas]

It may have been Ms. Jeanes who talked about this earlier, in terms of the medium- or long-term effects of trauma on children who have been detained, and whether or not there is a direct causal relationship between deviant behaviour and detention at an early age. I'm not a psychologist, so I wouldn't know that, but we do know a sense of alienation often happens when people are kept outside of a society into which they are trying to integrate.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Grant, Ms. Douglas, our time has expired. I thank both of you for coming. You've raised some issues which I know the committee will be pleased to think about.

This meeting is adjourned.