Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 15th, 2012

[Lutz Oette]

The moment you enter the territory, you benefit from the prohibition on sending someone back. It engages the responsibility of the state.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Yes, but if the state determines within that 48-hour timeframe that the person doesn't qualify for refugee status and then sends him back, my point is that there are countries in the world that have a lot less of a timeframe to prepare a case than we do in Canada, and that is with Bill C-31.

It leads me, Ms. Jeanes, to a couple of points. One of the points you made when you were here with respect to Bill C-31 was to request, as many of the witnesses did, that we go to the facilities across the country. We did. We went to all three of them. We viewed them in-depth and went through each and every one of them. In fact, we had lunch at Laval just to get a clear understanding of what the food was like there, because that was another one of the complaints that a number of you brought forward.

You said today that although we went, one day doesn't qualify as a true interpretation of what happens there. I have to say that while I have my own specific understanding after visiting the three facilities which model we should be running, Laval isn't one of them. I find that the comments of organizations that are not Amnesty International and are not Red Cross....

You don't have any specific obligation under any provincial or federal government jurisdiction. You're free to go there and visit with potential refugees and those who are being detained there, but you don't have any official responsibility to do so on behalf of any government.

[Jenny Jeanes]

No, we're not there on behalf of any government. We're a non-governmental organization, but for many years we have been visiting the holding centres in Montreal, and not just the one in Laval but the previous incarnations as well. We have a formal agreement with the Canada Border Services Agency that dictates what our access is and what our role is. Although we're not the UNHCR and we're not the Red Cross, we do play an essential role. We're there every week, whereas those organizations that have an official mandate with the government go far less often, several times per year.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

We heard from those organizations while we were there in terms of getting their perspective on it. Whenever they have concerns, those concerns are immediately brought forward to the CBSA officials and are dealt with regardless of the level of complaint or concern.

I find it somewhat conflicting that while it may be true that detention isn't as good as freedom, it's a lot better than where they may have come from in seeking refugee status. Individuals without identification, such as the potential war criminals Mr. Oette was speaking to, would have the potential to seek means of being held other than detention. While I empathize with what you're saying, and you've told some very sad stories in your testimony, I'm left with the impression that one of the three facilities across the country may be run more effectively and efficiently in dealing with the clientele and the refugee applicants who are there. For that matter, they aren't necessarily refugee applicants. Some of them are there because they face deportation because they have been determined not to qualify for permanent residency, extended temporary visas, or refugee status. There is a requirement for those folks to be detained to make sure they do return to their country of origin.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Your time has expired, Mr. Dykstra.

Ms. Freeman is next. This is the first opportunity I've had; you're a permanent member of the committee, and I want to welcome you.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have five minutes.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you very much.

My questions are for Jenny Jeanes. Thank you for your presentation. I found it very informative.

Could you please talk about the need to support refugees and their integration into the community? I think this really touches on security-related issues. Can you please explain how these actions, in addition to being good things to do from a humanitarian point of view, are positive initiatives for Canada's security?

[Jenny Jeanes]

Thank you.

I think that the committee's visits to prevention centres in Canada is a very important initiative. Congratulations. I hope my comments today will complement that information. In fact, by visiting the centre, we can see what the conditions are like, but we cannot really get an idea of the procedures surrounding detention.

As for the impact on refugees and their integration, it is important to know that a number of people I am speaking about today were later accepted as refugees and began living in Canada. In some cases, these people end up becoming citizens. The first few days, weeks and months were spent in detention. The repercussions may decrease over time, but I think it is important to find a balance between security measures and, as you said, the humanitarian side of things.

Our agency's goal is not to look at the financial costs of detention, but it is an important issue. When there are minors, people who are ill and seniors involved, many more resources are required from the agency. For example, transport to the hospital is expensive. Moreover, the centre needs more security guards and specialized education services. These constitute significant costs.

However, should the government want to really look at security issues, the money could be spent in other ways. The vulnerability of people during the proceedings and all the factors of detention need to be taken into account. I think the UNHCR directives are very helpful in that regard. In fact, it clearly says that all the factors, be it identity, vulnerability or all the other possible solutions, need to be considered. To promote security, a balance really must be found between the amounts of money spent with respect to detention.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Since I have been here, a lot of witnesses who have appeared as part of this study have spoken about the technology associated with physical security measures at the border.

How effective are these measures compared with something like community support, again, in terms of security?

[Jenny Jeanes]

I didn't really understand your question. Are you talking about technology at the border?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

For example, biometrics, fingerprinting…

[Jenny Jeanes]

The investigation measures are used to identify people. But in this field, the money may be better spent in some cases than in others. As for alternatives to detention, the investigations could go on. I mentioned examples where the information about the identity of individuals was quite sufficient. I'm not talking about releasing someone whose identity is not at all known to us. Vulnerability is still important. A 75-year-old woman from the Democratic Republic of the Congo who speaks only Lingala may present less of a risk to society than another detainee. In that case, vulnerability is also a very important factor.

When there is information about a person's identity, the current system is not flexible enough to enable the Canada Border Services Agency and the IRB to release that person more quickly and spend the money more effectively.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today.

We are studying security, and there are a few tools we have heard about repeatedly from witnesses and experts in the field that we would like to get your opinion on.

I'm going to start with you, Mr. Oette. Do Germany and the U.K., as far as you know, currently track the entry and exit of everyone who enters the country?

[Lutz Oette]

I don't know the details, but I know the German prosecutors have a new system in place whereby they screen people with respect to article 1F. I would think they have such checking in place.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

It is very important for us as a government to identify people prior to allowing them into Canadian society. I think it makes sense to do that before allowing people who are potential risks to the safety and security of our families, children, businesses and communities to walk our streets. That's why we have a detention process, so we can identify them.

Once we know who people are, certainly they're not in detention centres. Once we identify them, they get into the stream of being allowed into the country. Not knowing who they are is a risk for us.

I want to ask Ms. Jeanes my next question. It specifically has to do with biometrics, which has been described to us by the highest law enforcement agencies in our country, CSIS, the RCMP, CBSA, as being a 21st century identification tool. It's an additional tool that our officers will have in attempting to identify non-identified people. What do you think about biometrics?

[Jenny Jeanes]

I have to say that I don't have expertise on biometrics.

As a tool, I think it's worth studying to evaluate its usefulness. Many of the people whom we deal with in detention have never been to Canada before, have often never travelled outside their country of origin, have never made a visa application. Biometrics wouldn't be helpful in identifying them. I really can't speak on biometrics with much authority, but I will say that when it comes to whatever tools CBSA does need to identify people, I would raise the question about costs, and whether with certain detainees there might be better alternatives, which would allow CBSA to pursue its investigation more effectively.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I would suggest to you that spending the money to identify and catch criminals prior to their getting into the homes of our families and neighbours, becoming our neighbours, or walking around our communities is money well spent, certainly. That is an identification tool. We can share information with our friends and partners around the world, and catch people prior to their coming into the country. That is very important.

I share some of your concerns about some of the sad situations you stated, but I think if we go back and see what happened with the Ocean Lady and the Sun Sea, 43 people of some 500 were deemed inadmissible to Canada; 24 had perpetrated crimes in their country of origin, and 19 were deemed to have perpetrated war crimes. Those are 43 people I don't want to be my neighbours, and I know my neighbours don't want them here either.

It's important that we identify who they are.

Tools that we give our law enforcement officers to identify people up front can make life a lot easier for the people whom you're commenting about in your testimony, because they don't want them around them either, and the sooner, the better.

Mr. Oette, are you familiar with the electronic travel authorization? It basically monitors the exit and entry provisions in a perimeter agreement that Canada has signed with the United States. It allows us to know every time a person crosses our borders either by land or air.

[Lutz Oette]

I've heard of it, but I haven't studied it in detail, no.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Are you familiar with it, Ms. Jeanes?

[Jenny Jeanes]

I'm not familiar with that particular initiative, but I can say that in the investigations process, it often occurs that information that helps to identify people is obtained either from the United States or European countries. What I was trying to get at in my presentation is that the way the current system works, there isn't necessarily the possibility for that information to be used in an effective way to release people, in terms of a more efficient system.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Menegakis. Our time has expired, Mr. Oette and Ms. Jeanes. Thank you very much for coming and speaking to us, and enlightening us with your thoughts.

We will suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to reconvene the meeting.

We have two witnesses. Ms. Casipullai, we've met you before, haven't we? And Ms. Douglas has been here, too, I think.