Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 19th, 2012

[George Platsis]

Will do. My apologies. Sorry, translator.

I also have concern that trials and lengthy sentences are avoided by pleading guilty to a charge of two years minus a day. This allows the foreign national to seek review of his deportation order.

Multiple assaults, failure to comply with court orders, fraud, drug trafficking, in all these offences deportation was put off by an average of six years, because of the sentence length. I think a gap clearly exists. The criminal justice system and the immigration review system do not align, resulting in a situation that can be exploited.

There is concern over the public policy consideration. With respect, I feel these fears are overstated, particularly when looked at contextually. I see the provision as the final stop in ensuring Canada’s safety and security, not the front-end consideration to admissibility. The notwithstanding clause is essentially a public policy consideration, designed to override section 2 and sections 7 through 15 of the charter. It is only used in exceptional circumstances to make important policy decisions that are isolated from judicial review. I do not mean to equate the two, but a comparison here may prove beneficial.

Invoking the notwithstanding clause, though, has ramifications for the government of the day. The political cost could be significant, and I believe this is why we do not see it invoked frequently. Respectfully, in the larger context, this is how I see the public policy consideration being used. Any misuse of this provision, particularly in today’s real-time media and information context, I think would prove to be politically damaging. If used in exceptional circumstances to address a gap such as barring a foreign national who spews hate speech, I think this is in the Canadian interest.

The Criminal Code of Canada in sections 318, 319, and 320 forbids hate propaganda, with clear definitions. The Canadian Human Rights Act, under sections 3 and 13, also has definitions. Hate speech may not be a crime in another country, but it is in ours. Therefore, I see this provision as closing a gap. It is not unreasonable, especially when the government of the day has to consider the enormous political cost if the provision is misused.

Lastly, has the committee discussed the public policy consideration to be used for admissibility in extraordinary cases? The example of the foreign national who came at a very young age and knows only Canada as his home has been cited many times. Could the provision be used to keep somebody in Canada for humanitarian or compassionate grounds for these rare cases? I am not sure if this was the intent of the public policy consideration, but if used in this way it could certainly address some concerns that have come before this committee.

In the larger context of national security, which includes information gathering coupled with law enforcement along the full continuum of the immigration process, taking into account potential political considerations, I feel the bill is balanced and proactively addresses many of the issues Canada faces, while also serving the Canadian interest in the long term.

At this point, I would ask my colleague Professor Perchal to speak more slowly than I did and highlight some more specific cases.

Thank you.

[LCol Walter Perchal]

I, too, am a child of immigrants. I therefore echo my colleague’s comments, particularly that the majority of immigrants in this country are law-abiding and honest. They are striving to establish a better life and to integrate Canadian values into their own.

On a go-forward basis, I strongly believe that Canada’s future prosperity is directly linked to a sound immigration policy. That policy should attract the best minds and best talents in the world. It should welcome those who wish to adopt a Canadian set of values. It should also incorporate the strong values and beliefs we cherish, which includes assisting people based on compassionate and humanitarian grounds, no matter where in the world they come from. Furthermore, our society cherishes the security and stability of the rule of law. As Canadians, we have a right to be before the courts to defend ourselves, and so should foreign nationals who are here temporarily or on a permanent basis.

However, as a believer in planning for even exceptional cases, we should not lose sight of the bigger picture. If the committee accepts realities, including the dangers of the world in 2012, as I and my colleagues have illustrated here and in the past, the amendments proposed in Bill C-43 should be characterized as the end point of the immigration process, not the starting point.

There have been recent examples of potential abuse of our welcoming system. Most recently, the Project Sara report, with which I'm sure you are familiar, by CBSA has warned of a significant level of welfare fraud and other crimes. Violations have stemmed from altered or falsified names, financial theft, manipulation to receive benefits even after deportation, and even the prospect and possibility that there's been human trafficking.

What the Project Sara report demonstrates is that abuse of our system is not only letting some of the wrong people into our country, it's also drawing valuable resources away from critical areas that should be addressed in the interest of those who should be admitted to our country. These include services to help our newest residents find jobs and do things such as learn our official languages.

Additionally, the Project Sara findings show us that there is a level of sophistication being used, thus exploiting our existing safety net. For example, travel patterns are no longer from point A to point B. Rather, there are intermediary countries being used. For example, a person will travel from Europe to Mexico, sneak into the United States, and subsequently enter Canada through border towns in various communities, with an aim to making a claim within Canada.

There have been calls for increased RCMP patrols along the border, including better staffing and tougher detention measures. I would suggest that these are warranted, for if we did a better job protecting our borders at all points of entry—land, sea, and air—there would be less need to focus on detention measures.

With respect, though, simply having more RCMP patrols along our borders does not address the heart of the issue. This issue is more complex as we look to appropriate decreasing resources. For example, to have increased patrols, the RCMP needs to have a level of insight as to where to patrol, what to look for, and who to be on the lookout for. Ladies and gentlemen, efficiency in this area is a function of the degree to which we have effective information or intelligence. Furthermore, increased patrols along the border address only specific cases, not the whole issue, especially when we have certain groups making disproportionate numbers of refugee claims at some of our country’s largest airports or ports. This is why I feel it is appropriate to request, if a CBSA official deems it necessary, a further review, in certain cases, by CSIS officials. With respect, if people want to enter our country, it is reasonable for us to want to know who they are.

To give you a micro perspective, there's a simple question that animates this perspective: Would you give to a stranger the keys to your house? Ladies and gentlemen, our house is Canada. We have a right to know who's coming into our house. We have a right to protect ourselves from potential danger from a person unknown to us in terms of their background or intentions.

I have stated that the amendments proposed by Bill C-43 should be looking along the continuum of the immigration process, not judged by a singular amendment. Increased RCMP patrols and increased staff at borders are of limited value if we do not have the information and intelligence backbone to support them. They are of even less value if our agency officials do not have the necessary training to spot potential issues.

The ideal situation is to make sure that potential abusers never reach Canada. Having said that, I'm fully cognizant of the fact that our defences will never exclude 100% of those who would seek to do us harm. This is why I see Bill C-43 amendments as final safeguards in a larger apparatus, which includes but is not limited to national security, law enforcement, support and assistance to the immigrant or refugee claimant, and integration into Canadian society.

If a foreign national is deemed to be a threat to national security, they should not be admitted into Canada. If an offence is committed by a foreign national, they deserve their day in court, but we should not hold them to a different standard. We should hold them to a single Canadian standard. For those born in this country, it is a rare privilege. For those not as fortunate, this is not a right. It remains a privilege. It is therefore reasonable to expect people who wish to come to Canada to have a clean record, just as it is reasonable for us to expect them to obey the laws and the expectations of this society.

Unfortunately, not only is our current system exploitable, but it is dated as compared to the systems of our international partners and allies. For example, places like Japan, the United States, and the European Union, along with a string of other nations, all require something as simple as photos on visas. Canada does not. Furthermore, we lack back-end safeguards that support our front-line agents. While we are seeking to make a uniquely Canadian policy, we should consider the benefits that other countries employ, particularly when a border officer deems a foreign national inadmissible. Within the Canadian context, according to the Treasury Board, rarely is an initial assessment overturned. In the period of 2009-10, only 3% or approximately 100 cases were overturned, yet 18% of those who were not overturned, approximately 600 people, failed to appear for their hearings, which had been granted to them as a right.

I have brought before this committee only a few issues, but as my colleague noted, I agree that Bill C-43 should be looked at in a more holistic manner along the entire continuum of the immigration and refugee process. Within that context, the bill addresses many of the issues Canada faces. Additionally, as we have all noted previously, the backbone of any apparatus used is sound information. Without this, we cannot make informed decisions.

At this point, I would like to ask a great friend of Canada, retired Rear-Admiral Donald Loren of the U.S. Navy, to give us his perspective on how his country has had to face similar issues.

Thank you.

[Rear-Admiral, Retired) Donald Loren (Senior Distinguished Faculty, Centre of Excellence in Security, Resilience, and Intelligence, Schulich Executive Education Centre, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

As a great friend of Canada, I am greatly pleased to be here again. As before, it is at my colleague's request that I appear before you. All comments made by me today are my own and are not reflective of any of the organizations that I may be affiliated with.

I recognize that today's focus is on Bill C-43, but as I have noted in my previous testimonies before this committee, I am not here to address the law specifically, as it would be inappropriate for me as an American to do so. What I wish to offer today to all of you is a perspective on how my own country has dealt with similar issues, including challenges and lessons learned, and the factors we considered in our own decision-making process.

As deputy director for operations support at the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center and as deputy assistant secretary of defense for homeland security integration, I was able to see first-hand how immigration patterns in my own country have changed over the years. While these pattern changes do not mirror Canada's, I am certain there are many commonalities between our nations.

As is the case for many of you here in Canada, my own ancestors in the United States came from the old world. In my own case, my great-grandparents and grandparents immigrated to the United States from Europe. But is the concept of immigration the same today as it was when my ancestors crossed the ocean?

The long journey of past immigrants had a profound and irreversible effect on their lives. Moving to the new world, to places like the United States, Canada, and Australia, was driven by establishing permanent integration into a western society founded on the principles of fundamental freedoms, the right to own property, and the ability to live a prosperous life. Also, the immigrants' intent rarely included plans to travel back and forth between country of origin and country of immigration. Rather, it was to pick up and leave for good.

Immigrants left their homeland knowing full well they might never see their family again. Upon arrival at places like Ellis Island, Halifax, and Fremantle, immigrants strove hard to integrate by learning the local language, working in some of the harshest conditions, and sadly even suffering the treatment of being labelled a second-class citizen.

Their tenacity and perseverance in these hard times has been woven into our respective histories and societies, highlighted by meaningful contributions we should all be proud of. But as my colleagues noted, we need to consider today's realities, which include technology as an enabler, and ever-changing intent.

Airplanes have reshaped immigration patterns and travel behaviour. Travel that once took two weeks and cost a small fortune now takes hours and is affordable for most persons. Communication was limited to the monthly letter and the odd short and expensive phone call. Today we place unlimited international phone calls for a flat fee. We have video chats. Even paltry amounts of cash that were tucked away in the pages of a book or under the mattress sent by mail have been replaced by instantaneous wire transfers and electronic banking.

Integration is different as well. Many pressures of blending into a community are gone, as we have local ethnic towns such as, in the United States, Little Italy, Greek Town,and Chinatown. When these towns reach critical mass, virtually every service and amenity is offered in the language and the tradition of the home country.

Satellite TV and the Internet allow the immigrant to follow events back home, potentially limiting their desire to learn English or French. Instead of reading the local Canadian or American newspapers, they follow news of their homeland in their native language.

Immigration used to be about work and opportunity. Now it includes family reunification as well, a once costly process for a sponsor who often was the original immigrant. Today there is a societal safety net designed to protect the newest members of our society, something that did not exist for the first and second wave of immigrants to my own country.

The above is not designed to cast a wide stroke on the immigrant's ability to integrate; rather, it is designed to demonstrate that the context has changed considerably.

Like my colleagues, I also believe that the majority of immigrants are honest, law-abiding, decent people with strong values. Statistically, the percentage of those seeking to take advantage or do harm to either of our countries is small, but as my colleagues noted, the asymmetry has expanded the threat spectrum and forces us to reconsider intents. I can say with strong certainty, given my experiences, that those who seek to take advantage of us and strive to hurt us use unbelievable levels of sophistication, some of which are not necessarily evident at first glance.

Manuals on how to abuse our judicial system can be found on the Internet. Shady agents within our own countries consult on how to beat the system. Preferred travel routes and entry points are identified and shared. What is even more worrisome in the 21st century is the coalescing of transnational organized crime and terrorism. What may seem like petty crime may be part of a more elaborate scheme to circumvent the safeguards of our respective immigration systems.

Lines have become blurred requiring us to do more. From a national security perspective, this can include the expansion of information gathering. As noted previously, HUMINT, human intelligence gathering, is vital to the security of the nation, and as my colleagues stated before, HUMINT should not be viewed as some shadowy intelligence operation, but rather something that can include immigrant community engagement by local elected officials and law enforcement officials, a tactic that if instituted properly can be very effective. From a law enforcement perspective, we want to ensure even foreign nationals get their day in court if they commit a crime, but we must have legislative and operational tools that remove them faster from our respective homes.

I echo the comments of my colleagues. Once a person is within our borders, it becomes much more difficult to deport him. All western democracies face this challenge, which is why I believe any legislative actions you decide should take account of the dynamics of our time. Investing in systems, processes, and most importantly, people who focus on proactivity and protecting our interests should be paramount.

In 2012 and moving forward, it is not unreasonable to want to know more about somebody who is trying to enter our countries. By the same token, you want to ensure that privacy and fundamental freedoms are protected and people are treated with dignity and respect, fully understanding that there are legitimate humanitarian and compassionate causes that must be dealt with as they arise. A proactive strategy which prevents unfriendly foreign nationals from ever reaching our borders is a strategy that reduces the need for back-end safeguards and frees up resources for those who have legitimate need of them.

Furthermore, measures that seek out malicious intent are not a great deal to ask of anyone wishing to pass your borders, particularly in today's context. I believe that Canada, much like the United States, will welcome those who seek to share our values and respect our laws. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to hold foreign nationals to the same standards we hold our own citizens.

In closing, both the United States and Canada have talented professionals who can assist with these issues. We must reach out to them with a view of supporting the human and technical resources required, insomuch that I feel it will ensure that the legitimate foreign national not only stays both in the United States and in Canada, but also makes meaningful contributions to both of our great societies.

Thank you again for having me here with you today.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, gentlemen.

Members of the committee have some questions. We'll start with Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, through you and to our witnesses, thank you once again for being here. Admiral, welcome back to Canada. It's good to see you again, sir.

Before we start our discussion, I'd like to point out a couple of things about where Canada really is. We remain one of the top countries in the world that welcomes refugees. We welcome more refugees per capita than any other G-20 country. Canada welcomes approximately one in ten of the world's resettled refugees and that's more per capita than almost any other country. In fact, our government has agreed to increase the resettling of refugees, in this case, by over 2,500 a year.

As for immigrants, we allowed over 280,000 immigrants into the country last year. The vast majority of them are good, decent, hard-working, contributing people. Those are the people we want in Canada, as Professor Perchal pointed out. We need to attract the best, most industrious minds out there to help us build this country.

Admiral, one of the things you ended your discussion on is the knowledge about our laws an individual has coming into this country. Is ignorance about its laws any excuse when you come to a new country? What's the responsibility of that individual?

[RAdm Donald Loren]

Thank you, sir.

The same thing holds with traffic violations. Ignorance of the law is no defence. That doesn't mean we can't be compassionate and reasonable and use judgment when we determine intent, but ignorance is not a defence.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Colonel Perchal, what's your view on education? A previous witness suggested that the universities have a role to play in citizenship education and people who are PRs and perhaps not citizens at the time. What would your view be?

[LCol Walter Perchal]

We have a unique issue here that one of the parliamentarians mentioned in earlier testimony. We are the only country in the western world that has no national minister of education. Since this is a provincial responsibility, this is something that needs to be encouraged, and certainly should be encouraged, and a view of Canada should be facilitated through our universities. It is difficult to do that through the federal level except by way of asking or encouraging it. Certainly, the federal level should both ask and encourage; that's an important function.

I agree with one of your colleagues, Mr. Opitz, that that form of education should frankly be downloaded all the way from the university level down to the school level. For a parent who doesn't speak the language, a kid would know there might be concerns or there might be issues, and that family can be sensitized to any concerns or issues proactively as opposed to reactively when somebody knocks on the door and asks what they are doing here. I think these issues should be brought to the attention of the public.

Again, I submit that the universities and schools are not the only, nor perhaps even in the 21st century the best, form of education. I think it would be incumbent upon us in our national interest to bring that out to people using media. Certainly, the various forms of media have a great deal more penetration, particularly among young people, than many university professors.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

You also mentioned the cost to this country. Can you talk about the cost to this country, not only in CBSA and RCMP patrols, but the possible cost of high criminality in this country and the cost of victims?

[LCol Walter Perchal]

I want to address that to leverage off a point that Admiral Loren made. There is a real lack of consciousness in Canada about this thing called asymmetry. The 21st century has fundamentally changed the game. For the first time in human history, a single individual can make war on the entire planet. A single individual using a technology as common as his computer can cause devastating destruction in a country.

Yesterday I did a simulation at York University. We used exactly that scenario of a single individual in this country, unhappy for whatever reason, who perpetrated a cyber attack that impacted our critical infrastructure. The cost of that was devastating and the best professionals in the room had no idea how to cope with something as simple as that.

We have things to fear that we did not need to fear a generation ago. We have an entire generation of people who can cause us injury, unexpected in previous times. That's why it is important for us to be vigilant. We are not concerned about the vast majority of immigrants who come to this country. What we are concerned about is the asymmetrical threat that can cause us undue harm. That harm can be not disastrous, ladies and gentlemen; it can in fact be catastrophic.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Admiral, this morning this committee had a chat about the ETA system, protocols to keep people offshore, as you know, that would be modelled very similarly on the American system which, I think, when implemented will help a great deal in that regard. You also talked about the acquisition of intelligence and sharing that acquisition.

Can you elaborate on how human and other intelligence capabilities will be shared among allies?

[RAdm Donald Loren]

Remember, intent is a significant piece of the types of things we're discussing here today. The way you determine intent is generally through intelligence, whether it be associations, previous history, relationships, or activities. There has to be the opportunity to determine intent.

As I have said at previous meetings here, when we discussed biometrics, the intention is not to spy on citizens of our own countries or other countries. The intention is to use the means that are available to us, again respecting the dignity of individuals, to attempt to determine intent. Unfortunately, most of these types of things that we have done in the past have been forensics, trying to determine what a person's intent was because they committed a particular act.

As people now gain access to our countries, as people now have the type of capabilities that Walter has mentioned, where a single person or a small group of people can effect tremendous damage on the security of both nations, it's imperative to have some understanding of the intent, the associations and relationships of the people who are trying to seek permanent residency on our shores and, certainly, as we do to some extent, of the people who only wish to come and conduct business on our shores. As the times have changed, the nature of the threat has changed. We need to have different ways of monitoring the people who are coming to our nation and trying to determine the true intent of those people coming to our nation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today.

Further to your comments, Mr. Platsis and Mr. Perchal, I, too, am a child of immigrants. I am actually the case of the young child who truly knows Canada as her only safe home.

The safety and security of Canadians and our communities is a priority of mine, and it is a priority of the NDP. Earlier this month, I co-hosted a community conversation on safety where the leader of the official opposition attended. He took lots of questions from residents of my community in Scarborough. Immigration didn't come up. As we know and as you mentioned, Mr. Platsis, the vast majority of newcomers to Canada are law-abiding people who don't commit crimes. Actually, when people are talking to me about immigration issues, it's generally constituents who are looking for fairer treatment, or a speedier reunification with their families, as you mentioned, Admiral.

What we did hear from residents of Scarborough was the need for preventive strategies and giving law enforcement the resources they need to keep us safe from criminals of all backgrounds, whether they are citizens or not. It was the need to keep the community safe from criminals.

We have also been hearing from witnesses in these committee meetings that the government needs to address the lack of training, resources, integration of information, and monitoring technologies within the responsible public service agencies. We have heard this from witnesses, as well as from Auditor General reports time and time again.

I would like to give you an example. Serious errors appear to also lead to the delays in removing serious criminals, like Clinton Gayle. Lost files, human error, and lack of detention after violating terms and conditions of release have occurred in some of the cases used as examples by the government. How can the current system be improved without eliminating an individual's right to due process? As you mentioned, every person should have their day in court. How can the current system be improved without eliminating a person's right to due process?

Any one of you can answer my questions.

[LCol Walter Perchal]

If I may, I will start on that. One of the traps I think we often get caught in, particularly in the context of our time, which is a very complex time with many issues, is that we tend to institutionalize silos. This is a problem that we have spent a great deal of time thinking about. What silos do by nature is develop their own cultures, resources, and information. What they fail to do is share that information across, which would leverage the capacity to understand the problem in a better way.

The problem of potential criminality is not limited to law enforcement--

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Sorry to interrupt. I simply want to make sure I am understanding you. When you say “institutionalized silos”, what do you mean?

[LCol Walter Perchal]

For example, a police agency has a particular way of looking at the world. That's a function of their experience, the way they see the world, the clients they deal with, the population they have.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

It's the different agencies working in silos rather than integrating.

[LCol Walter Perchal]

Absolutely.

The problem of crime, in your riding or in anyone else's in Canada is not simply a function of a local police force. It may or may not be associated with an immigration issue. It may or may not be associated with a multiplicity of issues. A poor quality education, which is one of the things that came up, tends to say that what we really need to do is to develop holistic approaches.

Certainly, in the matter of people coming into our country, I think that's what we have been pushing toward, a holistic approach that starts as far forward of Canada's borders as possible, based on information that gives us information on a forward base, and leads all the way back to the community where this person ends up residing as a landed immigrant, as a refugee, as a whatever. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, I think we have a right to know as the people who are resident here, who is in our house. We have a right to know who they are and what their background is, but we need resources that come from a multiple number of agencies, not a single agency. There is a great challenge here, however, because we have not yet developed an integrated and secure system that shares information.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

You're saying something similar to what the Auditor General reports have been saying about ensuring integration of resources within CIC.

[LCol Walter Perchal]

Clearly, but that balance—

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I just have one more question. I only have two more minutes left. That's why I'm trying to rush through it. I really apologize for cutting you off.

During a federal inquiry about the same case I mentioned earlier, the Clinton Gayle case, the associate deputy minister, Ian Glen, stated, “Quite simply, the system failed.” As to why, he explained that the department's priority at the time was to target unsuccessful refugee claimants who were on the run rather than criminals. That way, the deportation numbers would be higher.

How is this policy effective in keeping Canadians safe from serious criminals who are not citizens?

Mr. Platsis or anybody may answer.

[George Platsis]

I'm still trying to find the connection between your quotation and the policy.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I'm just taking it based on his explanation following his quotation. They were trying to get the number high for deportations. They weren't focusing on criminals. They were focusing on deportations of unsuccessful refugee claimants at the time. How is that effective policy?

[George Platsis]

I'm not going to comment on that specific case because I don't know it well.

I'm going to turn it back to the comments that Walter was making. I think what the policy is trying to at least lead to is the integration of agencies and to push forward what sort of information we have about people to make informed decisions, to act with the Auditor General.