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.