Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2012

[Peter Hill]

We have a very robust detention regime upon which we continue to build and refine, so we have a very sound legislative basis. We have the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has recently updated their detention guidelines. They updated the 1999 guidelines in 2012. Those guidelines inform the detention standards that CBSA has.

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

Thank you.

Now, we've also heard from different witnesses that other countries do use alternatives to detention. We heard testimony from various witnesses about alternatives, which suggested that these alternatives should be used more often. The Toronto bail program, a community-based supervision program for foreign nationals, is just one example. Electronic monitoring and women's shelters were other viable alternatives discussed in committee.

Has CIC or CBSA studied alternative strategies besides detention, and if so, can you share your findings with the committee?

[Peter Hill]

Absolutely, the agency is quite active in assessing options for detention, including a range of alternatives. You have highlighted a number of important ones. The Toronto bail program is recognized globally as a best practice. Electronic monitoring has been used by the agency primarily in relation to individuals subject to security certificates, but it has been ordered used by the IRB in a limited number of other cases. Of course, we have terms and conditions that are imposed by the IRB so that any threats or concerns are mitigated in conjunction with the release of an individual from detention.

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

Thank you.

A recent article published in The Guardian sheds light on the lobbying efforts private operators of immigration detention facilities have been undertaking right here in Ottawa. In March 2012, MP Rick Dykstra and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, met with executives from Serco, one of the biggest players in the private immigration detention business worldwide. Minister Kenny also toured two Serco-run detention centres in Australia back in September 2010, and stated that he had “learned a lot”. The article highlights various concerns with privately managed detention centres, including riots by detained asylum seekers held at a Serco-run facility in Australia in protest of prolonged detention.

Has CIC or CBSA studied the issue of public versus private detention, and if so, what were the key findings?

[Peter Hill]

Indeed, we have undertaken a number of assessments in the past, and we are currently quite active in terms of assessing options for detention. We exchange information with our five-country conference partners—Australia, the U.K., the U.S., and New Zealand—to be familiar with the kinds of approaches they're using. We take that into consideration, in terms of the Canadian context.

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

Peter, just to get to it, have we looked at asylum centres here in Canada being run by private enterprise?

[Peter Hill]

We haven't formally undertaken a study that's aimed at that. We're working quite closely with our Correctional Services of Canada portfolio partners, looking at a government solution or government options to advance our detention practices.

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

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to biometric technology. We're starting to implement that with regard to visiting visas or all temporary visas. It's supposed to start in 2013.

Mr. Linklater, can you indicate which countries this is going to apply to?

[Les Linklater]

As we discussed earlier in previous appearances, we are now working on the list that will be established through regulations, we think in the next number of weeks. At that point we'll be able to move forward with our implementation plan, with a view to start collecting biometrics from nationals of those countries, likely starting in September of 2013. That's correct.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

But there's no state secret here. We know which countries we're going to be having it rolled out into. When are the Philippines and India going to be required to go through biometrics?

[Les Linklater]

At this point, Mr. Chair, subject to approval of the list of countries that will come out through the regulatory process for prepublication, I can't indicate at which point in time certain countries would be subject to the biometrics requirement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

What's the process, or who's involved in making the decisions as to which countries would be rolled out, and when would be the last date in which all countries would be expected to be on site?

[Les Linklater]

Essentially what we've done, in terms of working with our partners, and, again, subject to approval, is we've looked at countries that require a visa to enter Canada in the first instance. Within that population we've looked at the number of immigration infractions that we see relative to that population. We also look at issues related to criminality and those countries where we already do have fairly detailed security screening requirements. We're also consulting across government on bilateral and multilateral considerations that would perhaps have an impact on the imposition of biometrics. I would also remind you that this is going to be a limited rollout in this phase, and it will not cover all countries that are subject to visa requirements.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'm thinking that the Philippines is Canada's number one source country for immigrants nowadays. There are a lot of visiting visas going through that country. Chandigarh, India.... India is a country where there's been a great deal of concern raised in regard to getting visas approved.

Can you indicate clearly whether or not those two countries will be in the first rollout in 2013?

[Les Linklater]

As I said, Mr. Chair, the list of countries has still not been approved for release through regulations, so it would be inappropriate to comment at this time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

What about in terms of the anticipated cost? Now you're going to be requiring a live picture. Are you expecting them to go down to the embassy facilities where the picture and fingerprints are taken? What sorts of costs can the consumer expect to pay for this?

[Les Linklater]

In terms of service delivery, Canada is not present in all countries where we actually have a visa requirement, so we have been working to expand the network of visa application centres that are essentially service providers. That will be the focal point for the client to visit to provide their fingerprints, have their photo taken, and to also submit their application, which is then scanned and uploaded into our global case management system.

In terms of setting the fee, again, because of the user fee exemption, this is subject to the regulatory process. When the regulations do come out, the fee will be set in the regulation, but it will be competitive with what other countries are charging.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

When can we expect to hear something? In the next two months? Because 2013 is quickly approaching.

[Les Linklater]

Right. Subject, as I said, to approvals, I would suggest that that information will be available by the end of the calendar year.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Weston.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I have four questions. The first two have to do with Mexico. Last week on the news, we heard about the swearing in of the country's new president, Pena Nieto, and his visit to Canada.

You mentioned the beyond the border initiative, which concerns the perimeter security and economic competitiveness of Canada and the United States. My first question is why was Mexico not included in the agreement.

What's more, Mr. Linklater, you said something very interesting about Mexico. An important aspect of electronic travel authorization is that it will give Canada greater flexibility to lift visa requirements. Could that flexibility apply to Mexico, which is an increasing source of tourism for Canada?

[Les Linklater]

Thank you.

I would say first that the agreement between Canada and the United States remains a bilateral agreement.

But I would add that Mexico and the United States also have a bilateral agreement around management of the U.S. southern border. At this point, there has been no discussion about bringing the two together. The issues tend to be unique to either the northern or southern U.S. border. From this perspective, while a NAFTA partner, each country is pursuing individual initiatives with the United States.

With regard to the application of the ETA to Mexico specifically, I think it's interesting to note that, as I said in my opening remarks, the ETA does give CIC and CBSA a more flexible tool to be able to look at specific countries and to move from a broad-based blunt instrument of a visa, which addresses risk at a national level, to focus on risk at the individual level. From a CIC perspective, looking at this potential—much as Australia has done through essentially a universal visa requirement, but as an ETA—has helped facilitate legitimate travel from a number of countries, while ensuring that there is screening done to protect Australia's safety and security.

With the ETA, we feel that where there are countries where there may be significant risks that can be mitigated by shifting to an individual assessment, those countries would be areas where we would want to assess the feasibility of using ETA in the first instance, and then rolling it out if in fact it's found that the risk could be managed through the ETA as opposed to a visa.