Public Safety Committee on Feb. 16th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

Madame Morin.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Head. I know that you spend a lot of time with our committee, so I thank you for being here once again.

I just have a few small questions about the use of the bracelet we have been talking about. If we managed to correct all the weaknesses in this system, would you recommend that it be used alone or in combination with a rehabilitation program for the offenders in question?

[Don Head]

That is a good question.

For me, it needs to be part of an overall rehabilitative, continuum-of-care program approach. On EM by itself, I have no problem accepting the research that has been done.

Based on my own experience, EM by itself is not going to change moderate-risk or high-risk offenders' behaviours. It needs to be part of a process that has the engagement of the parole officer with them and the programs and the interventions that go along with that.

In terms of the research that's been done, all indications are that if you couple all those things together, you're more than likely going to have a positive impact on recidivism. But if you just do EM by itself, no research suggests you're going to get a positive change in recidivism rates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all of you for your questions.

Again, we've had very good answers and good testimony.

Thank you for appearing here, Commissioner. In the past when you've come before us, members from all parties have said that we should try to get the commissioner back again.

[Don Head]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Don't forget where we live.

We will suspend for one moment and welcome our next guests to the table.

Again, thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner.

Welcome back, everyone. Thank you for not leaving your spots in between these two hours.

In the second hour, we have appearing before us Mr. Peter Hill, director general of post-border programs. I see that we also have with us Ms. Susan Kramer, director of case management for Canada Border Services. I guess that's the two. I thought that perhaps there would be another one who was going to be here.

Is Glenda Lavergne not...? Is Ms. Kramer taking her place? All right. That's perfect.

We also understand that you have an opening statement.

Mr. Hill, we'll ask you to make that statement and then we'll proceed to a round of questioning.

[Peter Hill, Director General, Post-Border Programs, Canada Border Services Agency]

Good afternoon. Thank you to the committee for the invitation to be here today.

The members of the committee realize that the agency's mandate is large and complex. Our Border Services officers are peace officers who are bound to enforce any laws respecting customs and immigration, including the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, not to mention some 90 other laws and regulations of Parliament.

Since 2003, the CBSA has played a key role in immigration to Canada. It has assumed the port-of-entry and enforcement mandates formerly held by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

In administering and enforcing the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the CBSA's role is very specific. We are responsible for admitting individuals into Canada who meet the requirements under the law and refusing those who do not; referring refugee claims made at ports of entry to the Immigration and Refugee Board; preventing illegally documented people from entering the country; detaining people who pose a security risk or a danger to the public; and removing people who are inadmissible to Canada.

While the role of the border services officer at the physical border may be widely known, what might be lesser known to the committee is the role of our inland enforcement officers.

Our immigration legislation specifies who is prohibited on Canadian territory. That includes people who represent a threat to national security, who are involved in war crimes, who are involved in organized crime, who are criminals, people who are working, studying or living in Canada without permission, and defrauders.

The CBSA currently employs 409 inland enforcement officers who carry out a broad range of activities. These activities include investigating, arresting, detaining, and removing individuals from the country, as well as representing the minister in hearings before the Immigration and Refugee Board. However, the system is not a linear one, and I would like to describe first for the committee members how the detention process works in order to present how electronic monitoring fits into that framework.

It's important to differentiate the circumstances whereby individuals would be detained. Unlike detentions in a criminal justice environment, detentions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are not meant to be punitive. Immigration legislation has specific parameters that allow the CBSA to detain someone under very specific circumstances: first, if the individual poses a danger to the public; second, if they are at risk of fleeing to avoid an immigration process, such as removal; and third, if the individual's identity has not been confirmed.

When an individual is detained, the CBSA can grant a release within the first 48 hours and may impose certain terms and conditions that must be adhered to by that individual upon release. If the CBSA releases an individual, there are a number of terms and conditions available to mitigate any risk an individual presents.

However, in those circumstances where those options have been deemed to be insufficient, the CBSA has used electronic monitoring. If, after 48 hours, an individual remains in detention, the reasons for detention must be reviewed by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Should the decision to detain be upheld, the Immigration and Refugee Board must conduct additional detention reviews after seven days, and every 30 days thereafter, until such time as a person is released from detention, including for removal from Canada.

At each of these detention reviews, it is the Immigration and Refugee Board that has the sole authority to decide to either continue detention or release the individual, and it must take into account specific considerations as required by the regulations, including the availability of alternatives to detention. The CBSA represents the position of the minister at the Immigration and Refugee Board concerning the grounds for detention during these reviews.

Once it weighs all of these considerations, the Immigration and Refugee Board may decide to release the individual with certain terms and conditions imposed, such as posting cash or performance bonds, reporting requirements, curfews, and living arrangements. Although seldom used, electronic monitoring is also one of these several options.

To date, the CBSA's use of electronic monitoring has been quite limited. It has been primarily used on individuals subject to security certificates, where the Federal Court has ordered its use, as well as for some cases involving serious criminality. In these cases, electronic monitoring was used in conjunction with a range of other measures to mitigate risk.

To describe the technology, the CBSA uses two types of devices: a one-piece unit for the ankle, and a two-piece unit that has an ankle and a hip component. It provides the ability to monitor the individual's location by satellite and cellular signals. That way, if a GPS reading isn't available, then the cellular tracking technology would take over.

The technology is sound, but it is not without its challenges. For example, it provides location information only, and not information such as what the individual is doing or with whom they may be interacting. Large, tall buildings or subways in an urban core affect the GPS monitoring signal, which can be weakened or refracted, interrupting readings of the individual's location. The battery life generally lasts one to two days. The individual is required to recharge the unit, which can take up to two hours.

Mr. Chair, I can confirm to the committee that the use of monitoring has been effective for meeting our needs in the situations mentioned above.

Application of this technology by the CBSA has been on a relatively small scale to date.

I would not be in a position to comment at this time with certainty regarding the use of the technology in future on a larger scale. A thorough program review and cost-benefit analysis would first need to be completed before giving any serious consideration to moving in the direction of a broader application.

That being said, the CBSA remains open to the potential use of electronic monitoring on a broader scale.

I thank you once again for this opportunity. We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hill.

We'll move into the first round of questioning.

Ms. Hoeppner, please.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, both of you, for being here at our committee today.

The first thing I just want to make sure is clear on the record is that CBSA has nothing to do with the decisions regarding removal orders or any of those kinds of decisions. You would just be enforcing removal orders that are decided by the IRB.

[Peter Hill]

That's right. The agency is responsible for enforcing the removal of persons who are deemed to be inadmissible to Canada by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Can you tell me how many removal orders would be issued every year in Canada?

[Peter Hill]

Yes. I can tell you that during the past five years the agency has removed quite a number of individuals. In the last two years, the agency has removed over 15,000 individuals. Going back to five years, the number of removals has ranged over 12,000, so the range for each year is 12,000 to 15,000. In the last two years, we've reached a milestone in terms of the most removals in the history of the agency.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Can I ask you to clarify total actual removal orders compared to which ones you've successfully removed?

[Peter Hill]

Yes. We have what we refer to as a warrant inventory for removals and a working inventory of individuals who have exhausted all of the recourse mechanisms they have under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In our working inventory today, we have approximately 17,000 cases, so we're removing about 15,500, as of last year, on an annual basis.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Okay. Maybe I'm not quite getting the answer I'm looking for. I'm just wondering basically how many outstanding ones there are.

Do you get a total of 17,000 removal orders, let's say, for a variety of reasons...? I understand that maybe some are warrants and some are working, but of those, you're able to successfully remove 15,000, so that means there are 2,000 removal orders that you're just not able to enforce because people have disappeared. How many? That's what I'm looking for: that difference.

[Peter Hill]

Okay. We have approximately 17,000 cases in our working inventory. We're in the process of taking action to remove those. We have cases where we have warrants for their arrest for removal; in that category, we have approximately 44,000 individuals.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

So 44,000 individuals under warrant...? You don't know where they are?

[Peter Hill]

These individuals have a warrant for their arrest. By and large, the majority of them—in the range of 80% of those cases—are failed refugee claimants without any criminality or security concerns. They have absconded—they have not shown up for an immigration process or they have not shown up for their removal—so we have warrants for their arrest for removal.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Would you say it's accurate that there are 44,000 people in Canada illegally? Or is there some way of determining if they maybe have already left the country? What's your thinking in terms of those 44,000 people?

[Peter Hill]

There is the possibility that up to perhaps 20% of those individuals for who we have warrants for arrest for removal have left the country. We have undertaken projects to address the warrant inventory in the past. Based on those projects, we've been able to determine that up to about 20% may have left the country. Does that answer your question?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Yes. So there are still a lot. Obviously, 20% is a portion that may have left, but the rest are still in Canada, here illegally—for a variety of reasons, but they're here illegally—and you're not able to find them and remove them. This is really what we're hearing.

[Peter Hill]

The agency is of course working to find those individuals to remove them. The fact that we have a warrant for their arrest also means that those warrants are showing up in the Canadian Police Information Centre. As law enforcement officers are conducting their work across the country, if they come across an individual, they'll be able to arrest them and hand them over to the agency. Then we would detain them for removal.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Okay.

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have two minutes.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I want to go on, then, to the electronic monitoring part of this and how this possibly could help you do your job.

We heard testimony on Tuesday in terms of how electronic monitoring may not be as useful for offenders in trying to rehabilitate or reduce recidivism, but we did hear from those same experts that possibly in the case of immigration purposes, where we're not trying to rehabilitate anyone, where we're just trying to make sure we know where they are so we can remove them as needed, there seemed to be a consensus around everyone's opinion that it could possibly be a useful tool.

You said that right now your use of it is limited. Can you tell us why it's limited? What could we do to see it used more? Is it something that you think your agency would value and would want to be able to use more? Could you tell me why it's limited and what we can do?