CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 25, 1999

• 0915

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)): Good morning. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're studying all aspects of the refugee determination system and illegal migrants.

By the rules of the committee, with three members present we can hear presentations. The other members from the opposition are apparently on their way to attend the meeting.

The presentations will be in reverse order of the agenda, with the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada going first. Mr. Paul Kennedy is senior assistant deputy solicitor general, policing and security branch; Mr. Jamie Deacon is director of the anti-organized crime division; and I don't have it listed, but I see the name Mr. Ken Moreau.

I'm not sure of your title, sir.

Mr. Ken Moreau (Executive Assistant to the Senior Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Department of the Solicitor General of Canada): I'm executive assistant with the policing and security branch.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thanks very much.

Gentlemen, we have about ten minutes for your presentation and then some time for questions and answers. Welcome.

Mr. Paul Kennedy (Senior Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Policing and Security Branch, Department of the Solicitor General of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

With your indulgence, I'd like to make an opening statement that will provide a brief overview of the role of the ministry of the Solicitor General as it relates to some of the issues that have been explored by this committee over the past two weeks. I'd also like to outline some of the recent key initiatives undertaken by the Department of the Solicitor General and its key partners to address the serious organized crime issue, including human smuggling.

As you're aware, the Department of the Solicitor General provides advice and support to the Solicitor General of Canada with respect to his national leadership in policing, corrections, conditional release, and national security. The department is also responsible for providing advice to the Solicitor General in his direction to the agencies of the ministry, including the RCMP, CSIS, the Correctional Service of Canada, and the National Parole Board, for which he is accountable to Parliament.

As the federal police service of Canada, the primary objective of the RCMP is to enforce laws, prevent crime, and maintain peace, order, and security.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, was established in 1984 to provide security intelligence to the Government of Canada. In particular, CSIS is responsible for providing support and advice to the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. It provides advice to Citizenship and Immigration on immigration and citizenship under the security screening program.

Over the last four years, the Canadian government has worked hard to implement a public safety agenda. Fighting organized crime is part of that and has become a number one priority for federal law enforcement. Organized crime is highly profitable and sophisticated, and many of its activities span the globe, making it a challenge for countries around the world.

In recent years a number of key steps have been taken, involving a number of federal ministries in partnership with the police, the provinces and territories, and international communities, to combat organized crime.

In September 1996 Solicitor General Canada and Justice Canada organized a national forum on organized crime, bringing the police, federal and provincial governments, the private sector, the legal community, and academics together. At that time it was clear Canada needed a more coordinated approach to fight organized crime. Participants recommended more national coordination.

In response to this, the Department of the Solicitor General, in cooperation with the provinces and police forces, established five regional coordinating committees and a national coordinating committee on organized crime in 1997. These committees provide a solid foundation for further cooperation and bring a multidisciplinary approach to combating organized crime.

• 0920

The national committee, with regional representation, focuses on policy and legislative issues arising from enforcement-related concerns. These committees include members of various police forces as well as senior provincial and federal government officials.

To combat organized crime activities that stem from both sides of the Canada-U.S. border, the federal government works with its U.S. partners through the Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum. Since it first began in 1997, the forum has met three times and examines issues such as the impact of cross-border crimes, people-smuggling, telemarketing fraud, money-laundering, missing and abducted children, high-tech crime, and other emerging issues. The forum last met in June of this year. At that meeting, a number of provincial and municipal forces attended and participated in setting out cooperative binational enforcement strategies and developing binational threat assessments.

A recent milestone in the partnership among the provinces and territories and the federal government is a joint statement on organized crime, unanimously endorsed in October last year by ministers responsible for justice. The statement is a public commitment to combat organized crime in a concerted and collaborative way. To support the shared principles of the joint statement, a special committee of deputy ministers has been struck to provide strategic direction at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels in the development of policies, legislations, and programs.

In April 1999 $115 million was provided to the RCMP to modernize the Canadian Police Information Centre, better known as CPIC, the computerized information system for Canadian law enforcement. CPIC will be replaced with a modern computer system for improved information-sharing with other law enforcement, provincial, and federal databases. This translates into more crime prevented or solved and better coordination of actions against organized crime.

In June 1999 the Solicitor General announced approximately $15 million per year for the RCMP to fight organized crime at Canada's three largest international airports: Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. The initiative will add 100 RCMP members to increase federal policing pressures and target organized criminals who use these airports as points of entry into Canada.

Investigations into organized crime are complex, taking police across jurisdictions and often across international borders. That is why domestic and international partners and information-sharing are so vital.

On the international front, a meeting of the G-8 ministers of justice and ministers of the interior on transnational organized crime was held in Moscow on October 19 and 20 of this year. One of the three items on the agenda was related to global problems in fighting transnational organized crime. During the discussion of this item, illegal smuggling and trafficking of people were identified as issues of great concern by all the G-8 countries.

In closing I'd like to reiterate that illegal smuggling and trafficking of migrants are major and growing organized crime activities. The continued development of partnerships among jurisdictions and agencies, nationally and internationally, is vital in our efforts to address this problem.

Thank you for the opportunity to make that statement, sir.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.

Mr. Benoit, questions for ten minutes.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for being late, gentlemen. I am very interested in hearing from you today and from the groups to follow on this subject, and I'm really sorry I missed your presentation. I also came without my notes on what I was going to ask you about, but I do have a lot of questions.

You referred to the Solicitor General's document from last January, I think, on organized crime, where he did indicate that this is a very serious problem and that there would be a new focus on dealing with it. Others in positions that would make you want to pay attention, such as the director of CSIS, have indicated that organized crime is a very serious threat.

• 0925

It's a growing problem, and it has grown to the extent that it actually threatens our having a stable economy if it isn't dealt with. It's that serious a problem. I've been to meetings of NATO parliamentarians in Europe, and on the committee I'm on, one of the key subjects dealt with is organized crime and the potential impact on the economy of G-8 countries. Well, NATO countries of course are the focus there, but it goes beyond that to all developing countries.

What's kept economies in countries such as the former Soviet Bloc countries from developing, more than anything else, has been organized crime and the inability of governments to take control.

I would like to start by asking you what your thoughts are in terms of how fast this problem is growing, from what you know. Are you seeing or do you believe this issue is growing at a pace that should cause government to put an extremely serious effort into dealing with it quickly? Or is it something that's always been there and remains there, changing, growing maybe at a very slow pace, and not an urgent concern?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: That's a very substantial question you've asked. To put it in context, I believe one or two years ago now—I don't have the exact date—the United Nations did indicate itself that it considered transnational organized crime as the number one threat to the world. So it's difficult for me to belittle that statement and—

Mr. Leon Benoit: What about Canada and the United States in particular, or just Canada? Let's talk about Canada. That's where we are, and that's the government we have some influence on.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: As I've indicated, if one reflects back at the recent Speech from the Throne, the government there did signal that it was concerned about serious crime, organized crime, and it intended to take steps there.

We have in the past number of years—as I indicated, back to 1996—ourselves convened federal-provincial-territorial conferences, because we were concerned about organized crime and its manifestations.

You are right that organized crime has been here. Of course organized crime has always been here in the sense that two or more people acting in concert have been doing things for quite a while. We are, though, facing unique challenges. The global economy, technology, all of these things are creating new opportunities for these groups to cooperate and to make our current tools of addressing the problem to some extent inadequate. So they are more efficient, because the tools that make us more efficient in terms of an economy also make criminals more efficient. The challenge is getting greater.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Many would say probably the most effective way to attack organized crime is to take the profit away, but you do that by dealing with the money-laundering issue. First of all, do you agree with that? And if you do, what have you been doing and what has your department been doing to try to deal with that in an effective way?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: You are right. Since about 1989, when the government passed legislation dealing with not just money-laundering.... There are two aspects, one of which is proceeds of crime and ability to seize the proceeds of crime, to seize offence-related property, and also then to put in place additional legislation dealing with money-laundering. So there's a three-pronged approach there that has actually been used.

Yes, it has been highly successful. The effort started out as a pilot first of all to see if it in fact could be used. In the Criminal Code a number of offences have been designated as ones for which we can seize proceeds of crime, just using that as an example. It is a list. It's not all offences; it's a particular list.

• 0930

In addition to the ones listed in the Criminal Code, it has also been used for drug-trafficking and some contraband-smuggling under the Excise Act and Customs Act since about 1989. And actually I would say the legislation, in terms of impact, only took off in about 1992-93 or around that period, when Public Works and Government Services came in to assist in managing these assets.

Well over $100 million to $110 million of value has in fact been seized, and I think the figure is approximately $60 million or so that was forfeited into the consolidated revenue fund. So as a pilot, I'd have to say yes, it is a very effective tool to take away from these people a capital that allows them to carry on these businesses. And it's a business. They have to engage people to work with them, they may have to corrupt people, they have to forge documents, and things like this. If you take away the lifeblood of it, it is very effective.

The case is for us to decide if we can expand that. Internationally we have reciprocal agreements with other countries to encourage them to assist Canada in investigations. There's provision for sharing of any assets that are seized in Canada or abroad where these people commit their offences.

So does it work as a tool? Yes. We are at the stage where it's clearly a model that other ministers should look at and consider incorporating into their legislation as a valid tool.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You're talking about expanding a particular pilot project. What new tools do you need to fight? I'm particularly looking at money-laundering and confiscating the proceeds of crime. What new do you need to deal with that more effectively?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: There are two things. First of all, we have what was formerly Bill C-81, which had been introduced before the House prorogued. It was a new bill to deal with establishing a financial intelligence centre that would be tracking money-laundering activity and give us a better profile there. We also had, in that same legislation, the ability to require the recording of currency that was crossing the border.

These would be very effective tools, particularly with a centre that has a requirement imposed upon financial institutions and other people to identify for us, according to criteria we set out, suspicious transactions that would indicate, subject to these defined criteria, that this may be money related to illegal activities and therefore had been laundered. That would be a very useful tool.

Mr. Leon Benoit: From what you know and have learned in this area, how broad and how deep is the infiltration of organized crime in particular institutions, starting out with the banking industry and the various police forces across the country? I guess there's no use going to the civil service and government, because I don't think you're going to get any answers out of that, but particularly in police forces and in the banking industry and anyplace else you think it is particularly important for organized crime to infiltrate to be effective....

Mr. Paul Kennedy: To be quite candid, there have been some isolated instances in Canada. I wouldn't want to portray this as a case where there's any suggestion of implication knowingly by our banking institutions in this kind of activity. What you have to realize is that people who have ill-gotten gains, like anyone else, are looking for stable economies that provide good services that will protect their money, invest it properly, and move it. For that reason, our systems lend themselves to that kind of attraction.

I don't know if that responds to your question or not.

We do have much anecdotal information as to the extent of the problem internationally. One thing I would hope to add is, if Parliament sees fit to pass the legislation and we establish this new financial centre to be able to analyse this data, we'll have a better sense of the nature and scope of the potential abuses that may be going on.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Our immigration system of course is extremely important in keeping organized crime out of the country or trying to limit the amount that comes in. That's what we're here at this committee to deal with.

You've talked about people-smuggling. Maybe I could just get a quick comment first on how it stacks up in terms of importance and dollars going into the hands of organized crime in Canada and abroad, as best you can—you can only go on the information you have, of course—compared to drug-trafficking or the whole drug business, and compared to other types of organized crime. I'm just trying to get a sense of the relative importance of that to organized crime.

• 0935

Mr. Paul Kennedy: In terms of more detail, I'd like to defer that to the person who'll come after me, Mr. René Charbonneau of the RCMP. I think it's fair to say, though, that our experience at this point in time in dealing with drugs is that drugs have been a major worldwide problem, and there's an awful lot of money there. Conversely, the same routes that lend themselves to trafficking in drugs or other commodities can be used for the purpose of smuggling people, but I think the RCMP would have more particulars for you in terms of their experiences with the actual quantity that you can put on the table. They're both serious problems, but I think one has been becoming more of a problem recently.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thanks very much, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. McKay, you have ten minutes.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Just as a quick question, is there any meaningful distinction between trafficking and smuggling, or are those two terms used interchangeably?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: I'll defer that to Mr. Deacon.

Mr. Jamie Deacon (Director, Anti-Organized Crime Division, Policing and Security Branch, Department of the Solicitor General): I think the distinction is not always straightforward. Basically, the smuggling of persons occurs when someone pays a fee to a person-smuggler to bring them into the country. Trafficking occurs when someone brings a person into a country, possibly with a fee but not necessarily, but also under conditions whereby they might be engaging in activity—prostitution, for example—to pay off their smuggling fee. So they're trafficked not only for the purpose of getting into the country, but for the purpose of making the smuggler additional money once they're there.

Mr. John McKay: Is that a distinction that's recognized in the Criminal Code?

Mr. Jamie Deacon: No, it's not, although it is a distinction that's recognized at the international level in terms of discussions in the United Nations and other areas.

Mr. John McKay: Are there changes to the Criminal Code that you think are warranted at this point, aside from Bill C-81? Am I to assume that Bill C-81 would be folded into the Criminal Code if it were to see another life?

Mr. Jamie Deacon: Bill C-81 was actually to be a new proceeds of crime and money laundering act.

Mr. John McKay: It was a freestanding act.

Mr. Jamie Deacon: It was a freestanding act to replace the existing statute.

With respect to potential amendments or additions to the Criminal Code, I'd hesitate to comment specifically on that. As Mr. Kennedy mentioned, I think we have to keep in mind what potential new tools are out there. Options are always being looked at.

Mr. John McKay: As you know, we're playing around with introducing a new Immigration Act. Mr. Price, under careful cross-examination of the minister yesterday, nailed it down to “one of the millennia” as far as introduction is concerned.

One of the more bizarre points is that of an individual who has committed a crime, has been sentenced, is doing jail time, is either out on statutory release or discretionary release, and is under an order of deportation. It seems a little strange that a person could be literally on the street, yet the order for deportation can't be executed because that person hasn't completed the sentence. Is that an area that we need to look at?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: I don't profess at all to be an expert on the Immigration Act. I think I read an article recently in the paper about a recent court ruling on that, dealing with the need to address what otherwise was discriminatory treatment of inmates. I don't know if there's any—

Mr. John McKay: There was a double jeopardy argument, I think.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: Yes.

Clearly there are two different things at tension here. One is deterrence to individuals, which requires some form of punishment. The other, of course, is the person's presence in Canada, in that they're not entitled to be in Canada. You have to marry up those two. You can't just turn the people away and tell them to go back to where they came from, because then there's no deterrence. So it's balance.

I think what we have to realize—and it's a challenge we wrestle with continually—is that there are no magic bullets to fix all of our problems. We have models that are the best models for the day, but as soon as we craft a model we are immediately working on another. That's because there are other problems coming out as people respond to our efforts to address the problems, and they change their tactics.

Hopefully part of the recommendation coming from this committee will enhance one part of our arsenal here—which would be the Immigration Act—but we have a host of other problems we're trying to address to increase our ability to respond to this in terms of the law enforcement area. That's why I put this in the context of organized crime, because the person who can smuggle people is also smuggling other things, is also involved in other kinds of activities. If we can apprehend them in any one of those other activities, then hopefully that has also permitted us to make a dent into their efforts.

• 0940

Mr. John McKay: One of the areas where this becomes most egregious is Akwesasne. We have a multitude of jurisdictions falling all over each other, one significant element saying “Nobody has any jurisdiction here but us.” Can you give me a bit of a perspective on that situation, where not only is there people-smuggling going on but, as you say, there are related other crimes? Is there any progress being made by your department and others in that area?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: I think it's fair to say we're keenly aware of the jurisdictional problems you've identified, and that it is a part of a route that has shown up in terms of migrant-smuggling. There has been increased enforcement activity in that area by Canada Customs, by the RCMP, and of course we're also working with aboriginal policing on the reserve to try to address it. If you want to get more detail in terms of the level of enforcement activity and the degree of success, those questions might be best addressed to Canada Customs as well as to the RCMP. But we're aware of the unique situation there in terms of jurisdictions, and it poses its own unique challenges.

Mr. John McKay: In the context of the migrants from China in the last few months, one of the initiatives on the part of your department was to have RCMP officers floating around in China. I have this bizarre image of a Mountie in full uniform walking around in China preventing this, which seemed to be a little strange. Just exactly how do you execute interdiction in that area of the world?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: This definitely is a question I'm quite happy to defer to the next speaker, who I believe has someone with him who was floating around in China, as you described it, during that particular time, and he can tell you how efficacious it is.

To put it in its proper context, though, what we're trying to do—and it came from the meeting in Moscow of the G-8, and we're trying to do that in other fora—is recognize that the smuggling or trafficking of migrants is a worldwide problem. Everyone has ownership of it. It's impossible for us, just looking at Canada, to do anything without collaboration with other countries, some of which might be source countries or transit countries, but all of which are being adversely affected one way or another by this problem. You might think it's okay to have people leave, but it's also destabilizing for those jurisdictions.

So we want everyone to buy in, recognize they have problems, and do what they can to work with us. If we can share information and work in collaboration, then maybe some of the boats can be stopped before they leave, or things of that nature. But what we're after is international cooperation, efforts to harmonize our legislation and harmonize the sense of priority that we give to this particular problem.

So it's worldwide ownership of this problem, but in terms of detail, your next speakers will be able to help you.

Mr. John McKay: Thanks.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Price, five minutes.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.

I have a straightforward question to start off with: how many smugglers of illegal immigrants have we charged so far and prosecuted in the last year?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: I'll leave that.... Clearly I don't have that particular information; the RCMP would have it. I think you're going to find, though, that you can't necessarily measure things that way. But I'll let René expand on it for you.

Mr. David Price: Okay. Of course we're here looking for solutions in legislation, so I'll ask you another question that seems to have a lot of latitude, but I'd like the answer to be as precise as you can make it: your feeling on how we could deter smugglers and traffickers.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: I would have to think the greatest deterrent is the fact that one runs the risk of being found out and apprehended—as I pointed out earlier, the taking away of the fruits of your crime and then an appropriate period of incarceration, since that's the vehicle we use here to deter you. So it has to be that sense that your chances of success are increasingly diminished, that you're not going to get the profit that you have had. More importantly, with the proceeds of crime aspect, we don't just look at the moneys from that one particular venture that you've engaged in. If we can prove that your lifestyle is one in which other of your properties have flowed from similar criminal activity, we can seize those too.

• 0945

I think that's what we have to do. We have to give you the sense that you're running a higher risk, that you don't just lose the $100,000 you're going to get this time, but you're going to lose the $1 million or whatever else it is that we can get our hands on. The fact is that we'll be able to reach outside of Canada if you have your money stacked in Switzerland or other countries like that, and we'll be able to pull that back. We want to give the sense that internationally there are no safe havens for you. And of course there'll be some kind of penal regime here that is reflective of the gravity of the activity you're involved in.

To put it in context, though, that's going to turn upon the facts of every case. Of course it's the judge's role to decide what's appropriate.

I think that's the mixture that is appropriate.

Mr. David Price: Of course, that's why I asked the first question. We just don't hear of very many prosecutions out there of these cases, so that in itself would be a deterrent, and that's exactly what you're saying.

One of the other things we seem to have a problem on is the removal procedures. What could you give us for advice on how we could become more efficient?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: I'm expert enough in my area to know where I'm not expert, and I think that's an area for officials from Immigration in terms of the removal aspects. I wouldn't venture to pronounce upon that.

Mr. David Price: But does not the Solicitor General have an involvement in that?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: Clearly each minister has his or her own particular mandate. What we try to do is take a more coordinated approach to this whole thing by bringing all the players to the table together in order to address problems and to try to give them avenues where they can look at other models. I talked about the cross-border crime forum. Immigration participates in that, and we have our American colleagues up for it. We can then compare regimes and opportunities to succeed or not succeed.

Each of the regimes that we craft has to be uniquely Canadian, because we do have our own history of laws and, of course, we do have our own Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those require us to tailor regimes that are unique to Canada. We just can't copy something from another jurisdiction and say it's a template that works there.

Mr. David Price: You mentioned the cross-border crime forum. It seems to be much more of an information exchange operation. Does it go any further in the sense of real cooperation in prosecuting and in the actual policing itself?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: Yes, it actually does. To put this into context for you, the reason that organized crime is a challenge is because it's organized. Criminals get together, they cooperate, they share data, they share experiences, and they share skills.

Mr. David Price: Therefore we have to be organized.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: Exactly, and although we have resources, they're not necessarily integrated as effectively as they can be—and I say that both domestically and internationally. One of the key benefits of the cross-border crime forum is that we have representation from federal, provincial and municipal police—the major ones—in Canada; we have the key enforcement agencies of the federal government there; and we have our counterparts from the United States, whether they're from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the United States Customs Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, or the FBI. The Solicitor General, with Madam Reno, the Attorney General of the United States, are responsible for this.

When we meet, we have three sub-groups that deal with intelligence-sharing, enforcement in terms of targeting, and prosecution as well. Part of the expectation is that we have to share between ourselves information that says, yes, these in fact are the common threats. We have similar messages being sent to the enforcement agencies in the United States and Canada so that we have common appreciation of the problem.

For enforcement purposes, there has to be a sharing of that data so that we know who we are targeting. Are we targeting the same people because these people are exploiting these frontiers to our mutual disadvantage? Now you start to galvanize two countries and various police forces to start looking at the same groups. That's obviously going to diminish their opportunity for avoiding detection.

Conversely, although we think our law regimes are very similar, they are to some extent dissimilar. We therefore have to talk to each other and explain how our laws are different. When the police look at a wiretap in Canada, how does that differ from a wiretap in the States, so that we can then cooperate in terms of what those are? What are the punishments and so on? Are there holes in our legislation?

• 0950

As a classic example, we found out that in telemarketing fraud, which is another activity organized crime can get into, Canada was being used as a base to exploit pensioners and retirees in the United States. We had some success in Canada in terms of a public awareness program, but here we had our colleagues in the States being exploited.

We passed legislation in Canada under the Competition Act making that a criminal offence. We put proceeds of crime powers in place, whereby we could seize those proceeds of crime. They amended the Extradition Act to address it. In addition, we provided for an ability under the Criminal Code, because with telemarketing fraud you might have two or three hundred people who are victims. It's very expensive to bring in everybody to testify, so the Minister of Justice put provisions in place so that people could appear at a site in the United States and testify by audio-visual means, and so that they wouldn't have these tremendous expenses of coming to Canada to do it.

So in terms of cross-border cooperation, that was a case in which we found a hole that was being exploited. We looked at our laws, we adjusted our laws, and we've improved the situation, and hopefully we have—

A voice: That's what we're looking for in this—

Mr. Paul Kennedy: Exactly.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thanks very much.

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Chairman.

I want to apologize for coming in during the middle of your presentation.

I'm sitting here thinking about the number of phone calls I get in my constituency office and the lack of confidence that there is in the whole system. I think part of our task, through whatever we do via policy direction or legislation, is really to restore confidence and to have Canadians think the system is working and doing its best for them.

We often hear or see in the paper the comments of a judge who talks about the way the procedure works: if someone is deported, they go to the U.S., but they turn up back in Canada within 90 days. A well-known lawyer then says that everybody in the system knows this is happening. Do you know this is happening? Do you know of people who pull their claims back, or of refugee claimants who find their way into the U.S. and then come back to make a second claim here? If a judge says this, and if a well-known lawyer says everybody knows it's happening, are you included in the “everybody”?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: I believe you're referring to Madam Justice McGillis' decision, because I happened to read that same article. As I say, I don't purport to be able to speak about that. I think your comments would be better directed to Immigration in terms of the fact that those are their procedures. Do their procedures allow for that to actually occur?

I am aware that there have been other instances, clearly, in which people go to Buffalo for a period of time and then come back, but I wouldn't purport to be able to expand on how profound the problem is and how often it's abused.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Anything else?

Ms. Jean Augustine: No, that's okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Benoit or Mr. Anders, who wants to...?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'll start out.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): It's a five-minute round.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, okay.

I just want to get an idea. I asked you earlier what you thought would be needed to help Canada deal more effectively in combatting organized crime. You referred to a pilot project that was very successful, as though it was all we needed. I think you did say there may be some other things. Could you elaborate a little bit on what else you think is needed in Canada to help to more effectively combat organized crime?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: To put my comments in context, because I didn't amplify on that. The particular pilot project saw integrated proceeds of crime units established. We started off with three—in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. In fact I think in about 1997 we expanded that to thirteen in terms of other sites across the country.

We do have mechanisms in place. The thing now, though, is that they focus upon particular crimes that have been identified either in the Criminal Code—because there's a list of them—or certain federal statutes that have in fact incorporated those. I indicated that those were in relation to drugs and the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco.

When you look at it, though, it's fairly clear that other kinds of crime are engaged in for profit-taking purposes. The smuggling of migrants clearly is done not as a favour to the individuals, but as part of a profit-making venture, so clearly it would be useful for immigration purposes—just as it was for telemarketing fraud—to use that as a particular model: go after the proceeds of crime, go after offence-related property, and then capture that as part of the cycle. I think there's also merit in looking at its application beyond that, to other federal statutes that might be used for that purpose.

• 0955

Mr. Leon Benoit: So going after the proceeds of crime is the number one thing you think could be done in the immigration department to deal with people-smuggling.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: I think it definitely would be a very useful step.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How important is providing a deterrent through very serious sentences and the application of those sentences, let's say the possibility, for example, of having minimum sentences for organized crime, depending on your level of involvement?

The question asked earlier by our Conservative, Mr. Price, was about the convictions of people-smugglers. Part of the problem has to be the law, and part of it may be the judicial process. I'm not sure what the problem is, but clearly it's a joke. There have been fines. I believe there may have been one sentence handed out that actually involved imprisonment, but I'd certainly like to hear exactly what those statistics are. I've read about them in the media, and that's about it.

Taking the proceeds of crime is what you see as the key focus. What about providing deterrence through very serious prison sentences, including minimum sentences?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: From my perspective, you have to approach it in terms of using a mixture of these things. I began my career as a prosecutor when we had a minimum of seven years for drug-trafficking and a maximum of life. I did a number of those trials. The fact that I did a number indicates that people were not necessarily deterred just because there was a minimum.

Clearly there are things you want to send out. One is a message of general deterrence and specific deterrence—general deterrence in the sense that if the public knows the consequences are fairly severe, when one is contemplating the commission of a crime, one would ask if one wanted to do it before actually getting too heavily involved. In terms of what the maximum or minimum punishments are, your sentencing regimes set a climate for conditioning people as to whether or not they want to involve themselves.

Mr. Leon Benoit: From your knowledge, how effective is that, or how effective could it or should it be?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: It's hard to measure, because we only deal with the people who break the laws. It's like murder. There's a life maximum and a 25-year minimum, but we still do have some murders.

I think I'd say it has to be part of a total package, because if they don't think they're going to be caught, people aren't really concerned about the maximums or minimums. They're convinced that the prospect of detection is quite small.

The other thing I'd say is that you have to have a mix and match of these things. Sometimes the profit margins are so great that it may be a fairly good return for you when you look at the amount of time you're going to spend in jail in terms of your other ability to earn income.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Is that why a lot of organized crime is moving to people-smuggling?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: I'm not sure. I can't read their minds.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thanks.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deacon, I was intrigued by your response to Mr. McKay when he asked you about the differentiation between smuggling and trafficking, and I'll tell you why. I spent a fair amount of time in criminal courts, working there—

Ms. Jean Augustine: I'm glad you said “working there”.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: —and one of the charges that often was on the docket was trafficking in narcotics. Very clearly, money changed hands. As a matter of fact, I can't ever recall anybody being charged with that crime unless money was exchanged. In the people-smuggling business, you're telling us that smuggling involves money, and maybe trafficking, but maybe not. I find that concept quite confusing.

• 1000

Mr. Jamie Deacon: I can clarify my answer, if I wasn't clear before. Trafficking definitely does involve money. It may involve not the payment of money upfront, but the payment of money after the individual is brought into Canada. In performing services such as prostitution, there's an element of exploitation. Money would be paid back to the smuggler or the smuggling organization. So money definitely is a part of the picture.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Okay, so smuggling and trafficking are fairly well interchangeable.

Mr. Jamie Deacon: They're very closely linked, I would say.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: The minister said our strategy in fighting people-smuggling is to make sure it's not profitable to the smugglers. That involves our detecting boats—I'll refer to the incidents of the boats—intercepting them, detaining the human cargo, and making a determination. As long as we are able to follow through that process, the smugglers are not going to make any money.

I'm wondering how good our detection system is, now that we have been alerted to the problem. How likely is it that if a boat comes we will be able to detect it?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: I think that might be a question for René Charbonneau, the assistant commissioner of the RCMP, who obviously would be engaged with the Immigration officials and other government agencies to carry that out.

Ms. Jean Augustine: We should have had them here.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: They are right here with us. I think they are the next speakers right behind us.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Would it be fair to say, Mr. Kennedy, that if we were able to do all those things, it would stop human smuggling in terms of boats?

Mr. Paul Kennedy: As I indicated right at the beginning, one of the factors is whether there's a perception on their part that they will be detected or not. They will go the easiest route. If they think they won't be detected coming into Canadian waters, they will do that. If we can increase our detection capability, it makes it unattractive for them in terms of also seizing the boats and things of that nature.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I will wait for the RCMP for the next question.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Okay.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentation and for coming here this morning. We appreciate the input.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: We have left one thing with the clerk that might be of some use to members. It's an information sheet dealing with federal action against organized crime. You can see some of the range of activities we've undertaken in the recent past, so it might be of assistance to you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Great. Thanks very much.

Just before we hear from our next group, I suggest we take a five-minute break. We'll do a changing of the guard, as some of our members have to leave and others are coming in. So we'll just take a five-minute recess.

• 1003

• 1007

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I would like to reconvene our meeting studying the refugee determination system and illegal migrants, and welcome the witnesses from the RCMP.

We have René Charbonneau, assistant commissioner, director of federal services; Superintendent Raymond Lang, officer in charge, immigration federal branch, federal services directorate—that's a long title—and Sergeant Bill MacDonald, senior reviewer analyst, immigration and federal branch, federal services directorate.

Good morning and welcome. Thanks for coming this morning. We look forward to a presentation and then some questions and answers from committee members.

Assistant Commissioner René Charbonneau (Director, Federal Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I don't know if I should thank Mr. Kennedy for leaving all these questions to me.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): He rolled up some snowballs for you.

A/Commr René Charbonneau: I'll let you ask me the questions, and then I'll see what I can do about it. By the way, I'm the one who went to China. So I'll start with my presentation.

Today, some international organizations are suggesting there are as many as 125 million migrants throughout the world. For many of these migrants, our political stability, wealth, and generosity make North America the destination of choice. This acts as an incentive to first-time asylum seekers, those who have exhausted their options, or those who, for other reasons, choose to leave the country where they currently reside.

Improvements in transportation have tremendously increased the mobility options of a large part of the world's population. Modern communications have also played a significant role in creating a global village.

[Translation]

Today's sophisticated technology has also resulted in the proliferation of high quality fraudulent travel and identity documents which present a challenge to authorities, worldwide, to determine authenticity. Today we face increasingly diverse and more serious challenges posed by expanding global migration and illegal entry into North America.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights holds the view that respect for the basic rights of migrants does not prejudice or otherwise restrict the sovereign right of all states to decide who should or should not enter their territories.

• 1010

[English]

Today, the RCMP immigration and passport program is carried out with an establishment of slightly less than 200 regular members posted to 17 dedicated immigration and passport sections across Canada. In areas where there are no immigration and passport sections, the function is carried out, as needs arise, by federal enforcement sections or contract policing personnel.

Today more than ever before, these limited resources face increasingly diverse and more serious challenges posed by expanding global migration and illegal entry into North America.

[Translation]

In acknowledgement of this reality and in keeping with the priorities established by the Canadian government, concerning the health and safety of Canadians and Canadian law enforcements corresponding offensive against organized crime, the RCMP Immigration and Passport Enforcement Program, has aligned itself to provide more efficient service.

So as to further ensure clarity of purpose and action, we have established a broad range of initiatives and three specific priorities designed to combat and eradicate criminal organizations involved in the smuggling of human beings. This program alignment has taken place in response to global and national realities and in consultation with a wide range of partners and clients, domestic and international.

In keeping with our philosophy of quality service and in recognition of today's global realities, the National Strategy of the Immigration and Passport Program has been defined as: “Combat and eradicate organized migrant smuggling”. The advancement of this strategy has been identified as an integral component of all program activities. This Strategy is accomplished through adherence to the national immigration and passport mandate, fulfilment of national program responsibilities and the preeminence of national program priorities.

[English]

The theme and guiding principle of our program have been captured in the immigration and passport mandate, which states:

The Immigration and Passport Program will work in concert with domestic and foreign agencies at all levels, as well as the community at large, to protect and enhance the quality of life through education, prevention and enforcement.

These three mandated responses of education, prevention, and enforcement are recognized as the most significant problem-solving tools within the program. Our members are not only expected to consider and apply all three in their activities, but are encouraged to recognize the strong program emphasis placed upon prevention and their obligation to utilize this response on its own or in combination with the others. We strongly believe that prevention is the surest and most effective tool in combating smugglers.

In our continuing effort to combat migrant-smuggling and the recognition of the interactive relationship between the immigration, citizenship and passport programs, the immigration and passport program has recognized and clearly articulated its primary responsibilities:

The Immigration and Passport Enforcement Program, in accordance with a national strategy, is responsible for investigating violations of the Immigration Act, Citizenship Act, and Criminal Code violations related to citizenship offences, Canada passport offences, frauds, forgeries and conspiracies.

These responsibilities have been developed in close cooperation with government departments, and are subject to change or revision to meet new trends or challenges.

[Translation]

In order to proactively fulfil our National Strategy, three enforcement priorities have been established within the program. The establishment of these priorities was the result of surveys and meetings with program members in the field as well as consultation and discussion with involved partner departments. It is our belief that clearly focusing on a specific number of priorities has provided a clarity of action which has allowed field sections to focus on the program strategy of eliminating illegal migration to Canada.

• 1015

This prioritization has also ensured that the entire program is in alignment with the federal government and RCMP priorities, in so far as organized crime is clearly and unequivocally the target of our efforts.

[English]

The number one priority is combatting criminal organizations involved in the smuggling of illegal migrants into Canada. The United Nations calculates that 15 million of the world's total migrant population were transported to their present countries by professional smugglers.

Alien-smuggling is a profitable activity, attractive to both traditional organized crime groups and organized crime groups specifically devoted to the task. The International Centre for Migration Policy Development estimates that globally smugglers are profiting by as much as $9.5 billion a year, twice the annual earning of the Medellin cocaine cartel at the peak of its power. There is a great potential for profit in people-smuggling because it has been established that a criminal organization will charge a potential migrant as much as $70,000 to facilitate illegal travel to North America.

Groups actively involved in this illegal trade include triad societies from Asia and crime groups from central and eastern Europe. Many of these organizations are involved in other criminal ventures, utilizing photo and travel documents and illegal immigrants to further their activities in areas such as drug-trafficking, money-laundering, prostitution and gambling.

As an example of our efforts, during 1998 our program undertook over 1,000 organized-crime-related migrant-smuggling cases and seized over 6,000 fraudulent travel or identity documents, with a street value estimated at over $95 million.

[Translation]

Priority number two is deterring unscrupulous or illegal activity on the part of professional immigration facilitators.

RCMP members are authorized to investigate cases of malfeasance or corruption on the part of government employees. We also investigate complaints against immigration consultants and lawyers, which often come from members of the public who feel that they have been victimized by these service providers. These types of investigations are generally complex in nature and can take place not only in Canada but at Canadian posts abroad.

[English]

The number three priority is the timely acquisition and sharing of information and intelligence pertaining to the enhancement of the national program strategy. The RCMP immigration and passport enforcement program collects, analyses and disseminates tactical information concerning alien-smuggling organizations to foreign and domestic law enforcement agencies. The information is entered on an RCMP database. Currently there are almost 16,000 suspects entered on this system, and some of this information is shared with INTERPOL for the creation and circulation of information bulletins to all member countries.

To meet this priority, we have created a number of information banks and have made them available to a wide range of partners, both nationally and internationally. Through consultations and within the mandate of the program, international law enforcement agencies are actively partnered with Canadian immigration enforcement initiatives in combatting the problem of migrant smuggling. In order to work more efficiently and effectively with national and international law enforcement agencies, our programs support and promote the establishment of greater levels of corporation and communication within the law enforcement community.

[Translation]

The overall strategic goal of the Immigration and Passport Program, to combat and eradicate organized migrant smuggling, has been developed in part from what we have learned over the past thirty years and in consequence of current Canadian government and organizational priorities. With the large and ever increasing number of global migrants and the internal challenges faced by our investigators, we acknowledge that this strategy will not be achieved without significant effort and the development of multiple partnerships.

• 1020

[English]

Experience has taught us that only by working together in mutually beneficial and supportive partnerships will we have an impact on the phenomenon created by mass global migration and the organized crime groups that profit from this expression of human desperation. To this end, our national program plan, branch information pamphlet, rates some examples, and an increasing area of solid statistical indicators illustrates our complete commitment to this goal. We fully believe our efforts and achievements, as well as a clear demonstration of our resolve and determination to meet the challenge, will prove to be a model and an inspiration to others. With the passage of time, it will be confirmed as the key element in our fight against organized crime and those who seek to profit from the exploitation of human misery and suffering.

I will now answer your questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

Mr. Telegdi, you're first.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, do you speak Chinese?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: I do not speak Chinese, but they were very kind to us. As the deputy of the minister in charge of security in China told me, there is one language and it's the police language. We were amongst police officers, and that was very nice and very kind of them.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: But we have people on the force who do speak Chinese.

A/Commr René Charbonneau: Yes, we do. We have one of our people presently in Hong Kong, covering China.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you.

Getting back to what I was saying before in terms of the question of making it unprofitable, if we do so, then they will stop bringing people by boat. The question I pose is about our surveillance. In terms of the seas, is it good enough to make sure we detect boats that are coming now that we're on alert?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: I tried to cover the importance of sharing the information, sharing the intelligence, and that has to start from outside Canada. We have to be able to establish a good and very timely exchange of information. I believe these are the ABCs or the start of doing police work. It's one of the big reasons that I was in China—amongst other reasons, because I was looking at organized crime in general.

We have to know what's going on before it starts. We have to be able to follow the crime, because if it's possible, we have to be able to prevent the crime before it starts; but if it goes on, we have to be able to identify who's on top of these organizations. This is the hard part for police forces.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: But would I be accurate in saying that traffic on the high seas is monitored by the United States and our armed forces? When you see a ship approaching that fits the profile of the boats that are used for smuggling, do you have a pretty good idea before they get to our shores?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: If at all possible, if we could find out from the host country—let's use China for this example—if we could prevent the boat from leaving the country, it would be much better. This is what we're trying to do right now. But there are more than the U.S.A. and Canada involved. You have the Australians and many other countries involved. That's why I stress so much the importance of working together within Canada on enforcement, but also globally. This is one team that I've been talking about many times in the last couple of years, and especially in the last year.

My vision is that we're going to have a big global police force. That's how we have to think now. We cannot think city, province, and country. We need to think globally on the enforcement side.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: There's one little nagging thing that I have. On the one hand, China, given their political system, is one of the nations that produces refugees. So when somebody from China makes a refugee claim, it's a claim we have to listen to.

• 1025

With regard to surveillance, I think maybe we'll talk to the military. They're involved in surveillance, obviously, but you have good contact with the military, with our navy.

A/Commr René Charbonneau: We have very good contact with the Department of National Defence. I have people working very close to me, right by my office here in Ottawa, and we have some special programs that are in line with drug enforcement.

One of the things we also have to keep in mind is that we are talking about complex international law. As I've been saying, again in line with globalization, one of the big challenges for legislators and police forces around the world will be for us to harmonize our legislation so that people don't take profits from one country. We have some poor countries around the world that will be targeted by organized crime, so we have to make sure we harmonize our laws. That's what we've been trying to do, and are doing.

I have been to South America to meet my counterparts. I have been to Asia and I have been to the Caribbean. I've been to many places around the world. There's very good communication with other police forces around the world.

So we have to make sure we have our act together in the police world, but we also have to make sure all the democratic countries get together to try to both focus on organized crime and harmonize legislation.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you.

The other question I have is with regard to passports. You've made frequent references to the issue. We have had situations of trafficking in passports. We've even had situations where, in foreign countries, their folks will use Canadian passports for counterterrorism.

It bothered me at the time that our response to this wasn't stringent enough. Do you think we should enhance the penalty for trafficking in passports? Do you feel it could use some strengthening?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: This is a big priority for the RCMP. One of the problems we're facing right now is that technology is so great right now, it's very hard to keep track. For instance, some laser photocopiers, which you may have seen, are used to produce counterfeit money and so on and so forth. This is another challenge we have to face.

As for my views on sentencing, I take a balanced approached. I am a strong believer in prevention. At the same time, we have to make sure that people who abuse democracy, who abuse Canada.... Canadians are pretty good people, but if people want to abuse our system, I believe they have to be punished, especially on the drug scene or anything in line with organized crime, including migrant smuggling.

The people on top of these organizations have to be punished. They are abusing our system. The problem is, they are far from the street. They do not have guns. They are at the top of high-rise buildings. Locks, money—they have everything. They have technology. They have experts. They have accountants. They have counsels.

In terms of most of our operations on organized crime, we are involved with five to ten countries all the time. When I try to think about five to twelve years from now, it's scary. At the same time, I believe we've put our efforts, within both the RCMP and the Canadian police at large, into trying to find solutions.

So we feel pretty good. We have some good people, and we have some some pretty good plans. Globally, however, the task is huge.

• 1030

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: You also mentioned in your report “unscrupulous consultants”. Now, members of Parliament, and lawyers in some cases, often deal with people who deal with consultants, some of whom might be questionable. As members of Parliament, then, can we call your office and tell you we have a concern if we become aware of a problem?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: This is one of the things we ask of the whole community. Organized crime is not a police problem, it's a societal problem, and we have to try to prevent crime. If a citizen has some information that could lead us to someone committing a crime, well, we have to know about it. We want to know about it.

We have some cases in front of the court right now with regard to consultants. I cannot expand too much on that, but this is something we deal with.

People try to make money in many ways, and when it comes to migrants, it's dealing with human misery. They're abusing people who are in Canada and who are scared. They don't know the system. They don't know Canada. They perhaps have had some problems in their own country, so when they come here, they're afraid to talk to the police because they have a certain perception of the police.

This is one side of working on immigration.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): I would like to deal with your second priority in particular. Mr. Telegdi spoke about it earlier but I would mainly like to get answers about the investigative powers you have in cases of corruption among government employees. Of course, consultants, experts and lawyers are often involved but also government employees.

Last August, we heard that at the consulate in Hong Kong, 2000 blank visas had suddenly disappeared as if by magic, maybe through the workings of the Holy Spirit. Nobody knew where they were gone; they had simply disappeared. We also heard that 700 names linked to the triads had disappeared from a file.

We also heard that some investigations were being made, since 1995 in some cases, but they were not conclusive. I must tell you that the answers from your people, dated August last, were hardly convincing.

I would like to know what parameters are held in this kind on investigations dealing with the risks of corruption among government employees. What are the parameters which are taken in consideration as far as corruption on the part of government employees in our offices abroad is concerned?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: The RCMP mandate is to work within the parameters of the Criminal Code and federal legislation. We make a criminal investigation. In the case you mention, I do not think I am able to give you a more conclusive answer than the answer given last August because the investigation is not yet concluded. It is really neither the time nor the place to make comments on an investigation which is under way.

I can tell you that each case of corruption is considered a priority by the RCMP. Whether it involves Canadians, here or outside the country, police officers or anybody else, a person suspected of corruption becomes a priority for the RCMP.

The administrative investigation is not under our responsibility. Some investigations take an enormous amount of time, sometimes years, before we can conclude them. Thus, I cannot really give you more details concerning this case because there is already an investigation under way. I am sorry.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Okay but you have to realize that this is an important question. Of course, if you want to deal with organized crime, with drug trafficking, you have to demonstrate that your own people are clean. Otherwise, you are in a bad position to be a spokesperson in the fight against organized crime in some matters.

I would like to know, if possible, whether there are now other investigations under way on other offices abroad than the one we already know, the Hong Kong office. Are there other investigations being made by the RCMP in Canadian consulates concerning the disappearance of files, visas or any other document?

• 1035

A/Commr René Charbonneau: Mr. Chair, once again, I do not think that the RCMP has a mandate to reveal such information. On the other hand, I can tell you once again that corruption is considered a priority; we will put aside many investigations to deal with one case of corruption in particular.

You certainly read or heard, over the last year or two, that we have been fairly active in corruption cases, both in cases where people who work for the federal government are involved and in those involving lawyers or judges, or anybody else for that matter. Many cases are under appeal and therefore cannot be commented on. However, I can assure you that I entirely agree with you that everything which is linked to public institutions must absolutely be above the slightest suspicion. I agree one hundred percent with you, and this is why it is our number one priority.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chair, has there been in the past any investigations whose outcome made it possible to lay charges against civil servants working in offices abroad?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: I would not like to give you false indications. I would say yes, but I would prefer to check before giving you an official answer on this.

It has to be understood that some people from the country where things happen, who are not necessarily Canadians, work in our embassies. We should make a distinction between the Canadian staff and contract employees for the Canadian Government outside the country.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: If charges were made in the past, would it be possible for you to tell the committee which office was concerned?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: I would have to check this before. I did tell you that I believe there were some, but I must absolutely check this before. It is something very important and I do not want to give false information to your committee, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, touching on priority number two, Mr. Telegdi started the questions that are of particular interest to me. You heard the frustration from Mr. Bigras about some of the larger issues.

I'm a relatively new member of Parliament and I'll be honest—yes, I'm now a veteran, because we have a few newer ones—and tell you that I am amazed at the types of things I am hearing about in the community in 1999 with regard to corruption in immigration processes and so on. Usually it's something that is very difficult to put your finger on. For example, it's a rumour in a community that if you want to get any action on something you have to go to a particular consultant or, in my case, lawyers who are resident in the United States who will come over to Canada, make representations, and all of a sudden a case is fixed, closed, whatever. They get what they want.

It seems to me that we all have to work together in order to eradicate this problem. Maybe it never will be eradicated, but we certainly want to do whatever we can to help. I know my staff would love to be helpful about this, and I'm sure that many government employees would as well. Is there any particular training program that could be put on by the RCMP or someone else that might help in trying to identify these situations, that might give them training in terms of exactly what to look for, how to identify that there is a potential problem, and what questions to ask in order to try to uncover it, in order to be full partners with you and make your investigation more fruitful?

• 1040

A/Commr René Charbonneau: Thank you very much. This is a beautiful question.

As I said before, I'm a strong believer in prevention and education. Yes, we have programs. Please call the local RCMP office or our office here in Ottawa and I'll make sure arrangements are made so that you have the proper awareness program, let us say. This is something we've been trying to do a lot.

Our training was changed five or six years ago; we call it problem-solving. This is what I referred to in my presentation: problem-solving. We want to be a problem-solving police force. That includes strong enforcement. This is part of solving problems.

But at the same time, the example I use in drug enforcement is that sometimes some people who are selling drugs on the corners of the streets are victims more than they're criminals. That's why we in the police have to find solutions with people from treatment, from social services, from all over the community. The solution is not necessarily prison, jail. There are other alternatives. We have to be part of the solution.

If we can help, we will be present. We're developing many programs in prevention. My colleague Sergeant MacDonald has been outside Canada to give some information sessions, and I believe we may have prevented some people from hiding in containers and dying in containers by being very proactive outside Canada in preventing crime.

Maybe, Bill, you could—

Mr. Rick Limoges: Well, maybe just before we get into that, if we could—because I have a short period of time for questions—we could ask that you perhaps.... I know resources are tight, but is there any way we could be more proactive in terms of offering these training programs to political staff, to the community at large, to immigrant communities within our local municipalities, and also to government employees? Is there some way they can be made aware, first of all, of the existence of these programs, and secondly, that they are made available so that they can access them and perhaps get these things rolled out...?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: As I said—

Mr. Rick Limoges: Everything from tapes to a formal program, whatever you have.

A/Commr René Charbonneau: —I don't want our people to be trying strictly to arrest people. I want a certain percentage of our resources to devote their time to prevention. This is part of policing. We have handed out some pamphlets; you will see. As I said before, that balanced approach, prevention, is a big priority for the RCMP. Maybe your staff could get in touch with our office and we'll tell you exactly what we can do.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Does Sergeant MacDonald want to add something?

Sergeant Bill MacDonald (Senior Reviewer Analyst, Immigration and Federal Branch, Federal Services Directorate, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Yes, sir, if you like. Assistant Commissioner Charbonneau referred to enforcement through prevention: preventing people or organized crime groups from gaining access to Canadian soil.

As part of our program, I had the opportunity to react to a specific incident of individuals arriving in Canada ostensibly as stowaways in containers, involving one particular shipping line, the port of Halifax, and journeys originating from the United Kingdom. Along with investigators from Halifax, we travelled to the United Kingdom and formed partnerships with the various agencies over there that had concerns in these matters. We raised the profile of the issue.

• 1045

As a result of that—which was in June of this year—the authorities in the port of Liverpool in the U.K. have instituted a number of preventative measures, including increased physical security in the port area, closed-circuit television camera surveillance, and rewards to port workers for turning in unauthorized individuals in the port area. Since this small investment of our resources towards preventing this continued action, there have been no further arrivals in the port of Halifax of people, undocumented or improperly documented, who haven't been screened through Citizenship and Immigration's programs.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Very good.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Charbonneau, we know that for the last few years your budgets have been cut or even cut to the bone. This translates in a staff reduction in embassies and consulates in foreign countries.

I'm going to ask you a question on this. Does this mean that foreign contract employees are replacing those police officers? I would have another question before you start answering this one.

Mr. Kennedy mentioned that you had 100 extra officers in our three airports here in Canada. With the staff and budget cuts, how are you able to pay those 100 extra officers?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: Your first question deals with what I said earlier in answer to a question from Mr. Bigras. The contract employees are people who work in our embassies as administrative support staff. They have no policing function. We have liaison officers outside the country.

Mr. David Price: I understand this. But, before budgets were cut, did you have more officers in the field who were doing part of the job which is being done now by residents of the country?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: No, we didn't. The duties of a police officer are really special, in particular outside the country, where we have no power as a peace officer.

Now, I really put the emphasis on globalization, on the international dimension of our investigations. With the increase of the global technological challenge, in relation with organized crime, etc., it is very clear that we have to have more people outside the country to ensure that we receive timely information. It is extremely important.

Our requests to the federal government have been made with this in mind. To be able to fight organized crime, you have to have a very strong presence abroad, in the countries where the source of drug-related crime is, where there are major problems. It is easy for us to identify them.

I can reiterate what I have been saying for quite a while, that we have to be proactive and to share information quickly, because criminals travel. They travel a lot, and very fast. They have all the technology. Within a few days, they go to three or four countries. I am not talking only about towns or provinces in North America but about towns in Europe, Asia and Canada. They travel as much as this.

So we have to have someone in the field to whom we can communicate the information and with whom we can ensure there is a follow-up on this information. If you do not have a presence...

I was in Bangkok. If we were not by the side of the national police of Thailand, we certainly would not have a service which is as fast as we wish.

This is part of the action as we approach Year 2000. Things are going fast and it is the same everywhere in the world.

Mr. David Price: But with no staff...

A/Commr René Charbonneau: We need staff. We do need them.

Mr. David Price: How can you do it without having more people?

• 1050

A/Commr René Charbonneau: As far as airports are concerned, without violating the rules which protect privileged information, I think that it is quite normal that I should tell you that, in all logic, points of entry in Canada, whether on the West Coast or the East Coast, whether in offices on our borders or in our airports, are considered as strategic places from a policing point of view. Thus we have to have a strong presence in those places, in particular in international airports. What I mean is that a great many crimes are committed in airports as such, but also in all the surrounding area. It is a good place for crime, because of people who travel a lot, and more and more so. I talked about this earlier in my presentation.

By putting officers in place, as is being done presently, we are promoting contact and we are developing an information network. If you see a police officer near you, you know that there is some police. It is easier; you are going to think about it and maybe talk or give a piece of information. It is the first form of support.

We will also be able to develop plans to identify criminal networks which use the airport or the surrounding area, which includes cargo, etc.

Mr. David Price: I agree with you. I agree entirely with you, but what I am looking for is whether, in order to send 100 people in the airports, you had to cut your staff elsewhere.

A/Commr René Charbonneau: Oh no. I apologize for...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): It's a five-minute question. Maybe we can get an answer for that.

[Translation]

A/Commr René Charbonneau: Those are people who were added. I apologize for not answering your question. These are entirely new resources which were added.

Mr. David Price: Where did you get the money?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: We got the money through a federal initiative.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): The proceeds of crime, perhaps.

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner, I thank you and your officers for being here with us this morning.

I was very pleased to hear you speak about prevention, rehabilitation, and solutions as part of the program, because when I first read this I thought there wasn't one line in here that said anything about the positive aspects for the refugees and the 125 million migrants who are travelling around the world. There are legitimate reasons for their wanting a place like Canada. So I was pleased that in your spoken remarks you did say that your focus is not wholly on the illegal aspect of the work you do.

I want to ask a couple of questions. A while ago, a number of years ago, my passport was stolen. I had travelled many, many places, but no one had put stamps in the passport, and if you turned the pages, it looked as though it were brand new, despite the fact that I had been in several places. Are there certain procedures that have changed since to ensure that a passport like that is not just brand new, with no marks on the pages? I was surprised that having been around, there were no stamps. It seems to me there are places where no stamps are put on passports.

A/Commr René Charbonneau: Before I answer the question, I'd like to comment on your comment that too many times police work is not very positive. Maybe we do focus too much on strong enforcement, and we have to arrest people and so on. But believe me, police officers across Canada are part of the community, and more and more we talk about partnership and we want to be with people who find solutions. I believe that as police officers, the RCMP, we are everywhere in Canada—north, south, east, west, in small villages, everywhere—and we want to be part of the solution.

• 1055

To your question, I cannot answer that because I do not know. This is an Immigration Canada issue. I don't know, Ray, if you know something about it, but this is something that is not in line with my field of work.

Superintendent Raymond Lang (Immigration and Federal Branch, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Well, I've been around a few countries in my past few years as the officer in charge of the immigration program, and especially if you go to Europe, they sometimes don't even look at your passport. So that's a policy of the country you're visiting. They will decide if they will put a stamp in your passport or not. In some countries, I was asked if I'd like to have a stamp put in my passport. Well, it's relative. But especially in Europe—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): It's a souvenir.

Supt Raymond Lang: Exactly. That's a policy of the country you are visiting.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I just felt whoever stole the passport got a nice clean document that they could use for whatever reason.

The other question I want to ask is this. You talk about working and sharing with police forces around the world. We have different laws, different modi operandi, different whatever. How do you work in partnership with some places where there might be corruption within the system and where certain kinds of behaviours might be acceptable behaviours and, at the same time, hold on to the rights of Canadian laws, etc.?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: That's a good question. In my present function, and even before, I've been involved in many countries. As I said, I was in the jungle in Peru, but also I was in the other countries in South America. I don't want to name countries, because—

Ms. Jean Augustine: Yes.

A/Commr René Charbonneau: Something you can do is stay home, or don't go to these countries at all, and that's it. As Canadians, the RCMP, our direction is that we go to these countries. We invite these people to our international training programs. We find the right honest persons. From my own experience, I have met the best people in the world in Canada, but also everywhere I went I met some very good people. So you have to invest in human beings, and down the road we develop contact networks and we work.

There's a risk management issue. But we believe this is something we have to do to find the right people, and in each and every country there are some beautiful people. So we have to find the right honest police officers and work with them—work our way. Sometimes we may get burnt, but....

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Can I ask my final...?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): We have to be out of here at ll o'clock, and Mr. Gouk wants to ask questions. If there's time after that, I'll come back to you.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Sure.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize, gentlemen, for arriving late. I had to speak in the House, and sometimes their schedules get a little twisted from what we expect.

I'd like to start by observing that never have I seen an organization that does so much with so little in terms of the budgetary restraints you're working under these days.

Some time ago, I was involved as part of a panel on a CBC program. I can't remember even what it was called now, but it was a pre-recorded TV program out of Montreal. The panel consisted of me, Barbara McDougall—who I'm sure most people remember—and a couple of people from the United States. One was a press secretary or some high media person connected with the White House, and one was an American border-state governor. The program started out to be over the issue of Canadians going into the United States, when there was all that talk of Canadians having to show identification, a lot of proof of citizenship, of having to check in and check out.

The American governor said fairly succinctly that they had immigration laws in their country, that they thought they were fair, and that they were tough in order to protect Americans, be it long-stemmed, multi-generational Americans, or brand new citizens and people who had immigrated there and were becoming part of the American fabric. But they said their problem is they have this great undefended border, and our immigration laws and our enforcement of our immigration laws, to the extent we have them, is a lot different from theirs. So what's the good of their having tough immigration laws if a lot of people who shouldn't be getting into the United States are getting into Canada and then simply walking across the border?

• 1100

We heard that of course more recently with the illegal Chinese immigrants. Most of those disappear, and the likely destination for them is New York.

So I would ask if you have had talks with your counterparts across the line about that specific issue and how you're addressing that, and if budgetary restraints are in fact a big inhibitor for you in dealing with problems such as that.

A/Commr René Charbonneau: As I said before, there's a cost of running these big operations. If we're serious about attacking organized crime, we have to put the money on the table. Technology is a big issue. Being able to travel in these countries costs a lot of money. So it does cost a lot of money to the RCMP, and we have asked for more money.

We have people around the country from the RCMP working a lot of voluntary overtime. They're entitled to be paid, just like any Canadian. So we obviously need more money, and we've made our needs known to the federal government.

I have met with my colleagues from the U.S.A.; I meet with them on a regular basis. I met with them back in September in Washington. We talked about immigration, but we talked mainly about organized crime as a whole. What we're trying to do is be much better at exchanging information and identifying the main players, because they are not all involved in smuggling migrants. They are involved in major crimes at large. Wherever they can make money, they'll try to make money out of it.

We have to target the main major players. If they are involved in organized crime, we police officers will have to demonstrate to the tribunal the impact these people have on Canadian society. Then it's up to the judge and the judicial system to do their job.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Do you have any comments, though, on the difference between our immigration policy and the American policies, and how there's any conflict there that maybe creates a difficulty with this flow?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: Well, we have different laws not only in immigration but in many, many other areas. I do believe that with Bill C-95, the organized crime legislation, we're going to have to test more and more the organized crime and anti-gang legislation. We don't have that many of them in front of the courts right now. We will see how the courts will react. But we're going to have to be much stiffer and stronger to get these people who are in organized crime.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much, and thank you, gentlemen, for coming. It was very interesting.

I'm sorry that we're out of time. There's another committee coming in the door, so we must adjourn these proceedings. Thank you once again.

This committee stands adjourned until Wednesday, December 1, 1999.