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 29, 2001

• 0908

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. We've got a lot of work to do, hopefully between now and let's say 11 and 11:30. I think we should be able to get through this and deal with some stuff.

For your information, the Canada-United States Accord on Our Shared Border is here. We also have some additional papers for you, with regard to fair and efficient asylum procedures, for your review. I think we were asking about safe third-country concepts and first country of asylum, so it was prepared to give you some context with regard to that area.

There is also a rough summary of evidence on travel to Canadian ports of entry. Jay has put together a synopsis of a number of things, including what was said. It's not word for word because, as you know, there were not only single meetings but multiple questions between officials and ourselves. But this will give you a synopsis of what was said on our travels, as background information, just to refresh our memories, which we need to do every once in a while.

Let's pick up where we left off. Some of the changes we asked for have been done on the front end of the stuff, so we're not going to go to the front end just yet. Let's finish where we were going.

• 0910

We'll go to page 44. As you remember, in the new document, the third draft, we ended up talking a little bit about Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency working together to ensure their officers were equipped with sufficient protective tools, training and authorization to deal with when necessary. I had that broken down, so we talk about protective tools without defining them. We put that in there. More importantly, we also want a greater presence of uniformed RCMP and police officers at the border, to indicate we're very serious about security.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Chairman, we received the draft report on Tuesday. I'm sure I'm not the only one who tried to read through it, understand it and make some corrections. Obviously, I made some notations before page 44. We can start on page 44, as you wish, but once we've reached page 60, I would like us to go back to the beginning so that I can point out to the committee some of the changes I would like to see.

We seem to be very pressed for time since September 11 for a variety of reasons that may seem obvious to some, and less obvious to others. As Chair of the committee, I'm sure you can understand that and I hope you will encourage an honest, serious discussion of this report. It is important because it will reflect our values.

Thank you for hearing me out, Mr. Chairman. I hope you will heed my words.

[English]

The Chair: I'll wait for your further remarks after page 69. We will go back to the beginning.

I'm not trying to rush anything. I'm shooting for Tuesday, in terms of tabling it in the House and having a news conference, but I don't have a problem moving it to Thursday if I have to, in order to take some additional time. At the end of the day, I don't want to go beyond Thursday. We have a budget coming, and let's face it, we need to do a number of things. The Canadian people expect us to do it.

We have an American audience that needs to understand and know that this committee on immigration has taken the necessary steps to at least address this as quickly as possible and put forward a very credible document. We've gone 90% of the way. We'll see how far we've gone after today, but let's try to stick to the stuff and go the other 10%.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Could I ask that we just go back to page 27 for a moment?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Why?

The Chair: I'm continuing where we left off. We're going to get to page 27 again.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I thought we were past there.

The Chair: We're at page 44. We can come back because I think you're saying we made some changes, as agreed at the last meeting....

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, I just want to point out we've identified locations of motion-triggered cameras and motion detectors, and we might not want to identify their locations in the report. We've said: “The Emerson-based IBET makes use of hidden motion-triggered cameras, while at Lacolle motion detectors...”. It probably doesn't make sense to identify where we're using this technology, just that it's being used.

The Chair: Good point. We'll make note of that. We're going to go back to the beginning.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I just didn't want to forget it.

The Chair: Thank you.

On this recommendation, the way we left it, I thought there was a consensus that we believed our Canadian customs and immigration people ought to be given protective tools, and we ought to have a greater presence of RCMP and police officers.

There might have been some divergence on whether or not we ought to arm our immigration officers or—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Where are you again?

The Chair: We're on page 44, on those two recommendations. It's a new version.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Oh, it's the new version.

The Chair: Get rid of that one and get your new one.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: All my notes are useless now, is that what you're telling me?

The Chair: No, you'll have to work with both documents, I guess.

My point is there was divergence on whether or not we were proposing to put guns in the hands of our customs and immigration officers. I think that's the debate we ended with last time. I'll continue that debate, unless everybody's satisfied with the way we've done it now, talking about protective tools without identifying them.

I think we heard from our witnesses that in some cases mace, pepper spray, handcuffs, and some other things were probably sufficient, but we needed to do a number of other things, such as secure the premises and install bullet-proof glass.

• 0915

There's another recommendation that we be very sensitive to the safety of our customs and immigration workers, because assaults on them occur. They have to suffer verbal and physical abuse. So we have to be sensitive to that, and make sure we have people who can respond to those kinds of threats and stresses.

Paul is next, and then Madeleine.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): On page 44, just looking at the wording of the recommendation, it says “There be a greater armed presence at ports of entry in the form of uniformed RCMP or police officers”. It's just a wording problem. It's not “uniformed RCMP or police officers”. RCMP are police officers. I'd rather have it something like, “in the form of uniformed police officers, such as the RCMP or local municipal forces”. They're both police. It's just a matter of semantics.

The Chair: I agree, it's a word problem. Most RCMP have uniforms on, unless they're doing something else.

Mr. Paul Forseth: The idea is it's a uniformed officer, and it could be the RCMP or local municipal forces.

The Chair: Okay.

Madeleine, is this on the same point, or something different?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Regarding this matter, I would like a report to be filed with the committee on the use of protective tools by immigration officers over the past year. I'm not interested in going back 10 years, but I do want to know exactly how many times immigration officers had to call on the RCMP for security reasons.

This type of information would be useful. How can we know if they have enough protective tools available if we don't know what these tools are used for in the first place?

[English]

The Chair: I don't know if we got that information, but let's see what we can do with it.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: If he doesn't have it, we can request it.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Paul, we'll change that wording on the police. Is there anything else on this one?

Mr. Paul Forseth: No.

Just in response to Madeleine, I think the department may have some internal stuff about that, but it may not be appropriate for the purposes of our report.

But along the same lines of using force and detaining people, you'll recall yesterday the minister, in response to my question, said how many detainee days there were, and on average how many people. That whole series of questions about the level of detainees, the number of detained days, and so on, should be in our report here somewhere, probably in the detention section.

The Chair: We're getting to the detention section right now. That might be appropriate there.

So are there any difficulties with those two recommendations? We're going to change the words of “uniformed police officers”.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I have some concerns I just want to register now. I certainly recall in Vancouver I didn't hear a huge cry from folks that they needed better devices on them to intimidate people or protect themselves.

The Chair: It wasn't overwhelming, you're right.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: That's my concern. I'm not sure why we need this recommendation.

The Chair: First, I think it was only raised at certain points. Secondly, it was raised by the unions when they were here. They addressed it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. I heard that.

The Chair: It is a practice that is occurring sporadically here, there, and everywhere else. The administrative guidelines are there. So if someone requests it, I think the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.... It's mostly customs people who are given some of the protective tools, but that's not the standard. It's not the case all the time.

We want to reinforce that we believe, from what we've heard—perhaps not from great numbers of people—that our people ought to be given the protective tools they need to protect themselves. I think it's a pretty generic thing. It's in practice now, when required.

• 0920

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Is the intention to protect in the event of danger, or is it to display these devices to intimidate folks who might on the basis of that...?

The Chair: I would hope it's to protect themselves, primarily—for self-protection and not to intimidate people. That's usually the Canadian way.

I don't know about you, but I was shocked when we went into that one room—I can't remember where it was—and there was a hole in the wall; and when we talked to the one lady who in fact had been assaulted two or three times—not only verbally but physically. I can't remember where that was. Was it in Manitoba or in Vancouver?

Primarily that's where I'm coming from. Somebody else might have another view, but I think primarily it's to protect these people who sometimes are confronted with some pretty mean characters—not the good ones, but the mean characters who might not accept the verdict or the....

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, the request was mostly at the land border sites rather than at airports. They often find firearms—often even illegal firearms, such as submachine guns and all that kind of stuff. They want to disarm these people.

When there are events at the Blaine border crossing we hear of it locally. We've heard of people even trying to escape, say, from a bank robbery or whatever. They hit the border. There have been a variety of incidents over the years.

I crossed at the Douglas border crossing just the other day and I noticed a change in the appearance of the border guards. They did have the baton. They had handcuffs and other things. And intimidation is an appropriate part of law enforcement, in that when people who might think they could possibly get away with something see appropriate kinds of response measures, they behave themselves. It's like capacity creates its own demand. If it appears to be a soft touch to them, maybe they're going to misbehave, figuring they can intimidate their way through or whatever. So firearms are more of a request from the land borders than in the airports.

The Chair: Are there any further questions on this one? Okay.

We'll move on to the detention of refugee claimants, sections 2.71, 2.72, and 2.73.

Jay or Benjamin, do you want to take us through these things? We've all obviously had an opportunity to read them, but just in case a quick overview is needed.

Mr. Jay Sinha (Committee Researcher): Sure. The section begins with a general outline of grounds for detention under the new act, and reference is made to the Australian detention policy. The first recommendation appears on page 46.

The Chair: Okay. You can all read the first recommendation.

I don't think it's strong enough, and I raised this with the researcher. I want to make sure Bill C-42, which was just introduced into the House.... If I'm not mistaken, it has some detention provisions in it. In other words, it's expediting what Bill C-11 meant to do. We obviously have a report here talking about detention.

Again it's perception rather than reality. Right now it's “may”. I thought in Bill C-42 there was stronger language. But I'll hold my points until I hear others.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What's “may”?

The Chair: Look at 2.71. That's essentially what the policy is. It says:

...foreign nationals may be arrested and detained without warrant if the immigration officers are not satisfied as to their identity. They may also be detained upon...

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chair, that's not a correct interpretation of the word “may”. All it's saying is that it may happen—not that one “may or may not”; it's not permissive. It's only stating the fact that indeed it may happen under the current policy. That's how I would interpret it.

It's not a permissive “may”, because the word “should” is used in the recommendation that it be for a minimum period necessary. I would hope we would agree that we would do it for the minimum time necessary.

The Chair: But then the “should” is in the wrong place.

I would agree with the intent, Steve, that you're just about to talk about, but the “should” is in the wrong place.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You could say detention should continue to play a role, but it will. We're recommending that it continue to play a role in our border security procedures.

• 0925

The Chair: Presently we may do so based on a number of factors.

Where I'm coming from—and “may” isn't going to do it—I thought I heard.... Again, if we want to ensure especially undocumented and uncooperative people...there should be a reverse onus.

If you can convince an immigration officer you're not a threat, you're going to be peaceful, you're prepared to cooperate, then by all means, after we've done your fingerprinting and your interviews and so on—your front-end screening—you would be allowed into the community. But if you're not going to be cooperative, and you are undocumented, the policy essentially says you may be detained. It's discretionary.

To tell you the truth, I'd be more comfortable with a word such as “could” as opposed to “may”. “Should” is probably too much.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You're not dealing with the issue in the context of the recommendation. You're dealing with the preface to the recommendation.

The Chair: No, I'm dealing with the recommendation. I think that the—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Paragraph 2.71 is not the recommendation.

The Chair: No, maybe the recommendation doesn't reflect what you and I are saying.

Let's go to Paul and Madeleine.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay, the law does say “may” as far as I know. That's the law. But I agree with what you're saying. It's basically saying that it may happen.

My concern is this whole paragraph 2.73. The sentence is “The Australian government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars detaining people with no security risk and yet the boats keep coming.” It doesn't address the geographical situation or the historical proximity to war and all the socio-economic, great differences between countries that are close together. To say they pose no security risk isn't necessarily true, either.

To say in the recommendation that cautions “must be administered without discrimination” is almost implying that the Canadian system has been operating with discrimination. I really wonder what the whole message of this is. Why even have it here?

The Chair: I think “administered without discrimination” means we want to be sensitive to different cultures and so on and so forth. That's a signal perhaps to the immigration officers that there are certain sensitivities that should be taken—

Mr. Paul Forseth: But they're not there.

The Chair: Whether or not this is implied and is what should be happening, and whether it's been mentioned yet or not.... You have a good point.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Then we should say in the paragraph that evaluation should be done not solely based on hard profiling but also with sensitivity to language and cultural differences and means of communication and all that.

The Chair: Good point. I might agree with you on getting rid of 2.73 and probably reworking it with the sensitivity statement you just talked about.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You'll be happy, Mr. Chairman, because these are the changes that I wanted to see made to the recommendation in paragraph 2.73:

That detention continue to play a role in our border security measures, but cautions that [...]

At this point, I would add the following in the French version:

[...] pour que l'application de cette mesure exclue les mineurs, soit exempte de discrimination et que les personnes comparaissent dans un délai de 48 heures devant un agent de la CISR.

The “minimum period” referred to in the initial wording is therefore specified.

[English]

The Chair: You have some very good points, Madeleine, especially with regard to minors, but let me find out the minimum period. I think there is a minimum period guideline somewhere. We'll look into it. For detention review it's 48 hours.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Fine. Then we'll leave it at that.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, you just want it put in there.

What does everybody else think?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would recommend a slight change of wording.

It should say something like detention could continue to be an option in such and such circumstances, and that should detention be necessary, it should be done for the minimum period necessary. The emphasis should be that this is a tool of last resort for us in Canada, as opposed to the kind of approach in the States, where it's used on a blanket basis. I think the wording makes it awfully close to the U.S. model.

The Chair: Steve.

• 0930

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If you look at the next paragraph, it sort of says what you're attempting to put in the recommendation. It says that asylum seekers should be detained in very few situations. But we want to send a message that what we heard, particularly at Laval, was that one of the reasons they're not being detained as often as the front-line officers might like is because of the early release within 48 hours by the adjudicators. So they're frustrated on the front line. They feel they should make a detention order, but they say “What's the point? I'm just going to lose it in 48 hours, so why go through all the effort of writing up an opinion and defending my decision and everything else? I'm just going to release them.”

The Chair: Steve, we do the adjudicator next. You'll see we address your very valid points.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But I think Judy's points are covered with the words “play a role”. That's what it does. It's one of the options. It plays a role at the border. If they feel there's a security risk or a flight risk, they detain. Frankly, I like it almost exactly the way it is.

I agree, though, with the point Paul made about the insinuation that we're operating under discrimination now.

The Chair: We're going to rework that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You can rework that, but I'd be hesitant to soften it or toughen it, frankly.

The Chair: I think it's fair to say in the U.S. model it's mandatory, and I don't believe any of us are talking about that. The present system, which is the existing legislation, not Bill C-11, is rather loosey-goosey. Bill C-11 and Bill C-42 are in fact a little stronger, right? This thing should be consistent with Bill C-11.

Also, Madeleine, I should point out that in Bill C-11 there's a clause that talks about 48 hours. So we'll put it in there, and probably reference the clause in Bill C-11 for you. As well, minors is a good idea.

Paul, in regard to your idea of scrapping discrimination, why don't we scrap that whole paragraph and have paragraph 2.73 as a sensitivity paragraph, being very conscious of cultures and languages, as you indicated? How's that?

Mr. Jay Sinha: Sure. And non-discrimination in application?

The Chair: Yes, get rid of that term “without discrimination” because we're going to do that in paragraph 2.73.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: When we're dealing with the issue of minors, I think the term we've all generally agreed upon, “the best interests of the child”, should be taken into account. So you might want to use that type of wording.

The Chair: Okay. Good stuff. We'll bring that back to you.

The next one, after paragraphs 2.74 and 2.75, says that more detailed statistics should be maintained in respect of immigration detentions, particularly the grounds for detention. I think all of us agree we need to have better information on who's there, why they're there, and why we're detaining them. Hopefully, when the minister reports to Parliament, this recommendation will find some favour.

Paul and Madeleine.

Mr. Paul Forseth: That relates to the question I raised in the House. I anticipate probably putting a question on the order paper quarterly—a pretty comprehensive question asking about detention days, categories, and all that. So we could put some of that information, at least a description of the current practice in statistics, in the narrative.

The Chair: You can strengthen the recommendation if you want to. Part of the recommendation could be that these statistics be provided in the annual report to Parliament. You know, there is an annual report there.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, that's right.

The Chair: So you might want to say that—

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, I would.

The Chair: —and make sure it's at least reported and documented someplace, rather than just saying “We want you to keep statistics, but unless we ask for them or you ask for them, they may never be made public”.

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's right.

The Chair: So we'll add it to the annual report, or whatever the proper terminology is.

In paragraph 2.76, the committee recommends that:

Appropriate long-term detention facilities be established for refugee claimants detained under the Immigration Act. However, the Committee opposes the mandatory detention of refugee claimants.

Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could you explain what you mean by “mandatory detention?” We've never called for that.

The Chair: We have the American system. You're right. We'll strike it, how's that?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You mean once someone says the “r” word down there, they're put into custody?

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Jay Sinha: They are automatically detained when they make an asylum claim at a port of entry, and I believe some inland claimants as well, if they're undocumented, are automatically detained. They are issued an exclusion or removal order, which can then bring them into a process before an immigration court judge where they can initiate an asylum claim.

• 0935

Mr. Paul Forseth: You see, our concern was that with a lot of the inland claims, after they've got in one way or another, they have these stories that they don't have documents or whatever. So what we've been saying all along—

The Chair: I agree with you. First of all, we dealt with detention in previous parts. I want to take that part out—the “However, the Committee opposes mandatory...”. I don't think we need that.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I agree with that. So where are we going to make the point that when we don't really know who the person is and because of that, we don't have the time to check out their background, they should be detained until we know who they are and we have some idea that they're okay?

The Chair: Paul, I thought that's what we were talking about after 2.73, because that is the detention recommendation. I'll give you a moment to reflect again. That's why I kept saying those are the recommendations that continue to play a role in our border security—detention, and so on.

This one deals with when someone is going to be in long-term detention. I think when we asked the government to tell us how many detention facilities we had, we found out we only have three. There is some very short-term stuff, but for the long-term stuff there really isn't anything. Do we want to put them in jails?

Right now the practice is we'll enter into agreement with federal or provincial prisons if they're going to be of a long-term nature, and if they're not criminals. I guess what we're saying here is that appropriate long-term detention facilities should be established for refugee claimants under the Immigration Act, so we don't put them into a prison population. I think we might have heard that.

Mr. Paul Forseth: We're trying to focus the recommendation then. Yes, just strike the last sentence because that introduces a whole different argument.

The Chair: Yes, we'll do that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think Paul raises a point that maybe we missed on the recommendation following 2.73. Where we say “continue to play a role in our border security procedures”, maybe we want to add “where they're undocumented and uncooperative”. Because often, if they come in and they're undocumented but cooperative, you can get the proper information and make the determination. Their documents might have legitimately been lost or whatever.

So maybe you should add, after “in our border security procedures”, the words “where refugee claimants are undocumented and uncooperative”.

The Chair: To tell you the truth, I asked the researchers to do that, because I think that's what we were all talking about. We'll get that changed, because there seems to be a presumption there that if you try to get into the country and you're uncooperative and undocumented, then you have a problem, and perhaps detention is going to happen.

If in fact you come undocumented and you have a darn good explanation and you're cooperative, then I don't think any of us have a problem with it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: One of the reasons I think we want to get that message out wherever we can around the world is that maybe that will stop people flushing their documents down the toilet.

The Chair: Precisely. So we'll change that one.

Okay, so there's no problem with long-term detention facilities?

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In the preamble to recommendation 2.76, specific mention is made of the Greater Toronto area. Our recommendation is really very broad. Space did not seem to be a problem at Dorval. The facility is in Laval and there is sufficient space in Laval. I think we need to assess our needs in terms of detention facilities. This is something we really need to know. If we say it this way, it implies that this is the case everywhere. Perhaps we need to assess...

[English]

The Chair: Yes, you have a good point. First of all, I don't know why that's there. Did that come about as a recommendation with regard to the greater Toronto area? We don't mention any other area. I'd rather keep it generic, after an assessment.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chair, I had a similar note, that instead of the word “appropriate”, we could put “where necessary, more long-term detention facilities”.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That we assess needs. Alright?

[English]

The Chair: Okay. We'll change that.

Can we strike the part where the committee notes with approval the planned facility for the GTA? I don't know where they got that. I didn't hear that. Can somebody tell me where that came from?

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's the plan.

The Chair: Yes, there was a plan, but there might be plans elsewhere. I don't know why we'd just identify that area as opposed to anywhere else.

Mr. Jay Sinha: I think that's a major project that's being scheduled right now in terms of detention facilities. It's supposed to be created within a year.

• 0940

The Chair: Well, perhaps we can say approriate detention facilities must be created. An example might be the one that's been planned for the greater Toronto area, if that's the model.

Mr. Jay Sinha: It is. They're moving from using hotels for the GTA now into an actual integration centre.

The Chair: And if that's an example, we should use that as an example.

Paragraph 2.77 is the preamble to a recommendation that “There be improved training of immigration officers regarding detention review jurisprudence”. Again, I think this is a sensitivity thing. “The department ensure that all relevant information gathered by the front-line immigration officers is made available to the Adjudication Division.”

Steve, this is your stuff. We want to make sure that in what the immigration officers do there's a certain degree of competency. An adjudicator might turn around and say, “Well, to hell with you, I'm going to release him anyway.”

Ben, do you want to take us through that?

I think there's a problem in trying to tell a quasi-judicial body what to do. I think we've phrased it in very diplomatic terms so that the point is the adjudicators need to be very sensitive and have all the information that the front-line officers have. Then perhaps they will hopefully take a different view.

Mr. Jay Sinha: Yes. There's a frustration expressed by the front-line officers, who have said people they were trying to detain were being released. Of course it's difficult to recommend that these people be detained when you have a quasi-judicial body reviewing the detention.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): We never heard from the adjudicators what the problem was. It would be nice to know. Are they lacking training, or what is their problem? Maybe we can find out.

The Chair: Well, they're bureaucrats and quasi-judges. I don't know if they would do it, but....

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I know.

Mr. Jay Sinha: We did get the IRB detention guidelines that the adjudicators use, and I believe they've been distributed.

A voice: It's also on the net.

The Chair: I think we have made the point. I just want to make sure that everyone agrees that the language isn't strong enough and needs to signal that at the end of the day we want the adjudicators to have all the information that our front-line people have. We want them to be a little more sensitive to letting someone out as opposed to detaining them further.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes. With regard to the sentence, “The department ensure that all relevant information gathered by the front-line immigration officer is made available”, that's part of the key. The IRB can only make a decision based on the quality of information placed before it. This is somewhere where I'd like to maybe beef it up a little bit more. Rather than language like “gathered by the front-line immigration officers” or “made available”, it should be more forcefully presented, almost like a prosecutorial type of file preparation, in order to ensure that all the relevant data is properly laid before the body. It should be laid out in the way of a crown prosecutor, instead of just saying here's a file, you might want to look at it.

Mr. Jay Sinha: Perhaps “is presented to” or “is before the Adjudication Division”?

Mr. Paul Forseth: “Is presented”, or something like that. It's just to....

The Chair: Yes. “Made available”. Maybe available is not....

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's my problem.

The Chair: I suppose if it's available but nobody asks for it, it will never see the light of day.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It has to be presented.

The Chair: Yes. Okay. Let's work on those words.

Does anybody have a problem with using the word “presented”?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't know that we need to necessarily change the wording. But if in the whole context of this report we're able to increase the resources, that will give the front-line workers more time to prepare their argument to go before the adjudicator and perhaps to be a little less stressed.

Think of the traffic cop who gives a ticket and has to show up in court to give evidence and defend it. It's a similar thing to what he has to go through. It's an awful lot of work for our officers to do. So in the combination of this whole report, hopefully that problem will be alleviated.

The Chair: Yes, because we talk a lot about resources coming up.

Mr. Paul Forseth: But as to the analogy, the problem is we don't have front-line people going down to the IRB. I take it that what they do is they're gathering file information and then it's passed on to another individual who makes the presentation, such as a presentation officer, or whatever they call it. That's more the system.

The Chair: Yes. Listen, I don't have a problem....

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I wasn't aware of that.

The Chair: When we went to Emerson, didn't someone at 3:30 in the morning or so need to do this and do that? One person was practically doing everything in the hat to show up at the adjudicators' meeting or the IRB, in terms of whether some of these people were released or not. So in some cases I think resources becomes part of the solution. Where Paul and all of us were coming from and I think where you were coming from is you want to make sure that those front-line reports get to the adjudicator. We want to make sure they have all of the relevant information so that they can make a decision, as to whether or not they ought to release or detain, based on significantly more information than perhaps they're getting now because of time and stress and so on.

• 0945

Mr. Steve Mahoney: At the risk of micro-managing, it would seem to me that if I were a front-line officer and I were going to detain somebody, I would make that decision and then I would probably go to my superior and say I'm going to detain this guy and I just want you to have a look at it. I think it's up to the department, not the committee, to establish this. But some people are better at giving evidence than others. Some people would put the case more forcefully and more appropriately.

The Chair: Let's see if we can rework the word “available”. I think we know where we might want to get to. Let's see if we can play around with the thing.

Backlog of deportation orders is another issue. Paragraphs 2.78, 2.79, 2.80, 2.81, 2.82. This is the Steve Mahoney recommendation. It's a quasi-amnesty about dealing with the backlog, unless you have some real problems in your background—you are a security threat, you are a criminal, etc.; then we want to get rid of you. But this is a way of dealing with the backlog and essentially assisting people to come above ground as opposed to underground.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I wonder if we might want to add after the words “be available” something to the effect of “under humanitarian and compassionate criteria”.

The way it works is that if you're in the country illegally now and you apply for humanitarian and compassionate considerations, there are two aspects to it. One, are you in some kind of risk if we return you, and two, have you established yourself in the country? You might have been here seven or eight years. I had a case in my office. They'd been in the country eight years, had two kids born here, were clearly at risk if they were sent back, had a good work history, owned a home—the whole nine yards—and they were granted status as a result of humanitarian and compassionate considerations. It's that kind of thing I'd like us to look at.

Realistically, as much as I've talked about an amnesty, I've had the message from the department that there's not going to be some broad amnesty that allows everybody to come out of the woods and get status as long as they're not a criminal. If we put in the humanitarian and compassionate grounds criterion, that exists in the department and we understand it. Hopefully they would understand it. Most of these people would probably seek legal advice or some kind of assistance from an NGO or somebody like that before they would come forward. So they would know pretty well that they have a good shot at it.

The Chair: Okay. I'm open to opinions here. Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: What country was that family going to be put back to?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I can't remember offhand.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay, because I had basically the same set of circumstances, and the family was deported.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I had another one that was deported.

Mr. Paul Forseth: There was quite a community outcry and upset about it.

The Chair: I have the feeling there seems to be a consensus around the fact that if you're in here illegally and can prove your case on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and you are not a criminal, we ought to find a mechanism to process this backlog. Is everybody on that same page on this one?

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, and I'm just wondering if we ever had a rough number in terms of people who might be here illegally.

The Chair: Anywhere from 10,000 to 27,000. I'll just throw that range out there, because nobody really knows. We don't know the numbers of people who have left voluntarily. There's another recommendation coming up that says perhaps we ought to signal people that if they have a removal order and are supposed to leave voluntarily, it is incumbent upon them to return the slip of paper that says they've returned or have left. Right now it says that in their orientation package, but it's not compulsory. So there are an awful lot of people who have left voluntarily that we don't know about. You're absolutely right, but that comes down the pipe.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC/DR): The Americans give you a card when you enter the country, and you're supposed to return it when you leave. I'd like to know what actually happens in that process, whether people do comply with their demands.

• 0950

The Chair: I don't know what kind of a card you're talking about. In some cases we have people with visas—

Mr. Inky Mark: An entry card. It happened to me when I went to the United States for post-secondary study. They would give you an entry card, and you're supposed to fill this card in when you leave the country and return to the country.

The Chair: Inky, that might be another point.

As you were coming through the door we were talking about the backlog that exists. What do we do with this backlog, especially if they're not criminals, not a security risk, and they're here? They might have had kids here. On humanitarian and compassionate grounds we might want to entertain this.

Mr. Jay Sinha: Just to clarify, does the committee want to go beyond the current H and C grounds in terms of the recommendations suggesting that relaxing—

The Chair: No, no, I'm not sure we're saying beyond. The fact is right now, technically speaking, one, they're not supposed to be here; two, we don't know who they are; three, we're trying to say that maybe, given an opportunity to come above ground and prove they're not criminals and so on, we can do our security...but apply the H and C, as Steve has indicated—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The issue is that you used the words “They pose no risk to our country”. I agree with this, but also under H and C the issue is that they are not at risk if we return them to their country. That's one of the criteria for humanitarian and compassionate grounds. So if we just add—

The Chair: I thought we were going to add something about humanitarian—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —the term “H and C” in there—“H and C criteria”, if you wish—it's covered.

The Chair: Yes.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: The other problem, of course, is the possibility of creating an incentive for those who are avoiding our standard, through-the-front-door immigration process. Capacity creates its own demand. They know they're never going to get in through the front door, so if they can just get in and behave themselves long enough to apply on compassionate grounds and so on....

This is why the last sentence in 2.81 bothers me. It says “The notion that such a program would increase illegal migration was examined by the Committee and rejected”. I think that's a little too strong. There is a valid concern about creating an incentive to go around the system—that once you get here, if you behave yourself, you're going to get in the door.

The Chair: Thank you. Okay, let's get rid of that statement.

The other thing is I just want to say you're absolutely right. To a certain extent—let's face it—Bill C-11 is supposed to nail the back door shut and open the front door for legal things. We're now talking about a system that has evolved over the past five or six or seven years, and you're absolutely right. We don't want to signal at all that if you can get into this country illegally and stay here long enough, perhaps there will be another special measure—I don't like to use the word “amnesty”—sometime down the road.

So one time only, I would agree. I think we're all on the same page, but we want to make sure we don't signal that it's all right to do this, because eventually somebody else is going to come along and recommend it. Let's rework this whole recommendation along those lines, H and C, and bring it back to you.

Now, combating organized crime is the next section, people smuggling and trafficking. This is another area where Bill C-11 has been addressed. The just-introduced Bill C-42 expedites a number of things, but the background, 2.83, 2.84, 2.85, 2.86.... We propose two recommendations here: that Canada work “with U.S. and other countries in joint operations to combat organized crime, including human smuggling and trafficking”; and the second one, that Canada “continue to foster regional, national and international partnerships to promote the free flow of valuable intelligence information”.

I had asked for a third one, because to tell you the truth, when we heard from our witnesses that some criminals are only getting $300 fines and a stay in jail for a week or two or whatever—this being the cost of doing business—I thought we were going to draft something to tighten this area up.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I would certainly support you. As written in Bill C-42 about the seizure of vehicles, which, by the way, was an amendment I made to Bill C-11 that was rejected by the committee—

The Chair: It's amazing.

Mr. Inky Mark: —but I'm glad to hear it's coming to pass....

The Chair: The government learns slowly, but surely. Thank you, Inky. I'm sure they read your testimony and said they had to pick up on your recommendation. Good work, Ink.

• 0955

What was the point you wanted to make?

Mr. Inky Mark: I'm glad to hear that you suggest that we should put in the section of Bill C-42 that applies to this.

The Chair: I agree. Okay.

[Translation]

Madeleine.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: At the very end of the recommendation in paragraph 2.86, mention is made of “regional, national and international partnerships to promote the free-flow of valuable intelligence information”. The expression “valuable intelligence information” is quite broad. I would like the following to be added on: “while respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. Putting it another way, I wouldn't want my credit card number to be widely circulated, given my credit limit. Yet, that could be considered valuable intelligence information.

[English]

The Chair: I hear it's a pretty big limit.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Indeterminate.

[English]

The Chair: Oh, my God, you see, it's incredible! Where did you want to add that, though, Madeleine?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: At the end.

[English]

The Chair: At the end.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: At the end, yes.

The Chair: Oh, okay.

Are there any problems with that one?

Mr. Paul Forseth: What paragraph are we talking about?

The Chair: That second recommendation, is that right?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

The Chair: Does anybody else have a comment?

I think there should be. That third recommendation incorporates, as I said before, Bill C-42. But I still thought that some of us were really ticked when we found out that some people can get away with just a small fine of $300. And I'm not sure that even Bill C-42 or Bill C-11 address that, even though they do talk about some pretty heavy-duty fines and everything else. But some of us were really concerned about some of these people—cost of operation, $300.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: You just lost me. Just direct me to the paragraph we're talking about. Where are we?

The Chair: The second recommendation on page 51, those two recommendations.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But a crime for what?

Mr. Jay Sinha: The addition suggested is in the second recommendation, the sharing of information respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is that the...?

The Chair: No, I think she was talking about what I was saying about the $300 fine. I think we heard it in Vancouver airport and other places, including Emerson, that some of these people were getting away with rather light charges and sentences for people smuggling and so on. Then it became a cost of doing business. I had instructed the researchers to provide a recommendation along that line, but I don't see it here. I just want to know whether that is an area you're all concerned about as well.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes. Somehow we need to send the appropriate signal that consequent penalties must be seen as the mere cost of doing business. I think we can just say it as simply as that, because then the overall meaning is conveyed without having to go on and on.

The Chair: I thought, as you said, Bill C-11 and Bill C-42 talk much more strongly, so I want to incorporate those in there. So you'll have to come back with those recommendations in there.

Okay, here's the section now: “Resources and Technology”, paragraph 2.87. I think this is that global first recommendation that tries to capture the essence of what we're talking about. What do you think about that recommendation? We get into more specific recommendations in the next pages, but I think this is the overall recommendation. So section (i) of that, “More People”, we start to talk about.... Paragraphs 2.88, 2.89, and 2.90—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

The Chair: Yes—in the recommendation.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The wording on 2.87 in the recommendation is—

The Chair: I'm sorry.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's okay, but I need you to listen to this, because the wording on paragraph 2.87 recommendation is fine, namely that “the government should provide more resources”. We then ratchet it up by using terms like “crisis”, “immediately provide emergency”. I didn't see a crisis out there; I saw a problem—namely that there's a lack of resources and that the people are a little bit stressed. But that's true everywhere in our government, frankly. I'm not saying this in a political way, but as a result of the changes that happened after 1993, every department paid the price of trying to get rid of the deficit, and this department was no exception. So I'm concerned that we're using terms like “provide emergency resources”.

• 1000

Mr. Paul Forseth: Where's that?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Recommendation 2.90—

The Chair: Page 53.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —at the bottom of page 53.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Oh, you jumped ahead a little bit.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, I thought that's where we were. I was saying that the way we refer to it in 2.87 is fine, that the government should provide more resources to point of entry. That's what I saw. I agree with that. To then ratchet it up to a higher level by saying it's an emergency and it's a crisis, I'm not comfortable with that.

The Chair: Are there comments?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would rather it read something to the effect that the Government of Canada provide long-term resources to deal with the current customs and immigration personnel issue, or some wording like that. I would like the words “emergency” and “crisis” deleted out of there.

Mr. Jay Sinha: And “immediately”?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What is “immediately”? The government should provide.... We know the process. The minister has to go to the management board, she has to make a cabinet submission, she has to fight for it, she has to lobby support.

The Chair: Yes, but the reality, Steve—I know where you're coming from, and I don't disagree—is that the government has responded in an emergency, in a crisis, by doing a number of things since September 11. Don't forget, this report is in the context of September 11 too, and—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, it is, but if I could just finish my point, what we really want is long-term, sustainable, well-trained, motivated people on the front lines. If the government has responded in the emergency after September 11, that to me is a separate issue. We want to give the personnel resources—

The Chair: We may want to separate it out. So far, okay, I've got you.

Inky and then Paul.

Mr. Inky Mark: I agree with you, Mr. Chair, that there has to be an acknowledgement and a recognition of the events of September 11. It's not status quo pre-September 11. Obviously the event has happened. If you don't want to use the words “crisis” or “emergency”, then we'll find another word.

The Chair: Maybe we can structure the fact....

Okay, Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I was going to suggest a wording:

The Government of Canada immediately provide sustainable resources to deal with the real customs and immigration needs at ports of entry across the country. This should include resources for front-line officers and administrative support staff.

So it immediately provides sustainable resources to deal with the real customs and immigration needs at ports.

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'm listening to everyone and in my estimation, the recommendation in paragraph 2.90 says exactly that.

[English]

The Chair: No, well, not exactly. Maybe en français it does.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeline Dalphond-Guiral: That's exactly what the French says.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, well, English is never very precise.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Well, it depends.

The Chair: Of course.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The French is nuanced.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, we won't get into that.

Anyway, I like Paul's wording. I think we'll deal with it. I'll tell you, though, that this overall recommendation—and I think the minister would agree—while I don't want to get into specific numbers of resources and everything else, there are four areas that I believe we should identify in a recommendation as needing additional resources, over and above what we so far have indicated as an example.

First is international immigration control officers. We've already said that in a report. And I think we're going to rework the numbers, because we wanted to really signal that we need some additional resources. As a committee we've heard, and the minister agrees, that what we need to do is to pinpoint the four areas where I think we need some additional people—IRB, the removals, detention capacities. If we repeat it, why not? We should add those areas where we expect those resources to be needed.

We said the front lines are important, but in order for us to do the backlog, we're going to need some people. In order for us to do what we want to do internationally, we need some people. In order to do detention, we're going to need some people. In order to do removals—removals are a real concern to Canadians and us—then we need some additional people. So rather than get into specifics, I think we should get a little more precise as to where we think we ought to deploy some additional resources.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Where would that be?

The Chair: In those four areas.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right at the end of this recommendation.

• 1005

The Chair: Yes, right at the end of this one, because this is the overall resource area. We ought to mention those categories. It's consistent with what I think the department and this committee want to do.

We'll redraft it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I want the record to show that for one of the few times in my parliamentary history I totally agree with a recommendation put by a member of the Canadian Alliance. And I'm starting to rethink why.

Mr. Jay Sinha: Just to clarify that, the second one would be a separate recommendation. The first one deals with ports of entry only.

The Chair: Yes, and the other one is on the other areas.

Mr. Jay Sinha: Okay.

The Chair: Part (ii) is on different customs and immigration pay scales. Paragraph 2.91 talks a little bit about what we heard; therefore the recommendation is to “work with their bargaining agents to consider returning to a single pay scale for both sets of employees to ensure fair, uniform remuneration...”.

Are there any problems with that?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: This report's recommendations could be singled out and therefore they must be clear. When we mention two types of employees, it would be appropriate to list them, namely immigration officers and customs officers.

[English]

The Chair: I think it's 2.91, Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Not in the recommendation. We're one paragraph 2.91.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, but they are there. It says Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I think in French.

[English]

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: When the unions were before the committee, did we put this question to them on uniformity?

The Chair: I think they put it to us.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I seem to recall the customs union people saying they deal with some 70 pieces of legislation, whereas the immigration officers deal with one. That's why there's a differential in the pay scale. I think you have a split.

If you're going to move them up and the immigration officers continue to administer only one piece of legislation and the customs people have to deal with 70, that certainly implies a difference in workload. If I were a bargaining agent, I would use that at the table.

I think the issue we were identifying was more about cross-training, and that there should be a greater effort to have immigration officers trained. Right now customs officers are trained immigration officers, but immigration officers are not trained customs officers.

I think I sensed a desire from colleagues for greater cross-training. Simply recommending they all get paid the same is not very responsible.

The Chair: But all immigration officers obviously want to become custom officers because they make more money.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes. They get more money.

The Chair: David.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): That's what we heard on the line, what I hear on the line on a regular basis, and what I see happening. As our travelling group saw, our main customs officer at the Stanstead border was formerly the head of immigration, but he moved because he had no chance of moving ahead. He hears it along the line. It's a common problem. But I agree with the cross-training; that's absolutely necessary. They should know.

We shouldn't say that customs officers know the job of immigration, because they only know a very tiny part of it. They are specialists in their own line, and they deal with our whole immigration set of laws. Granted they're handling only one thing instead of 70, but they need to have a much larger knowledge of that one thing.

The Chair: I hope this whole report is shifting the emphasis somewhat, maybe even a little subtly, from the preoccupation of our country with goods, to the preoccupation of our country with people at the borders. Because at the end of the day it's people who cause problems, not darn goods.

People deliver goods, people deliver bad goods, threatening goods, guns, explosives and everything. But at the end of the day I hope this whole exercise.... That's why I say immigration officers, especially if we want them at the PIL and at front lines, are going to play a far greater role. Their jobs are just as important as customs jobs. Maybe this gap ought to be narrowing, with regard to pay, as opposed to the wide gap that's there.

Mr. David Price: That's right. The levels should be in the same range.

• 1010

Mr. Paul Forseth: I think we may be jumping ahead of ourselves a little bit. We heard a message. We know that in personnel administration there are all kinds of independent standard tests that do very detailed job evaluations. For instance, there was the whole exercise we went through on pay equity. The science really moved, in that regard.

You may want to send a signal that there appears to be a problem in this area, and perhaps there should be some job evaluation to do the point scoring to see if there's some coming together.

The argument of 70 statutes is a bit of a phoney one. You have to look at daily working conditions, the kind of training that's needed, the kind of ongoing working conditions and stress, and the kind of clientele you're dealing with. There may be a way of statistically bringing this together.

The Chair: Are you saying this goes too far in recommending the return to a single pay scale for both?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes. Maybe this needs a report or an examination to see whether that is appropriate. We've come across an identified problem. There are some problems at the line, as identified, so that is a sore point that needs to be evaluated.

The Chair: Okay.

Inky and Steve.

Mr. Inky Mark: I agree with the comments that have been put on the floor. There's no doubt that immigration officials would not want to have equal pay if they weren't doing an equal job. That's the message I get.

In our travels we talked about the American system and how they change back and forth, hour to hour. Maybe that's what we're working toward, but I don't agree with the recommendation.

The Chair: Okay. We're going to rework it and talk a little bit about report examination study, as opposed to moving to a full single pay.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't think we should be dipping our oar in this pond at all on the pay scale issue. You can rest assured this will show up at the next bargaining session. They will say “This group of parliamentarians suggests we need a raise; we should be paid the same as those guys.” I just think it's nuts.

Let's talk about training issues and the fact that the customs and the immigration people need to understand each other's jobs better and have cross-training, and leave the bargaining of this to the people who do the bargaining, not to a committee of the House of Commons.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I would concur with that, but we should say we acknowledge some of the testimony, there appears to be a problem, and there should be an independent evaluation of that issue.

The Chair: Okay. That's what we're going to do. We're going to rework that anyway. So we're going to scrap this recommendation and rework one.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'd like to add a comment. As you rework it, we have spent a lot of time discussing the contribution of customs officials without acknowledging the demands and expectations we have for immigration officials. Whether it's here or somewhere else, we need to be able to say this is an onerous job. We have to recognize the responsibility through remuneration.

If you look at the Emerson situation, it was an immigration official, in the dead of night, who had to take the drive to Winnipeg with the dad and his three kids, sit through it all, and drop them off at different spots. That takes a certain kind of experience and commitment, and it should be recognized.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Spoken like a true bargaining agent.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Keep it the other way.

The Chair: Yes, we're going to do that.

On resources for training, Steve, this is yours. It covers paragraphs 2.92, 2.93, 2.94, and 2.95. There are four recommendations in this part. Let's deal with them one at a time. The first:

Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency provide resources to ensure that all customs officers are adequately trained in immigration matters. Customs officers should be monitored by CIC to ensure their immigration knowledge is sufficient.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't like the word “monitored”.

The Chair: If we want a greater presence, which we've already indicated, by immigration officers at the PIL, maybe monitored is not the right word.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would say the CIC department should use their best efforts to ensure their immigration knowledge is sufficient, or something to that effect. Monitored sounds kind of draconian.

The Chair: Okay. Are there any further problems on that one?

The other one is that students hired and trained to work at ports of entry be closely monitored. Do you like “monitored” for students?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's okay for students.

• 1015

The Chair: To ensure their training is sufficient. Okay.

Are there any problems with that one? None.

Next is that

Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency work with Justice Canada to make legal assistance directly available at all times to officers working in ports of entry and on investigations.

Is there any problem with that?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It could be available, in terms of telephone or something to that effect, the way the interpreters operate in Montreal.

The Chair: Yes. We'll just say, “make legal assistance directly available”.

Mr. Benjamin Dolin: That's in paragraph 2.94.

The Chair: Yes.

The next one is that CIC and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency ensure that sufficient resources are allocated for implementation of the new act, keeping in mind the need for training while simultaneously continuing existing duties.

I think we heard that pretty clearly. If you want us to do Bill C-11 and do a good job, you'll not only have to give us the resources, but we'll need the time and the training to make sure we can implement this new act.

Steve, do you have something?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No. I was looking at something else.

The Chair: Okay. In this section, are those four adequate? Does anybody want to add anything or change anything?

Mr. Paul Forseth: We're just now getting to the recommendation on the top of page 56. If we accept the change there, the customs officers should be monitored by CIC.

Do you want to change that?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Paul Forseth: But that's in the recommendation you were talking about.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, I was reading from the recommendation.

The Chair: Yes, we're changing that.

Now we'll go to section (iv), which is “Intelligence and Mobile Capacity Resources”, paragraphs 2.96, 2.97, 2.98, 2.99, and 2.100. We have four recommendations here. The first one is that CIC and its partner agencies hire more intelligence officers both in Canada and overseas. Is there any problem with that one?

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: If we put forward all these recommendations around resources, we should put as much weight if not more weight in terms of front-line workers, both here and overseas.

The Chair: Yes, we've done that.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Right. If we keep talking about more resources, the emphasis might end up being on intelligence officers, as opposed to where we really need them. So I'm a little nervous about that one.

The Chair: Okay.

On the ICOs, we've separated certain categories to make it a little easier. On this one, we're not trying to put boxes or numbers in place. It's just a recognition that on the intelligence side, based on the testimony we heard that we need some additional intelligence officers at the border on the front line, and overseas.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Did you get a number on that?

The Chair: I think we have the numbers already. This is CSIS, so it's not necessarily just CIC people; it's also CSIS.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Right. I don't recall being given a number on that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: CSIS won't tell us when they hire anybody anyway.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But did someone actually say in our hearings that we needed more intelligence officers?

The Chair: Yes.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: The first part says “Citizenship and Immigration Canada and its partner agencies hire more intelligence officers”. I want to add “to reflect the need for better information”. The whole reason why you hire people is to really recognize that we are in a bit of an information gap.

The Chair: You'd make a good book editor.

Okay. We have no problem with adding that stuff.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It would reflect the need for better information and intelligence.

The Chair: The second recommendation is that

Interactions between Citizenship and Immigration Canada and its intelligence partners should be better coordinated to optimize information flow. This should be a key priority because better intelligence is a fundamental deterrent and preventative measure against illegal border activity.

On that one, I think they did a better job. Right?

The third is “Technological tools should be incorporated into intelligence-gathering activities when relevant and possible”.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: What does that mean?

The Chair: It means, precisely when relevant and possible, we'll use technology.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: What are we talking about generally? We went through this a bit with the introduction of the new card and the possibility of it being used for gathering other information. I know our Privacy Commissioner expressed grave concerns. I'm just wondering what this means and whether or not we should qualify it.

• 1020

The Chair: If you look at paragraph 2.99, I think that's the sort of preamble to that recommendation, “Apart from people and coordination, the Committee feels the necessary tools...”, and so on and so forth. I think that's to capture, in essence, not only the people side of things, but also technology. So we say where it's relevant and possible we need some additional technological tools in intelligence gathering.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Like spying, you mean?

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On our own citizens?

The Chair: No, I wouldn't go quite that far.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: They're not citizens.

The Chair: Any further problems with that one?

Okay, the fourth one says a “greater mobile capacity to respond to problems that arise between ports of entry”. And I think that was in response to a whole bunch of people saying that they need some flexibility and mobility to move between points of entry. So give them the equipment, the technology in order to do that.

Does anybody have any other ideas with recommendations relating to intelligence and mobile capacity? Yes, Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: The only thing I would ask is the surveillance of borders either through land vehicles or air vehicles.

The Chair: It comes up later in the technology section.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Fontana is only being a smart-ass.

The Chair: Me, never.

Okay, we'll go then to the technology section, which is 2.101 and so on. We have five recommendations on page 61.

We recommend that CIC update its field operational support system, FOSS, to a more user-friendly interface and work with Canada Customs to integrate their databases for a cross-access by customs and immigration officers. I think that's what we heard of an awful lot. Remember, they didn't have Windows. I don't like to use the term “Windows”, because that's making Mr. Gates a lot more money, and I don't necessarily need to do that, because there are other interface options.

A voice: So user-friendly.

The Chair: That's why we said “user-friendly”.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Could we amend the mention of the word “Windows”?

The Chair: We did. In the new draft we got rid of Mr. Gate's Windows.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Excellent.

The Chair: Okay. Any problem with that one?

Secondly, on the primary automated lookout system, “traffic lanes with cameras should be installed at all land border ports of entry or, at least initially, at the busiest ones”. That's the PALS system. Any problems with that one?

Thirdly, the Government of Canada should work with airline companies to obtain access to passenger and booking information. That already has seen itself in Bill C-42; that's the passenger list and manifest. Any problems with that one?

On the top of page 62 it says “Automated Fingerprint Identification System technology should be installed at all busy land and air ports of entry.”

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have problems with this one. Can you explain how it would be applied and under what circumstances and what it means? Are we talking about widespread use of fingerprinting?

The Chair: I think this talks about that new fingerprint system, because we saw in some cases where they had it and in some cases where they used the really old primitive system. And the quality of the fingerprints wasn't very good; you couldn't do anything. I think in talking we want to set the standard that we need to have the best technology available, and that's what's called the AFIS technology.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do we know that?

The Chair: I don't know. Let's find out.

David.

Mr. David Price: We were told, too, at several places and I think one of the witnesses also stated that plain fingerprints don't work; it has to be the combined system. The systems we saw at the American side were both photo and fingerprint, always combined. You can combine other methods too, but there should be two. It's too easy to cheat on one.

The Chair: Go ahead.

• 1025

Mr. Jay Sinha: For refugee claimants, photos and fingerprints are taken.

Currently, in a lot of places where there isn't this AFIS technology, it's done manually. The problem with doing it manually is it's much less reliable, and the time turnover is much greater.

Mr. David Price: But you can still do two.

Mr. Jay Sinha: Yes.

Mr. David Price: Even manually you can do a photo and fingerprint.

Mr. Jay Sinha: The photos would still be—

The Chair: Listen, there's no problem with talking. Just in case somebody missed the point, it's that we should add “photo ID” to it. That's what you're talking about, David.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, given that these recommendations will be used on a stand-alone basis, this could easily be interpreted as something that is available at every airport for every passenger coming in on any plane. We automatically—

The Chair: I see what you're saying.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: These are phrasings that will tie it into the other stuff and what we're using it for.

The Chair: Well, no. I don't think we're talking about fingerprinting everybody who gets off the airplane or crosses the border as a visitor. I think this all goes back to the refugee application, right? So we want to clarify it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: For anyone under suspicion, right?

The Chair: Hang on a second.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: A passenger list being submitted to security agents.

The Chair: Let's put this one on hold until we find the reference point. I think it's earmarked only for.... First of all, we're saying that type of technology should be available at the ports of entry.

As to who actually gets sent to that little room, it could be somebody who says they're a refugee, so we have to go through the process of the new front-end screening. Or it may very well be there is some degree of suspicion from a customs officer or an immigration officer, who says he wants to check that person out, take their photograph, take their fingerprints, check their licence plate, their name, and see whether or not there's a need to be concerned about them.

I don't think there's a problem there. I think we want that level of technology available, again, as a tool, without indicating that we're going to put everybody through a fingerprint system.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: In this day and age, with the kind of legislation we're dealing with, it's not a bad idea to qualify things while you have a chance.

The Chair: I think you made your point on Bill C-36 very well.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Oh, oh.

The Chair: The last one was that CIC should purchase more hand-held heat-detection devices for marine ports. I think we all agreed, at least from what we heard in Vancouver—and I think you heard the same thing out east—there's not an awful lot of technology there for containers, to look for people and do a number of other things. This is in response to what we heard from the marine side. Are there any problems with that one?

We go to the section on resources for facilities, 2.106. This is the infrastructure. I think there was another one. There's another recommendation coming, or it should be here. It's not here.

Are there any problems with saying that the Government of Canada, through Public Works, should provide resources for the modernization and rebuilding of port-of-entry facilities that are out of date and in need of repair? I think we all heard that some of these things are 20th-century facilities—60, 70, or 80 years old—and need some updating.

I had suggested a second recommendation—it's not before you now—that we ought to talk about additional infrastructure leading up to ports of entry, highways and so on, so these ports of entry can function more efficiently on both sides of the border with regard to trade and commerce.

Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Being out of date or in need of repair is one aspect. I think there is another aspect when I look at the Detroit-Windsor border, which would be expansion.

We have a major problem with goods and people flowing back and forth at certain really high-intensity ports of entry. I think in many cases that may be a pretty large economic one.

I think it's very important to make sure we're up to speed on those ports of entry as well. It could be interpreted that this fits it, but I don't read it as fitting the bill.

The Chair: That's why we're going to have a second one, Jerry, that incorporates what you've said, and talks about expansion.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Okay. Thank you.

• 1030

The Chair: We'll say the word “trade” in there, because we want to make sure everybody understands—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Trade corridors.

The Chair: —that we may be the immigration committee, but we've heard loud and clear that commerce is very much a part of it.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Yes, to facilitate the major trade corridors. I think that's critical.

The Chair: Yes. We'll put that in there.

Mr. David Price: Mr. Chair, I know we've mentioned it in another place, but this is also a good place to continue it, because we're looking at modernization. Could we just add in there, “combining U.S. and Canada where possible”?

The Chair: We did that before, but if you want to repeat it, that's not a problem.

Mr. David Price: I thought of it because we're into modernization here. We're talking about physical plants.

The Chair: That's a good idea. There's nothing wrong with qualifying that where possible, shared facilities might be an option.

Mr. David Price: Sure.

The Chair: We've added a section G, but I didn't think we needed to have a recommendation. It's in light of what Steve started to talk about, and all of us have said, which is that refugees do not equate to terrorism—99% of them are probably fine; 1% may be causing the world some problems, or even us and the United States. But I thought we just wanted to make the point, rather than having a recommendation. This document, hopefully, will be an informative and educative tool.

Did you want to have a recommendation flow out of this?

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I don't know if we need a recommendation, but I would like to strike that last line in section G, which starts “To focus on refugees...”. Then when we flip over to the next page, it's in the last line of that first paragraph. It says “The refugee protection system must not be abused, but focusing on refugees...”. I wanted to change that to say “but focusing mostly on refugees as a major threat to security may be misplaced”, rather than say it cannot be justified. It just softens it a little bit.

We have to remember that the seven or eight major cases we're looking at now that may have connections to the al-Qaeda group are refugee claimants. Ahmed Ressam, who abused the system and made a mockery of us all, was a refugee claimant. I agree with proportionality and so on, but let's not go overboard.

The Chair: Listen, I don't have a problem getting rid of that last line. I don't think we lose anything. I think we made the fact that it's less than one tenth of 1%.

Does anybody have any comments? Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't have a problem with the last line, although I do think the refugee system has been scapegoated by people, particularly some folks in the United States. But I can live with that.

The Chair: We've made that point.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm not clear on what you want to change on the other.

The Chair: That was on the conclusion.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, it's in 2.109, the second point you made, Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'll just read it again, my preferred reading:

The refugee protection system must not be abused, but focusing mostly on refugees as a major threat to security may be misplaced. Yes we must focus, but in the right directions.

That's my preferred reading.

The Chair: I have another problem with “misplaced”.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Here we go with this “may” stuff again. I'm on the other side of the “may” debate at the present time.

I don't have a problem with the first part, but changing “cannot be justified” to “may be misplaced”.... Maybe there's some better wording in the middle of that.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): It could be “misleading”.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It could be “misleading”. Yes.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Call it “misinformed” or—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I like that.

The Chair: So we have three suggestions: “misleading”, “misinformed”—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'll go with anything you want except “may be misplaced”, if you'll agree to leave in “cannot be justified”.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Do we have to have a double negative on that statement as well, the “not uncommon”?

The Chair: I'm not an English teacher. You are. You were a principal. You would probably know and care about these things much more than I.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Just say “irresponsible, misinformed attacks on the refugee system were common”.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Jerry?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: It says “not uncommon”. That's a double negative. They're common, and I think that is the point.

The Chair: Where is that?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: It's in the third line.

The Chair: Of 2.109?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: No, it's in 2.107.

The Chair: We were on 2.109 for a moment. Let's stick to 2.109, then we'll go back to 2.107.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to focus on an earlier paragraph in the report. You stated that there was no particular recommendation on refugees and I agree with you. Why not begin the conclusion in paragraph 2.107? We could say something like this: “In conclusion, the committee...”.

• 1035

The French version says “se voit obligé de rappeler”. When I was teaching and found myself “obligée de rappeler”, it was because my students weren't listening. I would prefer the expression “tient à rappeler”. It doesn't have quite the same meaning. It's more respectful. Therefore, I would say “tient à rappeler l'engagement”.

Later on, at the end of the paragraph, the following is noted: “Il est bien sûr prudent de multiplier les contrôles”. Instead I would say: “S'il est prudent de multiplier les contrôles de sécurité vis-à-vis [...], il faut savoir que les demandeurs du statut de réfugié représentent moins d'un dixième de 1 pour cent des personnes qui entrent au Canada”. The emphasis should be placed on the later part of the sentence. In any event, I would delete the last sentence: “Voir dans les réfugiés plus de danger [...]”.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, we are. We are taking that one out.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Fine then.

[English]

The Chair: But do you want the recommendation to flow out of...?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No. I want all of this to be in the conclusion.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Let's get back to this paragraph 2.109. Paul, are you going to agree that we just get rid of this word “may” or something like that and keep “cannot be justified”? Are we going to rework a line or two there?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Or the “misleading” line.

The Chair: Or the “misleading” line or something. Can we have that changed, Ben?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Could you read it back to us?

Mr. Benjamin Dolin (Committee Researcher): It reads:

The refugee protection system must not be abused, but focusing mostly on refugees as a major threat to security is misplaced.

Or it could read, “could be misplaced”.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Or “could be misleading”.

The Chair: Or “could be misleading”, I thought I heard.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It “could be misleading”. I'll go with that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a couple of points on paragraph 2.110.

The Chair: Yes, but let's go back to Jerry's thing on paragraph 2.107.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: “Irresponsible and misinformed attacks on Canada's refugee system were”, it says, “not uncommon”. Why not “common”? Attacks were common, and saying “not uncommon” is pretty awkward.

A voice: Convoluted.

The Chair: Hang on a sec. It has a different meaning here, though.

The Committee feels compelled to emphasize that Canada's commitment to providing protection to those seeking asylum must continue. Irresponsible and misinformed attacks on Canada's refugee system were not uncommon before September 11th but have now noticeably increased.

What you want to say is—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Say “were common”.

The Chair: Let's get these wordsmiths in here.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: They're “not uncommon” is—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I hate to disagree with the principle, but it seems to me that if you say “were common”, it means they were happening every time and every day on a regular basis. I don't know whether that's necessarily true. It was certainly not uncommon to hear about it.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Between “not uncommon” and “common”, tell me the difference.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: “Common” means it happens all the time. “Not uncommon” means it happens some of the time.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Nonsense. That is absolute nonsense. It's a distortion of language.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I didn't pass English, so do whatever you want.

The Chair: I think the researchers would agree with Steve's analysis that there is a difference between “common” and “not uncommon”. What does it say in French? Let's take the French version.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The French says: “n'étaient pas rares”. I don't have a problem with that. I can understand where Steve is coming from, but I'm fine with this.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, that's fine. We're going to say it's “not uncommon”.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The criticism was all too frequent, in fact.

[English]

The Chair: We're going to keep it the way it is. That's what my interpretation is. I think you should do a study on this particular stuff over the weekend and bring it back to us on Monday.

We're on the conclusion. You said you had something with paragraph 2.110, Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Once again, it's ratcheting up the rhetoric by using words like “critical” and saying that if we don't do this, our “employees will be at risk”. I don't like getting...it's a little hysterical, I'm afraid. What I'd rather see us say is something to the effect of “The committee would like to emphasize the need for more resources”, completely deleting:

Without an immediate and significant infusion of resources, Canadian security and the health and safety of port of entry employees will be at risk.

• 1040

If you put that out on the wire, those employees are going to be waving it all over the place. Frankly, I think it's the wrong message. What I saw, and what I hope my colleagues who were on the same trip saw, was that there's some stress. There are some problems. We've dealt with them in terms of asking for more resources, both personnel and technology, for better training, etc. Let's not all of a sudden talk about their health and safety being at risk.

The Chair: Okay. Let's get rid of that “health and safety” line. I would agree—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And the first line, “The resource issue is at a critical point.” I would rather say:

The committee would like to emphasize the need for more resources.

The Chair: Okay, we'll change it.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: [Editor's note: inaudible]... urgent need.

[English]

The Chair: I don't know whether or not we could have the national anthem playing in the background, but it ought to have something of a reiteration of Canadian values and so on in the conclusion of the report. I know that we do it in the preamble, but it's not there.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I've made another note on paragraph 2.110 and the line that says “Port of entry personnel are already suffering from”. I would rather it read:

Port of entry personnel are already experiencing increased pressure and demands.

The Chair: As opposed to “suffering”? You don't like these very descriptive words.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, they show up at the bargaining table, and I don't want to...

The Chair: Do you think this is going to be the bible for the next bargaining...? Yes, we'll see.

Let's go right back to the beginning, because I think this third document has incorporated some of the changes we were talking about before.

The introduction. I don't think there were any changes made there, right?

Yes, Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'm trying to understand, because on page 4 of the French version...

[English]

The Chair: Were you speaking about me or dreaming about me?

I'm sorry....

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: First of all, I want to thank you for incorporating the corrections I gave to Jay.

I would very much like us to delete the last sentence on page 4 of the French version which reads as follows: “Depuis le 11 septembre, l'élément qui n'a pas changé est la situation démographique du Canada [...]” I think it is quite unnecessary. Obviously, the demographic situation hasn't changed and in my opinion, it's pointless to mention it. However, I won't make a federal case out of this. Okay?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, but September 11 has not changed the country's needs with regard to immigration and the demographic needs of our country. I think we just want to restate that. You're right, but it just says that even before September 11, in terms of our immigration and the vision statement you were talking about before, it reflects our need for immigration.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It's the overall thing. Someone said that November is immigration month, refugee month, because they're looking at airports. It's interesting. Sixty new ones arrived at Pearson yesterday, so here we go. There is a big problem we have to deal with.

The Chair: Yes, I know. We're right at the introduction part, though, and I think it says so. It was clear that this committee wanted to put in some sort of perspective to the effect that it's a problem. Security is a problem in light of September 11, but the bigger picture also has to be taken into consideration, and that's what this introductory piece talks a little bit about.

As we go through page....

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Paragraph 2.2, Mr. Chairman. It's better than giving the page reference, wouldn't you agree?

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The following is noted on line 4: “Not only would it be impractical but, as we learned in Quebec in 1970 and Oklahoma in 1995 [...]”.

[English]

The Chair: Madeleine, one moment please. Before we go on to paragraph 2.2—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes?

[English]

The Chair: —I'm going to go paragraph by paragraph, because I don't want to miss a page or something. If I could, I'd do it.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Okay.

The Chair: Right now, we'll do chapter 1, which is “Recent Measures—the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”. As to paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3...did we make any changes in any of that? I don't think we did. I just wanted to make sure that the new text...and the committee knows.

Mr. Benjamin Dolin: At the end, I believe we brought in the information about Bill C-42.

• 1045

The Chair: If you go to page 7 in the English version, I think in light of the introduction of Bill C-42 since we started doing this, we wanted to add that last sentence:

The Committee also notes with approval the obligation Bill C-42 would impose on transportation companies to provide basic data about all Canada-bound passengers prior to their arrival in Canada.

That wasn't there before. We've added that to the new version. Okay?

Madeleine, we'll now go to chapter 2, entitled “Canadian Border Security—The Committee's Findings and Recommendations”.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would like the following reference to be deleted from paragraph 2.2.: “but, as we learned in Quebec in 1970 and Oklahoma in 1995”. I don't see the point of this reference to Quebec. We all recall a time when being a sovereigntist was likened to being a terrorist. I don't think this is an appropriate message to convey and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the committee's stated aims. I propose that this reference be deleted. The text would then read: “Not only would it be impractical, but terrorism is a threat that knows no borders”. That's the reality.

[English]

The Chair: We'll get to questions, but we did make some changes to 2.1, as requested by the committee.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, we haven't made any changes.

[English]

The Chair: From the first version, yes.

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I understand the sensitivity, but I don't think it refers to sovereignty as terrorism. The FLQ, however, clearly was a terrorist organization, and I think that's what it's referring to.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: One has to wonder if there is any point including this in the text of the report.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think it might be useful, and it might satisfy your concern, if we were to say “as we learned in history, terrorism is not necessarily a foreign menace” or “is not necessarily only a foreign menace”.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The reports says that terrorism is no merely a foreign menace, meaning that terrorists can come from anywhere.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: There could even be some here in this very room. Are we ever certain...

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, I don't know....

Mr. Paul Forseth: Just you wait, Henry Higgins, just you wait.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It depends on what we're drinking, I suppose.

I'd ask if you would accept deleting “in Quebec in 1970 and Oklahoma in 1995” and replacing it with simply “in history”.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's better already.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So it would say, “as we have learned in history, terrorism is not necessarily only a foreign menace”. And I'm sorry to be so nitpicky.

The Chair: We're going to get rid of the phrase “learned in Quebec in 1970 and Oklahoma in 1995”, correct?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And we're going to replace it with “have learned in history, it's not necessarily only a foreign menace”.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's better. In fact, it's much better. Had I not said anything, no changes at all would have been made.

[English]

The Chair: Well, we made it better, thank you, Madeleine.

Next point.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The French version then says “la menace du terrorisme vient en partie de l'extérieur”. I think this could be worded differently. For instance, the text could say: “Toutefois, si les événevements du 11 septembre démontrent clairement que ces activités terroristes ont été le fait de ressortissants étrangers, il importe d'examiner la problématique dans le contexte de notre système d'immigration.” I think this is an improvement over the original text. Jay and Jacques have already received a copy of my proposed changes.

[English]

The Chair: Madeleine, you might have concerns, but what is it you want to do with it?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would replace the last three lines containing the reference to “ressortissants étrangers” with the wording I suggested. It means the same thing, only it is worded differently.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, but it doesn't mention foreign nationals here. It says:

However, September 11th clearly demonstrated that the threat of terrorism is, in part, an external threat and the response to it must therefore be addressed in the context of our immigration system.

I don't see anything about foreign nationals in there.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I worked with the French version, Mr. Chairman.

• 1050

[English]

The Chair: The term “foreign nationals” is mentioned in the French version?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It reads: “vient en partie de l'extérieur”. This being said, it was only a suggestion. I won't be overly disappointed if it is rejected.

[English]

The Chair: Jacques, can we just make sure that “external threat” does not mean “foreign nationals” in the French version?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, that's not what it means. I'm certain of it, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: I don't know if that means the French version has to be clarified. I think what the English version tries to say is that the threat of terrorism is in part an external threat. That's why we didn't use the word “foreign” threat. It's an external threat, meaning outside one's borders.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In fact, the translation I'm proposing has the same meaning as the English version. The French is simply better, that's all.

[English]

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I have a problem with it saying “terrorism is not necessarily a foreign menace”, and then making the assertion that the committee “wishes to emphasize that in Canada there's no link between immigration and violence”.

The Chair: Where are you?

Mr. Paul Forseth: In paragraph 2.2.

Because that's just not true. We've had bombings. I was at the Sri Lankan embassy last night, and they made very clear their ongoing issues. Why try to make that assertion?

The Chair: I would agree that the linking of immigration and violence.... Let's not get into a debate.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Just delete that line—

The Chair: We could.

Mr. Paul Forseth: —and say “September 11th clearly demonstrated” and so on.

The Chair: Okay. We've already changed that one.

Next is page 10, paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4.

Did the recommendation to “educate the public, both here and abroad” stay? There was no problem there?

Mr. Paul Forseth: What page?

The Chair: Page 11. We had already gone through that recommendation, and I didn't think we made any changes.

Just so the committee knows, 2.4 has been changed.

Mr. Jay Sinha: I'll just clarify that.

The sentence had read:

While improvements are necessary in some areas, to suggest that Canada is more prone to terrorist activity than the United States is simply false.

That was changed to read:

While improvements are necessary in some areas, Canada is not the leaky sieve that some have suggested.

It cuts out “prone to terrorist activity”, which was controversial.

The Chair: So we changed it there. The recommendation stayed the same.

We move on to paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6, and the recommendation that border practices “be guided by primary objectives of safety, security and efficiency”.

I thought we were going to change that.

Mr. Benjamin Dolin: Yes, to “should continue to be guided”, because it had been unclear whether they were currently guided by those objectives.

The Chair: So it's just to let them know that it's always been our practice. We wanted to make sure, because the words before weren't as strong.

After paragraphs 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12, the recommendation was changed to:

National standards for front-end screening be established based on best practices

—remember, Steve, we had wanted to add “best practices”—

and that staffing levels be increased where necessary to ensure that front-end screening is an effective and expeditious process.

Then we talked about proper training, including the training in cross-cultural understanding that would be necessary to implement these national standards. I think we tried to cover everybody there—sensitivities.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Before I say anything, it's fine.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Following paragraphs 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, and 2.17, the recommendation says:

Citizenship and Immigration should ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to address concerns surrounding the implementation of the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment.

I don't think we made any changes in those three or four pages, only to the recommendation.

Under section C, entitled “Canada and the U.S.—Cooperation, Coordination, Partnerships”, we'll go to 2.18.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have a question concerning 2.18. What exactly is meant by the expression “interdependence” between Canadian and US personnel?

• 1055

Admittedly, I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the concept of interdependence in French, whereas the word “coopération” speaks to... In any case, I don't see the point of using the word “interdépendence” in French. I don't know whether it serves any purpose in the English version either. If it's unnecessary, then it should be deleted. The report already refers to the high level of cooperation...

[English]

The Chair: No, in English I think it's probably a good word. Essentially, the reality is that there is an interdependence on both sides among agencies who are working together, and that interdependence.... I don't know what that French word is and I don't know how different it might be.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It means the same thing.

[English]

The Chair: They need each other and I think we—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The use of the word “cooperation” necessarily implies...

[English]

The Chair: Yes, but we use the word “cooperation”. What we want is to go beyond cooperation and say they need each other.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In French, we could talk about “une coopération serrée”. Would you be okay with that?

[English]

The Chair: No, I think we want a level of cooperation, but we also want to recognize that there is a—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It's difficult, wouldn't you say?

[English]

The Chair: Well, if one part of the system fails, then you have some problems. Do I have it right? We want to keep the word “interdependence” there, okay?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Okay.

The Chair: Okay. I can't let you win everything this morning, Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's right.

[English]

The Chair: On 2.19, 2.20, and the recommendation, I don't think we changed that one, “speedy implementation of joint initiatives developed, continuing to be developed, under the Shared Border Accord.” You all have that, as I told you before.

Mr. Jay Sinha: It said “increased emphasis”, as opposed to “renewed”.

The Chair: Okay, yes. We said “increased emphasis”, as opposed to “renewed emphasis”. Yes, so we did change that word “increased”.

And as we go to 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, 2.24—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You have to look at me, Mr. Chairman. Otherwise, I yell.

The recommendation in paragraph 2.20 refers to initiatives “developed and continuing to be developed”. I'm wondering if there is any point to including “continuing to be developed”.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, if you read that, there's an awful lot to be developed there. So we wanted to say that with regard to the accord that was signed a lot has been implemented, but, believe me, an awful lot hasn't. So you have to use the words “and continuing to be developed”.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Have all of the initiatives already been developed? No?

Mr. Jay Sinha: Some are continuing to be developed...

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: ... therefore new initiatives...

Mr. Jay Sinha: Yes.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: ... which would not be included here.

Mr. Jay Sinha: That's right. These are initiatives still to come. It's more of a long-term vision.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Understood.

[English]

The Chair: As I said, in 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, and 2.24 I don't think there were any changes. So as we go to.... Wait a minute. We were going to do something on “Safe Third Country”, which is 2.25 and 2.26 and then the recommendation: “The negotiation of safe third country agreements be pursued with key countries, especially the United States.” I think we changed that, but I thought we wanted to keep “Such agreements must take into account the guidelines produced by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.” I thought that was the bridge to help both.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, we moved it into the body.

The Chair: Okay, it's up in the body.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Paragraph 2.23 refers to government-funded services such as legal aid and social assistance. As I understand it, the reference here is to the federal government. However, these services are also funded by provincial governments.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It just says “government-funded”; it could be provincial.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's the point.

[English]

The Chair: In some cases you're absolutely right, because there are different, as you know, provincial nominee accords, and that's worked out—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Either it should say “the federal and provincial governments” or “governments”.

[English]

The Chair: Well, we could say both. In some cases, depending where you are in Ontario, it could be municipal, too. So maybe it should say “access to government”. That's why we use the word “government”, as opposed to “federal government”. We could have said that and tried to get away with it.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: When a federal document drafted in French contains a reference to the government, it usually means the federal government. I don't think that's entirely accurate. Wouldn't you agree?

[English]

The Chair: Well, maybe we can just—I don't know—add some words that say “all governments” or whatever.

Mr. Jay Sinha: Change it to the plural in French.

The Chair: Okay, the plural in French then; that would do.

• 1100

[Translation]

Ms. Jay Sinha: We could say “governments”.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, absolutely.

[English]

The Chair: Let me deal with this safe third country agreement, because I'd very much like to have solidarity, Judy, on this as one of the tools.

Before we get into this, I think I asked whether it has to be an either/or between direct-back or a safe third country.

Mr. Benjamin Dolin: Well, if there is a safe third country agreement, you wouldn't be directing people back to claim refugee status.

The Chair: If you negotiate a safe third, then you don't need direct-back. But if you can't negotiate a safe third, we want to do the direct-back.

Judy, I know that you had raised some stuff on the safe third.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have concerns with the idea. I'm still not satisfied, given the political differences between our two countries, that it's the wisest approach.

If, Mr. Chairperson, this is the only holdout for the entire committee on the entire report, then I would certainly give more serious thought to it.

The Chair: I'll get to that point, whether or not.... I'm just saying that safe third is one tool, direct-back is another one.

I know, Judy, where you're coming from. There are political differences between Canada and the United States. That's why “negotiation” is the word used, and we came close before. I think those are the elements that would be taken into account in any agreement—the different political philosophies of both countries in any particular agreement.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Are we going to have any influence over foreign policy vis-à-vis El Salvador?

The Chair: Well, the fact is that there are many countries thinking now about safe third, in light of September 11 or in light of what's happening in the world in terms of refugees.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'm told that Germany negotiated many agreements with third countries and that as a result, Germany has virtually no refugees.

In the matter at hand, namely the United States, the figure is 40 per cent. I can understand Canada wanting to negotiate an agreement. I am admittedly a little surprised, however, to see three lines deleted from the first recommendation. In my opinion, it's important to note that the guidelines of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees must be observed. I would also add in the French version: “et ne doivent en aucun cas modifier à la baisse l'interprétation canadienne de la Convention relative au statut des réfugiés”. If we must downgrade the meaning Canada gives to the expression “persons at risk”, it wouldn't take much more for us to become a US satellite.

[English]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chairperson, unfortunately, I have to go now from safe third countries to human cloning. Perhaps you'll let me know the results.

The Chair: Judy, before you leave, I just want to make sure that we set the agenda for next week. By the looks of it, it looks like we'll finish this report. We need to get a cleaner version. I would hope that we can have solidarity on the basis of things. I understand some ideas or some other points of view might come forward. I'm just wondering if we can get an agreement. If we practically agree on most of the package, and perhaps the Alliance, the Bloc, the NDP, and the PC/DR—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Whatever they are.

The Chair: —want to insert a page or two into this reflecting or respecting your own particular position, that's not a problem. I would hope in the body of that we could probably say.... If you could get that page or two into the clerk's office by Friday or Monday at the latest—

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Monday would be better.

The Chair: Okay.

We will meet again on Tuesday to see the final document, look at your new cover, think about a title. We have some great ideas. We'll bring one to you. If we then adopt on Tuesday, report to the House on Thursday, and have our news conference on Thursday, I think we'll meet that deadline. So that's not a problem.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sounds great. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could I make a suggestion before Judy leaves?

You might agree to just change the amendment to say something to the effect of “The committee recommends that, while maintaining Canada's commitment to the UNHCR guideline, the department should negotiate...”. So we're talking about maintaining Canada's commitment.

• 1105

My objection the other day was that it's not this committee's responsibility to tell the Americans how to run their system. We're dealing with our system.

So that might satisfy your concern.

The Chair: Again, I think both Madeleine and Judy have indicated we want to make sure that Canada's definition of “refugee” doesn't get changed—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We could say:

...while maintaining Canada's commitment to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees guidelines, the department should negotiate a safe third-country agreement.

The Chair: I think that at least sets the reference point.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The government should apply.

The Chair: Paul, do you have any problem?

Okay, let's change that one.

Thanks, Judy.

Madeleine, do you like that one?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Judy, you owe me one.

The Chair: Were there any changes on the direct-back?

On 2.27, we just added those words, “Canada and the U.S.”. Was there nothing changed on the recommendation? Oh yes, in the last words. We added the word “initial” before “checks”.

We're also—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, in the French version of recommendation 2.27 which begins with “Qu'en attendant la conclusion”, is there a point to setting off the expression “ce qui serait la meilleure solution” with commas? In French, when an expression is set off by commas, it means it can be removed. Moreover, members do not necessarily feel that this is the preferred solution from a humanitarian standpoint.

[English]

The Chair: Are you trying to change the word “alternative”?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would simply delete it.

[English]

The Chair: Or “preferable”. I don't—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, I would delete it.

[English]

The Chair: No. I think—

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You want to keep it.

The Chair: —we want to keep it, because I think the committee said that ultimately the safe third country is probably the preferred choice, preferred remedy, and direct-back would be used—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'm trying.

[English]

The Chair: That's what it says in English, and I think that's what the committee meant.

Don't we mean that we want safe third country as the preferred solution?

Hello. Are you all there?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, sorry. I was on another line. What are you talking about?

The Chair: Yes, okay.

We added to the common visa stuff. You all wanted to know where we were in terms of Canada's and the United States' visas, so we thought we'd put that there.

What else did we change here? On paragraph 2.30 we added the words “where possible”, as opposed to “where necessary”, which were on our first draft.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Speaking of this, Mr. Chairman, I noted that two pages had been added to the report in order to compare visa requirements in both countries. Perhaps a comprehensive study of visa policies is warranted, because aside from saying Argentina is requesting some, as are the Americans, we need to know the reasons. A study would be useful, because the reasons are not that obvious.

[English]

The Chair: Madeleine, what we might want to do—and I was thinking in terms of Bill C-11—when we start talking about regulations is talk about how we promote immigration and how we deal with the implementation of Bill C-11. Doing a study on our visa policies should be part of that, but for now—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Comparing our policies with US requirements.

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: If we want the systems to be harmonized, we need to know the reasons for the US requirements.

[English]

The Chair: We might be able to get that. I mean, some of the congressmen in the United States didn't even know we had differences. You're right. But for now the facts are this is what's on our list, that's what's on their list, and we just wanted to provide it as a baseline or as a reference point. Okay?

• 1110

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Okay.

The Chair: I agree, it probably would require more study and more discussion, but not in this report. We just wanted to do some fact finding here.

Paul, I think when we were talking about page 25.... Have we satisfied you now? Remember, you were talking about NEXUS being the be-all and the end-all. We might all agree, but by the time you get to NEXUS or maybe the new generation of technology, we ought to indicate.... That's why on the bottom of page 25 we were talking about using CANPASS and PORTPASS and all those other technologies to eventually get—on that we would agree with you—to NEXUS. Also, the second part was the CANPASS, the INSPASS, and so on and so forth.

I think you were asking, why don't we just say the standard will be NEXUS? We would agree probably, but there may be a time before all of NEXUS can be implemented, so I think that's why we left—

A voice: We did change it.

The Chair: We did change it a bit. I think we said “Emphasis should also be placed on full implementation of the NEXUS program at all land ports”. We did strengthen it up for you to show that NEXUS is probably what we want to do.

A voice: At all land ports, not just high-traffic—

The Chair: We added “all land ports”, as opposed to “high-traffic land ports”. Okay?

Now, is there anything on page 29, on those recommendations? No?

We're now at paragraph 2.43, people.

Mr. Benjamin Dolin: The next major change was at the end of paragraph 2.43, where we added a sentence:

The committee also noted that the level and availability of resources of each country may vary from region to region along the border.

The Chair: Then we added Jerry's stuff about air surveillance and helicopters and all that other stuff to paragraph 2.43.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I asked earlier this morning that we delete “Emerson-based” and “Lacolle”.

The Chair: Oh, yes. You were asking why we should tell them that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes. You can say that we use the systems, but don't tell them where.

The Chair: What number is that? Is that paragraph 2.43?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. Yes, we'll eliminate the mention of those.

Yes, Madeleine?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Getting back to paragraph 2.40, there were no changes in the new version. However, I would like to make some suggestions. In the second paragraph of the French version, after “à tous les niveaux”, I would add “dans le respect de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels” and I would delete the rest. Our actions must be guided by the laws enacted by Parliament. Once these laws have been adopted, even if we disagree with some of them, they must govern the way we do things. To imply that we should consider amending our laws if there are impediments to this agreement... I'm certain the Americans would never consider amending their laws just to please us. I don't think we should even consider this option at the present time.

[English]

The Chair: This is on page 29. Is it that second recommendation?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Well, I don't know. I think we've said informally that there's an awful lot of cooperation and information-sharing at the local level.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: At the formal and upper levels, sometimes there are problems, and that's because privacy and disclosure laws in each country are different.

• 1115

I think we've indicated that negotiations.... If in fact there are privacy and disclosure law problems, then we should negotiate in a spirit of cooperation and working together to iron those things out. It should stay there because ultimately that's what we might want to do.

If we can't agree on what that negotiation should be, then we won't implement it, but the committee wants that spirit of cooperation. Don't forget, this whole section in the front end is talking about cooperative measures between Canada and the United States. This recommendation is positive from that standpoint. I'd hate to dilute it, because it talks about working together.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Basically, as I see it, we are caving in to the Americans on this point. That's what I think.

[English]

The Chair: That's not necessarily so. No.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's probably how many other people are going to see it as well.

[English]

The Chair: No. That's where it says....

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: If we include a reference to the Privacy Act, I think this would provide us with some safeguards.

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We need something a little more substantial if we want to negotiate.

[English]

The Chair: You might be assuming much more than I am. That's because, as I say, negotiating doesn't necessarily mean that we're always going to negotiate, that the Americans are going to win, and that the Canadians are going to lose. I would hope that we're going to adopt the best practices and so on, so we need to leave that there. If it's a problem, I'll deal with it.

Where are we next? For paragraph 2.44, to the recommendation we added, “The efforts and equipment of both countries should be coordinated to ensure maximum efficiency.” Again, that's the working-together, sharing-technology model.

As we move forward, we come to “Canada and the World”. I thought we were going to strengthen “More immigration control officers be hired to work overseas.” The minister had even talked about doubling staff, so we might at least want to say that in the recommendation, if not a lot more. I thought we were going to change that.

Are there any suggestions?

Mr. Paul Forseth: We want to do that; it's just a question of how do you say it?

The Chair: Right now that's all it says is “More immigration control officers be hired to work overseas.”

Mr. Benjamin Dolin: We had added that phrase, “to work overseas”, to confirm that we don't want them at headquarters.

The Chair: Yes, we want them to work overseas, but I think we ought to say.... As I said, we have 44 now. Did we change that, or was it 48? I keep using the number 48, but you say 44. That's fine.

The minister has already put on the table the doubling of the number of ICOs to, I guess, 88.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Is the word “doubling” in our report?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Benjamin Dolin: We added the sentence at the top of page 34 at the end of paragraph 2.49:

The Minister has indicated that there are plans to increase our complement of ICOs and the Committee believes that ICO staffing must be given a high priority.

The Chair: I think we should say “The minister has indicated there are plans to increase our complement of ICOs by doubling”. She said that publicly and privately, so I'm going to put that word in there, “doubling”. Then it says “and the Committee believes that ICO staffing must be given a high priority.” Our recommendation is “More immigration officers be hired to work overseas”. Do we put a minimum there of 88 so it reflects the doubling, or what?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I don't know. We think more than doubling is indicated.

The Chair: Me too.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Quadruple it.

The Chair: How about no fewer than 100, for starters?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are you saying...?

The Chair: All we're saying is that we need more immigration control officers, and that's it.

• 1120

The minister has already indicated the doubling from 44 to 88. I've just said that the recommendation just says yes, we need more. But how much more?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, you can use words like that, or you can say “substantial” or whatever. But pinning a number on it is not something that frankly we have the competency to do as a committee.

The Chair: That's fine, but she's already said 88. Why don't we say this, because we say it in the body of 2.49, that the highest—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Why don't we say “the committee strongly supports the minister's requests or intent to hire more immigration officers”, something like that? Because what you want to do is—

The Chair: Why don't we say “more immigration control officers be hired to work overseas and this is one of the highest priorities of the committee”, or something to indicate that this is one the preferred choices or priorities we have, in terms of.... But this says nothing to me, other than the fact that we want to hire more.

Mr. Benjamin Dolin: It's not in the recommendation, but it does say—

The Chair: Yes, I know. It's not in the recommendation other than the fact that we say more immigration officers should be hired, even though the minister said it's probably her highest priority and we're saying it is. So somewhere in that recommendation I think it should say something a lot more than just hire people.

Why don't we say “The committee recommends and believes that more immigration control officers”—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Why don't you say “as a top priority”?

The Chair: —“be hired overseas as a top priority”?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: You seem to want to indicate that double's not enough.

The Chair: In the preamble it's doubling. I'm just indicating whether or not—

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I know, but we—

The Chair: But nobody wants to get into specifics. So if you say “doubling”, somebody's going to say “tripling”.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Pushing it, yes.

The Chair: Let's just say “as a top priority”. At least it's a little stronger.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: To meet the demands, I think we should. We're not meeting demands by doubling it.

The Chair: It's “must be hired to work overseas as a top priority”.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Because we're—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Basically, we want assurances that there will be a sufficient number of immigration officers abroad to handle all of the duties and responsibilities. That's what we want. We don't even need to specify a number, just that there be enough officers and that the situation be reassessed every year.

[English]

The Chair: We're going to add the “as a top priority”. We'll work out something a little stronger without mentioning the particular numbers so that you can see it on Tuesday.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, I haven't said anything for a while. There's something I don't understand and surely you can explain it to me. In paragraph 2.48 and elsewhere in the report, there is a reference to “like-minded countries.” What does that mean? I know about like-minded people, but what does “like-minded countries” mean?

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead, you guys. You're the ones who used those words. You defend yourselves.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Does it mean the same thing as “partners”?

Mr. Jay Sinha: Yes, more or less.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In that case, why not use the word “partners”? I would prefer that to “like-minded”.

Mr. Jay Sinha: Indeed, this is open to various interpretations.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I just don't understand. Of course, I could be your reference point. If I don't understand, others won't either.

[English]

Mr. Jay Sinha: What about something like “partner countries”?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: How about “other cooperative governments”?

[Translation]

Mr. Benjamin Dolin: I believe the Minister used the expression “like-minded” in English.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't like it, personally. We could differ on a lot of issues, but not on that. I think it's a good point. I would prefer something like “other cooperative governments”. So there it says we're all working together.

The Chair: Let's change “like-minded” to “cooperative” governments. Is that acceptable? Yes. But what happens if you don't get a cooperative government but you still want to do...?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: They probably won't do it with you.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Benjamin Dolin: Or with our allies or something?

The Chair: No. “Cooperative governments”—that's all.

So it's 2.50, and what else do we have here? I want to get going. I need to get going.

Mr. Benjamin Dolin: On 2.50, there was no change to the recommendation, nor to the next one.

The Chair: Not on 2.52, nor to the next one. “Disembarkation teams should be used”, that's okay.

• 1125

The next one is that airlines be required to provide passenger lists. We have that one. It's part of information-sharing with other like-minded nations at the top of page 37.

Are we going to change “like-minded nations”? Madeleine, is that what you're going to talk about?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No. You know very well that I never say the same thing twice.

[English]

The Chair: Hurry up. I have five pages left. I have to go.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: What exactly is the meaning of the expression “flights identified as potentially problematic” found in recommendation 2.52? Would a flight from Canada to the US be considered potentially problematic? What about a flight from Quebec City to Ottawa?

[English]

The Chair: What line are you talking about?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It's in recommendation 2.52.

[English]

The Chair: Oh. You're talking about the recommendation.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, 2.52.

[Translation]

How do we determine if a flight is potentially problematic? Does it depend on the number of passengers on board from the Mediterranean region, for example? If that's the case, then I'm worried. Think about it carefully and try and come up with something that Yvon and I can live with.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think they're referring to al-Qaeda airlines.

The Chair: That would obviously send off a red flag.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Perhaps I can explain to Madeleine.

The people on the front line know the airlines and the particular flights that seem to always produce a fair amount of people with problem documents, a percentage of refugee applications, and so on. We know where they are. Historically we track those.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would imagine that Turkish Airlines flights would fall into this category. However, the report states that our actions cannot be motivated by discrimination. The department has notified airports and has asked them to keep an eye out for men of a certain age from certain countries. That bothers me a great deal. I have no objections to scanning the papers of individuals who are not permanent residents or Canadian citizens.

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Jay Sinha: We could say something like “particularly for international flights destined for Canada”, so it's not discriminatory. It would include all international flights.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We're going to do them all anyway.

The Chair: That's what Bill C-42 says. We want scanning of documents.

I understand you have to enter into bilateral agreements with countries because we have no jurisdiction. We're going to be doing that with the United States, I guess, because we want their passenger lists too. Right? So it's a two-way street.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, why not simply delete the last half of the sentence?

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Who would have thought United Airlines would be problematic.

The Chair: Okay, take that out. The fact that we want to make sure travel documents are scanned is the most important part.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Do we specify that this is done in all cases, except for permanent residents and Canadian citizens? It's impossible to scan every single document all of the time.

[English]

The Chair: Where are you now?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I don't have a problem with my papers being scanned, but...

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I thought the idea was that when you checked in to get your boarding pass, we would like to see a system where your passport or your travel document was scanned at that point.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Everyone. Fine then.

[English]

The Chair: I think that's it. We started at page 44 and already made the changes.

Can I just ask you one question?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Are you taking that clause off completely?

The Chair: Yes, that line.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: The whole line.

The Chair: What exactly do we want to attach to this report? We're going to make it so there's a summary of recommendations. It will probably follow the introduction. The executive summary will be an introduction as to why we did this and will give a list of recommendations.

• 1130

Remember we talked a little bit about this report being an education piece, an informative piece. If we start adding the shared border report and the safe third country, and all those other documents we've asked for, we're going to have a document that's 200 pages long.

I've asked the researchers—perhaps in our index or our table of contents—to refer to certain things like documents, to list and report those in the appendix. We could say the refugee convention. We could talk about the 2000 update on the Canada-U.S. Shared Border Accord. We could talk about the IRB detention guidelines.

So we would reference these things, as to what the committee used, as opposed to attaching them all to a....

Mr. Paul Forseth: You could have a bibliography so that the proper reference, the full thing, is cited. So if someone wanted to they could go and find it.

The Chair: We can also put a link on the Internet that would get you these documents and everything else.

We all know the game plan. Get your things in by Monday noon at the latest.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: At four o'clock?

[English]

The Chair: No, noon.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: At four o'clock.

[English]

Oh, be nice.

The Chair: No, I'm sorry, I was nice.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Be very nice.

The Chair: Not very nice—nice.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Okay. We'll speak to you a little bit later.

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Just on that point, I'm here on Monday and Monday suppertime I'm gone; I'm gone for the balance of the week and I won't be back until the following Monday.

The Chair: Which is budget day.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes. So we'll be scrambling through the document on Monday, Lynne and I, and we'll just.... I don't anticipate much, because we've already done the work, but that's the timeline we're under.

The Chair: Okay.

Now, the title.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I had suggested “Hands Across the Border”, and you have “Bridges and Hands Across the Border”. I think it's a little awkward. Either use “Bridges Across the Border”, or “Hands Across the Border”, or “Reaching Out Across the Border”, or “Movement Across the Border”, or “Links Across the Border”. If you're using bridges, you might as well use tunnels as well. I know what you mean by bridges, but....

The Chair: It was really supposed to be bridges and not walls, so that in actual fact it gives something pictorially...we want to build bridges between people, and not walls.

I'll tell you what. We need to get the words “safe” and “secure”, and we'd also like to get the word “efficient” on the border. We should talk about working together, cooperation, coordination.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't know if we can do a little graphic here, but I think it might be an interesting idea to have the American flag and the Canadian flag—

The Chair: We've already got a flag.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —as hands shaking.

The Chair: No, it's going to be the American and the Canadian flag, and then the globe there as well, because we're also talking globally.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Good. But then two hands shaking and the title “Hands Across the Border”.

The Chair: I would agree with “Hands Across the Border”, but let's face it, who's going to read this? I'll tell you, the words “safe” and “secure”—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Oh, they'll be there.

The Chair: —will need to be there, because people—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, no, don't change that. The title is “Hands Across the Border”, a hand shaking, American and Canadian flags, the world globe, and then those words “Cooperation, Safety and Security at Ports of Entry”. Don't change that. Just don't use bridges and hands. If it's a little catchier, I think it just....

The Chair: If you have some suggestions, put them down for Monday.

Let's look at that one, Steve—“Hands Across the Border”, and we'll make sure safety, security, efficiency, and cooperation at our borders.... We'll work that out.

That means the committee will meet Tuesday at 9 o'clock to adopt.... For all intents and purposes, I think we've adopted the report. I think we've agreed. Now it's just a matter of getting the cleaned-up version into the hands of members, along with any additions you're going to give us, so that we can hopefully report to the House Wednesday or Thursday.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If there are any major changes, how are we going to deal with that?

The Chair: I think Paul has already indicated no major changes. They might have a point or two to put in the report, and that's fine.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay.

The Chair: We won't call it a dissenting...maybe we'll call it what it is.

• 1135

Mr. Paul Forseth: We'll see. I'm not anticipating a dissenting report. I've written those.

The Chair: No. I don't think we're talking about dissenting reports; I think we're talking about a line from each party, or a page or whatever from each party that essentially is going to say here is...whatever. Let's take a look at those on Tuesday morning.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.