Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 12 - Evidence - Afternoon session
OTTAWA, Monday, March 17, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 1:10 p.m. to examine and report on the need for a national security policy for Canada.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Today, the committee concludes its briefings on Canada-United States relations in preparation for its trip to Washington to meet with members of Congress and U.S. Administration officials next week.
I am a senator from Ontario and I serve as chair of the committee.
Our deputy chair is the distinguished Senator Michael Forrestall, from Nova Scotia, who has served constituents of Dartmouth for 37 years, first as their member in the House of Commons and then as their senator. Throughout his parliamentary career, Senator Forrestall has followed defence matters and has served on various defence-related parliamentary committees, including the 1993 Special Joint Committee on the Future of the Canadian Forces.
Senator Tommy Banks, from Alberta, was well-known to Canadians as an accomplished and versatile musician and entertainer before his appointment to the Senate in 2000. Senator Banks is the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Currently, that committee is studying the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.
Senator Jane Cordy, from Nova Scotia, was an accomplished educator with an extensive record of community involvement before she was named to the Senate in 2000. In addition to serving on this committee, she is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, which recently released a landmark report on health care and will now study mental health.
Senator Norman Atkins, from Ontario, came to the Senate in 1986 with a strong background in the field of communications and with experience as adviser to former Premier Davis of Ontario. Senator Atkins is a member of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Senator Atkins serves as Chair of the Senate Conservative Caucus.
Our committee is the first permanent Senate committee with a mandate to examine the subjects of security and defence. Over the past 18 months, we have completed a number of studies, beginning with the report, ``Canadian Security and Military Preparedness,'' a study of the major issues facing Canada, which was tabled in February 2002.
The Senate then asked our committee to examine the need for a national security policy. To date, we have released three reports on various aspects of national security: ``Defence of North America: A Canadian Responsibility,'' September 2002; ``For an Extra 130 Bucks...An Update On Canada's Military financial Crisis: A VIEW FROM THE BOTTOM UP,'' November 2002; and ``The Myth of Security at Canada's Airports,'' January 2003.
The committee is in the process of evaluating the federal contribution to the work of the men and women who are first responders to emergencies and disasters across the country.
In its recent meetings, however, the committee has been preparing for its trip to Washington next week with a series of briefings on Canada-U.S. relations. We began with a presentation by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, CCRA, about their involvement with Canada-United States border relations and the implementation of the 30-point Smart Border Action Plan.
This was followed by briefings on the role and capabilities of the Canadian Coast Guard and by a question-and- answer session on Canada-United States intelligence issues with the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS.
Just before the recent parliamentary break, the committee heard evidence on how the Privy Council Office, PCO, coordinates intelligence and how the Communications Security Establishment cooperates with its United States' counterparts. This was followed with a briefing from the Department of the Solicitor General on how Canada and the United States cooperate on border enforcement.
Today's hearings will continue with an update on Canada's immigration and refugee policies and their impact on Canada-United States relations. Our presenter will be Mr. Daniel Jean, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Mr. Daniel Jean, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: Honourable senators, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss our programs that concern security and public safety. I will submit my full opening remarks for the record. In the interests of time, I will focus on key points.
In June, you met my colleague and predecessor, Ms. Joan Atkinson, and you discussed some of our ongoing efforts. Most of her points are still valid. I would like to talk more about our achievements since then in dealing with the challenge of facilitating the movement of bona fide travellers, immigrants and refugees, while minimizing the risk of abuse of our refugee and immigration systems and ensuring the safety and security of Canadians.
When Ms. Atkinson met with you, she talked about our multiple border strategy. In immigration terms, the border is any point along the travelling continuum at which the identity of a traveller can be verified. There are several checkpoints. I am happy to announce that our American interlocutors have endorsed this strategy. The model will serve as a foundation for discussion and cooperative action. Essentially, the multiple border strategy extends our focus beyond the shared land border to more tactically effective locations on the outside borders of North America and abroad.
We identified the risk at each step of the travel continuum, the current programs and the initiatives; and then we tried to develop possible mitigation of the risk at these various checkpoints.
In respect of cooperation on border management and other immigration-related issues, Canada and the United States have common security objectives and face the same challenge. Thus, we cooperate on a wide array of issues relating to immigration. We have enjoyed a long tradition of cooperation on border issues, which only intensified after the sad events of September 11. As you know, the Smart Border Action Plan, signed in December 2001, has served as the engine for aggressive, cooperative action to enhance the security of both countries. The action plan has four pillars: The secure flow of people; the secure flow of goods; secure infrastructure and information sharing; and, of course, the coordination to support these objectives.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, has the lead on 10 of the items in the action plans. Since the last appearance of CIC officials before this committee in June 2002, we are able to point out a number of accomplishments and significant progress in the area of border management with our Canadian and U.S. partners. I should like to describe some of those.
The new permanent resident card — the fraud-resistant, secure card that was discussed at the June session — was introduced as scheduled on June 28, 2002. The card has been issued since then to all new permanent residents. Since October 15, 2002, it has been issued to people who were already permanent residents of Canada prior to June 2002. It is considered a state-of-the-art secure card and has won international awards on that basis.
We have also increased our capacity at missions abroad for immigration control and anti-fraud. We now have in place ``immigration integrity specialists,'' who work with the airlines to guide them in the interdiction of people who should not be allowed to travel to Canada. There are also officers working closely in the immigrant and non-immigrant process to ensure that these processes are not targeted by fraud or other mechanisms that would permit illegal entries.
In October, we introduced a team of Advanced Passenger Information and Joint Passenger Analysis Units. This means that we receive, in advance of a flight, the tombstone data on passengers travelling to Canada. We have analytical teams in three major airports that are able to look at the identity of these passengers and to target the screening that we may wish to do upon their arrival. We are also experimenting, in conjunction with our U.S. colleagues, with the notion of joint analysis unit teams in Vancouver and Miami. To date, the results of these joint efforts have been interesting and we will evaluate them further next month.
Working closely with CCRA and our U.S. counterparts, we have implemented NEXUS at our six busiest land ports of entry. On the commercial side, a process known as FAST, or free and secure transport — harmonized commercial processing — is now in place. FAST allows drivers of commercial cargo, in much the same way that NEXUS allows passengers, to be pre-screened for travel to the U.S. and vice versa. As you know, information-sharing instruments are essential to support the cooperative efforts that we want to have with the United States.
In this context, I am pleased to tell honourable senators that we reached a new information-sharing agreement with the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, which is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, and the State Department in February 2003. This updates the information-sharing instrument that we have had since 1999.
There are a number of annexes to this umbrella information-sharing instrument now being developed. I am certain that we will have a chance in the future to update honourable senators on these annexes.
Regarding the lifting of visa exemptions, as honourable senators are aware, every country's citizens need a visa to visit Canada unless the country has been designated as exempt. In the last two years, we have imposed 10 new visa requirements, the most recent being Malaysia and Saudi Arabia.
Implementation of our new immigration act took place as scheduled in June 2002. I am glad to report that, despite the complexity associated with this task, it was done in a fairly smooth manner. As honourable senators are aware, it contains a number of measures that allow us to better target some of the risks associated with our programs.
Outside of the Smart Border Action Plan, I also want to tell you that we signed a new memorandum of understanding, MOU, with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency on March 6, 2003. This new MOU clarifies further roles and responsibilities, but also ensures that we cooperate closely and target security and public safety threats in the most effective manner at our borders.
CIC will continue to apply sound risk-management principles to manage access to Canada. We will match the level of control to the degree of threat, but we cannot do this alone. International cooperation is needed to keep our borders secure and we have great cooperation from the United States.
[Translation]
Now I would like to speak about the refugee determination system. The subject of refugees is one that we understand is of great interest to the members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, as was made evident by the questions sent in advance by Senator Kenny and by the members of this committee. The answers to those specific questions have been submitted to you in writing.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which has been in force since June 2002 brought new measures to ensure that security threats do not gain access to Canada while abusing the refugee determination system.
The agreement we talked about in June 2002 was signed on December 5, 2002. This is a bilateral agreement between Canada and the U.S. that will allow Canada to return refugee claimants to the United states, without having to hear their claims and vice versa. The proposed regulations provide exceptions for family reunification, in the case of unaccompanied minor children and in some specific areas.
This agreement would be implemented only at ports of entry along the Canada-U.S. border. Our regulations were published on October 26 and the publication period was closed on November 26, 2002.
When my colleague appeared in June 2002, you asked her some questions concerning the return of claimants to the U.S. when they make their claim at the border. It is in this perspective that we share with you the instructions we sent a few weeks ago to our officials explaining them how to use the procedure of Direct Back or preventive detention in the case of airports.
We must ensure that the massive claims at Canada-U.S. border points may be examined safely and completely before we are able to return claimants to the U.S. for a certain period, if needed.
You may have heard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the honourable Denis Coderre, refer to a need for reform of our refugee determination system in the speech he delivered in Toronto on March 7, 2003. While you are interested in what he meant, we cannot, at this point, tell you more because it is too early in the process.
Any proposal of reform will be the result of discussions with the Immigration and Refugee Board and government departments involved, and different stakeholders. Everything will be subject to the approval of Parliament.
In conclusion, Citizenship and Immigration Canada remains committed to protect and strengthen the integrity of both our refugee and immigration systems. We are also committed to ensuring the security and safety of all Canadians while facilitating the movement of bona fide people and goods.
I hope that my brief presentation of the progress made and the accomplishments achieved since Joan Atkinson appeared before you in June 2002 will assure you that these are goals we are actively pursuing.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I would like to focus on the Safe Third Country Agreement that is part of the Smart Border Action Plan. This agreement has actually been on the books in Canada for a number of years, but, hopefully, will be implemented in the near future.
Could you just work through it for me? When someone coming from the United States arrives at a land border and claims to be a refugee, would there be a screening right there? Could you just work through exactly what would happen?
Mr. Jean: A third-country national coming from the United States, arriving at the Canadian port of entry, would be subject to be returned to the United States, where their claim for protection as a refugee would be heard. They would be declared ineligible unless they meet one of the exemptions.
The first thing I should say is this agreement we are negotiating with the United States is only for land ports of entry. We are not talking about airport situations. If third-country nationals who arrive from the United States want to claim asylum, unless they meet one of our exceptions — family class, unaccompanied minors or people who could be subject to the death penalty if they were returned to the United States — they would be returned, on the principle that their claim for protection should be heard in the United States. It would be the same case, in reverse, for a third- country national entering the United States from Canada.
Senator Cordy: If you have a family tie in Canada, is that an exception that allows you to claim refugee status?
Mr. Jean: It has to be a close family tie.
Senator Cordy: That was my question. How close a family tie is it?
Mr. Bruce Scoffield, Director, Policy Development and International Coordination, Refugees Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: The family relationships that are recognized in the agreement include the nuclear family, that is, one spouse and dependent children, but also the siblings, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts, nieces or nephews of the applicant. However, I would like to add that the relative in Canada must have status, i.e., either be a citizen, a permanent resident, or someone who is in the process of having a refugee claim adjudicated after having been found eligible to make a refugee claim in Canada. Visitors, for example, or people without status in Canada, cannot serve to qualify a refugee claimant for this exemption.
Senator Cordy: You also mentioned minors who are unaccompanied. Do unaccompanied minors arrive at the border?
Mr. Jean: It is a fairly frequent occurrence in all countries that unaccompanied minors present themselves and claim asylum. In this context, we would not return these people to the United States. We would take the appropriate measures to ensure that there are guardianship arrangements and that their claim for protection is examined under our normal procedures.
Senator Cordy: Where would minors go, since they are unable to look after themselves either in Canada or the United States?
Mr. Jean: We have a process whereby we deal with provincial authorities, who will make sure that appropriate guardians are assigned. Their claim would be examined in that context also.
Senator Cordy: Do you try to determine how they actually got here? They could not have come from a third country by themselves, could they?
Mr. Jean: We try to examine that. Of course, we always try to see what we can do; but the arrival of unaccompanied minors at ports of entry is a very common phenomenon, both in Western Europe and in North America.
Senator Smith: On the point that you both raised, about how people had to meet one of the criteria, we have all read the stories about the large number of people from Pakistan coming from the States recently. What exemption would they qualify under?
Mr. Jean: These people, unless they have a relative in Canada, probably would not qualify for an exemption. They would, in all likelihood, be returned to the United States for their claim for protection to be heard there.
Senator Smith: I do not recall reading too much about relatives in Canada. The volume seems very high.
Mr. Jean: The Safe Third Country Agreement is not currently in place. We have signed an agreement on the Canadian side to prepublish our regulations; the U.S. is about to publish theirs. We hope to implement the agreement next summer.
Senator Smith: At present, they do not need to fit one of these exemptions. They just show up, so that is why it is irrelevant to their particular circumstances at the moment?
Mr. Jean: That is correct.
Senator Cordy: We have heard the term ``asylum shopping,'' or shopping for where would it be easier to claim refugee status, Canada or the United States. Is a claimant allowed to seek asylum in more than one country at the same time?
Mr. Jean: The objective of the Safe Third Country Agreement is that people should avail themselves of protection and claim asylum at the first opportunity; that is, in the country where they first entered, rather than what would be referred to as ``country of choice.'' The only exception that we want to make is for people who have a close relative in the other country.
Senator Cordy: You stated in your documentation that this is only at land crossings and does not apply to people who come by air. What happens when people arrive by air and do not have documentation? Today, you have to show your ID at least twice before you get on the airplane. What then happens to a person who arrives at Pearson airport with no documentation, but is claiming refugee status?
Mr. Jean: Perhaps it would be useful for me to explain how people arrive without documentation. They may have had it when they got on the plane; they may destroy or hide it during the flight, or they may have an escort on the flight. They will give their identification to someone involved in smuggling, to possibly recycle that documentation in terms of criminal activities.
That is how many people arrive without documents. There is also the possibility that, between the time that they disembark from the plane and the time they arrive at the actual port of entry, they found ways to destroy it, hide it or give it to someone else.
What do we try to do about this? Using risk indicators and Advanced Passenger Information, we try to target flights using disembarkation teams. You have probably encountered Citizenship and Immigration officers who, in a very targeted way when you leave the plane, will examine your documents to see whether or not you are someone who should be examined more closely. If you do not have a document, they know it is either on the plane or with someone else on the plane.
For people who arrive either truly undocumented or improperly so, the key issue for us is whether we have suspicions about their identity. If we have suspicions, we may go further in terms of screening or decide to use detention. We are trying to make sure these people are not a security risk to the country. If they have not been cooperative in establishing their identity, this may be a problem.
It is not so much that they would need a visa to come to Canada, but if they only have a passport, that does not mean we do not know their identity.
We are more concerned about people who are not helping us to find out who they are. These are the people we want to screen thoroughly and whom we may have to detain, in order to see if they come with the appropriate documentation and pursue security checks.
Senator Cordy: I got off a flight in January and was asked to show identification again. Do you look at flight risk, so to speak, and have someone check at the point of embarkation?
Mr. Jean: Using both intelligence systems and the new tools we have, like Advanced Passenger Information that provides more intelligence information, we try to target flights that we know pose the greater risk for us. That allows us to do two things: target a threat in an effective way, and be more effective in processing legitimate travellers quickly.
Senator Cordy: Before September 11, I had heard from people that it was easier to get a visa to go to the United States, but it was easier to become a refugee in Canada. Was that true then and is it true today?
Mr. Jean: The Canadian visa screen has always been considered very effective. Our colleagues in the United States have always felt so. I think that it has certainly come into the public eye more since September 11. As far as refugee systems are concerned, Canada and the United States probably have two of the most generous in the world. They are comparable. The processes are different, but a fair number of people are accepted on both sides.
We want to make sure that people who do not deserve protection do not find a way to abuse that system. This must be one of our objectives. We also have to make sure that the people who deserve protection are processed as fast as possible.
Senator Cordy: Are there differences between the two countries?
Mr. Jean: Under the refugee determination system in the U.S., you first make a claim for asylum. If you arrive undocumented, or if you have misrepresented your situation, you are first put through what is called a ``credible fear filter.'' More than 90 per cent of people pass this filter, but the idea is that all people who arrive undocumented or come through some form of misrepresentation are initially detained. As soon as they meet the credible fear filter, unless people are a security risk, they are released. An asylum officer, an independent public servant who can say yes, but does not have the authority to say no, per se, will then process them. Claims of people who are not accepted at that first level are referred to an immigration judge who, through a process called ``withholding of immigration,'' can grant asylum and look at other risks of return like torture. People also have access to an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. That is, in essence, how the U.S. system works.
After that, they enter into the enforcement stream, which is similar to the process in Canada of trying to make sure that these people can be removed.
In Canada, as you know, people arrive and submit their claim. Unless we are able to say they are ineligible because they are a serious criminal or something similar, their cases are referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board, which will hear the claims and make the determination as to whether people deserve protection. If they do, they will eventually be granted permanent residence. If they do not deserve protection, the case goes back to Citizenship and Immigration. At some point, a pre-removal risk assessment is done to determine whether there is a risk for those people to return. Maybe the circumstances in their country have changed between the time their case was determined and when we are preparing to return them.
Senator Cordy: Is a risk assessment done before this process begins, or only after you are turned down? Is it not done earlier than that?
Mr. Jean: I meant risk in the return of people to their country of origin. For example, would they be subject to torture? Have the conditions in the country of origin changed meanwhile?
Senator Cordy: Risk assessment to the individual?
Mr. Jean: Risk assessment in Canada is done when people first arrive.
Senator Banks: As the chairman said, we are interested in being better informed for when we go to the United States to meet with counterparts and some U.S. Administration people who have perceptions about refugee entry into Canada in particular, and immigration in general. Many Canadians have those concerns, and you probably receive many letters about them.
You referred to people who deplane without documentation. We already know by definition that there is something fishy.
I have never heard a satisfactory answer to this question. No passenger airplane can, in normal circumstances, land here without some sort of permission from the Government of Canada. Would it not be very simple to say to people coming from foreign countries, perhaps with some exceptions, that all passengers who get on a plane will give their travel documents to a person from the airline and that they will be returned when they arrive at Canadian Immigration? We would then never see people at a Canadian Immigration post at an airport without documents. However they got them, they would have the documents with which they boarded the airplane. Has any one thought about that?
Mr. Jean: Yes. The first point is that we must remember that people who deserve protection in many cases fled their country of origin using fraudulent documents because their government will not issue travel documents.
As to your point about airlines putting all documents in sealed plastic bags and then returning them upon arrival at destination, it is a matter of volume. If you were to try to do this to find the few, the congestion created would be such as to impede severely legitimate travellers.
Senator Banks: It is not a few. There are 25,000 people out there whom we cannot find.
Mr. Jean: On each flight, you may have at most two or three people in such a situation. You would be creating a process that several hundred passengers would have to endure because there are two or three without proper documentation. We have tried to develop means targeted at the people about whom we have concerns.
Senator Banks: There is still a fairly significant number of people coming into Canada and obtaining protected status of some kind in the absence of travel documents. Am I wrong?
Mr. Jean: In 1990, we received resources from the government to embark on a control strategy. We started to station immigration control officers abroad —
Senator Banks: I know that. Am I wrong that there are still people getting off airplanes without travel documents?
Mr. Jean: You are not wrong.
Senator Banks: Canadian airline passengers, and passengers in much of the world, have accepted that, given the new regime, there are inconveniences for all of us. We did not previously need to present picture I.D, go through luggage screening and all of those things. We accept that there is a new regime now under which we must do those things. There are inconveniences. Tough. The inconvenience involved in of a couple of hundred plastic bags with documents being distributed when deplaning seems to me a small price to pay for security.
I understand that the number of people who have gained refugee status in Canada, and who have disappeared on us, is about 25,000. Weigh that fact against the inconvenience of ensuring that all travellers have a travel document when they get off the airplane.
Do you know the numbers of people who have obtained some kind of protection status and disappeared into the system in the United States? I am asking that question specifically with respect to our forthcoming trip to Washington.
Mr. Jean: On the first question, I was talking about immigration control officers, because since starting that program, we have intercepted two out of three people trying to gain direct access to Canada. We try to do deal with the one in three who are arriving in Canada in a targeted way, using intelligence information, rather than putting a process in place that looks fairly easy. However, the volume would create much congestion.
Senator Banks: People who arrive in Canada on foreign airplanes would take longer to get through the line than they do now. That is the nature of the bottleneck, right?
Mr. Jean: That would be part of it. The bottlenecks would be at the departure point, when collecting the travel documents from everyone, and at the point of landing when distributing them.
Even if you were to do that, it would still not be a perfect system unless you apply it at the border. If you do that at the exit to the gate, people will make documents disappear between departing the gate and arriving at the gate of Canada Customs. It is not a simple issue.
Your second question was about the number of people in the United States who arrived as refugees and since disappeared. There are 300,000 warrants for removals in the United States. We also know from previous testimony before the Congress of the U.S. that officials estimate that approximately 40 per cent of the people who are illegally in the United States entered the country legally.
Senator Banks: Returning to the Safe Third Country Agreement, and the exemptions thereto, if I were in the United States and wished to get into Canada — the larger number is coming this way — and have not succeeded by legitimate means, I will find another way. If I drop a minor at the border, — leave a baby in a basket on the doorstep, so to speak — that young person would be admitted to Canada. Would that young person not qualify others to be admitted because he or she would have status and the family connection to which Mr. Scoffield referred? The uncle or the daddy would be able to claim a family member in Canada.
Mr. Scoffield: When we were negotiating the agreement, the potential of exploiting children in this way was of great concern to both governments. The exceptions are valid only for people who are 18 years of age or older when in the process of making a refugee claim. This makes it less attractive to try to use children in this way.
If a child arrives as an unaccompanied minor, the child would be allowed into Canada. The child would be allowed to make a refugee claim. If the parents appear shortly thereafter to try to base a claim to an exception on the presence of that child, they will not be allowed to do so because the child is, by definition, under 18. As long as that child has not been granted refugee status, which is a process that takes at least a year or more in Canada, the parents will not be able to use that child as an anchor relative.
Senator Banks: If I take a 16-year-old to the border, I have a pretty good shot at being able to use that child in two years.
Mr. Scoffield: The incentive to take advantage of children that way is greatly reduced if you have to wait for years in the U.S., or elsewhere, before you can do that.
Senator Banks: The process takes years anyway, by definition.
Mr. Scoffield: Yes, it does. That is partly why it is a disincentive for the rest of the family to send the child on ahead.
Senator Banks: Do we know that for a fact?
Mr. Scoffield: Canada is party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires us to take the interests of children into consideration. This was the best way we could find to structure the agreement to deter their exploitation.
Senator Smith: To return to the difference between our system and the American system, on a per capita basis, do we have a much higher number of successful refugee claimants? Do you know those ratios offhand?
Mr. Jean: Are you talking acceptance rates or volumes of claims?
Senator Smith: Both, but the end result is the most important one.
Mr. Jean: The difference in acceptance rates is not that substantial. If I refer to recent figures, it is 58 per cent versus 53 per cent, if I am not mistaken.
It is an estimate in the U.S. because, as I said before, there are two levels. The first level is the asylum officers, who accept somewhere around 30 per cent, and then there is the immigration judge at the second level, who may also say yes. We have two levels that can say yes, and also a third level, the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Senator Smith: On a per capita basis, is ours not quite a bit higher?
Mr. Jean: If you accept the estimates of the United States, there rate is somewhere around 53 per cent. Ours is 58 per cent.
Senator Smith: I am not talking about that. Their population is nine times ours.
Mr. Jean: You are talking volume of claims.
Senator Smith: Yes, per capita.
Mr. Jean: This is a very good question. Prior to the reform of the asylum system in the U.S. in 1996, they used to have over 300,000 claims. They had, per capita, roughly the same volume of claims that we had. In 1996, because of a combination of factors — first, they had a number of boat arrivals from China, including the one that arrived in the harbour of Manhattan, then the first terrorist attempt on the World Trade Center — they had huge pressures on irregular migration. They decided to reform their asylum determination system.
They decided that if you claim asylum in the United States, you do not have access to either social services or job offers until either you are approved as a refugee or you have been there six months. Either you have been accepted, or the government has taken so long, six months, to decide that they give you a work permit while you await that decision. That has taken the number of refugee claims in the United States down to the level of approximately 60,000 in 2001.
Senator Smith: What was our number?
Mr. Jean: Our numbers were 44,000 in 2001 and 33,000 in 2002.
Senator Smith: That is the number I am getting at.
Mr. Jean: That is where you must be careful. The volume of asylum claims in the U.S. went down dramatically after the 1996 reforms. The volumes of irregular migration to the United States did not go down at all. Every year, there are 300,000 new irregular migrants, according to government officials and academics, and that number never went down. That means that because there is a disincentive to claim asylum and they no longer have access to a work permit, people do not claim. They claim defensively once they are apprehended.
There is a bit of choice here. Do you want a lower number of asylum claims but have people get on the ground and get lost, or, as in Canada, people who claim up front? We make a determination that either you deserve protection or you do not. If you do not deserve it, you enter the enforcement stream. Making the comparison per capita just on the basis of asylum claims is dangerous because you are comparing apples and oranges.
Senator Smith: If you do a per capita comparison, it is still five times here.
Mr. Jean: When you look at the international pressures of dealing with asylum and irregular migration, many countries are doing well on the asylum front. That does not mean they are any more effective than we are at removing these people.
Senator Smith: That could be, but many people use it as a form of queue jumping, because maybe they cannot succeed under the point system or the normal pattern. I could tell you a dozen stories to illustrate that, but I do not need to because you know them. I do not think anyone here has any qualms about bona fide refugees. It is the bona fide queue jumpers that we find troubling.
Mr. Jean: That is the challenge. We are doing a lot of comparative studies now, and we find that most countries are spending $9 out of every $10 on finding people who abuse the system.
The Chairman: Mr. Jean, would it be possible for you to prepare a short comparison for us of the American and the Canadian situations, highlighting the apples and oranges, as you just did? I would also be curious to know about the situation on the southern border of the U.S. and whether you have any information about Mexican illegal entrants currently on the loose in the United States. We are not looking for a 20-page document; we are looking for a very short, one- or two-page maximum, comparison.
It would also be useful if you could give us a descriptor of the process in each country, just in point form, with the steps we go through in Canada versus the steps they go through in the United States. It may be necessary to define terms for us if the words mean something different in one country than they do in the other.
With how many countries does Canada have a safe third country agreement?
Mr. Jean: This would be the first one.
The Chairman: Are these agreements common around the world? Are there some countries that have half a dozen or dozens of them?
Mr. Jean: They are not necessarily common around the world, but many countries in Europe abide by the Dublin Convention, which is a responsibility-sharing agreement on asylum seekers.
The Chairman: Does that have the same impact?
Mr. Jean: Yes.
The Chairman: When is a person ``in Canada''? Are you in Canada when you arrive at a border post, for example?
Mr. Jean: You are in Canada the minute that you enter either our waters or land on our soil. The minute you enter our territory, you are in Canada. If you mean in terms of access to the Charter and all of that, that is when you are deemed to be in Canada.
The Chairman: What is the difference between someone who arrives at a land crossing and someone who arrives at an airport? Is there any way that one would be treated differently from the other?
Mr. Jean: Do you mean from an examination standpoint?
The Chairman: Do they have different legal entitlements?
Mr. Jean: No, they do not.
The Chairman: Why do so few people endeavour to get asylum at land crossings compared to airports?
Mr. Jean: One third of our asylum claims were presented at land ports of entry.
The Chairman: Perhaps I am misinformed. Certainly we were told there were relatively few claimants at the Ambassador Bridge and the Blue Water Bridge, maybe 50 in the last month.
Mr. Jean: We have substantial volumes of asylum claims at our land ports of entry. Last year there were 10,855.
The Chairman: When we asked the question of one of your officials there, the answer was, ``We do not have much action here, nor in Sarnia.''
Mr. Jean: Some ports of entry receive more claims than others. It could be that that port of entry does not receive a lot of claims.
The Chairman: Those are our two busiest crossings.
Mr. Jean: Many of our asylum claims come through Fort Erie in the Niagara Peninsula and at Lacolle. We get many at Windsor, but I think they come through the tunnel rather than over the bridge.
The Chairman: Any reason why?
Mr. Jean: There are shelters in the United States for some of these people. The reason they use a certain port often has to do with where the shelters are on the other side of the border. That is why you saw so much media attention when we started ``directing back'' in Lacolle. ``Direct back'' has been a policy for a number of years, but there are not many shelters on the Vermont side of the border.
The Chairman: Are the shelters run by NGOs?
Mr. Jean: They are.
The Chairman: We have published our regulations in terms of the Safe Third Party Agreement with the United States. We are hopeful that the Americans will publish theirs this month. If things go well, the treaty will go into effect some time this summer. What further Congressional approvals are required?
Mr. Jean: They have to publish preliminary recommendations, receive comments and then publish their final recommendations.
The Chairman: Is it entirely an administrative matter?
Mr. Jean: It is the administrative branch; it is not legislative.
The Chairman: It is not a Congressional matter at all?
Mr. Jean: That is correct.
The Chairman: Are there any funding requirements for Congress to put this into effect?
Mr. Jean: No. It is executive-related as well.
The Chairman: Is there no money involved? Will no money be spent once this comes into effect?
Mr. Jean: One hopes to rely on resources based on the volumes of claimants that we have right now to the implement the agreement. There is no money involved at this point.
The Chairman: You are telling me that when the agreement comes into effect, there will be no additional processing costs for the United States when we send people back? I am sure that is not what you meant to say.
Mr. Jean: They already have resources in place to deal with asylum claims.
The Chairman: We will increase the number of asylum claims by sending people back. We will be saying no to many people. A significant number will not be able to come here any more.
Mr. Scoffield: Mr. Chairman, I have been privy to some of the work that has gone on in the U.S. on their regulatory package. The executive has been looking at costs required to implement that agreement. There are direct costs to adjudicate decisions for people returning to the U.S. and other costs relating to any limited assistance that is made available, particularly to unaccompanied children. That has all been taken into account within the parameters of the existing budget allocations to the responsible authority, previously the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now the Department of Homeland Security. They are reallocating money within their existing budgets rather than requesting additional votes from the Congress.
The Chairman: Mr. Scoffield, in your best judgment, there is no likelihood of obstruction of this agreement in Congress?
Mr. Scoffield: Certainly the Congress has no role in ratifying the agreement. It is an executive agreement signed under the authority of the Secretary of State. The regulatory process, again, it is an executive process. Members of Congress, of course, will have opinions that they may voice to the executive branch, but they do not have a vote or role in the ratification of the regulations.
Mr. Jean: Congress has an oversight of the executive branch. It is quite likely that they would be briefed prior to the signing of the agreement, and that in their normal oversight of agreements, they would have input.
The Chairman: You do not believe they would vote any additional funds for this?
Mr. Jean: That is the information I received from my American colleagues.
The Chairman: I asked if there is a difference between land crossings and airports. Your answer was that the process is exactly the same. Is that correct?
Mr. Jean: In a situation where we cannot examine someone — we may need an interpreter or we may have too many claimants at the same time and in the same place — we can direct people back to the United States. There is no question it is easier to direct someone back at a land port of entry than at an airport. Usually, we will not use ``direct back'' at an airport.
The Chairman: When you say ``direct back,'' you mean to tell someone: ``You cannot come in; go away.''
Mr. Jean: It means that we will allow them to come at a later date. Either there are too many people or there are no interpreters available or no officers to make a full examination before proceeding with the case.
The Chairman: The ``direct back'' policy guarantees people the right to come and represent themselves?
Mr. Jean: That is right. ``Direct back'' is not the same as the Safe Third Party Agreement, where you tell someone to go back and have the claim heard in the United States.
Senator Banks: I am reading the instructions that you have sent out to your officers: The policy is to have a full and complete front-end screening examination before the claimant is allowed into Canada.
This relates back to the question that the chair asked earlier about when someone is actually in Canada. Talking about having this full and complete front-end screening examination before the claimants are allowed into Canada is not quite accurate, is it? They are already in Canada. The worst that will happen is that they will be told to come back next Thursday. People could also be detained or adjudged to be proper refugee claimants. There is no such thing as, ``Sorry, you cannot come in here'' once people's feet are on the ground here?
Mr. Jean: In the current context, where the Safe Third Party Agreement with the United States is not in effect, ``direct back'' means that people will come back at some later stage. We will examine their claim later when we will be in a better position to do a full screening on safety, security and other grounds before we decide what to do with them.
Senator Banks: Right, but the sentence about having a full front-end examination ``before the claimant is allowed into Canada'' is not quite true?
Mr. Jean: It is true. We will not compromise our screening of people who arrive at a land port of entry or people who arrive at an airport. We have questions; we may have a concern that we will bring to the attention of our partner agencies.
Senator Banks: I understand the process. I am only asking about the phrase, ``before the claimant is allowed into Canada.'' That phrase is not quite correct, is it?
Mr. Jean: The only exception would be people who may have sneaked into Canada. They are already in Canada and they may have avoided examination. We may give them an appointment later, but those people are already in Canada.
They are not people who came to either a land port of entry or an airport. The upfront screening of those who arrive at a port of entry, whether that is a land or air port of entry, will not be compromised because of a lack of resources or interpreters.
Senator Banks: Where is the upfront screening done?
Mr. Jean: When people arrive, they must submit a questionnaire to us. There is a long interview of one to three hours.
Senator Banks: Are they already in Canada?
Mr. Jean: They are already in Canada. They have not been authorized to stay; they have just entered Canada.
Senator Banks: I am confused. These words say, ``before the claimant is allowed into Canada.''
Mr. Jean: ``Allowed'' is a legal term that means that you have been given an authorized status.
Senator Banks: Once my foot touches Canadian soil, I have a status, so I am allowed into Canada.
Mr. Jean: You are allowed to be heard.
Senator Banks: Am I entitled to ``process,'' whatever that is?
Mr. Jean: That is right.
Senator Forrestall: I am somewhat confused as well. When you say, ``Come back and see us,'' where are they told to go to? Are they to go home?
Mr. Jean: We are talking about a specific situation. The only time we will use the direct-back is at the Canada-U.S. border, where people are basically told to go back to, let us say, Buffalo. They will come back at a certain date when we will be in a position to examine them thoroughly. The direct-back is only used at a land port of entry between the United States and Canada.
In an airport situation, we will make sure that we have the process in place to examine you fully. If we do not, we may put you in detention for a few hours until we do.
Senator Forrestall: What are the differences among land port, inland and airport examinations?
Mr. Jean: They are different in terms of process. In terms of legal access, there is no difference.
Senator Forrestall: Tell me, where is ``inland''?
Mr. Jean: ``Inland'' means the person is already in Canada. It is not at a port of entry.
Ms. Caroline Melis, Director, Program Development, Enforcement Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: For example, if you were applying at a Citizenship and Immigration office in Ottawa, you would be applying at a port inland. Land ports of entry are any of the ports of entry along the 49th parallel. Air ports of entry are any of the major international airports.
Senator Forrestall: Could the people in this second column have been in Canada for a day, two days or ten months?
Mr. Jean: If you are looking at the inland column in the volume of asylum claims, these may be people who came into Canada legally at some point and then decided they wanted to claim for some reason. These people may have come here legally from the United States, or they may have come here illegally, sneaked in between border points and made a claim inland. That is a possibility.
Senator Forrestall: Do you have any breakdown of legal and/or illegal claims?
Mr. Jean: The problem with inland claims is that most of them will not tell you exactly how they arrived in Canada. Did they come with a visa? Did they come from the United States in between border points? This is not information they will volunteer easily.
We have some information and we have some intelligence. At ports of entry, I can tell you whether they are coming from an air port or a U.S. port of entry. When people sneak in or want to change their terms and conditions once they are in Canada, not all of them will tell you how they entered.
Senator Forrestall: People coming by water are not measurable, then; is that figure below one per cent?
Mr. Jean: I will give an example. Someone comes via the United States. He decides he will not claim at the port of entry. He sneaks in between two ports of entry. He is illegally in Canada, via the United States. He claims asylum in Canada. He will not necessarily volunteer that information to us.
Senator Banks: Is it correct that providing that information is not a condition of their being properly considered for asylum?
Mr. Jean: We still must hear their claim for asylum. However, we certainly try to say to people that if they are not cooperative in terms of telling us who they are or how they got here and all the things related to that, it will affect decisions that we have to make on detention, on the risk that they represent and on the amount of screening we have to do. For example, in Toronto, where we are monitoring our detention efforts, we see that when we start detaining certain people they then come up with their identity documents. The behaviour can change if you offer an incentive. However, you want that incentive to be very well managed. Detention is not something to take lightly, and it is an extremely expensive tool.
Senator Atkins: My question is with regard to the Advanced Passenger Information. I can understand that if a flight is several hours long, there is some opportunity to put that information through a computer. However, what if a flight is short? Take me through how you would deal with that kind of situation.
Mr. Jean: That is a very good point. Needless to say, most of our efforts are directed at transcontinental flights. As we can see from the discussions we have just had, if people want to come to Canada from the United States, they do not necessarily need to fly. We have a long common border. However, a few hours is enough for us to check all our systems, including CPIC, our intelligence data banks, immigration and customs violations. Advanced Passenger Information primarily gives us the information in the database suggesting these people may be inadmissible. Later, we look at what we call ``personal name records.'' This is all the information that comes from when you purchase the ticket, such as addresses and travel agents — the type of intelligence information that will allow us to look better at associations, trends. That allows us to target the people of whom we want to ask a few more questions when they arrive.
Since October, when we started experimenting with Advanced Passenger Information, we have been extremely successful in terms of identifying people on the immigration side. Our customs colleagues have had some success on the drug side. The Joint Passenger Analysis Unit in Miami, where there are both Canadian and U.S. officials, has had some success in a handful of cases with terrorists. It is a very valuable tool.
Senator Atkins: There are no secrets any more. You know all about me.
Mr. Jean: I would not say that. We are not there yet. However, it is a valuable tool in terms of targeting screening efforts when people arrive at a port of entry.
Senator Atkins: Are you telling me that the computer has the information from CSIS and the RCMP in one source?
Mr. Jean: We have what we call a ``lookout.'' Lookouts are the names of people that we are concerned may be inadmissible for one reason or another.
Senator Atkins: I carry a green passport. Why is it that when I arrive in Canada from a foreign country, your examination officers are looking a little more closely at that passport than they would a regular blue one?
Mr. Jean: I carried a red passport for a number of years when I served abroad. I have been looked at with greater scrutiny on occasion and referred to secondary examinations twice.
The Chairman: I have several quick questions, Mr. Jean. I am sure we received testimony a few months ago that Customs and Immigration computers were not compatible. Is that true?
Mr. Jean: The initial check when you arrive at the port of entry in Canada is done at the primary line by Canada Customs. Their computers have access to our lookouts.
The Chairman: We will have to go back and look at the information, but I am sure we heard testimony that the Customs computers and the people on the primary inspection line do not have access to your data, and their computer system is just not talking to your computer system.
Mr. Jean: At the primary line, they have access to our lookouts. That tells them whether a person could be inadmissible and should be referred to Immigration's secondary unit. As for access to databases of people that may be inadmissible, they would have that at the front end. I would have to examine the testimony you heard to see if there are other systems that are not compatible.
The Chairman: We will take a look. If we find it, perhaps our researcher can be in touch with you.
Mr. Jean: I would be happy to look at it.
The Chairman: Touching briefly on Senator Banks' question about seizing documents of people getting on aircraft, your response was, I think, that some of the documentation, by nature, would not be correct anyway because it comes from refugees. You spent the most time explaining that it would be time consuming and difficult with which to deal.
Presumably, you would not seize documents of Canadian citizens who were returning. Would they not make up the bulk of people arriving? If that is the case, could you not have a system that picks up non-Canadians only?
Mr. Jean: Many of the documents that are being used in an improper fashion may be Canadian passports in which the photo has been substituted. Therefore, trying to triage what documents to exempt from such a procedure would be very difficult.
I was trying to illustrate earlier, in response to Senator Banks, that you could not do that reconciliation without treating this group of passengers almost as one population, and bagging all their documents and taking them all to the final checkpoint. That would not be sufficient because people could destroy the documents between the gate and the port of entry.
When you actually arrive at the port of entry, where Canada Customs is stationed, as you know, there may be several flights converging there. You would have systems in place. I think the best example is the coat check at the National Arts Centre, where everyone goes at once when several plays finish at exactly the same time and you have to match the coats to individuals.
The Chairman: It would not be much different from the baggage carousel that says ``Flight 352 from Halifax,'' where baggage is coming through. You could have the same set-up at the primary inspection line indicating that people from this flight are going through this line. It is doable.
Mr. Jean: The carousel is self-service. If the government had to do that and wanted to do it with some degree of integrity, it would create tremendous congestion.
The other point, of course, is that the cost to the airline industry would be quite substantial.
The Chairman: The reason some of us are confused is that when we travel, we are asked for identification. We are told when we go to check in that they need to see our passport and then they stamp ``DOCS'' on our boarding pass, which, I presume, is short for ``documents.'' We see that happening and we are wondering why.
Mr. Jean: You probably remember that 15 years ago, you were never asked for your documents when you were about to board at the gate. You were always asked for your documents when you checked in. Nowadays, you are asked for your documents when you check in, and again later on. Most places now ask for your documents at the gate. The answer is fairly simple. The only document check that really counts from a screening and immigration perspective is the one at the gate, when you get to the door. For example, I am Daniel Jean and I intend to travel regularly to Canada. I will check in and receive a boarding pass. Once I get to the transit lounge, I will give my boarding pass to you, Senator Kenny. If there is no document check when you board the plane, you will be able to get on the plane using my identity. That is why you have this multiplicity of checks. In reality, the only one that counts is at the departure gate.
Regarding the arrival gate, what I was referring to earlier is that even if you collected documents at the departure gate and tried to match them with passengers at the arrival gate, it would not work because people would still be congregating around the Canada Customs inspection line. In the meantime, they could destroy the documents or pass them to someone else. In order for that to work, the airline industry would have to collect all these travel documents before the passengers leave and find a way to keep all these people together, which is not so simple when they are disembarking from several flights and converging at an inspection line at a port of entry. There the staff would have to find a way to match people with their documents and somehow make sure that they do not start swiping them. I am trying to say that it looks fairly simple as a theoretical concept, but the implementation just will not work.
The Chairman: Those of us who have shopped in stores where you take a number think it might work. You deliver the documents to the Customs officers, take a number, they call your number and you go through. We have not studied it as much as you have. I am sure that it is much more complicated than we understand.
I think we have covered the question.
Senator Smith: On that point, are you aware of any Western countries that do that?
Mr. Jean: They may do that for selected passengers where they perceive a risk. I know in the June testimony of Ms. Atkinson, you talked about the policy whereby we fine airlines that transport irregular passengers. There are some countries and some airlines that in suspicious cases involving maybe two or three passengers, not the whole flight, may decide to do this.
Senator Banks: With respect to the new permanent resident cards, has there yet, to your knowledge, been an instance of a fraudulently produced card?
Mr. Jean: No.
Senator Forrestall: On the grand scale of things, are we good at what we are doing? Are we fair? Are we good, better, best?
Mr. Jean: If you were to go to recent publications in the United States by people like Doris Meisner, the former Commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services, you would find that Canada and Australia are considered models in terms of immigration policy and programs and visa screening. Therefore, I think we are really good. Are we as good as we would like to be? We never will be.
Senator Forrestall: Are we better than most?
Mr. Jean: I think we are better than most.
Senator Forrestall: Are we better than the Americans?
Mr. Jean: We are good friends, and we work closely together.
Senator Atkins: How many weapons are Customs and Immigration picking up coming through the border?
Mr. Jean: I do not know. I think our colleagues from Customs would handle many of the weapons. That is something we could examine, if you wish.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for appearing before us. It has been very helpful to have you explain how the system works. It is an area in which the committee needs to do more homework to get up to speed. We are looking forward to receiving the documentation for which we have asked. With respect to the comparison of the U.S. and the Canadian systems, a very short document will be helpful, as well as a numerical comparison.
Thank you very much for coming today.
To those following our work, very shortly we will be hearing from two officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Today's hearings will conclude with briefings on Canada's general relations with the United States and on international security. We will hear first from Mr. Jon Allen and then from Ms. Jill Sinclair. Welcome to the committee.
Mr. Jon Allen, Director General, North America Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: It is a pleasure to be before the committee. I would like to briefly run through the current state of relations with the United States and talk a little about the challenge we are facing. In some senses, we are doing this backwards. You probably heard about a number of challenges from the witnesses who have appeared already. If I repeat anything, just tell me to move on. I will give you our view. Jill Sinclair is our expert on all political military matters. While she will not give an opening statement, she is here to answer any questions you may have in this area.
If you were to read the Canadian newspapers, you would probably have the impression that the Canada-U.S. relationship was at its nadir. Reading the papers, you might think that the government has neither an agenda nor a strategy to deal with the United States. I am happy to report differently. The relationship is, in fact, in good shape and the government is actively pursuing a clear set of Canadian interests vis-à-vis our partner to the south. Advancing Canada's interests in the U.S. has always depended on an approach that includes continuous high-level engagement, taking the initiative, pursuing specific solutions to individual files — preferably ones that are rules based, but if that does not work then we are prepared to be pragmatic — generally avoiding linkages on issues, and undertaking active advocacy to defend and promote our interests. You have before you a package that we use in our advocacy efforts. It is quite extensive and I am more than happy to discuss any of that during the question period.
Personal relationships are not everything, but the relationships that have been developed by the current government with their homologues in the U.S. have been extremely strong and extremely useful in advancing our agenda. As you know, Minister Graham met with Secretary Powell recently here and he has been to Washington. Minister Pettigrew has been to Washington recently and saw both Secretary Zoellick and Secretary Evans. They discussed softwood lumber and also the WTO. USTR Representative Zoellick was in Quebec City and spent three days with Minister Pettigrew trying to develop that relationship. The Attorney General had an excellent relationship with the former Solicitor General and he has continued that with the current Solicitor General, Mr. Easter.
Recently, both the Attorney General and the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, have praised Canada for its efforts both on homeland security and in Afghanistan. The Manley/Ridge process is, perhaps, the best known and the set of relationships that probably delivered the most in the course of the past year.
The Smart Border Accord is seen as a success in the U.S., as it is here. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, the former Governor of Pennsylvania, who understands the importance of the economic and security relationship, has been a strong advocate of Canada in the U.S. cabinet. Much of the success we have achieved is because of that relationship and the hard work in implementing the Smart Border Accord.
As you know, President Bush will be coming to Ottawa on May 5. At that time, we will have a celebration of our energy relationship, our trading relationship, our border relationship and our long relationship as allies in the world together.
At the same time, as I said, the Canada-U.S. relationship is not just about personal relations, it is about pursuing a clear set of Canadian interests. The government has worked closely with the Americans on ensuring the safety of Canadians on the North American continent. We have the anti-terrorism plan that put $7.7 billion into new resources for the campaign against terrorism; we have strengthened legislation and enhanced cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence services, which you have already heard about. In addition, the government has moved to enhance security cooperation on the military front. We signed an agreement in December with the U.S. for the establishment of a binational planning group co-located with NORAD. The group will coordinate binational maritime surveillance and intelligence sharing, provide warning and threat assessments to both governments and develop contingency planning.
As I said, the government has moved in a coordinated fashion to aggressively implement the Smart Border Accord and its 30-point action plan. Mr. Fonberg was here this morning and you spoke to him and to Mr. Flack, but we are more than happy to answer any questions on the 30-point action plan.
The government places the highest priority on pursuing trade and investment objectives. While the overall trading relationship is in extremely good shape, there remain nagging and costly trade disputes. We can talk about those, if you wish. At the same time, the government is looking at how we can improve the functioning of the North American economic space. Minster Pettigrew has been pursuing, with his NAFTA colleagues, whether we can do more in areas such as standards, regulatory reform, rules of origin and the movement of business travellers.
The government continues to look for binational solutions to environmental issues. In December, the two countries signed the Yukon River Treaty on salmon. We are discovering ways to improve air quality in North America, and we have the IJC, under the active leadership of the former Solicitor General and Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Grey, which is pursuing a vigorous agenda.
As Ms. Sinclair will tell you, we are working on a variety of fronts to ensure international security. The scope of the relationship, from environment to fishery, foreign policy, the border, immigration and trade and defence cooperation, is quite broad. Ambassador Kergin likes to compare the relationship to a great lake. A large body of water runs deep and broad. Occasionally, there are waves and choppy waters, but overall the deep water is stable. When you go to Washington, I hope you get good briefings from the embassy and from others and that they will provide a consistent view. I think they will.
What are the challenges in the coming year? Homeland security is probably the greatest challenge that we face. Security is driving the political agenda in the U.S, as you know, in a way that has no real parallel in Canada. This is having an effect on many of their policy approaches to immigration, law enforcement and foreign affairs. For the Americans, the issue is not whether there will be another incident, but when. Moreover, unlike for most Canadians, September 11 is still very much in the forefront of the minds of our American friends. Today, ironically, the U.S. is the world's only hyper-power, and yet, in some senses, is feeling more vulnerable than at any time in its history. Naturally, this will have an effect on the continuing interactions between Canada and the U.S.
The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security will challenge us. You have heard many times that there will be nine cabinet departments, 170,000 employees and the largest bureaucratic reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defence. Moreover, the President now controls the Senate, the Congress and the Executive Branch. That means he can no longer blame others if there is an incident. He is accountable and his officials are aware of that. That is part of the reason that we currently see a no-tolerance policy at the American border and throughout their system.
Secretary Ridge will continue to be an asset. The Deputy Prime Minister will likely travel to Washington in April, as you know. He will likely take a group of senior officials with him from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, CCRA, and from law enforcement agencies in an effort to introduce them to some of the new members of the homeland security team in Washington, such as Mr. Asa Hutchinson, first Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security — the third-highest ranking official in the Department of Homeland Security — and former head of the Drug Enforcement Agency, who will be the ``border czar,'' and a number of other people in the new department.
The importance of this visit cannot be overstated because many of the ties that have been developed between our Immigration people and their INS people, and between their Customs people and our Customs people, have been broken. There are new people in those jobs and it will be key that we get to know them so that we are able to convey the extent to which we share their security concerns and the importance of the economic side of the relationship.
You heard from Mr. Robert Fonberg earlier today on border issues. I would simply add that we are making a great deal of progress on NEXUS, on FAST and on NEXUS-Air, which will be in place at Dorval, Montreal, as a pilot system. The Safe Third Country Agreement has been signed and we are hopeful that it will be implemented. We are also hopeful that honourable senators will be able to convince some of their American colleagues to move that along. We have 11 integrated border enforcement teams and there will be 3 more, for a total of 14, in the near future. In general, we continue to make progress with the Americans, whether in the area of bio-security or on Advanced Passenger Information. It is a continual challenge and each day we face a situation that we did not expect. Sometimes, people in the States are not even aware of these challenges, and I will talk about those in a minute.
Our biggest problem is entry-exit. Most of you know that the United States has decided to try to track the 300 million visitors that enter and exit the United States each year; 200 million people cross at land borders. If U.S. officials were to take the exit card of everyone crossing the Canada-U.S. border at one of their own border facilities before the individuals enter Canada and stop at our border facility, we would have a serious problem. As you know, we are in the course of negotiations and discussions with our American friends to try to deal with that issue. They have made their recommendations, which acknowledge the problems, to deal with this issue and we are hopeful that, in the spirit of cooperation, we will be able to resolve it.
You are all aware of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, NSEERS, which requires citizens of 25 countries to be fingerprinted, photographed and interviewed when entering and exiting the U.S. We had a problem with dual nationals — Canadians who are also nationals of one of those 25 countries or who were born in one of those countries. We spent a great deal of time working with the Americans to resolve that problem. While it is not 100 per cent solved, we are now moving away from zero tolerance and are seeing that reasonable cases of Canadians born in one of those 25 countries are allowed to proceed without going through the entire process.
In respect of advance customs notification, the U.S. intends to introduce rules requiring advance notification before goods are loaded for shipment to the U.S. At one time, they told us that they wanted four hours' advance notification. That would have caused severe trouble for just-in-time delivery across all the major border points. As a result of discussions with the Americans, we have convinced them that that time has to be shortened. We do not have a specific time agreed right now, but we are currently at 30 minutes or less. We continue those discussions. In addition, FAST participants will be exempted from advance customs notification.
Advanced Passenger Information creates another set of issues that we have been dealing with, whereby the Americans want information on passengers coming into Canada who may then move on to the United States. This information will be shared on a risk-management basis only. Bulk data about all travellers will not be transmitted between countries and only information on high-risk passengers will be shared. We are conscious of the privacy concerns that this issue raises and we are working to balance the need for security with the need for protection and privacy.
The issue of the transportation of explosives came upon us out of the blue on a Friday afternoon, when we were told that by the middle of the following week, no Canadians would be allowed to transport explosives across the border, notwithstanding that we provide such things to American carmakers, the army corps of engineers and some of the military. It turned out that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms people had not informed the Department of Transportation in the United States. After one week of negotiations, we got that proposal modified and our truckers and companies are continuing to transport explosives.
I will leave the border issues, if I may, and quickly move on to some foreign policy and economic issues. I will then open it up for your questions.
Clearly, the paramount foreign policy and security issue for the Bush Administration has become the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the threat of global terrorism. The U.S. is intent on disarming Iraq. The President has made it clear that he will do so, hopefully with, but otherwise without, the UN's participation.
What will be the consequences for the Middle East, the multilateral system, Europe and NATO? These are difficult questions that are being debated as we speak. This is a high-risk foreign policy that is now intertwined with the performance of the U.S. economy, which, of course, could have implications for our economy.
Continental defence issues are back at the top of the Canada-U.S. agenda. In the United States, homeland and continental security are now converging. We are more than happy to take any questions you may have on that.
In terms of our economic prosperity, you know all the facts and figures. The level of our trade is almost $2 billion a day; the United States accounts for 87 per cent of our exports, and 37 per cent of our GDP.
Our trade relationship is a tremendous success story. Some of the holdovers from our NAFTA negotiations, when we were not able to do away with trade remedies legislation in the United States, continue to nag. We currently are dealing with softwood lumber, and with challenges to the Wheat Board — the 10th challenge in as many years. However, those processes are being dealt with either through negotiation and dispute settlement through the WTO and NAFTA, in the case of softwood lumber; or, in the case of the Wheat Board, through dispute settlement.
Energy is one of the good news stories. The very good news story is in the relationship. In 2000, Canada exported $52 billion worth, or approximately 97 per cent of our energy exports, to the United States.
The other side of the story, that nobody in the United States seems to know about, is that we are their largest and most secure energy supplier. We are hoping that Mr. Abraham, the Secretary of Energy, may accompany President Bush in May. I know that our American colleagues here very much want to get that story out as well. At a time when there is conflict in Venezuela and potential conflict in Iraq, the fact that we are the largest and most secure energy supplier is something all Americans should know about.
In terms of the North American economy, you will be aware that there are those — the Canadian Council of Chief Executive Officers and the C.D. Howe Institute — who call for a ``big bang'' approach, a package that would include homeland and continental security in a trade-off for trade and economic issues. There are others, such as the Conference Board and many commentators in Canada and the U.S., who see the benefits in a step-by-step approach.
In our view, there is little appetite right now in the U.S. for big schemes. This has not stopped us from considering other ways to secure our economic security within a North American economic space. The Speech from the Throne talked about ``smart regulation,'' and Minister Pettigrew is looking for ways to move the trade agenda forward. With regulatory reform and rules of origin modifications, we can save billions of dollars for our private sector.
I want to touch on enhanced representation in the United States. We passed out a couple of maps to you. One map — ``Why the U.S. Matters'' — actually appeared in The Globe and Mail a couple of Saturdays ago in Drew Fagan's article. We passed it to him a few months ago on an airplane and he has been running with it ever since.
It is quite revealing if one looks at the fact that France has a GDP somewhat smaller than California, Florida has a GDP the size of South Korea and Russia has a GDP the size of New Jersey. In other words, in economic terms, the majority of states are as important, or more important, to us as many of the countries that we deal with on a daily basis. This does not, of course, mean that we should be reducing our relations with states around the world. It simply means that we must recognize the importance of the United States in economic terms.
The second map, ``The Missing Pieces,'' gives you an indication of where we do not have a presence in the United States. In the last 10 years, we have reduced our representation in the States from 29 to 14 offices. In part, this was because people thought that, with the NAFTA, we might not need as many to encourage trade. That forgets the fact that we have to be present in the United States to defend and protect our interests.
There was recognition that we needed more representation in the United States in the Speech from the Throne. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, SCOFAIT, also came to the same conclusion in its report. In the most recent budget, we were given up to $71 million that will be matched by our department and partner departments. We are hoping to open nine new offices in the U.S. over the next couple of years. Some will be consulates general. Some will be antennae offices to our consulates. We are also hoping to put 20 new what we call ``Canadian champions,'' or honorary consuls, in the United States in cities where we do not now have or will not have offices. The purpose of this is to promote investment and our innovation agenda; but it is also for advocacy, to defend and protect our interests.
In the 1970s, it was all about trying to convince the U.S. Administration. In the 1980s, Alan Gotlieb taught us that we had to deal with Congress; and you will be dealing with Congress. In the 1990s and in the year 2000, we realized that we have to move beyond the beltway, beyond the elites, and get into the grassroots.
We have to convince the people on the ground who influence the congressmen and senators in their constituencies. They are making their decisions based on what is happening around them, and we have to be there to get our message out. We are spending a lot of time and a fair amount of money on advocacy right now. That is good news.
I will stop there, if I may, and throw the floor open to questions.
Senator Michael Forrestall (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Allen. In connection with messages that are sometimes very interesting to carry to the United States in defence of our own positions, the last visit we made had to do with energy.
Senator Smith: Let me say at the outset that I concur with your evaluation of the rapport at the official level, although you may see media reports now and then that would not indicate that. I am influenced a little by the fact that, last month, I was one of a dozen parliamentarians who went down with Minister Pettigrew for that ``Canada day.'' There were actually two days of meetings. We had a huge map up in both the Senate and the House of Representatives' reception rooms, showing the 38 states where Canada is their biggest customer. I did take some pleasure, being from Toronto, pointing out to one congressman who mentioned Japan that Ontario alone is equal to Japan in trade with the U.S. That rocked him a little, and I enjoyed that. It was said very tastefully.
In any event, I would say that the material was very helpful, especially that information about the 38 states where we are the largest customers. There was one meeting that got off to something of a rocky start with someone from Georgia. That was the first thing mentioned, and the tone shifted very quickly. I had about 15 conversations with congressmen and senators. We had thought we might be a little defensive, but none of those conversations were of that nature.
This morning we heard different people giving their perspectives. What are the most frequent myths about Canada that you feel you must counter? Are there any that you think you should flag for us? We may be aware of them, but out of an abundance of caution, what are the myths on which we might sometimes have to do a little education?
Mr. Allen: There are a number.
You are correct that you may well face them. The two myths that we hear the most about are our porous border and our weak immigration system. That, in some senses, is at the heart of the concerns of people like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and others. They need constant education about the nature of our system and, most importantly, the cooperation between our law enforcement, intelligence and various border agencies.
As I said, if you were to ask Attorney General Ashcroft who the United States' most cooperative partner was, I think there would be no question in his mind. He knows that, both on the law enforcement and intelligence sides.
We have done many things to tighten up our immigration system recently. I believe you heard from Mr. Jean that our system is as good as the United States. One of the things I spoke about last time I was here is that we may well have some refugees of whom we have not kept track. What the United States must recall is that they have somewhere between 9 million and 11 million illegal immigrants. The reason they have ``illegals'' and we have ``refugees'' is that, when refugees come to the United States, they are detained. To avoid that, they go underground. When refugees come to Canada, unless they pose a security risk, they are not detained. From time to time, we may lose track of them. We are not, as I say, talking about a vast number of people running around Canada who pose a threat either to us or to the United States, because we detain those that pose a problem.
Senator Smith: Any briefing notes that you have on those issues that could be provided to our clerk would be most helpful.
I do not want to put you in an awkward position or project what the government will ultimately decide. However, in a couple of conversations that I had last month on the Iraq issue — and I am just wondering if this is something that you hear — they would bring up Canada's well-earned reputation in the policing role, going back to Suez and Cyprus, although they were not really putting on the heat. When this happens, we must have people who know what they are talking about and who will not be surprised if they are asked. Do you encounter conversations of that nature much?
Mr. Allen: I will let Ms. Sinclair jump in; however, there is no question that the United States would like to have as many countries on board as possible, especially countries like Canada. That is understandable; so would the British.
Senator Smith: This was with specific reference to the post-fighting aspect.
Mr. Allen: Post-conflict?
Senator Smith: That is correct. They knew about the role of the supply ships, to which they reacted positively. The word they used was ``niche'': ``We know you have a real niche carved out, so do not be surprised.''
Mr. Allen: I would say two things and then I will let Ms. Sinclair comment. First, if you are confronted by more aggressive criticism, which we are not anticipating, you must remind our American friends that we were and continue to be in Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti and Afghanistan. In terms of post-conflict, I think the Prime Minister made it clear today that we would also be there and that we have a tradition of being involved in post-conflict reconstruction.
Let me turn it over to the expert.
Ms. Jill Sinclair, Director General, International Security Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: Honourable senators, in terms of post-conflict, we will be involved, as you know, in Afghanistan. That is, when they talk to you about the niche, you say that Canada is living up to that niche reputation. Largely in response to requests from the United States, but also the international community generally, Canada has said that we would step up to the plate in terms of participating in the international security assistance force in Afghanistan, and will be deploying a battle group of approximately 2,000 personnel this summer for a 12-month rotation. That is more than anyone else has done; most forces go in for six months. We are living up to that niche reputation. We can only do so much, but this is a significant contribution to international peace and security. That is a good, responsive point.
Mr. Allen was saying that we were there in Bosnia and other places. I say that we continue to be in Bosnia and the Golan Heights. If we look at places where the Americans care about our presence because we bring some security, stability and real professionalism, we are there in the multinational force and observer mission in the Sinai, between Egypt and Israel. We are making a contribution in all of those regions, but everyone has to respect the limits of our capacity and that we are doing what we possibly can.
Senator Smith: I went to our base in the Golan Heights in January. I heard very good things about our people there.
Could you expand on your comment about not linking things? When we were down there, of course, softwood lumber issues were at a high-water mark; there was potential for disharmony. There did seem to be a conscious effort to avoid trying to link them to border security issues. Could you comment on the thinking on that, as well as on how to avoid it?
Mr. Allen: In some senses, we have linked issues; however, we have linked economics and security, which is positive. We are trying to demonstrate that we are cooperative security partners and that we want to make sure that both our economies continue to thrive. We do link issues when it comes to positives.
You can run into problems if Canadians think that, somehow, we could turn the energy tap off. That energy tap provides us with $52 billion a year in revenue. Some think that if we just turn it off for a while, we can convince someone in the United States to solve softwood lumber issues. The problem with that, and with some of the big bang theory, is that different people are controlling different parts of the game. The administration is not the major obstacle on softwood lumber. It is a coalition, which then has convinced a series of congressmen and senators to pursue trade remedies. Somehow, I think turning off the energy tap would not necessarily impact on those people. We could hurt ourselves.
We are not, generally speaking, big enough and we do not have enough influence to be able to withstand linkages. I do not think that means that we should not be explaining to the Americans how important we are to them.
One of the things we do on softwood, steel and other issues is to try to convince them that we have integrated markets. Right now, Americans own steel plants in Canada and Canadians own plants in the United States, and Weyerhaeuser owns plants on both sides of the border.
Our message is that if the United States hurts Canada, they are hurting themselves. We do make the link, in a way.
The honourable senator mentioned Georgia. We found out that one congressman had been listening to the concerns of a small lumber mill and had based his position on softwood on those concerns. He did not realize that he had more people voting in his constituency who worked for Home Depot than worked for the mill. If you want to get down to pure politics, he should have been voting the other way.
Senator Smith: I know about that fellow.
Mr. Allen: Linkage is a little dangerous for us because we are the smaller partner. We should do it in a positive way.
We should not threaten our American friends, and it would probably not work. They might be able to withstand any pressure we put on them.
Senator Smith: It is ironic that both the coalition and Home Depot, which funded the consumer group, are based in Atlanta.
Senator Banks: Earlier, Mr. Allen, you said that you hoped that we would do whatever we could to convince members of Congress to support the Safe Third Country Agreement. How much danger is there? What will they do? Are there moves afoot to stop it? Are there people impeding it? Is there something that Congress could do to blow it out of the water?
Mr. Allen: I do not think so. We are on the right track. It was signed some time ago and we are really just trying to implement it.
The American Congress, not unlike the House and the Senate, is subject to pressures. There are those in the refugee community in the United States who are arguing that they should not implement it. This is impacting on refugees trying to seek safety.
We are simply suggesting, as honourable senators are aware, that they should not be using the United States as a transit point in order to enter our system.
Senator Banks: If they know the numbers, American congressmen will realize that they would be big losers in terms of numbers. Ten thousand refugee applicants who would otherwise have come to Canada through the United States would then be their problem and not ours.
Mr. Allen: That is true. On the one hand, they cannot tell us that we have a weak refugee system and that we should be more careful about who we let in, and on the other hand say, ``By the way, we would like to dump 40,000 people at Buffalo and have you take them.'' There is a certain inequity there.
Certainly, the administration and most in Congress would see that. Some urging on the part of honourable senators would not hurt.
Senator Banks: We will do that. Those anecdotal comments that roll off your tongue, because you deal with them every day, would be very helpful to us. We already have many of them, but we are better prepared with a surfeit. Would you please share whatever anecdotal situations that you can? If we are at a breakfast meeting, and some senator from Georgia starts criticizing us, it is useful to be able to say, ``Perhaps there are some things that you do not know.'' That would be helpful.
Mr. Allen: We will do that. The little package that you have is chock full of our messages. You have the little blue book that is the equivalent of the Red Book. It has the main messages. We will give you a little cheat sheet.
The Deputy Chairman: While you are responding to the senator's Christmas wish, could you give us some figures on the cost of extracting oil from tar sands in Canada versus shale in the United States to illustrate to Mr. Secretary Rumsfeld once again that we can do it economically?
Mr. Allen: Certainly.
Senator Banks: We have had some success in that regard in the past. It is very helpful to have that kind of information.
Ms. Sinclair, when Mr. Allen was asked about the frictions, he talked about immigration, refugee claims and the porous border. We have heard — and I am sure you must have, too, because I am assuming that you talk to Americans from time to time — that their frustration is not so much with our contributions to after-the-fact peacekeeping, policing and rebuilding, nor the extent to which we participate in the ``hot waters'' and the number of personnel that we send, which, as you said, are at the upper end of our capability.
However, questions are asked about our capability. The Americans wonder about the proportion of our national resources and expenditures that we dedicate to that capability. Odious comparisons are made.
This committee has commented in a number of reports that there are no comparisons or contexts in which we look very good in this country in respect of the money we spend on infrastructure, people, or lift capability. We do not look good in terms of the number of people whom we could put on the ground.
We have experienced several embarrassments lately. We hear about those from time to time when we go to the States. We hear about those embarrassments not only from Americans, but particularly when we go to Washington. I am assuming that you have heard them.
Can you give us any direction or comfort there? We know the numbers. We do not have any place to hide on that because this committee has decried those facts. On the other hand, we want to be on the side of the good guys when we are in Washington.
Aside from words of inspiration and comfort, is there anything that you can tell us? To be specific, has the recent increase of $800 million a year been noticed, and is it given any credence among your counterparts and the people with whom you speak in Washington?
Ms. Sinclair: I do speak with Americans regularly, including many people on the defence and security side at the Pentagon, not only those in the State Department.
Certainly, the $800 million has been noticed. I do not know if Mr. Allen has heard that in his context. It has been noted, welcomed and recognized as an important step forward.
Of course, the U.S. would always like its allies to do more. They will tell us it is a good step and ask about the next tranche.
If they look at the budget in comparative terms, this represents a major investment by the Canadian government in the Armed Forces. That has been welcomed.
Senator Banks: Is it not dangerous to say, ``Look at it in comparative terms''?
Ms. Sinclair: I do not think so. If you look at overall government spending, this is a fair amount of money for the government to invest in the Armed Forces compared to other sectors. Informed Americans, the people at the embassy here and those with whom we speak in Washington who watch the Canadian scene, recognize that this is not an insignificant contribution.
Senator Banks: Could you expand on that? As a comparison of either percentage of GDP or percentage of government expenditures, it is not much money. It is at the bottom of the totem pole to most of the people whom we count as friends.
Ms. Sinclair: We try not to compare ourselves to allies.
Senator Banks: We do not compare, but our friends do.
Ms. Sinclair: They do. I would like to take you up on your request to Mr. Allen for anecdotal evidence to dispel myths. I would like to give you some material that I will obtain from my colleagues at the Department of National Defence.
I cannot give you the details, however, in terms of the percentage of forces deployed abroad, Canada ranks first.
You may say that is because our numbers are low — 58,000 or 60,000. However, the percentage of our troops that we have deployed abroad is higher than the Americans, higher than the British, higher than anyone. That, as you know from the work the committee has done, puts tremendous strain on the personnel, but we are out there.
You were asking about us looking good in terms of money or people or lift capability. In terms of people, I do not think there is any armed force that looks better than Canadians. Again, I am treading on the territory of my DND colleagues, but there is no other country in the world that is invited to interoperate with the United States, which is an awful term, but it means to serve alongside them as an integral part of their units. It is the Canadian Forces that are heading the Coalition Task Force 151 in the Gulf and in the Straits of Hormuz at the moment. The only people who can do that are the Americans or the Canadians. No one else commands that degree of professional respect. It is the same around the world. It is not simply limited to our wonderful navy. If you look across the services, the quality of our personnel is so highly regarded that they would rather have a dozen Canadians than any other troops.
Senator Banks: They would like to have two dozen Canadians.
Ms. Sinclair: No question they would like to have two dozen, but if they can take a dozen, it is a great thing too.
Senator Banks: My question, as you have quite properly perceived, does not have anything to do with the quality of the people or their commitment or their capacities; it has to do with their equipment and how many of them there are. It is how well they are served, not how well they serve. They serve perfectly well. They are the best at whatever they do, wherever they go.
Ms. Sinclair: I did not mean to suggest that either. Obviously there are equipment problems, and hopefully some of the money in the budget will address those.
At my peril, I am moving into areas that are better spoken of by my defence colleagues. We also have capabilities. I think of the Coyote squadrons, for example. We have specific military capabilities that the Americans come and ask us for. It is back to the niche idea. Perhaps we would like to have better or broader niches or whatever. The U.S. would like us to have them. There are things that we do well. Our frigates, for example, are so well equipped. Their integrated systems are second to none in the world. It would be nice to have more, but what we have is good.
Could the Armed Forces do with more? Would the Americans like us to have more? No question. However, we have a good story to tell, and I would like to get some of those numbers to you and some of those fact sheets so you can address those myths when you are down in Washington. We will send those to you.
Mr. Allen: The Americans are now spending somewhere in the range of $380 billion. Getting into comparisons with them will be very difficult. Of course, speaking of comparisons, I think they now spend far and away more than all of the other members of NATO combined.
Senator Banks: They do.
Ms. Sinclair: Global military spending is not equal to U.S. military spending. As Mr. Allen says, there are different strata of comparisons here.
Senator Banks: I certainly was not comparing us with the United States in terms of GDP percentage or budget or dollars, but other comparisons are less unreasonable and are made often, of which we are very aware and to which we have referred.
Mr. Allen: In terms of myths, one of the important expenditures, which you have heard about ad nauseam, perhaps, is the $7.7 billion that was injected last year into the budget for homeland security, which in many ways is the main concern of the United States right now. It is fairly significant. If you apply the 10 per cent rule, that is $750 billion, and that was a very significant expenditure. We continued this year to add to that. I think if you do get into a discussion, you could maybe just bring up homeland security. As I said, continental security and homeland security are seen through the same lens now. You could suggest that we have added money to our defence budget, we hope to continue to do that and it is important, but we are focusing on our common security concerns, which are the border and border- related issues.
Senator Banks: We have done that. As you know, though, once a myth such as the porous border gets established, it is hard to counter it with reasonable and logical arguments.
The Deputy Chairman: On March 12, the Minister of National Defence, in talking about helicopters to replace the Sea Kings, indicated that we must continue to make changes necessary to adapt to a dangerous and unpredictable security environment and to ensure value for money for Canada's defence investments. I urge you to support your minister in his support of value for money. I am not talking about lowest price, but value for money.
Senator Atkins: You will be interested to know that last year when we were down there, we were guests when Secretary Rumsfeld made his presentation on the budget to the defence committee. I think it was $285 billion then, and you say it is up to $380 billion now.
I am surprised that the Americans would think that $800 million was a fair investment in view of the fact that the American investors and Colin Powell, when they were here, were urging the Canadian government to invest and I think they had a lot more in mind than came out in the last budget.
I have questions on two or three different areas, and one is Advanced Passenger Information. You mentioned something that I did not realize, which is that the Americans are requesting passenger lists for aircraft flying from other countries to Canada.
Mr. Allen: The issue is that people are flying here and then going on to the U.S. It is not unreasonable, in some senses, if they were worried about security, for them to want to know who might be entering Canada and then heading on to the United States. As I said, we have worked out with the Americans a system whereby we do not share all information on passengers. We have an agreed determination of which passengers might represent risk, and only then do we share information. We have gone out of our way to protect our own citizens' privacy rights and the rights of others by ensuring that we are focusing on high risk rather than releasing all sorts of information.
In fact, that is what we are trying to do on entry-exit. Trying to track 300 million people coming into and out of the United States does not necessarily add to their security, but if we, through our NEXUS and FAST programs and other methods of cooperation, can focus on the high risk, then we can contribute to both their and our security.
Senator Atkins: That, in a way, leads to another question. We all know that the events of 9/11 were tragic, but the question is whether they have driven the security issue too far in terms of the kind of excuses that the United States is now offering in protecting its own borders.
Mr. Allen: Through the Smart Border process and the ``firefighting'' that we have done on a variety of other issues that have hit us like explosions, we have been able to temper what might otherwise have been perhaps a rush to security without other considerations. It is probably understandable that the first reaction of Congress and the administration is to do whatever is necessary to protect themselves and then to think about the consequences. In a sense, we are there to help them think about the consequences, for our own interests — because we will be hurt if they do not consider us — but also as a form of sober second thought for them.
Regarding entry-exit, a security official went up to Detroit-Windsor and was shocked when someone explained what would happen. The officials sitting in Washington, reading through pieces of legislation, do not really understand what will happen. Someone needs to tell them that there are 200 million crossings, and that depending on how this is implemented, everyone may have to stop twice before crossing the border. Then it hits home.
Yes, there will probably continue to be instances where they are pushing the limits, but it is really our duty and in our own best interests to push back with a rational case. Our Smart Border implementation has shown that we can do that in most cases because of the trust that has been built up. That is because we have invested $7.7 billion in security. They will not take our word for it and they will not accept the economic argument.
Senator Atkins: The Smart Border agreements are excellent. Any time you can sit at the table and work these things out, it is a plus.
A residual issue is beginning to unfold, and that is the question of security versus freedom. I suspect Secretary Ridge and his department are very sensitive to that. Again, we are talking about myths and public opinion and that is frightening.
Mr. Allen: There are also pendulums. The United States is a very complex, multi-dimensional, multi-ethnic place. We Canadians think we are more liberal, but there are people in California who are far more liberal than some Canadians, and vice versa. We are seeing a swing toward security, yes, but as time passes, the American constitution and the American belief in freedom will bring the pendulum back. The fear is that there will be another incident. There likely will be, but how bad it will be, what the reaction will be and whether people have begun to put it in some kind of perspective is not clear. Hopefully, there will be some moderation.
Senator Atkins: How would you deal with Senator Clinton? Should we try to meet with her?
Mr. Allen: Absolutely. The Deputy Prime Minister met with her and made his case. We thought we had her convinced.
Senator Atkins: It is totally political.
Mr. Allen: There is an element of that. The Democrats, and you can understand why, are trying to make a case that the Republicans are not spending enough money on the Department of Homeland Security. She is making the argument that they are not spending enough on security.
We interpret that as a criticism of us. She is saying she wants more enforcement on the border. We see an implication that we are somehow weak. She has not actually said that. As long as that enforcement is balanced and we are working together, that is fine. If there are more people inspecting cars at the border to keep traffic moving, that is fine.
That is not so bad. The problem is people take from that the implication that more people are needed at the borders because somehow the Canadians are not doing their job.
Senator Atkins: If you were knocking on her door, what would be the two points that you would try to drive home to her?
Mr. Allen: I would drive home to her that there are no two countries who share more intelligence and who cooperate more on the law enforcement side than our two. I would hand her the score card on Smart Border implementation and let her see that, from NEXUS and FAST to integrated border enforcement teams to cooperation on bio-terrorism, we are covering the waterfront.
Frankly, Mr. Ressam did not make it across the border. We have a 5,000-kilometre border and eventually someone will cross it. However, in all the years we have been working with each other and cooperating, and even though there are places without much enforcement, how many people cross the border? The 19 people involved in September 11 came from Europe. They flew into the United States. They were learning to fly aircraft in the United States. They did not come from Canada. These are the kinds of messages that we have to keep drilling into the United States.
Senator Atkins: Apart from Michigan, New York State is probably the biggest benefactor of inter-country immigration.
Mr. Allen: I would tell her to speak to Secretary Ridge, who has developed an excellent relationship with the Deputy Prime Minister, as have his people. He is responsible for homeland security and would provide a balanced, objective assessment of the nature of the cooperation. We will give you the cheat sheet from which you can draw.
Senator Atkins: I would recommend we try to see her.
Senator Colin Kenney (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: She has her own political agenda.
Senator Atkins: Of course she does.
Senator Banks: May I add to what Senator Atkins was talking about? The exit process mandated now by Congress would not involve quite 200 million because they are not proposing to do exit checks on United States citizens, but on aliens and foreigners who are subject to exit control. Am I right?
Mr. Allen: Yes. That would slow everything down. You could have a situation where there were non-Americans in Americans' cars, or where they were not sure whether someone was an American or not so they stop the car. Depending on how our discussions go, perhaps they will not include Canadians either.
Senator Cordy: You have certainly provided us with a lot of information. I want to point out to my colleagues from Ontario that the key message book says that in 2001, U.S. exports to the province of Ontario alone were worth nearly twice as much as those to Japan.
In the past six months, some public officials have expressed anti-American sentiments that have gained a tremendous amount of media attention in Canada.
Has that carried over to the U.S. or not?
Mr. Allen: Several weeks ago, I spent an hour with a New York Times correspondent in preparation for some articles he was doing. Somehow we got onto the remarks of one of the members of Parliament. His reaction was, ``I have travelled the world. Some people hate me because I am an American. Some people love me because I am an American. I think both kinds are rather ridiculous.'' Frankly, he said, he would be surprised if this provoked much reaction at all in the U.S.
I tend to agree with him. I believe that we magnify anything to do with the United States a hundred or a thousand times. I am much more concerned with Cable News Network hosts who seize on a subject like our immigration system without any basis in knowledge and project an image of Canada as being porous and weak, et cetera. Interestingly, I mentioned one of those TV hosts to the correspondent, a fellow named O'Reilly, and he had never heard of him. There is only a segment of the United States population listening to this kind of rant. Two months ago it was Canada. Last week, he was ranting against the French and french fries, et cetera. We have to be concerned, but I think the administration, Congress and other people either may not have heard or, if they have, they have just accepted it as part of reality. I do not think it has irreparably harmed us by any stretch of the imagination.
The Chairman: I agree. You have to be listening to the right-wing news circuit.
Senator Cordy: I would like to continue Senator Banks' line of questioning on the entry-exit tracking plan that you mentioned. We heard about it this morning. How much leeway is there in discussing this plan with the United States for coming to some kind of compromise? It has been mandated by the U.S. Congress. Is it a framework mandate or is it detailed? How much flexibility is there for us to work at what appears to be a cumbersome plan?
Mr. Allen: The former is correct. It is a framework mandate. There is no requirement that Canadians be included, for example, because we are not currently required to carry a passport. There is no requirement for us to be included and we have had a sense in the discussions, by no means confirmed, that legally, it would be possible to exclude Canadians. That said, we cannot predict what Congress will do, what certain members of Congress will do, or what other agencies will do. We have been talking to some agencies, but we have not talked to them all. We are just in the process of discussing it.
I think there is a will on the part of the officials with whom we have talked to try to accommodate our interests if U.S. security concerns can be met. As you know, the DMIA Task Force set up in the United States has itself recommended that perhaps Canadians should collect the exit cards and thereby eliminate the two-stop. Some Americans recognize there are ways this could be done more efficiently and still meet U.S. needs. We will see.
Senator Cordy: We are going to Washington next week. There is certainly a possibility that the U.S. may be at war by the time we arrive. If that is the case, what issues are we likely to hear as Canadian parliamentarians when we meet with senators and members of Congress?
Ms. Sinclair: I do not know, senator, if you were able to listen to Question Period today, but the Prime Minister made a statement on the Canadian government's policy, which was that we would not be a part of the U.S. military coalition against Iraq, but that our ships and assets would stay deployed in the Gulf and continue working in the campaign against terrorism. You may get some commentary on that from both sides.
Those who have been working with Canada for a long time would not find this position a surprise. As the Prime Minister said in Question Period, he has spoken frequently to President Bush. Our minister, Minister Graham, has spoken to Secretary Powell; similarly, Minister McCallum with Mr. Rumsfeld. The Americans understand our position. There has been a dialogue over many months, since September. Our position has been consistent throughout with regard to the role of the United Nations; our need to see the United Nations take the lead in this, particularly with regard to the use of force; and our support for U.S. efforts to take the issue to the United Nations. Now I regret we were not able to get agreement at the Security Council a second time. You may hear some commentary about that, but the Prime Minister gave a clear statement today. In fact, we should ensure that you have a copy of it to take with you.
Senator Cordy: Definitely. We have been in meetings all day.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you very much. I apologize for having missed most of your testimony, but I will read it carefully. I did get advance notice before the rest of the committee about the Prime Minister's position and we will be discussing it at our next meeting.
I would like to thank you for assisting the committee in its preparations for the trip. It is always a pleasure to have both of you here and we hope to see you again frequently as we continue with our studies.
To those of you following our work, two weeks from today, on March 31, the witnesses will be first responders: Chief Glen Tait from the Saint John, New Brunswick, Fire Department; David Blackmore, from the Emergency Operations Centre, St. John's, Newfoundland; Mr. Rudy Fries, Emergency Management Coordinator, London, Ontario; and Mr. William Pasel, Emergency Measures Coordinator, Hamilton, Ontario.
If you have any questions or comments, please visit our Web site at www.sen-sec.ca. We post witness testimony as well as confirmed hearing schedules. Otherwise, you may contact the clerk of the committee by calling 1-800-267-7362 for further information or assistance in contacting members of this committee.
The committee continued in camera.