Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 14 - Evidence, April 9, 2003
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 9, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 3:30 p.m. to examine and report on the Canada- United States of America trade relationship and on the Canada-Mexico trade relationship.
Senator Peter A. Stollery (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this is our 24th and possibly our final meeting on this subject.
I welcome, from the Canadian Trucking Alliance, Mr. David Bradley, Chief Executive Officer, and Ms. Elly Meister, Vice-President, Public Affairs.
As you know, we are studying the problems of the Free Trade Agreement 15 years later. Some of us were on the original committee when the agreement was made 15 years ago.
We have had information that our trade with the United States depends partly on a truck crossing the frontier every two-and-one-half seconds. If that delay becomes any greater, this obviously has major implications for us.
Mr.David Bradley, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Trucking Alliance: Honourable senators, I will try to be brief. I can sometimes be a bit passionate about some of these issues, and Ms.Meister will kick me under the table if I am.
This is obviously a very timely discussion, given current events, and one that is extraordinarily important to us. The chairman mentioned that a truck crosses the Canada-U.S. border every 2.5seconds. That is correct. There are approximately 14.3 million truck crossings a year, most of those centred on the busiest border crossings, obviously. Seventypercent of Canada's trade with the United States moves by truck, and that is a reflection of changing manufacturing production and inventory techniques over the last 25 years.
I am often asked, relating to the discussion underway, how things are at the border now and how we see them moving over the next few years. Clearly, the events of September 11 have had an indelible impact on the situation at the border. However, since the Iraq conflict began, we have not seen the kind of delays that were visited upon the industry in those first few weeks following September 11. That is, in large part, a credit to the agencies — customs, immigration, police forces, industry, et cetera — on both sides of the border who worked together in a much more coordinated fashion this time, whereas we were really learning on the fly following September 11.
Two other factors are at play that we should bear in mind, and we should not be complacent about them. The first is that the economies in both countries are slowing. The U.S. economy has been in the doldrums for the last couple of years and not showing any real signs of recovery. Canada is usually a good leading indicator of economic activity, and we have seen some choppiness and sluggishness in the Canadian trucking industry over the last few months. That, combined with the fact that we have seen an approximate 20 to 25 percent reduction in car traffic at the busiest border crossings has enabled the resources, particularly on the U.S. side, to deal with the traffic. While we have had intermittent and, at times, extended delays— just yesterday, at the Ambassador Bridge we were looking at up to five- hour delays— we have not seen the kind of horrific delays that followed September 11.
The problems at the border predate September 11. We have had problems in terms of infrastructure, of systems on both sides of the border that did not talk to each other, and particularly in terms of different focuses, Canada always being much more focused on trade facilitation, programs like electronic pre-clearance and that sort of thing, whereas the Americans have always had a much stronger focus on security. Obviously, since September 11, we know why, and that has not let up at all.
We have had some significant achievements over the last year and a half with the 30-point Smart Border Accord that Deputy Prime Minister Manley has been able to negotiate with Governor Ridge. We should not underestimate how significant it was to get the Americans to the table to talk about a bilateral customs system at the border and to actually come up with an agreement at the end of the day. There is still much work to be done, both in terms of the details of the 30-point Smart Border Accord and investment in the infrastructure to allow those systems to actually function efficiently, but that has been a very positive effort.
However, we have seen actions in more recent months from other parts ofwhat now has become Homeland Security focusing much more on entry-exit controls of people, proposals for pre-notification of manifest data and these types of things, all of which I can attempt to discuss, but which could scupper the gains made under the 30-point Smart Border Accord and have significant impacts on transborder, just-in-time shipments.
My members and I believe that the number one economic issue facing Canada right now is ensuring that we have access to that market. Perhaps our greatest economic asset has been that unequalled and open access to the U.S. market of which most other countries in the world are very envious. However, it is also our greatest vulnerability. As we have seen in the last year and a half or so, we must be very sensitive to those issues that can disrupt the fragile equilibrium that keeps things moving smoothly across the border.
Given that we are talking about relations, I cannot avoid making some sort of comment on what has been happening, or not happening, in recent days, that is, pronouncements on both sides of the border that are probably less than helpful. We have heard numerous discussions and anecdotal information that suggests that at times, Canadian truck drivers have been treated perhaps on a less than friendly basis in the United States, but I have no proof of that. These are anecdotal and third- or fourth-hand reports. I suspect that there are always individuals who will attempt to do things that are more or less appropriate. For the most part, we have not seen any great backlash. I have been in Washington in the last week and did not really sense that.
I do think, though, that things will potentially be subtler than that going forward. Again, if we want to keep direct investment flowing into Canada, we must do everything we can to not only repair whatever damage there may or may not be to the relationship between the two countries — clearly they are our biggest customer as well as our best friend — but we also must remove any uncertainty from the border.
Some people said, following September 11, that just-in-time inventory systems were going to go the way of the buffalo. I do not believe that for a moment. In fact, I think the pressure is on, given current economic circumstances, to step up efficiency and productivity; therefore, there will be even more reliance on just-in-time inventory systems. However, transborder, just-in-time inventories could be in some peril. It behooves us then to ensure that we move ahead with the 30-point Smart Border Accord and build upon it. Again, I believe that is the biggest economic issue that the country faces at the present time.
We also feel somewhat exposed. Governor Ridge and Deputy Prime Minister Manley have done a wonderful job and many people have pointed to their unique relationship. However, it is important that the relationship be expanded beyond those two gentlemen on both sides of the border.
In terms of Mexico and the NAFTA perspective, certainly the trucking industry has been a great if indirect beneficiary of NAFTA. We have seen a marked shift in trade flows, from east-west to north-south, most of that moving by truck. We have seen our activity levels increase significantly over the last 10 years.
In relation to transportation, one might say that NAFTA never existed or was discarded very early on. That happened when, under the Clinton administration, the United States decided unilaterally not to open the southern border to transborder trucking and to investment in Mexican trucking companies. All of the effort and the mandate that was supposed to occur in terms of standardization of trucking regulations — truck weights, dimensions, those sorts of things — on a North American basis went out the window. Now, the Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee of NAFTA does meet, but is basically made up of government people, while industry is excludedfrom the table. I find that odd, but I do not think the blame for that rests with Canada. However, the committee has been impotent in terms of moving the yardsticks.
One must now question, under this new world order, the future of NAFTA, and certainly whether we will ever get back on track as it pertains to transportation. I am not particularly hopeful at this time.
Clearly, Mexico's truck traffic is not in the same league as that of the United States. That is a reflection of the amount of trade. Obviously the U.S. towers over Mexico in terms of the trade relationship between the two countries. However, there are some important signals to watch for there. For example, Mexican exports into the United States have been growing exponentially over recent years, whereas Canada's share of U.S. imports has been relatively stagnant. People in Industry Canada and elsewhere have forecast that it will not take many years before the primary source of outside American purchases will be Mexico, and not Canada. We must be cognizant of that, particularly now when there is so much uncertainty; we must garner whatever efficiencies and productivities we can to ensure that our industries remain competitive.
I remain extremely bullish. For the most part, relationships remain strong, although strained. I do think that we have some work to do to repair some situations. However, we look forward to trade continuing to grow between the two countries, and it will continue to move by truck. Again, we have a significant amount of work to do to ensure that that continues in an accelerated fashion.
Senator Austin: Mr.Bradley. It was clear, I want to pursue two points with you. Essentially, we have had evidence from a number of witnesses arguing for a common perimeter. Of course, we have also heard from Minister Manley, who was so successful with Secretary Ridge in moving forward the 30-point accord. However, Mr.Manley rejects the validity of a perimeter that would be a common external border.
I have two questions on that. First, would such a perimeter be of any value to the trucking industry and its clients, or would your economic situation remain roughly where it is?
The second question is in the same vein. The answer may be obvious, but there is no common perimeter that would totally secure the U.S. unless it also included movement of people. Could you comment on that?
I know that out in British Columbia, my home province and that of Senator Carney, a good many of our drivers were not born in Canada. They may or may not have citizenship. That is one of the problems to which I would like you to respond.
Mr.Bradley: The concept of perimeter security means different things to different people. For some it means a customs union. The term has been perhaps elasticized. The idea of a customs union brings up so many issues. I do not foresee Canada, Mexico and the U.S. wanting a joint parliament, as they have in Europe. Some people say we should have what Europe has, but obviously it is more complicated than that. In Europe, people and goods travel freely across the borders. The checkpoints are basically shells. I recently had the opportunity to cross some of those borders. I still slowed down because I thought there must be someone sitting in there, but there was not. That would be a terrific situation from an economic point of view.
Certainly, prior to September 11 and in the days following, we supported a move towards a perimeter-security situation to draw some attention away from our border. The horse is out of the barn on that, quite frankly. I do not think there is much point today in talking about perimeter security. So much has been invested now in the security and customs systems at the northern border that we must try to make those work. We have to contain the plethora of initiatives coming out of Congress every day and start focusing on the kinds of situations involved in your second question.
We are not talking about perimeter security any more. It is a good idea philosophically; however, I cannot see us moving down that road any time in the near future. From the discussions that I have had with my counterparts in the U.S. and with U.S. government officials, I do not think there is the stomach for that. It was not there before the last couple of weeks and I suspect it is not there now.
As for the issues that our drivers are facing, there are problems across the board, no matter where you are from. We are having difficulty now finding drivers to go through the hassle of crossing the border. First, some of them are paid by the mile, so they lose money when they are sitting still. Imagine how frustrating it is to sit there even for one or two hours, which is normal these days.
As much as people say, ``Trucking is great, you get to go see the sunshine states,'' and all that, it is a tough business. Anything that makes it tougher makes it more difficult to find people willing to do it. We have suffered from that.
Clearly, the significant immigrant population working in our driving force compared to the United States, and given that some Commonwealth countries have been singled out for U.S. regulation, has caused some problems for some of our drivers and for some of our companies, although not to the extent that even I might have thought that it would. I am not quite sure what happened, but I suspect that some of those drivers have simply decided that it is not worth crossing the border and are now operating strictly domestically. If you look at the demographics of our industry, we have the oldest labour force in the country. Truck driving is the largest occupation for males in the country, at about 263,000 people. Young people are not coming into the industry and we will have to look to immigration as a source of labour. If we have difficulty using those people in our biggest market, Canada-U.S. trade, that will definitely put more pressure on the situation.
Senator DiNino: Mr.Bradley, your general message, as I understood it, was one of optimism. You suggested that in general, things have gone and keep on going quite well. Could you share with us, if you have the information, the experience of the American truckers in crossing the border? Is it similar? Is it different?
Mr.Bradley: It has always been easier for U.S. exports to enter Canada. The CCRA has always been more innovative and more technologically based than the U.S. Customs Service. It has always been easier, whether you are Canadian or American, coming northbound. The problem has always been southbound. U.S. truckers are being caught in those lineups the same as anyone else.
I have no information that would suggest that they are subject to less scrutiny by customs officials. They are stuck in the same lineups as we are. Perhaps 10 years ago, many people were writing off the Canadian trucking industry and saying that we would not be able to compete, that the Americans would absorb us and so on, but we still hold about a 68 percent market share in transborder trucking as compared to the Americans. Therefore, relatively speaking, a greater proportion of our driving force is affected by what is happening at the border than theirs. They are blessed with a domestic economy that keeps them busy most of the time. We have been able to capitalize on that market. However, they are feeling the same strains.
In terms of solutions, the focus, even amongst the U.S. business community and not just the trucking industry, has been much more on security and the national interest than on trade facilitation. It has been very difficult to get the hearts and minds of people in the United States to focus on trade facilitation. Everything is seen through the lens of security. Where we have been successful, we have had to package it as a security measure as opposed to trade facilitation.
Senator DiNino: Do you work with your competitors or do you have an alliance with the trucking industry in the U.S. to address these and/or any future problems?
Mr.Bradley: We do that all the time. It has been a difficult situation for them. They have been, understandably at times, preoccupied with the domestic situation and homeland security. Also at times, they have been helpful when it is in their interests to be so.
It is much more important to the Canadian economy than it is to the United States' economy.
Senator DiNino: We talk about the new border rules and security measures that are being instituted and suggestions for future changes. Have you seen an increase in resources, or at least an adequate transfer of resources, first on the Canadian side, which you may know best? Also, do you have any thoughts on whether the Americans are also directing appropriate resources to solve these problems? A 30-point plan is fine and dandy, but is the will there and are the resources being dedicated to make it happen?
Mr.Bradley: In many instances, yes. I have said that Canada has been ahead of the United States in terms of investing in technology, for example, automated customs systems. For many years, the U.S. Customs Service was not able to get the kind of funding that it needed from Congress to upgrade its computer systems. It was basically using technology from the 1970s and 1980s.
Honourable senators must remember that there were problems at the border before September 11. We were suffering from brownouts, blackouts, tie-ups and delays then. That money now seems to be forthcoming. We certainly have every assurance from the U.S. Customs Service that they are committed to the FAST program and that the funding will be there.
As well, honourable senators will recall that immediately following September 11, we were caught in a situation where, at a code orange or red, everything had to be inspected and the people were just not there to do it, even if there were lanes available. They had to bring in the National Guard and that sort of thing.
There appears to be more of an equilibrium this time around. Remember, however, that the traffic levels are down. That will help. Also, over the longer term, more inspectors will mean more inspections and, ultimately, slowdowns. While I would say the human resources are adequate now, for us that is not the long-term solution.
The problem is that the Department of Homeland Security is an enormous entity that has absorbed so many different departments. Its budget is as large as the entire Canadian federal budget. Many measures are coming forward, particularly in Congress. Congress passes these laws with no real ideas as to how to implement them, and then the people in homeland security have to do that. We are having a difficult time keeping up with it all. On some of the measures that we must deal with, there has clearly been no thought of the trade or business implications.
Are the resources there in some of the programs that we support? Yes, they are there. My concern is that they will be drained away by some of these other things. The psychology in Washington now is that people do not want another terrorist attack on their watch. People are going overboard in ensuring that if it happens again, it is not because of their branch, their department or their program. The duplication of effort and the risk of overkill are significant.
It is hard to make a business case in that sort of environment. We have been successful, I think. There are people within the bureaucracy and within the administration who do understand it, but it is a tough sell right now.
Senator DiNino: To pick up on the comment you made about this not being a lasting solution, do you have any ideas as to where we should be looking for solutions to problems?
Mr.Bradley: Yes. I would just say ``FAST.'' That is the solution going forward. There are subsets of that solution. You have to have the systems, the computers and the ability to obtain registrations efficiently, et cetera. However, we also need to look at the border infrastructure to ensure that we have the dedicated fast lanes so that carriers, importers, exporters and truck drivers who have gone through the appropriate security checks on both sides of the border can actually jump the lineups and get through quickly. That is the long-term solution as far as I am concerned.
If at some point things change and people are prepared to look at perimeter security, that would be fine, although I am not holding my breath.
Senator Graham: Could you be more specific about the average time it takes for a truck going south to get across the border, as opposed to a truck coming north?
Mr.Bradley: It is difficult to put things in terms of averages because it is a moving target. Since the Iraqi conflict, I would suspect that the average time to cross the border southbound is probably between a half-hour and 45 minutes, which is not too bad. It should be better, it could be better, but that is a normal circumstance. However, we have seen numerous occasions, particularly at the busiest crossings, where that has extended into two to three hours, and yesterday, at Ambassador Bridge, five hours. In the couple of weeks following September 11 the delays were measured in days, not just hours, for southbound traffic. It was still, relatively speaking, moments for northbound traffic.
That is a reflection of the different stances of the two customs services at that time, but also of the fact that Canada had invested in the Customs Self-Assessment program, which has become theprototype for FAST. That is a program of electronic pre-clearance of low-risk people and goods, whereby before the vehicle even gets to the border, the customs officials know who the driver is, who the company is and that they have been appropriately checked out. That has contributed to the better performance on the northbound shipments as opposed to southbound.
We do not have a code-orange type situation in Canada, or a code red. I am sure we have different levels of security. Right now, the United States has imposed code orange, a higher level of inspection, which means more vehicles have to be physically inspected, and therefore naturally there will be slowdowns.
Today, if you were crossing at Windsor, coming northbound as opposed to southbound, I would have to check on conditions. Maybe you can get on the Internet and tell us what is going on. I would assume, and I have not checked, that while yesterday we might have been facing a five-hour delay going southbound, that it was probably a matter of moments going northbound.
Senator Graham: That is the kind of information for which I was looking.
We talked about the recent events, 9/11 and Iraq, and the effect on Canada-U.S.relations, most particularly as it relates to trade. I have an item live from the news wires, today's news from the CBC. The title reads, ``Canadians targets on the road, say Quebec truckers,'' and it is datelined Quebec City.
Officials with the American Consulate in Montreal say tensions over Canada's position on the war in Iraq may be leading to some anti-Canadianism on the highways south of the border.
The vice-president of the Quebec Trucking Association, Marc Cadieux, says his members are receiving more tickets from traffic authorities, and are being harassed on the road.
``We've had some experiences of tailgating and some truckers being honked at and shown the finger,'' says Marc Cadieux.
He also says that some trucks have been vandalized while drivers have stopped for sleep. ``Tires have been pierced and also suspensions and hitches dismantled,'' Cadieux says.
There is more, but would you comment on that?
Mr.Bradley: Certainly we have, in recent weeks, been hearing about this kind of activity. As I said in my opening comments, I have not spoken directly with anyone to whom this has happened. I have heard it third and fourth hand, and I have heard it repeatedly. I have not talked to Marc today. I would want to see what real evidence he has of this happening.
I have no doubt that there is some of that occurring. You will find rude people and people who take matters into their own hands wherever you go. I cannot say that on a national basis I have any information that would lead me to say that there is a broad and general increase in this type of activity, beyond the usual vandalism and that sort of thing that occurs in the United States and elsewhere when you are on the road. I have no doubt, however, that there are instances where individuals see the licence plates and will take this sort of action.
The vast majority of people in the United States are either unaware of or uninterested in what goes on here anyway. Hopefully, name-calling is not the end of our relationship. We do have some significant fence mending to do.
Senator Carney: I have four quick questions that are mainly forclarification of some of the things you have already said.
I was struck by comments in your speech that reminded me of the old saying that we were all brought up on, that good fences make good neighbours. Of course, a lot of the border controls are in fact fences.
Are there additional initiatives you would like to see added to the border action plan? You have mentioned FAST as a measure. Are there any other specific points you would like to add?
Mr.Bradley: I would like to see the FAST program used as a platform for other security-related initiatives that fall outside of the 30-point Smart Border Accord. For example, in the United States now, there is legislation to introduce what is called a ``transportation workers identity card.'' At some point, 20million U.S.transportation workers will have to carry this card. For some unexplained reason, there is no thought given in the legislation as to whether Canadians could even apply for that card, which leaves us feeling rather vulnerable. There are other programs as well. Each port in the United States, for example, has its own form of security card for people entering and exiting the port.
There is a cost in the redundancy, inefficiency and lack of effectiveness in having to go through this multitude of security checks. The FAST card is a bilateral card, and you need a security check not only in Canada, but in the United States as well. If people have been through that check once, can we not use that as a platform and, in a sense, have it become the North American transportation worker identity card? That is something we would really like to see. We understand that it was on the agenda of the latest Manley-Ridge meetings. I do not know that they actually talked about it in context of the TWIC, but the concept of moving toward as few cards and security checks as possible was on the agenda. I do not know at this point how far they got.
Senator Carney: Thank you. That helps. Number14 of the border measures says that Canada and the U.S.have established a joint program for low-risk companies that will expedite the movement of low-risk shipments in either direction. What is that?
Mr.Bradley: That is FAST.
Senator Carney: What is a low risk? I come from British Columbia, and possibly the goods flowing over our border are different from those in Windsor. What do they mean by ``low risk''?
Mr.Bradley: They mean that there is a series of data information that you must provide. You must apply to be registered in FAST. You have to demonstrate your compliance with various laws. You have to demonstrate that your drivers— if you are a trucking company— have gone through security checks: You know who these people are. You know they do not have criminal records. You have to be a member of what is called C-TPAT in the United States, or PIP in Canada, which are programs where you have to be a participant, as a member of the supply chain, in securing your own operations through fencing and various security measures. Basically, there is a point system, and if you qualify, you are in, and if you do not, you have more work to do.
Senator Carney: That answers my question about specific criteria. When we read ``low risk,'' it does not mean that it is the decision of some customs officer in Saskatchewan.
Mr.Bradley: No.
Senator Carney: Number16 is joint facilities. I am struck by the fact that the places where Canada and the U.S.have agreed to consider shared facilities, which I assume would speed up shipments, are not exactly at the top of the public mind, like Snowflake, Manitoba. I thought I knew B.C. well, but I do not know Chopaka, B.C., which connects with Nighthawk, Washington; or Rykerts, B.C., which connects with Porthill, Idaho. This may be more appropriate to ask an official, but why have places like Highwater, Winkler and Northgate been picked? Obviously, they are small. Why would that assist you?
Mr.Bradley: I think you are right that the officials perhaps could give you more details. I can give you my perception, however. There was some fanfare about the fact that there were shared inspectors at some of the ports, and perhaps one U.S.official was on site, that kind of thing. There has been some coordination and sharing following September 11. It is another one of these politically charged issues, about whether American border officials carrying firearms should be on the Canadian side and that sort of thing.
To my way of thinking, the 30-point plan does not get us all the way there. We want a bilateral system, and if we are all operating under the same system, it should not matter if it is a Canadian doing the inspection on the Canadian side before somebody goes into the U.S.or not.
Again, I think that has been discussed recently. I heard the U.S.ambassador a few weeks ago suggest that perhaps there was something that could be accomplished there over the longer term.
Senator Carney: My last question relates to that. It should not matter whether a Canadian or an American does the inspection. One area where it does matter is in the application of non-tariff barriers, such as health issues. We heard yesterday that in Mexico, they are using these technical, non-tariff barriers on health and safety and other issues to impede or eliminate traffic. It does matter.
Mr.Bradley: Clearly, as a sovereign nation, we have to be on guard against that sort of thing. Every time you pick up Macleans, our national magazine, you see ads that say, ``Do you want to set up business in Buffalo to avoid border problems?'' I agree, but in terms of doing a customs inspection, I do not think the nationality matters.
On other issues, yes, you will need protocols, and those are not easy to come by.
Senator Carney: I understand that from an economic position you are being quite rational on the subject, but I do not think we will achieve that, knowing the national interest and what I know from the Free Trade Agreement about how customs officials can impede the movement of good and services based on their own corporate culture. I am glad to have you on the record on it.
Mr.Bradley: That is why, at the same time, you have not seen the Canadian Trucking Alliance really beating the drum on that, or on what are called ``reverse inspections.'' There is a host of issues. We want to try to get the low- hanging fruit as quickly as we can so we can get moving, and others can ponder the broader universe.
Senator Day: I have one quick point on the last round of questioning by SenatorCarney. We do have, with the phyto-sanitary inspections, a reverse inspection process that works fairly well. We want to put that on the list as an example.
Mr.Bradley: And we do at the airports.
Senator Day: In certain sectors, we have had some success. With respect to the FAST card and its relationship to the transportation workers identity card, do the police check to ensure that they do not have criminal records?
Mr.Bradley: Yes.
Senator Day: From a security point of view, they will have some comfort.
Mr.Bradley: Yes, both the RCMP and the FBI check.
Earlier, I was asked what could be done. We are down in Washington talking to U.S.government officials, which is something different. Five years ago, you would not have dreamed of Canadian industry meeting directly with U.S.government people. There are people there who do want to hear and do want to find solutions. I do not want to be overly critical, because these are difficult issues; however, we could have better coordination of the Canadian federal government response to some of these issues. We have to deal with four or five different departments to find out whether people are onside with us or not. We go down to the U.S.to talk to U.S.government officials, and it sometimes almost seems as if we are talking for the Government of Canada. I think we still need to work at our coordination here and speak with one voice when we are talking down there.
Senator Day: Feel free to contact us at any time through our clerk with any points you would like to bring to our attention.
Senator Corbin: I want to come back to the issue raised by our colleague SenatorGraham about the anti-Canadian feeling in the United States. I think a lot of that has been caused by the U.S.ambassador to Canada.
The story that SenatorGraham picked up on, on the CBC, is also across the major press in Quebec today. Although this does not deal specifically with the trucking industry, it does deal with an associated industry, and that is tourism. I will read the following paragraph in French because I do not want to misquote them in my own translation.
This is a quote from the President of Yankee Holidays, Charles de Gaspé Beaubien. That is certainly a big name in Quebec and well-known in other parts of Canada.
[Translation]
In his opinion, this anti-Canadianism has everything to do with this now famous hockey game in Montreal about two weeks ago, during which the American national anthem was booed.
``My sales started decreasing from that time on,'' stated the president of Yankee Holidays.
When Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, expressed his disappointment with the fact that Canada is not taking part in the war in Iraq, this was the last straw. Our sales immediately ceased.
[English]
``That was the last nail in our coffin,'' he said. ``Our sales ceased immediately.''
I can appreciate that some Canadians like to play the role of American-boosters in this country, but I think we should put things in perspective. The Americans themselves have not been very helpful. Their media has been rotten toward Canada, totally rotten. I have monitored most of the broadcasts in the past three weeks. I remember the very first hour after the September 11 incident: The terrorists had come from Yarmouth by ferry to Portland and thence to Boston and thence to the rest.
Sir, I do not think we should minimize these matters at all. I agree we should try to calm the waters, but top American officials themselves are not very helpful when they question the independence of this country and its right to take its own decisions. I am pretty annoyed at the arrogant way Americans have been treating Canadians, not just in incidents concerning your industry but also right across the board.
I could quote to you other matters that have been occurring in Canada-U.S.relations. I think we should come back to some normalcy, but the citizens of the United States of America have a longer road to cover than do we. That is my opinion. You can comment on that if you wish. I have had it on my mind for quite awhile.
Mr.Bradley: I have no comment on that. I think I was pretty clear in saying that repairing the relationship and ensuring that we have an efficient border is the single biggest economic issue that we face in the future. I will leave it at that.
The Chairman: Mr.Bradley, thank you on behalf of our committee for helping us wrap up a few of these details before we report.
Our last witness today is Mr.Jean, assistant deputy minister from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. We called Mr.Jean to appear earlier, but we could not get out of the chamber and he was called away to a cabinet committee meeting, if I am not mistaken.
[Translation]
Mr.Daniel Jean, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: Honourables senators, thank you for inviting me to appear before you. I will discuss the issues related to border security and refugees, because this subject draws a great deal of attention. I am also going to talk about the involvement of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in facilitating the movement of people as it relates to trade agreements.
Today, the concept of a border being the line separating two nation states is outdated. As a result of various modes of transportation, the department has developed the concept of multiple borders.
In immigration terms, a border is defined as any point along the travel continuum at which the identity of a traveller can be identified. At each of these checkpoints, there is an opportunity to verify a traveller's identify. This allows for the interception of persons posing security risks and other illegitimate travellers before their arrival in Canada.
I am glad to announce to you that our American interlocutors have now endorsed this Multiple Border Strategy. Quite recently, CIC and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service signed a Multiple Border Risk Management Framework. Canada and the United States have enjoyed a long tradition of cooperation on border issues because we have common security objectives and face the same challenges inherent to the movement of people, that is, the abuse of our asylum and immigration systems.
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 coordination to support these objectives.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada has the lead on 10 of the action plan's 30 items, and I would like to identify some important accomplishments. In June 2002, after several years of work, CIC finally introduced the permanent resident card. This card is extremely secure. It is issued to all permanent residents in Canada. This card has won awards, in terms of technology, for the card with the most security features.
Immigration control and anti-fraud capacity has been increased at our missions abroad. In 1990, Canada was the first country to deploy agents overseas to work with local authorities, airlines and marine transportation services to intercept illegal immigrants before they try to enter Canada.
In 1990, 30 per cent of illegal immigrants trying to enter directly into Canada were intercepted. Last year, 70 per cent of illegal immigrants trying to enter directly into Canada with false documents were intercepted. Canada is seen as a leader in this field.
Advance passenger information is provided on passports and through passenger manifests as passengers cross the ocean. This enables us to better target illegitimate visitors and those who might pose a security risk.
Among the alternate inspection programs, NEXUS is aimed at frequent travellers and FAST is for commercial carriers. CIC recently signed a new information sharing agreement with the Department of Homeland Security and is collaborating with the U.S. Department of State, which is responsible for issuing visas abroad.
Since September 11, Canada lifted the visa exemption on ten countries, as was recently the case for Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. Last June, CIC implemented the largest legislative reform to provide Canada with new tools to increase security. Furthermore, CIC renewed the memorandum of understanding with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to try to improve border management and risk identification.
CIC will continue to apply sound risk management principles to manage access to Canada. The key to success will be cooperation with our key partners. CIC cannot do this alone. International cooperation, in particular with the United States, is needed to keep our border secure.
I would now like to talk about issues related to refugees.
[English]
As honourable senators are aware, Canada must meet its various international obligations in terms of refugee protection. The challenges we face are identifying legitimate refugees who deserve protection while ensuring that our generosity is not abused by economic migrants or persons who pose a threat to our security. We are not alone in facing this challenge. All developed countries face it. Recent studies by a group of developed countries show that $9 out of $10 is spent weeding out the non-refugees.
As I said earlier, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into force in June 2002 and brought new tools for dealing with access to Canada and asylum. We signed the Safe Third Country Agreement in December with the United States. This is an agreement whereby, with a few exceptions, people should avail themselves of protection in the first country in which they arrive. If people have arrived in the United States first, this is where the claim for asylum should be heard, and vice versa. The agreement is an integral component of the 30-point action plan.
Honourable senators may have noticed in the media lately a large number of articles about a surge in refugee claimants at our land border points. I am happy to report that it has actually toned down since mid-March.
To ensure that we were not in any way compromising security in having good front-end security screening, which means examining these people carefully in terms of protecting public safety, we have used a procedure that we call ``direct back,'' which means that if we did not have the capacity to conduct a full screening of people, we were directing them back to the United States and rescheduling a later date for their refugee claim to be heard. In the airport context, where direct back may not be an option, we have been using detention in a targeted way for people about whose identity we are suspicious, always ensuring that we conduct an effective screening before we make any kind of admission decision.
You may have heard our minister refer to a need for a reform of our refugee determination system in the speech he delivered in Toronto on March 7, 2003. While I am sure honourable senators are interested in what he meant by this, we cannot at this point tell you much more, because it is too early in the process. We are at the beginning of the deliberations that will focus on four pillars: First, Canada should continue to respect its longstanding commitment to refugees; second, Canada should continue to grant protection to people who are in genuine need; third, Canada should meet its international obligations on refugee protection; and fourth, Canada should respect its humanitarian traditions and core values of compassion and fairness.
I would like to talk about the role of CIC in facilitating trade, especially in relation to Mexico and the U.S., our two key partners. CIC supports Canada's international trade and investment priorities by playing an active role in international trade agreements and negotiations. For example, the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA; and the World Trade Organization's General Agreement on Trade in Services, GATS. These trade agreements focus on temporary entry and highly skilled business people and exclude permanent immigration matters. Generally speaking, these trade agreements provide for more liberal or facilitated temporary entry and stay for highly skilled, foreign business people.
In coordination with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, CIC is currently working with U.S. and Mexican officials to improve the implementation of chapter 16 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. This chapter has provisions on temporary entry for highly skilled business people. We are negotiating stronger temporary entry commitments among the 144 members of the World Trade Organization. We are negotiating temporary entry provisions in other trade agreements, for example, the Free Trade of the Americas. We are providing input for discussion in future trade agreements with other western hemisphere countries such as the Caribbean countries.
Most Canadian business people gain temporary entry into the U.S. without difficulty under NAFTA or under general U.S. immigration rules. However, some Canadians sometimes encounter problems, particularly with U.S. Immigration. Canadian and U.S. trade and immigration officials are addressing these problems through consultations and information sessions with Canadian and U.S. business groups and through bilateral discussions under the NAFTA and other cooperation umbrellas known as the Border Vision and the Smart Border initiative.
In regard to trade agreements, the free trade area of the Americas is quite advanced as far as trade itself is concerned, but negotiations on temporary entry are just beginning. Our relations with Mexico are quite good. We have a constant dialogue on border issues, trade issues and movement of people.
Mexico is actually our most important source of agricultural workers. The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program between Canada and Mexico is an example of successful cooperation, benefiting both countries. In 2001, the total flow of foreign workers to Canada was approximately 119,000 people, of which approximately 26percent came from the U.S., or 31,000people, and 12percent from Mexico. These statistics do not include the thousands of business visitors from both countries. In 2001, the flow of seasonal workers was approximately 13,000 individuals in total, 7,000 of them from Mexico.
In conclusion, CIC remains committed to protecting and strengthening 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 my brief presentation will assure honourable senators that these are goals we are actively pursuing in partnership with other government departments in other countries and international organizations.
Senator Carney: I would like to thank the witness for a comprehensive discussion paper and presentation. However, I must confess that I find some of the information frightening. I have two points. First, you say that 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. That is a pretty powerful vision if you want to extend Canada's jurisdiction abroad and outside the country. There is another, similar statement in your presentation.
What is the legal framework for that? Under what international authority can Canada carry out the border strategy? Again, you say that you have developed the concept of multiple borders, and I buy your idea that in today's world you cannot necessarily stop them at the 49th, but it is pretty frightening when you say that this allows for the interception of persons posing a security risk or other illegitimate travellers before their arrival in Canada. What international framework or legal authority are you using for that?
Mr.Jean: I will be happy to clarify. First, in terms of jurisdiction, we have the ability to decide whether we will require visas from nationals of a foreign country or not. We have jurisdiction in our embassies and consulates when we make individual visa decisions. We have jurisdiction in our current Immigration Act, whereby transportation companies have a responsibility to ensure that the people they board are admissible to Canada.
We play a role as adviser. There is no question that we are not interdicting someone at an airport or a port in any sort of ``foreign soil'' situation. However, we do play an active advisory role with foreign authorities and transportation companies. Transportation companies have an obligation under our statute.
We are making decisions on our premises and within our mandate. Outside our premises, we are acting as counsellors. We are mindful that we do not have jurisdiction, for example, in an airport. That is why we have established a clear protocol with local authorities and the transportation companies. This vision, as the honourable senator has described it, actually started in 1990. As I said, we have been extremely successful. We have been so successful that more than two out of three people who try to gain direct access to Canada are now stopped, and we are not even counting the people whom we refuse in basic visa decisions.
Senator Carney: From the language of the text, it sounded as if you were using extra-territorial jurisdiction. I am quite aware that some of the policies that you have outlined are longstanding.
It is not in this brief, but CCRA is the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the taxman and the customs people. It is not clearly stated in the English text.
You say that CIC is concerned about the increasing number of Mexican citizens who make refugee claims in Canada. It is astonishing that Mexicans were Canada's third-largest group of refugee claimants last year. People from the Philippines are a big group, and there are others, but why would a Mexican qualify as a refugee claimant? What are the reasons behind them becoming Canada's third-largest group of refugee claimants?
Mr.Jean: The fact that they make a claim does not mean they qualify.
Senator Carney: I understand that.
The Chairman: Why would Mexicans decide to become refugees from Mexico in Canada? It is a fairly good question. I do not understand it myself.
Senator Carney: It is an excellent question, Mr.Chairman.
Mr.Jean: At times, we have Western Europeans who claim refugee status. It is not of the same magnitude, but it does happen.
As I have said in my presentation, we are not alone in having this problem. The United States has the same problem, as do Western European countries. Unfortunately, people who do not need protection often abuse a system designed to give protection to people who are in need, and where there is great public support for that. Making a claim gives them the right to work while they are being processed. It may give them access to social services. There are varied reasons why people may claim, even though they may think they will not qualify at the end.
Senator Carney: How many are actually accepted?
Mr.Jean: As far as Mexico is concerned, it is very low. I will be happy to forward statistics to you that we can get from the Immigration and Refugee Board. As you know, in Canada, refugee determination is by administrative tribunal.
Senator Carney: Are you saying that many of these people are abusing the system in order to access social services and the right to work in Canada, not because they are being persecuted at home?
Mr.Jean: What I said, in terms of refugees in general, is that it must be clear that we are not the only country facing this problem. That is what Mr.Lubbers, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, refers to as the ``mixed flows.'' What that means is that there are people who truly deserve protection and we should be giving them refuge. At the same time, there are people who use the system as a way to get a variety of benefits. It may be work or it may be other things, such as buying time.
The Chairman: The thought occurs that when you make a claim, you must have a case. If a Mexican comes to Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, you wonder what is the case. Let us leave that because I do not know that it has much to do with our topic. I understand labour flows, but it is curious.
Senator Corbin: The paper presented by the witness provides the answer to the question: Why do some Canadian business people encounter problems? The third component of the answer reads as follows: ``U.S. border officials are now more security conscious in enforcing their temporary entry rules more strictly.''
I thought these measures were not necessarily temporary, that they had some permanency to them, and that henceforth we would have to live under a regime of closer scrutiny when entering the United States.
However, you used the term ``temporary.'' Can you be more precise on that?
Mr.Jean: ``Temporary entry'' in our technical language basically means temporary admission to a country as opposed to permanent admission, which is like becoming an immigrant.
Senator Corbin: It is not temporary rules; it is temporary entry rules.
Mr.Jean: For example, chapter 16 of NAFTA governs temporary entry of business people between the three partners.
Senator Corbin: My other short question is, when the alert level in the United States goes from yellow to orange, does that impact on you people?
Mr.Jean: That depends on whether the threat is solely directed to the United States, whether the threat can be directed at either party, or whether Canada can be used as a staging ground for the threat.
Senator Corbin: The public may not necessarily know that, but the department would; is that correct?
Mr.Jean: The department would. We have also established mechanisms with our U.S. partners whereby they would usually give us advance notification of a rise in the alert level and why. If there were a joint threat or a possibility that we could be used as a staging ground for illegal activity, we would adjust our own processes.
Senator Corbin: How much advance notice would you get — hours or days?
Mr.Jean: That would depend on the situation, senator.
Senator Corbin: How has that worked so far?
Mr.Jean: Under the recent alert system, usually we have been notified a day in advance, approximately.
Senator Corbin: What do you do from that point on? What do you tell your people?
Mr.Jean: Usually, we describe what the alert level will mean in terms of the U.S. inspection services so that they can make any adjustments that may be required at a port of entry.
So far, we have not had this situation, but if the nature of the information would suggest that the threat could be directed at Canada or Canada could be used as a staging ground, we may also enhance our own scrutiny. We are not at that stage right now.
Senator DiNino: Mr.Jean, I am sure you are aware that a number of Americans over the past few years, and certainly since September 11, have been accusing Canada of having porous borders, or of having less than adequate security controls at the borders. Are you aware of the Auditor General's report that came out yesterday?
Mr.Jean: Yes.
Senator DiNino: I am sure that you would disagree with me, but I read the Auditor General's report as a scathing criticism of your department in the area of securing the borders against potential terrorists and those who pose a security threat. Yet, you came to us today and basically told us that everything is great and we do not have any problems. At least, that is what I understood.
I am very concerned. We have been talking about this for a long time. Criticisms have been directed at the department for a long time. The Auditor General came out with a report that, in effect, states that we are not doing the job of securing the borders against potential terrorists or potential security threats. How do you explain that?
Mr.Jean: We actually had many dealings with the Auditor General in preparation of that report. I can tell honourable senators that the Office of the Auditor General recognized that we have made significant progress on many fronts. There were three areas where the Auditor General suggested that we should be making more progress. One of them is on unexecuted removal orders, another is assigning resources to investigation, and the third is in our relationship at the border with CCRA.
In regard to the issue of Customs Canada, that is something we have been working out. We just signed a new MOU. We used the concerns that the Auditor General brought to our attention in the last year as guidance in developing mechanisms. We are developing mechanisms to monitor how we can better target risk at the border.
Unexecuted removal orders are a difficult issue. Basically, the report says that there are a growing number of unexecuted removal orders because there are 36,000 people out there who possibly have not been removed. I say ``possibly'' because many people for whom we issue a removal order may leave of their own accord and we would never know it. We do not have entry-exit control systems. There are no incentives in place, or disincentives, to force people to report when they leave. Some of them do, and they are taken out of the system, but some of them do not. We have limited resources, and we try to assign our resources to the cases that are more problematic from a public safety standpoint.
We are certainly not proposing that we are perfect. However, when I look at previous reports of the Auditor General, I would say that we are doing fairly well. If honourable senators were to look at the situation in the United States, and I had the honour to spend five years in Washington, there are 300,000 outstanding warrants. They have a population about 10 times that of Canada, and there are 300,000 warrants outstanding for unexecuted removals. We are not alone in this problem. The issue here is not one of finger pointing; the issue is one of working together in addressing the issues.
Senator DiNino: Mr.Jean, we have something like $380-billion-worth of trade with the U.S. Approximately 88percent of our trade goes to the U.S. We heard today that some 70percent is moved by road. This requires more than just the comment, ``We are not alone.'' We have known about this problem for a long time. I do not want to call it mismanagement, but certainly it seems to me that the Auditor General has just verified the problems that have occurred in the ministry for years. This is not good enough. It is important that we do not give additional fodder to the Americans or those who wish to misuse this information to create further barriers to our companies that are trying to trade.
Frankly, I do not think your answer is appropriate. What we are really saying is that you cannot come here and tell us a few moments ago that things are going quite well, when we hear this morning from the Auditor General that we have a sieve for a border. We have, in effect, a porous border, and we are not sure where the terrorists and security threats are coming in. These are not my words; these are the words of the Auditor General. It is not good enough for you to come and tell us that, at the end of the day, we are not alone and it is happening all over the world. It will affect our trade. It will affect our relationship with the U.S. Worse than that, it will give fodder to people who will misuse this information in the U.S. to hurt our relationship— at least our trading relationship, and probably other relationships as well. We need from you some indication that your department is seriousabout addressing this important issue.
Mr.Jean: We are taking the issue seriously. As I said, I do not pretend that we are perfect. I can tell you that several years ago, the Auditor General would have come with a list of maybe 10concerns. Today, she has come with three of them. Yes, we need to do better. We already have an action plan in place to try to address some of these issues.
Outstanding removal orders, for example, will always be a challenging issue.
Senator Graham: Mr.Jean, you made reference in your written paper to a speech that the minister made in Toronto on March 7.
In that speech, he referred to a need for a reform of our refugee determination system.
While you acknowledge our interest in this, you go on to say that it is too early in the process to tell us what he meant by that. Surely the minister knew what he envisaged and, on the advice of people like you, what areas must be covered. Again, you acknowledge that you are only at the beginning of your deliberations on the guidelines, four of which were mentioned by the minister in his speech.
That was a little more than a month ago. Is it too early to indicate to the committee what work has been done on reform? Is it a work in progress? Do you have firm time lines with respect to completing that work? Can we expect legislation this year to give effect to the reforms that the minister is talking about?
Mr.Jean: I cannot tell you much in terms of what the concrete reforms might be— we are not at that stage yet— nor where time lines may take us.
In his speech, the minister described the two perceptions that are the extreme positions. One position is held by people who feel our system is being abused and that we need to fix it. The opposite position is that the system is not generous enough, that people should have more access to appeals and to make their case for protection. The challenge for any country in developing an effective refugee immigration system is to strike a balance between the two. This is not an easy task. Many countries have tried it and thus far, few have succeeded.
We are examining it. We are looking for lessons in what has been tried elsewhere. As someone pointed out, clearly it is not humanitarian to say yes to someone but to take two years to issue an immigrant visa. Research shows that the sooner we accept the refugees and integrate them into our programs, the more successful they are in the country. People may be defending the system as good and generous, but it could do better for people who deserve protection. At the same time, can we curtail some of the abuses? That is what we want to explore.
Senator Graham: In other words, you want to be as fair and, on the other hand, to plug the loopholes, insofar as that is possible.
Mr.Jean: Any expert will tell you that the ideal system is one that can say yes quickly and can say no quickly. There must be finality, and it has to be quick.
[Translation]
Senator Setlakwe: I want to congratulate you and your department on the wonderful job being done outside Canada. I had the opportunity on several occasions to travel with your minister, and I saw the excellent work being done by your immigration officers in countries like Holland, France, Algeria, Egypt, Syria and Turkey. These immigration officers deserve recognition by Canadians. I would simply like to you to pass this on to your staff.
Mr.Jean: It would be my pleasure, Senator Setlakwe.
Senator Day: I am going to ask four questions for clarification only.
[English]
The first question is about the Advanced Information System and Passenger Analysis Information Unit that you set up in the United States. Perhaps you could refer to these one at a time. There was a six-month pilot with the United States involving Washington and Vancouver. The six months is up. What has happened with that one?
Mr.Jean: The six months is up. We are completing an evaluation to see whether there is value in the idea. I do not have the results of the evaluation yet. In the context of both Vancouver and Miami, we were successful in identifying certain threats. Now we will see if the return on investment is worth carrying on with this initiative.
Senator Day: That is still in limbo?
Mr.Jean: The evaluation will be completed by the end of this month.
Senator Day: I also have a comment, and you may or may not want to reply to it. You indicate here that Citizenship and Immigration is setting up its own intelligence group to collect and analyze intelligence. You are working closely with customs people as well.
I have a concern that too many departments are setting up their own intelligence branches. It seems to me that the people who should be doing that kind of work are the RCMP and CSIS, instead of a whole lot of different departments like Agriculture, and now Citizenship and Immigration. One department after another is creating its own intelligence group. We may create another problem like the one that resulted in the U.S. bringing together a Homeland Security department. You may not want to comment on that because it is a policy issue.
Mr.Jean: We are very mindful of that, senator. We are investing in intelligence as it relates to our mandate and our act. There were lessons from September 11; 19 people hijacked planes and did something dramatic. Only 2 of those 19 were in any database of any intelligence service. Why am I saying that? Your ability to screen people from an immigration perspective is only as good as the intelligence you receive from your partners — from the RCMP, CSIS and foreign partners — and only as good as the application of that information to your immigration screening.
CSIS and their foreign allies gather intelligence for their own needs. They do not necessarily translate the information into immigration needs; that is what our intelligence services do. The branches do not duplicate efforts in any fashion. Our branch does not actively gather information on security, for example. It gathers information on the movement of people and how that relates to our mandate.
We work closely with CSIS. For example, we do a security screening on immigrants. In 1991, there was a joint decision of CSIS and CIC that the front screening would be done by CIC officers, using indicators developed by CSIS in such a way that CSIS would only target their attention and their specialist resources on the cases of concern to them. What would be the point of CSIS spending resources on a 65-year-old person from Chile, for example? We work closely with our partners to ensure that we do not duplicate work.
Senator Day: In your comment here that we can concentrate on criminal activities, do you mean in conjunction with CSIS in that instance?
Mr.Jean: Yes, and we also work closely with the RCMP. We just renewed our MOUs with both agencies.
Senator Day: Has the safe third country aspect been implemented? You talk about it here as if it were.
Mr.Jean: It was signed in December. In Canada we pre-published our regulations and we are getting ready for final publication.
The U.S.is about to pre-publish their regulations, which should happen in the next month or so. It will probably be implemented sometime in the summer or fall of this year.
Senator Day: That was my understanding. You also indicated that you are going through certain processes in the meantime at border crossings to avoid having large groups of people there. We have seen them in various visits to border points. If you cannot pre-screen the refugee claimants at that time, are they all sent back now, or is that left to the discretion of the immigration officer at the border point?
Mr.Jean: The instructions that we have given to our port of entry officials are that they must be able to complete a full security screening of individuals. If interpreters are not available, or if 30 people arrive on the same day and we do not have the capacity to do an examination of all cases, then we will direct these people back to the United States and they will have to come back here at a later time.
Senator Day: This program that you have talked about, the permanent resident card, they do not fit into that. If you pre-screen them and they are allowed into Canada, they are not given the permanent resident card, are they?
Mr.Jean: No.
Senator Day: Is not part of the problem about which the Auditor General spoke this morning those individuals who are allowed into Canada and told, ``Report in a few weeks and we will review your refugee claim''? However, they disappear. In fact, many have disappeared and you cannot find them.
Mr.Jean: The concern expressed in the Auditor General's report is about the people who have gone beyond that stage. They have gone through with their claim or other adjudication, were rejected and received a removal order. Whether or not they have left, in the absence of an entry-exit system, or any other means that force people to report when they leave, you cannot assume that all of them are here, in the same way you cannot assume they are not here. That is part of the difficulty.
Senator Day: The Auditor General also indicated that she thought there were about 26,000.
Mr.Jean: Thirty-six thousand, which is a cumulative number over the years.
Senator Day: How many aliens, that is, non-resident refugee claimants, are in Canada now who have come through the border and have not been processed but just disappeared under the system? How many would you estimate?
Mr.Jean: I would not try.
Senator Day: Thousands, hundreds of thousands?
Mr.Jean: Last year, we had 33,000 asylum claimants. Some were approved and eventually received permanent resident status. Some are rejected and then they may try to access other processes, and at some point they will receive a removal order. Last year, we removed about 8,500 people. That is not all of the people who were rejected.
Senator Day: Of the 33,000— and I would just like to clarify this— you cannot go back to your department and come up with an estimated figure of how many of these refugee claimants have disappeared? You cannot do that?
Mr.Jean: We can give you figures on people who apply for refugee status and do not show up for their hearing. We can give you statistics on the number approved who then received permanent resident status. We can give you statistics with regard to the people who have been rejected.
Many of the removal orders are what we call ``voluntary removal orders.'' Some people may leave of their own accord and may not report that to our service. In the absence of exit controls and a huge incentive to report, many will not. Some of them are gone and some remain here. I appreciate what the senator said earlier, namely, that comparing ourselves to other countries is no consolation. We want to do the best we can. This is no different from the situation that most developed countries face.
Senator Day: In some developed countries, refugee claimants are detained until they have been processed. We allow them in after the pre-screening and say, ``You should come back for your full screening later on.'' Is that correct?
Mr.Jean: The only country that systematically detains asylum claimants is Australia, and it is extremely expensive. You have to wonder whether it is effective in the end.
The Chairman: It has not done much for the public image of Australia, has it?
Senator Day: That information will be helpful. With the information you will provide, I will be able to determine how many have just disappeared into the system; is that correct?
Mr.Jean: As I said, this is something that we have explained clearly and I think the Auditor General understands. You cannot try to reconcile those numbers because you do not know who leaves and who does not.
The Chairman: May I remind everyone that Mr.Jean is here with reference to our mandate, not the Auditor General's report. It is all right, up to a point, to ask questions about that, but we are studying the Canada-U.S. trade relationship and problems at the border.
Senator DiNino: That is exactly what the Auditor General was talking about. She was saying that, based on the information she found, she cannot say that the borders are safe from criminals and terrorists. This is why it has a direct bearing on our study.
Senator Day: It was mentioned earlier today that the U.S.has some questions about our immigration situation. What I am trying to illustrate here is that we have made tremendous inroads and improvements, but we have a way to go yet. That is what I am hoping will come out of all this. If you can convince us of that, it will help Canada-U.S. relations.
The Chairman: I was a member of Parliament for Toronto-Spadina for many years, which had at that time a large immigrant population. I served on the green paper committee in the 1970s. The statistic that was generally used in those days— and no one knows what the figures are; that is the problem— was 6 million to 7million illegal immigrants in the United States. I suspect that figure has not gotten any smaller.
Senator Graham: My questions are in reference to the points raised by SenatorDay on the Auditor General's comments and, perhaps, her generalizations. I want to refer to young students who are here on temporary visas, presumably. I would presume that some of them have been lost in the system. Could you indicate to the committee the approximate numbers who are here on students visas and if the Auditor General was able to identify the number of those students who have been lost, as it were?
Mr.Jean: Every year, we issue somewhere in the vicinity of 100,000 student visas. We can provide you with the exact number later.
In general, we are careful in assessing the applications by foreign students. In general, the rate of violations is low. I can provide you with whatever statistics we have in that regard as well.
Senator Graham: I think the committee would be interested. I would be interested in that information.
Mr.Jean: This is something to which we are paying a lot of attention.
[Translation]
Senator De Bané: To follow up on Senator Graham's question, I would like to share with you some information I received. The department's computer system does not allow it to track a student from another country who goes to our consulate in a given country and who has, for example, an acceptance letter from Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia. This student receives permission to study at Dalhousie University since he has an acceptance letter. He comes to Canada and does not show up at Dalhousie University. According to my information, Dalhousie University does not advise the department that this person has not shown up. Is this correct?
Mr.Jean: Yes, that is correct.
Senator De Bané: Has the United States implemented a system? I am told that the American universities were informed by the American government that they must send the government an e-mail advising it, from now on, of any individual who has received permission to study at a university and who does not show up. Is that correct?
Mr.Jean: As far as I know, the United States has implemented that type of system, but only for citizens of certain countries.
Senator De Bané: I see. In your opinion, is Canada going to implement this type of system? So that, for example, when our officer in Tunis grants permission to someone who has been accepted at the Université de Moncton, if that individual does not show up there within 30 days of arriving in Canada, the Université de Moncton must send an e- mail indicating that this individual never showed up.
Mr.Jean: With regard to people not showing up at their intended place of study, this is not really a problem or, at least, it is not a problem with most institutions. Some institutions are more problematic, for example, those with a visa school. However, applications to these institutions are being examined more closely. There are no major problems with the movement of students. Some countries have lots of problems with foreign students, but this is not our case since we are quite vigilant when it comes to issuing visas.
Senator De Bané: I was incredibly lucky to be accepted as a Canadian citizen. I remember that my father had said it was harder to get into Canada than into heaven, or at least it was at the time. The legislation in the 1940s was different than the legislation passed in the 1960s. What I find shocking is when someone jumps the queue and goes to the embassy and thinks, ``I will get a student visa. I will be there in three months.''
Then, that person gets to Canada and never shows up at the university. Our system must be impeccable, so that no one can come to Canada as a student with the sole intention of getting into Canada and, by doing so, deprive another student who may be waiting for 10 or 15 years. This is what bothers me.
Mr.Jean: I do not want to give the impression that nothing is being done. When a student is identified as having violated the Immigration Act, a report is sent to the visa office. This information is also collected to identify the risk indicators. This influences the decisions we make every day in terms of visas issued. The level of visas denied around the world varies.
[English]
I misunderstood you, because I thought you told me that the university never advises you when a candidate fails to show up.
[Translation]
Mr.Jean: Yes, but I would like to clarify this point. For example, even if we had a system in place that told us that this person did not show up, this does not tell us where this person is.
Senator De Bané: No, no.
Mr.Jean: Does it tell us where to arrest this person? If that individual had bad intentions, he would not necessarily give a correct address.
[English]
Senator De Bané: In the United States, they have given universities a budget so that they will receive feedback on those who did not show up. My information is that our department does not give any subsidies to the universities, so they have no incentive to do that follow-up and write to the department.
The Chairman: I suspect, as you know, SenatorDe Bané, if this is the case in the United States, it would be because of the people who took over the airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center. As we all read, they were accredited to a flying school, whether they showed up or not; it was mysterious. Certainly, if I recall correctly, some of those people involved in the hijackings, and in the tragedy at the World Trade Center, had been approved by American Immigration, which lost track of them, and all kinds of things happened.
Senator Corbin: They were students at some European universities.
The Chairman: Yes, and there was also the question of the students who wanted to learn how to take off, but not how to land a plane.
Senator De Bané: Mr.Chairman, you are absolutely right, and because 3,000 people died, they have decided to fund every educational system in the United States to give feedback to the department.
Our committee needs to study how to improve our systemso that the Americans will feel comfortable with it. If they are doing that in the United States now that they have suffered 3,000deaths, perhaps we should also look at adopting stringent measures so they will feel comfortable with our system. That is all I am trying to say.
The Chairman: It is a good suggestion, senator. I am sure we will contemplate putting that as a recommendation into our report.
I want to thank our witnesses.
The committee adjourned