CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 18, 1997

• 1534

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order.

Thank you for appearing and for coming on time for the official photograph. I don't know if we're starting something new here, but my intention is to get a photograph of all current committee members, and we hope you're all going to be here for the rest of the year. I will make sure we get copies made. We'll pick the best copy and we'll see that everyone in the committee gets a copy. You can do whatever you want with that copy—use it in your householder or anything of that nature.

Before you is a report from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It comes in two sections. Items one, two, and three are numbered, and those are the immediate agenda items we will be dealing with today and during the next two meetings, which are already being planned.

• 1535

Another section on that sheet of paper says “the following issues were presented as areas of concern by Members of the Steering Committee”, and there are quite a few. However, that list is not carved in stone. It's quite possible that other things will emerge as time goes on.

I'm simply tabling this report. There's no need for a motion and if there's any discussion we can deal with it at a later time.

We have the minister with us and several members of her elite bureaucracy who will help us deal with the estimates today. I would like to introduce them. There's no need to stand and please hold your applause until the very end.

Janice Cochrane is the deputy minister, Marc Lafrenière is the associate deputy minister, and Gerry Campbell is the assistant deputy minister of operations. Greg Fyffe is the assistant deputy minister of policy and program development. Georges Tsai is the assistant deputy minister of corporate services. We also have Marc St-Pierre, who is the executive assistant. Thank you all for coming.

Now I would like to introduce the minister, Madame Robillard. We will ask the minister to make her statement and then we will proceed with questions.

[Translation]

The Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, I would just like to tell you how pleased I am to be here today to take part in the important work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I would like to extend a special greeting to new committee members, who, I am sure, will make a significant contribution to the on going updating and success of our Canadian immigration policy.

As you know, immigration is not the easiest of subjects. We have to constantly find a balance between two fundamental concerns: first, our desire to be humane and fair, and our duty to ensure economic prosperity, without which, nothing is possible in our country in any case.

I think we all recognize the tremendous contribution made by immigrants to the development, prosperity and cultural wealth of our country. We are also aware of how essential it is for immigrants and their families to integrate harmoniously into their adoptive communities.

So it is the search for this balance between our humanitarian values and our duty to ensure economic prosperity that shaped the immigration plan we tabled a few weeks ago. It was entitled "A Stronger Canada" to indicate clearly the first and foremost goal of immigration in this country.

[English]

It is a good plan, a generous and welcoming plan. It is a plan that is within our means, that will enrich our labour force and our economy with new resources and new skills so that as we become wealthier and more prosperous we will be able to receive more people in the future.

Our mission and mandate is to ensure that Canada continues to derive maximum benefit from the cultural richness and economic growth that immigration represents by ensuring that the immigrants we receive have the skills and knowledge that we need, and by ensuring that they are integrated into the labour force and their communities as quickly and harmoniously as possible for everyone's sake.

Citizenship and Immigration's total budget for carrying out this important mandate is slightly over $615 million. In addition to this amount, Citizenship and Immigration received $62.3 million for settlement services for new immigrants. This is not new money for the government, in that these funds were included in the last budget speech by the Minister of Finance and earmarked for this purpose in the spring.

• 1540

We are pleased to be able to make this money available to the provinces, particularly to British Columbia and Ontario, which received the largest share of immigrants to this country. This additional funding will be divided among the provinces, primarily according to the number of immigrants that each of them receives for each of the next three years. A permanent method of distribution will subsequently be adopted to ensure adequate long-term funding for settlement services, which are essential to the effectiveness and efficiency of the economic and cultural contribution that new immigrants make to the development of our country.

The more efficient the settlement services are, the more positive the impact of immigration will be. However, to be efficient these services must reflect the social, cultural, and economic reality of the community in which they are implemented. This is why we would like these communities to be included in determining the priorities for these services, and this is why we believe the provinces, which are already responsible for other major social programs such as health and education, are in a better position to handle the administration of these services.

[Translation]

The standing committee has already supported this idea in the past, and I hope I can continue to count on your support in this regard.

I am pleased to tell you that the negotiations with the provinces are proceeding well and that they are already mentioning concrete improvements as a result of the increased budget of our settlement services.

Finally, on a different matter, as you already know, the advisory group reviewing the legislation will be submitting its report to me on December 31. I am sure that it will contain a wide range of interesting and important subjects for us to talk about, to work on and to implement, with your valued support.

I therefore sincerely hope the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will participate actively in developing Canada's immigration policy and that on going and open co-operation and dialogue between my department and the members of the committee will help us all to do our important work together.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I and the members of my team will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We will start with the official opposition but we're going to change the format somewhat today. Each person gets five minutes. There will be five minutes on this side of the table and then we'll bounce to anyone on the other side who would like to have five minutes and we'll go back and forth across the room. That's the pattern we'll carry out for this entire session.

I would recommend that every member of the committee keep their preamble as short as possible so that they can get in as many questions as possible within their timeframe. The more questions we can direct to the minister and the officials here, the more knowledge will be shared with us.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Minister, under vote 1, operating expenditures in the business service line of citizenship registration and promotion, you're increasing the estimates by $1.3 million. Is this the result of your initiative to have departmental employees replace citizenship judges?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'll ask the director general of finance to answer that question.

Mr. Jerry Robbins (Director General, Finance, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?

Mr. John Reynolds: Under vote 1, the operating expenditure in the business service line of citizenship registration and promotion, you're increasing the estimates by $1.3 million. Is that money being used for your initiative to have departmental employees replace citizenship judges?

Mr. Jerry Robbins: Not that I'm aware of, no.

Mr. John Reynolds: Have any departmental employees performed the work of citizenship judges anywhere in Canada yet?

A witness: No.

Mr. John Reynolds: No? That's fine.

• 1545

With regard to the Canada-Quebec accord, would the government be prepared to have the same accord with other provinces? You mentioned that Ontario and British Columbia are the two largest provinces for immigration. Would you be prepared to have the same agreement with British Columbia and Ontario that you have with the Province of Quebec?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It depends what you mean by “are you prepared to have the same accord”. If it's to share responsibility with the provinces about selection and integration of immigrants, my answer is yes.

We have agreements with all provinces in this country except B.C., Alberta, and Ontario on immigration issues, and we are negotiating to have that kind of agreement. However, the other provinces, except for Quebec, are interested in an overall agreement on immigration issues, but none of them is interested in taking responsibilty for selection of immigrants.

So the agreement with the other provinces will differ from the one with Quebec—and I'm not speaking about the funding of the agreement with Quebec, which could differ also.

Mr. John Reynolds: If British Columbia were to ask you for the same agreement that you have with Quebec, with the same funding, although obviously based on different numbers because they receive different numbers of immigrants, would you be prepared to give them that same agreement?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Exactly the same?

Mr. John Reynolds: Exactly the same.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: My answer is no.

Mr. John Reynolds: Why?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: As you know, that agreement was signed by the former Conservative government and it is a binding contract with the federal government. It doesn't take into account the numbers of immigrants received by the province. That's why I think that when we discussed with the other provinces and when we had that increase in settlement services, we decided to give that money to the other provinces, expecially B.C. and Ontario, but based on the numbers of immigrants they are receiving.

Having said that, you should know that we are negotiating an overall agreement on immigration with B.C. right now, and I hope to be able to sign with B.C. before the end of the year.

Mr. John Reynolds: What you're saying is that the amount of money that Quebec gets you couldn't afford to give to British Columbia if it were based on the number of immigrants.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'm saying that the strategy used by the government was to increase the budget of the other provinces, because on the other end we have a binding contract with Quebec that both parties must agree to open that agreement. So we decided to have better equity in the system to increase the budget of the other provinces, and with the amount we put into the system we significantly reduced the gap between the provinces.

Mr. John Reynolds: But there is still a large gap.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: There is still a gap, I recognize that.

Mr. John Reynolds: This is my final question.

The number of criminal removals in 1995-96 was 1,660, or 35% of the total removals of 4,742. Removals the previous year were 7,053, of which 1,058 were criminals. That's on page 42. The estimate of the number of removals for fiscal year 1997-98 is 5,000. The priorities are stated to be criminals and failed refugee claimants. What is the number of forecast removals for 1996-97? In the past, forecasts for fiscal year end have been provided, but this year they're largely missing.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I don't have the final statistics for October, but at the end of September 1997 the number of removals had increased by 38% as compared to last year. If I compare the same period with last year, it has increased about 38%. So we're satisfied with what's going on right now.

Mr. John Reynolds: So we will be able to get the numbers for last year some time soon?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: For last year?

Mr. John Reynolds: For 1996-97.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We have the numbers for 1996; it was 5,838, whereas the year before it was 4,798. So it's an increase of 21%.

• 1550

Mr. John Reynolds: It's 5,900?

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It's 5,838. So if we compare 1996 to 1995, there was an increase of 21%.

Mr. John Reynolds: How many of those were criminals?

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Would you go on now—

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chair, I didn't get the answer.

The Chairman: You didn't ask it in a question.

Mr. John Reynolds: No, I asked it in a question: what were the amount of criminals and the numbers? She gave me the one number 5,000, but I didn't get the number—

The Chairman: Oh.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I can give the number if you want, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John Reynolds: It wasn't in the report.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It was 1,838.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you very much.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It is an increase of 5% from 1995 to 1996.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Ms. Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, I understand that in Taiwan there's no local office to process the immigration applications. Apparently this causes a great deal of delay and financial hardship to many applicants. I'd like to know if the ministry will consider improving the situation.

My second question has to do with China. I understand the student and spousal refusal rate from that country is relatively high. I wonder if the minister will comment on that, and indicate if any improvement can be made.

Thank you.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I will answer the second part of your question, and I will ask my assistant deputy minister to answer the first part on Taiwan.

On the second part, about spousal refusal in China, let me tell you that each case is evaluated individually. The refusal or acceptance rate is based on the merits of the case.

When I look at the statistics of China, and compare these to statistics on other countries in the world, let me tell you that there are some other countries where the refusal rate is higher than that.

So I don't see any specific problem or any specific circumstance in the environment that will explain that refusal rate, except that they are based on the merits of the case.

I'll ask the assistant deputy minister to speak on Taiwan.

Mr. Gerry Campbell (Assistant Deputy Minister (Operations), Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Minister.

We do have a small visa office in Taiwan that is responsible for the issuance of visitor visas.

Originally the processing of immigrants in Taiwan was done out of Hong Kong. In 1993 we did briefly transfer that responsibility to the office in Taipei, but the visitor workload had been increasing so quickly that we found we couldn't cope with the staff levels we had.

The responsibility is now with our office in Singapore. Certainly that's not as convenient as we would like it to be, but Singapore does area trips to Taipei, and anyone who wants to be interviewed on site there can be interviewed.

With respect to your question about why we don't increase the size of the office and process both visitors and immigrants in Taipei, the answer, in short, is that we would very much like to. But it's a very high-cost operating environment, and there is no room in what we call the tourism and trade office in Taipei.

It would cost us a great deal of money to expand the premises. It's something we would like to do. We have been reviewing this, but at the moment we're not in the financial situation where we could do it.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Minister, you have received some representations from two sources regarding the government of Quebec and I am sure that you will not be surprised that I am raising this matter in committee.

Could you tell us what steps you plan to take to respond to Quebec's grievance about double fees? I'm sure you will agree that this is discriminatory, is not helping Quebec achieve its objectives and may be seen as a deterrent. The cost is $500 per person. However, the same person who chooses to immigrate to Quebec would have to pay $800. You know that this argument has been going on for 10 years. I think you would agree that you have received some official representations on this matter, and I would like to know what you plan to do about it.

Second, there are also some concerns from the Quebec government regarding the Investor Immigrant Program. You want to make some regional changes, and these too are seen as possible deterrents for Quebec. I would like to know what your views are.

I have a third question I will ask later on war criminals.

• 1555

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The first question was about double fees. I think the honourable member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is well aware of the fact that, while Quebec is responsible for selecting immigrants, the government of Canada is responsible for their admissibility. That means that it has to check out each person's medical and security records. That involves some costs for the Government of Canada.

Moreover, in countries where Quebec does not have an office, the Government of Canada receives the applications and transfers them to the Quebec government. That too involves cost sharing.

That said, if the Quebec government—and I have said this officially and publicly before—wants us to review our financial commitments regarding the sharing of responsibilities under the Canada-Quebec agreement, I am quite prepared to reopen the agreement and to review each side's financial commitment.

Your second question was about the Investor Immigrant Program. Given that Quebec is responsible for selecting its immigrants, it has its own investor immigrant program. There has been pre-publication of some changes that are to be made to the program. I am aware that Quebec has particular concern about the fact that different provinces charge different amounts, which is the fact at the moment.

It should not be thought that this is a change to the program. the amount investors are required to pay at the moment varies depending on the province to which they wish to immigrate. That is already part of the system. We wanted to maintain that, and Quebec has made some representations on this. After the pre-publication, there were many representations, not only from Quebec, but also from all provinces, particularly the four western provinces. In light of that, we set up a new federal-provincial task force to reexamine the investor program.

At the moment, there is a proposal on the table that was put forward by the provinces. It is an allocation model for all provinces. Naturally, Quebec will not be involved in that because it has its own program. If we decide to use this model, that would meet Quebec's concern, because it wants all investors to pay the same basic amount. However, the government has not yet made a final decision on this.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You know that your flexibility has always been appreciated by the people you've worked with in the past. I therefore have trouble understanding why you seem to be unusually obstinate on the issue of double fees.

While I do not want to use up my time talking about this, I do hope you will comply with Quebec's demands. The government and the NGOs see this practice as a deterrent. We will have an opportunity to discuss this matter in the future.

On the issue of war criminals, would it be possible... You know, Mr. Chairman, that I tabled the motion that we invite the departmental officials to appear before the committee. I am sure you will agree, Minister, that there is a very specific issue at stake here. Would you please be so kind as to remind us how the procedure works?

For example, we hear from the department that the positive aspect regarding war criminals is that you are winning 90% of the deportation cases brought before the courts. That is an extremely encouraging figure. There seems to be a desire to work harder on this, but we hear that they have to be caught earlier in the process.

Could you please describe the whole process for us? Why are there reports that close to 300 war criminals are in the process of being deported? Why do we hear that there could be a significant increase in the number as compared to the total volume? Mr. Chairman, I never see this Minister. I have to talk to her sometimes. May I ask the Minister to summarize the process for us? How does it work?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I would like to come back to one of the comments made by my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. He said that I am being obstinate, even though I am usually very flexible. I repeat that I'm quite prepared to examine the financial commitments of both sides under the Canada-Quebec agreement. When we look at financial commitments and cost sharing, we look at the expenditures column and the revenue column. We do not look at just one column at a time. We look at both. I think that is the logical way to do it.

• 1600

So I repeat that I am prepared to review them in the context of the Canada-Quebec Agreement. An agreement between two parties involves negotiators, Mr. Chairman.

Second, I believe my colleague is speaking specifically about contemporary war criminals. There are war criminals from the Second World War, which is a separate matter and which has developed differently, and there are modern or contemporary war criminals. This is a phenomenon we have seen emerge in the last five years.

As my colleague acknowledges, our country has taken concrete steps to try to identify the phenomenon and to determine how many of these individuals might be suspected of war crimes and how they are entering the country. There are various ways of getting into the country—both legally and illegally. An illegal way of entering the country is to use a visitor or student visa and remain in the country. People can enter the country and have a refugee status, and that puts them into a system which involves waiting for several months. So there are different ways of entering the country.

M. Réal Ménard: The section you established...

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, please.

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is an important question, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, let the minister answer the question, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The Minister...

[English]

The Chairman: I know it's very important. It's important that this is not to be considered a debating pit. What we have to do here is gather information by directing questions to the minister and to the officials who are here. So please keep that in mind.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to ask her one last brief question.

[English]

The Chairman: No, your time is up. I'm sorry.

[Translation]

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I would just like to say, Mr. Chairman, that if committee members are interested in this matter, we would be quite prepared to provide a special information session on this specific subject, because there is a great deal of room for improvement in the system. However, when we compare what we are doing in Canada with what is done in other countries throughout the world, particularly the United States and Australia, we see that we are in a good position.

Nevertheless, the system requires improvement, but it would take several minutes to explain that.

Mr. Réal Ménard: At the end of the meeting.

[English]

An hon. member: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask if we have a motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: At the end.

[English]

The Chairman: At the end of the meeting, yes. Thank you very much.

Now we'll carry on. I will jump to the other side. We have Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I have three brief questions.

I believe you announced the establishment of a legislative group to review the immigration agreement last year, Minister. Could you please give me an update on its work?

There are many myths surrounding a very hypothetical relationship between the unemployment rate and the immigration rate. Could you help us dispel these myths a little?

The impression I get from the immigration levels set for next year is that you are expecting an increase in the number of independent immigrants in my riding, where there is a very large number of immigrants. Family reunification is an extremely important point. Could you please tell us what you think about this?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I hope you will give me a little time to answer the questions, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be as brief as possible, but that is not easy. These are far-reaching questions.

The first one dealt with the legislative review, and may be the easiest one. I informed committee members that last year I set up a committee of three experts who had three different professional backgrounds and came from three different parts of the country—Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. These three experts are supposed to table their report on December 31 of this year, and they have told me that they will be tabling it on time. They are not asking for an extension.

I would remind committee members that the group's mandate was to do a general review of the Canadian Immigration Act. The Act is 20 years old, and in the last 20 years it has been amended 30 times, but on a piecemeal basis. Somewhere along the line, I think the legislation lost its consistency and simplicity.

• 1605

So their mandate was to review the legislation with a view to modernizing it for the 21st century. However, I did not limit their mandate, and I think these three experts will have some proposals on immigration, on refugee determination and on citizenship as well. Once I receive the report, I intend to hold public consultations before making any final recommendations to my government.

Your second question was about the relationship between the unemployment rate and the immigration rate. To my knowledge, neither in Canada nor elsewhere are there any studies showing any significant links, or cause-and-effect links between the unemployment rate and the immigration rate. No study shows any such link. Rather, the studies available at the moment show that immigrants make a positive economic contribution. That is true in the United States, Australia and Canada. So immigration actually promotes economic development and job creation.

Your third question was about the immigration levels that I tabled, the planning for next year and the concern about the planned reduction and the number of family reunification immigrants. Yes, we did note the reduction in immigrants under family reunification. We are aware of that, and we are analyzing the reasons for it.

However, I would like to tell committee members that in the case of the economic class, immigration officers abroad can be active and try to attract economic immigrants, whereas in the case of family reunification, everything depends on the demand. The department cannot take any action in that case.

Let me explain what I mean. If a skilled worker came to Canada as an independent immigrant, and came alone, without any members of his family, it is up to him to ask to sponsor his spouse and children. If he does not fill in his sponsorship application himself, the department cannot do anything. The same is true if he should decide to sponsor his parents or his grandparents. The decision must come from him. So our work is dependent on the demand.

However, we have noticed that there has been an increase in the sponsorship of spouses and children, but that there has been a reduction in sponsorship of parents and grandparents. We could speculate as to the reasons for this. I will say that between 1988 and 1992, there was a different definition of "family". Then it was defined more broadly, and could include brothers and sisters, for example.

In 1992, we restricted the definition of "family", and as a result our figures for family reunification have gone back to where they were before 1988. I'm sure the question as to whether or not the definition of "family" contained in the Act should be reviewed during the legislative review.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Thank you.

I'd like to thank the minister for coming and giving us this opportunity to talk. I have three questions, if time permits, so I'll get onto it very quickly.

Dealing with the citizenship aspect of your department, I notice that your budget is $33.6 million in expenditures and $50.3 million in revenue. To me this again seems like your government is taking money from the poor taxpayers here.

In one aspect we encourage people to become Canadians and take pride in Canada, but on the other hand we put it out of their reach by charging these unbelievably high fees. Especially from this aspect it should be a neutral revenue fee structure, not a profit-making structure.

• 1610

An interesting fact we would like to know, if you have it, is the number of people who are still landed immigrants and are eligible to become citizens but have chosen not to become citizens.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Oh, that's a good question. I think that according to our last study on the case, more than 85% of landed immigrants asked for citizenship. So 85% of the people are asking for their citizenship.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: It's possible that your department can give me the exact figure in numbers. I'm sure you can't do it right now, but you can—

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Oh, you want that not as a percentage, but in numbers. Yes, I could ask the department to provide you with the numbers.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: But let's go back to my first question, which is why you have such a high revenue here, why you're making a profit out of this department.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I will ask my finance director to answer that. But let me tell you that it is clear that we have a cost-recovery policy in the department.

Overall the budget of the department is more than $650 million, and the fees or what we receive from all the different fees we have from different backgrounds is half of that, $378 million. But you're asking especially about citizenship.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: No. Citizenship involves a 150% increase. This is not cost recovery; this is profit-making.

Mr. Jerry Robbins: I think perhaps you're including both the cost-recovery fee and the right-of-citizenship fee.

The cost-recovery fee is directly related to what it costs us to process an application for citizenship. The right-of-citizenship fee is not related to the actual cost of providing that particular service.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Then what is it for?

Mr. Jerry Robbins: Well, basically it's for the benefits that somebody accrues from becoming a Canadian citizen.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Let me put it this way: to me and to the party it looks like you're making money just out of this right of citizenship. Here we are trying to tell landed immigrants to become citizens, and then you are saying give us the money for your right to become a citizen. I think that is totally contradictory.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, I think this is not a contradiction, Mr. Chair. There were a lot of questions about the fees in this country, and not only that one, but...only for the landed immigrant who we charge some fees. This is clear.

When we compare what Canada is doing with other countries in the world, we are in a position to ask for an effort from the newcomers to this country also, to participate in the effort in which all Canadians take part.

You know that we were in a very bad position, in bad shape in this country on the financial side, with regard to the finances of the nation, and we asked a lot of sacrifices from all Canadians, and also from newcomers.

When I look at the numbers of people applying, either to become landed immigrants or citizens, and I look at the other side—that, as an example, we also have a loan program for the people who are not able to pay for the landing fee—I think we have a fair policy here.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Well, I'll respectfully and totally disagree with you on this.

My second question also deals with this landing fee. You're already charging a fee to the individuals for the application. Now you're charging for the landing, which is discriminatory towards the groups from low-income countries. This is not right.

Again, you are charging this, and you're calling this a settlement fee. Somebody like me who's an immigrant... Most immigrants don't use those settlement fees. They come here and work hard. You're penalizing us for somebody else just because you want to balance a budget, and we know why there was so much expenditure over there.

So I have introduced a private member's bill here that deals with this very issue. Are you going to be supporting that bill, changing the Immigration Act to prevent the assessment of the right-of-landing fee? I've introduced that. Could we count on some kind of support from you?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, let me tell you about my surprise at hearing the member of the Reform Party stating that. Do I understand that it's a new position from the Reform Party?

We have had that landing fee for two years in the country. It was in the 1995 budget. Never have I had a question in the House of Commons about that landing fee from the Reform Party.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: It's a private member's bill.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Usually 95% of the Reform Party are on criminality and the criminals in this country, but I never heard about that. So I'm very surprised to hear that.

• 1615

Having said that, it's clear, Mr. Chairman, that there's no intention from the government to abolish that landing fee. We had a lot of pressure from the different communities and from members of my own party who put pressure on the government to change the collecting time of that landing fee. Instead of having it at the front end, they'll apply at the beginning, and then only have it when they receive the visa to come to the country. We agreed to that, and now the collecting time is different.

We put in a loan program that's accessible to the people. Let me tell you that the majority of the people who accepted the loan program are refugees. Let me tell you that the reimbursement rate of that loan is so high that I'm very impressed. Most of these people contribute, as my honourable colleague said. These people are very proud to reimburse the Canadian government for what they've received in services and protection in our country.

The Chairman: Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Minister, thank you for joining us this afternoon.

In looking at the performance report on page 6, I see in the operating environment that Canada is party to a number of bilateral and multilateral agreements on human rights as well as social, economic, and policy matters that have implications for Canada's citizenship and immigration policies and programs.

My question really concerns the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which held hearings recently in Toronto. Concerns were expressed by refugee advocates about Canada's poor treatment of detainees. There have been deportations of refugees to other countries where they may be at risk. I wonder whether you can defend that position. What really is your response to these allegations that were made in what I consider to be national and international fora?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think it's an important question. Let me tell you first that we were very pleased that the commission had accepted our invitation. It was because of an invitation from the Canadian government that they came to our country.

This is a commission in which individuals can make complaints about different countries and the treatment they received once they have finished utilizing all the systems in the country. Canada has some complaints in front of the commission right now.

We decided to invite the members of the commission. There are six or nine members, I don't remember. They came to our country to know more about our system for immigrants, especially refugees, as well as the process we have here and the different appeals that people should have in our country.

So they came to Canada and visited not only the department, but also the NGO community. When they met the NGO community, especially in Toronto, I think the NGOs told them they were concerned by the length of detentions in some of our centres.

So let me tell you that when we decide to put a person in detention, first of all, it's not a prison, it's a detention centre. There's a difference. When we decide to put a person in detention, this is a very serious decision. It's may be because it would be a danger for the public to have that person free in our society. It may be because we know that person will escape and won't collaborate on their removal.

In the system right now there's also a way for that person... The detention decision will be revised systematically by somebody independent from the department. They'll come to see if there's still a reason to have the detention.

Having said that, I think that when I met with the commissioners they were very pleased by their visit to Canada. They said that when they looked at the number of complaints they received, it was like—I don't remember it exactly—ten complaints as compared to the hundreds they had. But they were happy to come here because many of them didn't know our system and they were in a position now to be able to evaluate the complaints they have in front of them.

• 1620

Ms. Jean Augustine: Was that an international comparison? As Canadians, for example, what we consider poor treatment, or detention centres, in another forum could be defined differently. So when we say poor treatment is given to people in detention centres, how does that poor treatment stand up against some other countries?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, our detention policy is quite different from that in other countries. The Reform Party asked whether all asylum seekers should be put in detention, like countries such as Australia do. We don't do that. That is not the Canadian approach. The approach of our detention policy is different. We put them in detention only if we have a serious reason to do so, and once there, their conditions—again, these are not prisons—are quite acceptable.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for coming today. I'll remind the minister that you don't always get an accurate reflection of a party's viewpoint from an occasional 35 seconds in question period in the House, so it's good for us to share our concerns with the entire immigration system and the fact that we are very concerned about immigrants. In fact, we have more visible minority MPs in our caucus than do all other opposition parties.

To follow up on my colleague's questions on the Quebec-Canada immigration accord, the $90 million that goes to Quebec—are there any assurances that all that money is directed towards immigration in Quebec? Is that pool of money in fact used for immigration in the province?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: When we look at the report they have to table in the National Assembly each year, and at the budget they use for the integration of immigrants—this budget provides help and services for the integration of immigrants—we don't have any specific concerns about it.

Mr. Grant McNally: So the dollar totals would match up with the amount allocated?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

Also, concerns have been voiced about a system where you have individuals coming to one province and then transferring to another province, and about funds being disproportionately allocated to one province over others. How does the department justify that? You touched on it earlier. Perahps you could expand on the per capita dollars per immigrant.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: When an immigrant arrives in the country, he is free to move to another part of the country if he wants to. When we decided to distribute the money for settlement services to the different provinces, we used statistics on the number of immigrants they had in their provinces for the last three years. Taking three years was better than one year because we don't know what will happen with the movement of people in just one year. And three years from now we have to discuss a method of distributing the money with the provinces. If the provinces come with a better approach, we're open to looking at it, but we've found that the numbers of immigrants over three years gives a very good sign.

At the same time, some provinces are dying to have more immigrants. So this is a very complex question when you speak about the distribution of immigrants in the country.

• 1625

Mr. Grant McNally: I think the services that go along with the increased numbers of immigrants to an area are important too. As a former ESL teacher and having worked with a number of immigrant families, I know that there are a number of areas, particularly in British Columbia, that are burgeoning with immigrants, and that's a positive.

The provinces are dealing with the realities of ESL training and the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces for education, and then the problem providing services to those children and the ever-shrinking number of dollars for the people who need those services. Is the department able to address that concern in any manner?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Over 60% of the immigrants to our country are going to Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, and because of the concentration of immigrants there's a pressure on social institutions. You're speaking about education but we can speak about housing and health services. There's pressure on institutions in the cities when you receive a large influx of newcomers to the country.

Having said that, it was clear with the B.C. government when we discussed the settlement services that we would take charge of ESL for the adults and they would take charge of ESL for the children. When we put the settlement money on the table, I think it permits the province to address that problem for education.

Immigration is a shared responsibility, so it's clear that provinces are involved in it. When we evaluate the benefits of immigration in one province or to others... I think there are economic benefits to B.C. in having immigrants, but there's also a short-term price to pay to help them integrate, and ESL is part of that.

The Chairman: Madam Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Madam Minister, I have a quick question. Last week I ran into you in Washington when I was there on the Canadian business women's trade mission. When I asked what you were doing in Washington you said you were on your way to meet Attorney General Janet Reno. Are you at liberty to share with us the substance of your conversations with Ms. Reno?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Could you tell us about that conversation?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The essence of the discussion with Ms. Reno was about our shared border with the United States.

The number of people crossing the border is increasing year after year. Last year we had 117 million people crossing the border between the United States and Canada. Can you imagine the movement of people? We think that will only increase in the future.

So the discussion was about how both countries can facilitate the crossing of the border for all these people for business, trade, tourism, to visit friends and family members. But at the same time we need to be able to work together to prevent the ones we don't want in our countries, and I'm speaking about illegal immigrants.

Could we have a strategic vision of the future about that border? What kind of border do we want ten years from now? And in the meantime, how can we work together?

We had a lot of discussions with her and her officials, and we agreed to work on three different areas. First, we discussed how to work better together overseas—not in the United States or in Canada, but overseas. As you know, we have immigration control officers in different airports abroad, and their work is to prevent illegal immigrants from coming to Canada. We have over 32 officers abroad right now in more than 25 countries. The United States just started the exact same system that we have. So I asked Ms. Reno why our officers shouldn't work together. They could try to prevent that. So that is the first area in which we will have a working group.

• 1680

Second, if we don't succeed in preventing these people from coming to our country and they land in one country or the other, how can we share information better than we do right now? Is there technology we can use to share the information? Sharing information is a key issue.

Third, could we look at the United States and Canada having a convergence on visa policy? For example, if I require a visa from a national of one country and that person comes to Canada, or if she goes to New York... We know that crossing the border is easy, so could we have a certain convergence of the two countries?

That is a big issue. The working group will start before Christmas and I hope we will be able to attain these objectives to facilitate the crossing of the border for honest citizens and at the same time to be able to stop the ones we don't want. I asked for the support of Ms. Reno that there will be an amendment passed about section 110. That was the next question.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: That question was raised time and time again at the meetings the Minister of International Trade had with business women. They saw section 110 as one of the greatest barriers to doing trade with the United States. So what is our government going to do about that? I was delighted to hear you were there with Ms. Reno. I was hoping this matter had been addressed and was intersted in how you were going to address it. From a business point of view and in terms of expanding markets into the United States, it is a hindrance.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think that is a very important question for Canadians. When we look at the numbers crossing the border, we can imagine the impact of that obligation to control entry and exit between the United States and us.

I even met with Mr. Lamar Smith, the chair of the immigration committee at the House of Representatives, to discuss whether it's possible to bring some softness to that legislation. They told me very frankly that they passed that legislation because they have problems with the southern border, but we got trapped in the same legislation. Senator Abraham has already tabled an amendment that I hope will completely exempt Canadians from that legislation. Mr. Smith introduced an amendment last weekend to delay that article in the American legislation and to say that if they get control of entry and exit one day, that control must not disrupt trade, tourism, and exchange between the countries.

We have a lot of support in the House of Representatives and in the upper house to try to change that legislation.

The Chairman: Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): I have three questions, but I will ask them one at a time.

First, does the minister have the authority, and if so, would she use it, to deny Indonesian President Suharto access into Canada for the APEC meetings due to the recent slaughter of students by his troops and the ongoing human rights violations on the East Timorese people?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Gerry?

Mr. Gerry Campbell: Thank you, Minister.

There is no indication that President Suharto is inadmissible under the Immigration Act and its regulations. I don't have the foreign affairs minister's response on this in the House the other day, but my recollection is that he has never been convicted in any court of any violation of human rights law that would be necessary to render him inadmissible under our own legislation.

• 1635

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, that's exactly what my colleague, Lloyd Axworthy, has said in the House.

Mr. Gordon Earle: My second question was to send around what is sometimes referred to as a head tax, but I think you already addressed that. Is that the landing fee, the same tax?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It's the landing fee.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Okay, so I won't ask that question; I'll substitute another one about documentation.

Concerns were raised with me by some individuals about the fact that refugees are quite often rigidly required to provide certain documentation that they find impossible to get. Quite often they're fleeing a country of persecution with perhaps just the clothes on their back, if that. Then they are faced with having to produce certain identification and documentation. For them to go back to their country to try to get that would present a danger for them.

Does the department have any intention to review or alter that policy?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, Mr. Chair, I'm aware of the problem, especially for the Somali community and the Afghan community. These people were recognized as refugees by our refugee board, so they have the status of refugees in our country.

Now, when these people want to apply to become landed immigrants, according to our regulation and legislation, they must have ID papers. It's quite impossible for these two communities to get the ID papers, because of the problem in their country of origin, so we've decided to have a special regulation for them. We have a special regulation, and I published that six months ago. There's a list of countries where persons are eligible for that. Right now there are only two, the Somali community and the Afghan community. They will be able to apply as landed immigrants after they will be in the country as refugees for five years, even if they don't have ID papers.

So perhaps your colleague from the Reform Party won't agree with that.

Mr. Gordon Earle: No, I guess that was the problem that was raised. The length of time they are in the country without the benefits of citizenship presents difficulty, particularly in family situations. So I guess my question goes more to that timeframe.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The timeframe, Mr. Chair, is five years, but we've shown flexibility for the children of these people. I think that we've answered... Perhaps you can look in the record of this committee. This committee has sent some recommendations on that issue, and I've responded about that officially to the committee. We'll be able to show some flexibility for the kids of these people, to permit family reunification.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

My third and last question involves same-sex immigration. Some countries—Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and others—have passed legislation supporting same-sex immigration policies. I understand that as of 1994 Canada has kind of a discretionary policy, where it's done on a humanitarian basis. Is there any plan to give a legal basis to that policy in the Immigration Act and regulations?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I would say that right now in the government there's some kind of action to look at the problem of personal relationships, not only for people of the same sex, but more than that. Sometimes we have somebody living with an adult, a kid living with an adult—this is not the parent of the kid—or with seniors. So in the government we're looking at a position on that.

In the meantime, for the immigration department, let me tell you that we've issued guidelines about same-sex couples. They could be recognized, or they could apply as an independent immigrant, or the immigration officer abroad could use his discretionary power and receive the person on compassionate grounds. I haven't received any complaints on specific or difficult cases that haven't been worked out with these guidelines right now.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thank you very much.

• 1640

Minister, I have a specific question and then a general one, specifically along the lines of the question that was asked earlier about Taipei.

I would refer you to Sofia, Bulgaria, where people who wish to come to Canada, either to immigrate or simply to get a visitor's visa, have to travel to Belgrade. In that part of the world it's extremely difficult to do so, very costly, and just not convenient, even in the slightest.

I wonder if someone could tell me what our procedure is, or if we're willing to look at something in Sofia, either in the form of perhaps having someone travel there, as happens in Taipei, or setting up some kind of an office to assist those people.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: Thank you, Minister.

I don't have precise figures on that. We do not have a visa office in Sofia, you're correct.

I can't tell you offhand whether we do area trips there or not. It would depend on the volume. But there are 150 countries in the world. We have visa posts in about 70, and we have tremendous pressures on us to open offices, not only in Taipei, where if we had the resources it would certainly be warranted, but in Jakarta, Shanghai, and Vietnam. The list goes on and on, and has exploded with the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia. We simply don't have the resources to keep adding visa posts in each of these locations.

We do, though, provide a pretty good level of visitor visa service in most of these places, with very fast turnaround times. Sometimes applications are forwarded to us by courier, sometimes people travel to offices in Vienna or Bucharest, and sometimes we have officers travel to those locations. But I doubt that we would do it in Sofia, for reasons of volume and cost.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It may be a chicken-or-egg situation. I would submit with respect that there are a lot of people from that city—and it's a large city in eastern Europe—who would like to come. In fact I know that they can't access any services. So maybe I could just ask that someone look at that.

My more general question has to do with the realities of government, I guess, in Canada at all levels today. It is all about devolution of powers and responsibilities. As responsibilities are passed on by provincial governments, for example, to municipalities, many municipalities that face a large influx of immigrants and refugees are finding that their costs are escalating quite dramatically.

The region of Peel, with which I'm most familiar, keeps on sending a bill in the neighbourhood of up to about $16 million, but whether or not that bill would be addressed is not something I'm asking you to do. I'm more concerned about the fact that as the future of provincial responsibilities is passed on, whether it's to the new megacity, whether it's to the regions, the changes that might occur there... I think the burden of the cost associated...

You mentioned earlier that while there is a benefit to immigration, with which I totally agree, there are short-term costs. And I have some concern that those short-term costs may indeed be passed on to the property tax. That is not a progressive tax base. Those municipalities do not have the ability and flexibility that the federal government, or indeed a provincial government, might have to deal with those particular costs.

I wonder if any of your officials might have a response to how we might respond to the municipalities that are expressing these concerns.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'm aware of the concern of the municipalities, and sometimes of the provinces.

Let me point out first, however, that I'm always surprised when we have to decide about the levels of immigration in this country. You know, according to our legislation, I'm obliged to consult with the provinces. So officially every year I consult with my counterparts in each province, and one of the provinces that never responds to that consultation request is Ontario, even this year.

After that, Peel, Toronto, and everybody will say they have a large burden here in their area. But when the time comes to decide the levels of immigration in this country, I never hear from these people. You can have an explanation, but I'm always surprised, because I think they must be involved in the levels and the services.

• 1645

I'm well aware, as you said, that when we receive these people we need settlement services. If we want them to integrate very quickly into the communities, they need settlement services. They will integrate, and it will have a positive impact on the city and the province.

That's why we put more money into the settlement services; it was to help these newcomers. We're negotiating with the provinces very closely to share that burden of settlement services, but I must say that it's harder with Ontario.

The Chairman: Diane St-Jacques, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): My question, Minister, is about the temporary worker pilot project, which is to be extended until next March. I would like to know how long it usually takes to process a case.

A Chinese company located in my riding last summer and asked that two workers come to install the equipment required to get the company going. This has been dragging on for a long time. We are told that the delay is due to the fact that there is some fear that these two individuals might not want to return to their home. That is creating some problems for the company.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I would need to know whether the request from this company was part of the pilot project we introduced for the software industry.

In the case of that industry, which was short of skilled workers, we tried with our colleagues in Industry and Human Resources Development to ensure that there were no Canadians available for these positions. We tried to reduce the number of skills to seven.

Not all workers in the software industry who are part of this pilot project need a job validation. There are seven specific jobs that were very clearly defined. If the industry needs a worker in this field, the matter can be settled in two weeks, I am told. If the job in question is not one of the seven that were identified, then a job validation is required.

When employers want to bring a foreign worker into their company in Canada, they have to go to the local Canada Human Resources Development Centre and prove that they looked, but they were unable to find a single Canadian who could do the job. If they prove that there is no one available on the market, you will be given what is called a job validation. Then we process the request immediately.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: How long does it take? This company has been waiting several months now.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'm very, very surprised to hear that. I think this would be worth investigating. I would encourage the honourable member for Shefford to get in touch with my political staff about this matter, and we will look into it.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any further questions? Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Madam Minister, for attending.

I think all of us represent in some measure or another ridings that have heavy concentrations of immigrants, and all of us are pretty seriously concerned about the protection of the integrity of the system.

I'd like to ask you a question with respect to citizenship. We seem to have got ourselves into a bit of a mess here. In the last Parliament there was put forth legislation that, for whatever reason, didn't go forward; it would have eliminated a position of citizenship judge. In my own riding there are in excess of 50 boxfuls of applications for citizenship. It seems to be a bit of an abuse of people, in terms of their desire to become Canadian citizens.

Are you prepared to bring forth legislation in this mandate to address that problem, to hive out, if you will, citizenship from other aspects of immigration and refugee determination, to deal with it on the basis that once people do in fact qualify to become citizens, they're dealt with expeditiously, and to see that the process and the ceremony of becoming a Canadian are a process and ceremony that do honour to our country?

• 1650

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, Mr. Chair. First let me tell you that two years ago, in 1995, the processing time for citizenship in the department was almost two years.

A voice: It was well over two years.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It was over two years. We haven't changed anything in the legislation, but we've changed something in the process. Now we have a delay of between 10 and 12 months. Perhaps we have some problems in some part of the country, but the average time will be 10 to 12 months. It's an improvement.

Having said that, you are right in saying that in the last Parliament we tabled a bill. This was part of the omnibus bill of the government. We were supposed to replace the citizenship judges. That bill didn't pass, so we were obliged last September to reappoint new judges. That's what we've done, so as not to penalize the people who want to become newcomers. In the Toronto area we have to reappoint others and will do so in the weeks to come.

I think the report of the advisory committee, which will be tabled one month from now, will address some questions about the Citizenship Act. I think in this mandate we will address the issue about citizenship in the legislation.

Mr. John McKay: My second question is actually in another area—and I am pleased to hear that the issue of citizenship will be addressed. I don't know why we'd welcome people into the country and then have them stand in a line-up forever; that makes no sense at all.

It has to do with Mr. Reynolds' initial question with respect to the inequitable distributions of funding among the provinces. It also feeds on Mr. Mahoney's question about the disproportionate sharing of burdens.

The statistics show, for instance, that Quebec takes in about 13% of the immigrants and refugees and gets somewhere in the order of about 35% of the settlement moneys, whereas the rest of the provinces are left to dip in the balance of the pool. Ontario has about 40% of the population and takes in about 52% of the immigrants and refugees. Toronto takes somewhere in the order of about one-third of all of Canada's immigrants and refugees.

I am repeatedly hit by members of the provincial legislature that this settlement money is completely inadequate. I'd be interested in your conversations, if any, with the Province of Ontario with respect to addressing that issue. The statistics simply show an inequity that is patently unfair. I'm sure it's similarly patently unfair with respect to British Columbia, which is probably our second province with the greatest number of immigrant recipients. I'd be interested if you could enlighten us on those conversations.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Let me tell you that there were a lot of complaints last year. Last November I had a lot of complaints from the different provinces about the money for settlement services; they compared what they were receiving with what Quebec is receiving.

The government's answer was to increase the settlement services budget. It was done in the last budget; we added $62.3 million. Of course most of the money was given to B.C. and Ontario. Since then the pressure I've received from the other provinces is less active. I think the provinces are happy with that first movement, that we've increased the budget, and that the gap is now reduced.

Especially in Ontario, I would say their policy for every file is fair share in this country. It is clear that Ontario is concerned about that, but the negotiations with them on settlement services are just starting. It took time. I'm always surprised by that, but this is the reality, as my deputy minister tells me. Perhaps she can add something to that.

• 1655

Ms. Janice Cochrane (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Without getting into a formal negotiation, of course, we have been talking with officials since the announcement was made about the increased levels of funding last year. The Government of Ontario has been preoccupied with its own restructuring issues, and to date has not given officials a mandate to begin negotiating with us. We do have a series of talks about to begin in November, however, and we hope those talks will lead to the conclusion of an agreement for the delivery of settlement services in the near future.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

That's the end of round one. I would like a clear indication from the people on both sides of the table here as to whether or not they intend to ask a second question. With the hands that are raised, I can determine more or less what the breakdown in the number of minutes we can give to each individual will be.

Yes, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am somewhat surprised. I don't want to take up the time we have with the Minister settling our internal business, but I have noticed that you are allocating time differently from what was agreed upon. I am rather surprised at the way you are proceeding. I would like to remind you that we agreed to begin with the Official Opposition, then to go to the other opposition parties, and then to the government's side. There was never any agreement that the government party could ask two questions in a row. I think you have been chairing with a great deal of good faith, but you have been taking some liberties that are not compatible with the rules we passed.

I would ask you to be careful and to ensure that the opposition parties... I'm sure we all agree that it is first and foremost the opposition parties who are supposed to be asking questions. This is the first time I have seen such a practice at a committee meeting.

[English]

The Chairman: You are using up very valuable time. I have not asked two members in the government to ask questions.

We will start round two. You have three minutes each, with four people on this side and three on that side. The first person on this side who gave me an indication was Mr. Ménard.

You have three minutes and that's it, Mr. Ménard. Cut down your preamble.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We will come back to this at the next steering committee meeting, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier, Minister, you gave the impression, perhaps inadvertently, regarding double fees... You are right to say that no one can deny that your government is responsible for the medical and security examination of applicants. However, I would like to remind the committee, if you agree, that the representations made by your counterpart, Mr. Boisclair, are mainly about administrative fees. If you wish, I'm prepared to table his press release.

You were told that there is an impression that there is something unfair about these double fees. There's a feeling that it is unfair for immigrants who choose to live in Quebec to have to pay $800 rather than $500, even though Quebec is responsible for most of the administrative work.

I will ask my four questions together to ensure that I get an answer, because our chairman is very particular on these matters.

Second, would you kindly table the directive regarding same-sex spouses?

Third, could one of your officials remind us of the process that is used in the case of war criminals? I would like to have a complete understanding of that. If that is impossible, at the end of my remarks, I will table a motion requesting that the officials appear before the committee again.

Finally, is it possible that highly placed members of regimes that are well known for their wide spread violations of human rights might not be allowed into Canada? At the moment, there are five countries affected by this provision—Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Afghanistan, Haiti and Iraq. I would like to know why the provision applies to these five countries only, and what criteria were used in choosing these five. Those are my four questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Madame, you only have one minute to give an answer.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'm not able to answer in one minute, but I will say that I think I already answered the first question.

[Translation]

Excuse me, but I've already answered the question on double fees, and I don't think I will repeat it. We can look at this matter in the context of the Canada-Quebec Agreement.

• 1700

There is no problem, sir, in getting you a copy of the directive on same-sex partners that was sent to our immigration officers. We will send that to you.

On the procedure for war criminals, I will ask Bill Sheppit to answer the question.

[English]

Mr. Bill Sheppit (Director General, Case Management, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): We learn about the presence of alleged war criminals from a variety of sources, including overseas contacts, Canadian security agencies, other governments, and self-identification by the people when they arrive in Canada, are making a refugee claim, and identify themselves as a member of a regime that's been overthrown.

There are a number of sources through which we learn about the possible presence of these people. We deal very closely with the international tribunals dealing with the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia. We also get information from the community. The information comes from a number of people.

When we identify the person or have enough information to confirm they are in fact a war criminal, if they're in the refugee process we seek to intervene before a determination is made that they have refugee status. That blocks them from obtaining refugee status. Then we try to remove them. They obviously have recourse to the Canadian courts and the Canadian justice system to try to prevent that.

The Chairman: Ms. Augustine.

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

I was recently in the Vancouver airport and noticed that some people were walking by without going through the usual procedure. I'm told there is a special pilot project whereby individuals can go through. It's called Transit Without Visa. Could you tell us something about that, please?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think I was there with our colleague to announce that. It's a pilot project. As I said, the number of people crossing the border is increasing so much year after year that we try to facilitate the crossing.

One of the projects we have is for people who are travelling in transit to the United States. They already have an official visa to go to the United States. Because they were coming from different countries from which we require a visa, these people, even if they were in transit for 24 hours or so in the Vancouver airport, were obliged to have a Canadian visa.

We had a very long discussion with the industry about it. We have an official agreement with different companies, and it applies to four different countries in the world—Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand.

If these people are only in transit in Canada and have an official visa to go to the United States, they are not obliged to have a Canadian visa. We are trying it for one year. We're following it very closely. If it works well, we could apply it across the board.

The Chairman: Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask you about that famous consulate we have in Los Angeles run by a former prime minister. I know we had the problem with the triad gang leader. You have a report on that and some recommendations were made.

I understand now also that there has been a misappropriation of approximately $50,000 or more in that office. There's an investigation going on. Can the minister advise us of exactly what is happening and whether that amount of money is accurate?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'll ask my deputy minister to answer that.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We occasionally do have allegations of malfeasance occurring at our posts abroad. Whenever we do, I would like to assure you that we treat these very seriously. We undertake investigations to determine whether or not the allegations are founded. Then we take action accordingly.

• 1705

The investigation in the Los Angeles office concerned allegations of fraud on the part of an employee there who was processing an application for a visa. We did an investigation. We received a number of recommendations from a very distinguished former foreign service officer, who conducted this on our behalf. He presented us with a number of recommendations, and we acted very swiftly to develop a plan to implement the recommendations he made. Those that we can we will implement within the next six months, and others that will require further study we will look at in the longer term.

Mr. John Reynolds: Is there an investigation going on for a missing $50,000?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: There's an investigation right now. These people were local employees. These people are not working any more for us, but I think the investigation is not finished with the American police.

Gerry, could you add something?

Mr. Gerry Campbell: Yes, that's correct, Minister. There has been an investigation. At a certain point, when there is hard evidence, we bring in the RCMP. Because it's a foreign jurisdiction, they then have to deal with the foreign police authorities; in this case, the LAPD. We can't go beyond that, Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: But there is an investigation. You can't tell us how much money is involved?

Mr. Gerry Campbell: I don't see why not. I believe it was $50,000.

Mr. John Reynolds: I have one final question, Mr. Chairman. I've still got a minute.

With respect to the immigration investment program, I heard on the news the other day that the numbers have dropped from about 19,000 to 3,000 in the last year. Is that anywhere near accurate? Where is that program at right now? Do we have any agreements ready to sign with the provinces? I understand they've been trying to get some signed but none are signed yet.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I will ask somebody to look at the numbers. I'm surprised to hear the numbers you're stating, so I will ask the people to check them. In the meantime I will answer the other part of your question.

It was very hard to find a consensus among the provinces. Let me say at the beginning that none of the provinces asked me to abolish that program. Everyone wanted to have a new program, but the points of view differed because the economy is different from one province to another.

They're trying to work together to find a program flexible enough to recognize the differences between the provinces. They have put on the table what we call the allocation model, but they are still negotiating it. That's why the final decision has not yet been made.

Do you have the numbers?

Mr. George Tsaï (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): We don't have these numbers, but I'm surprised by the numbers that were given by the member, so we'll double check.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, I assure the member that we'll check it and inform him.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: My question, Madam Minister, again goes to the issue of the integrity of the system. One of the things that really irritates members of the public is undocumented people making refugee claims or people who apparently get on an airplane documented and exit from an airplane undocumented.

At noon today we heard that Air Canada paid in excess of $400,000 in fines on that issue alone. I'm wondering whether there is in fact any discussion with various carriers about how people enter airplanes and the documentation they might be carrying, whether there's been any discussion on the integrity of that process. Are the airlines required to have the documents in custody, or could a scanning process be put in place?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I will ask Brian Grant to answer that.

Mr. Brian Grant (Acting Director General for Enforcement, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Chairman, the problem that's raised is an extremely difficult problem. It's a problem that not only Canada faces, but also all countries in the world face. It's extremely difficult to get at it.

A couple of years ago we introduced a new approach with airlines that resulted in greater co-operation between airlines and immigration. In fact, we set a standard that's now being followed by other countries for developing MOUs with airlines. We continue to work with them on the problem of documents. Basically, you can squeeze the problem down. A couple of years ago we discovered that most of the checks for documents were being done at the check-in counter, so the document probably didn't get on the airplane at all. It was passed off in the lounge. So we moved the checks to the plane itself, to where people are getting on. In that way we know the document gets on the airplane.

• 1710

We've also trained the airlines and worked very closely with them to find fraudulent documents. The result is that the quality of the forgeries is getting better. When the quality of the forgeries gets better it means the document is worth more money and is less likely to be destroyed. They'll be recycled because they're very good forgeries. So we have them on the plane and the quality of the document is good, so now you have to put a courier on the plane to get the document to recycle it.

The next thing we're looking at with the airlines is whether there is a way we can pouch those documents so that people cannot pass them off to the courier on the plane. Or is there a way we can capture, possibly through an advanced passenger information system or through some form of reproduction, the documents people use to get on the airplane so they don't get off? A scan of some sort...

At the other end they may get off the plane with a document, but that document doesn't make it to the primary inspection line. So we're trying to increase the number of cases where our officers will do disembarkation checks. We'll go onto the plane when it arrives and ask people to show us their document on the plane. It's important that you capture people at that point, because a famous ruse is for people to hand off the document en route. The courier will be sitting in business class, so they're the first people off the plane and the first through the inspection line. By the time the person arrives without the document and says they don't have a document, the person with the document is long gone. They're through and they're around.

So you squeeze them onto the plane, which is what we're trying to do. Then you look at ways of discouraging people from destroying their documents—if you don't have a document, some consequence will result. This gets extremely difficult. The Americans are trying it with expedited removals, where somebody who arrives without a document is treated faster, but this gets into a much larger question.

Basically, those are the steps we've taken. We've had great cooperation from the airlines. They're trying very hard to help us deal with this problem.

The Chairman: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're glad to hear that. That sounds like a step in the right direction and I commend you for that. That move is positive.

Minister, earlier you mentioned wanting to stop the immigrants we don't want from coming in. What steps or plans—obviously this would be one—do you or does the department have in mind to actually put this into operation in the management of the system?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The most important thing is to prevent these people from coming to Canada. That means trying to stop them before they come, because we know the problem once they are on our territory. As I said, part of our strategy is to work overseas in the different airports. I have visited some of them myself, and I can tell you that it's quite effective. We also work with other countries, especially with the U.K. I think we have a formal agreement with the U.K. right now. I'm not only speaking about airports in the U.K., but about airports in other countries too. Some airports are

[Translation]

hubs. How do you say that in English?

[English]

We know where the traffic is when people come to Canada. This is an important part of our strategy. It's very costly but we maintain it because it's effective. It would be better if we worked in cooperation with other countries that do exactly the same as we do. They will act on behalf of Canada, and we will act on behalf of the other countries. By doing that we can have a better network around the world.

• 1715

The second part of the strategy will be to use better technology. We have a system, a list and a data bank, but I think we can improve the system. They are looking at that right now in the department. We've heard they have a very good system in Miami. I hope our people will go there to see their system.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think the committee should go.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: If it exists somewhere, why not? At the same time, because of our border with the United States we can share the information we both have in the system. This is the way we work.

The Chairman: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have two quick questions.

At lunch we heard from Air Canada—and this may be more for Canada Customs and Immigration, but perhaps you could address it—that when people coming from third countries come into Canada on their way to the United States, they have to get off the plane, go through Canadian Customs and then go through an American Customs process to get back on the plane. While we're asking the Americans to be cooperative with us on the issue of visas for Canadians crossing their border, maybe it would facilitate business travel between country whatever, Canada and the United States.

Second, what is your ministry doing to control the activities of immigration consultants vis-à-vis any registration code of ethics? Is there anything you might be doing or looking at in this regard, particularly in light of the B.C. Supreme Court decision granting an injunction against a consultant?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Brian, could you take the first question? I'll take the second one.

Mr. Brian Grant: Regarding the first question, just to build on what the minister said earlier, we have had discussions leading up to the pilot project that was announced in Vancouver, the transit without visa project. Air Canada was involved in that discussion.

Basically we looked at situations where the United States is doing pre-clearance in Canada, which it put in place in Vancouver, and people will be passing through sterile lounges. The Vancouver International Airport lends itself to that because the new terminal has been designed with a specific sterile lounge. Then we would exempt people from going through Canada Customs or Canada Immigration. It doesn't make sense if they have no intention of coming into Canada.

We're looking at that in terms of a pilot project to see what sorts of risks there are. We anticipate there will be some leakage from those flights just because smugglers will try to exploit that, so we'll have to look at it closely.

The second thing we've told Air Canada, which is of course much more interested in moving that operation to Toronto or Montreal, where it has more flights, is that we will look at it based on the results of that pilot, but only when the facilities in Toronto and Montreal are up to a certain standard to allow people to move through them.

The Chairman: The last question will be from—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I didn't get an answer to my second question.

The Chairman: Oh, I'm sorry.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It was about the consultants. I think your committee did some work on a report on consultants two years ago, and we've answered that officially. There's still no final decision about that.

This is a very complex issue, as you know, because a consultant can act on behalf of a client and is not regulated by any professional association or anything. So if the client is not satisfied, where can he complain to? You understand the problem here.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: To his MP.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Usually the accreditation of these consultants is a provincial responsibility, so we have to discuss that with the provinces.

Another complex issue is the fact that some consultants act abroad and not in Canada. So if they are not in our territory it's very hard to regulate them.

There was a case in the B.C. court of lawyers against consultants. The Attorney General of Canada decided to intervene in that case and it will go to appeal. But on our side, let me tell you it is our intention to find a way to regulate consultants in this country.

• 1720

The Chairman: Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you.

I was listening to your speech and to the fine gentlemen and the lady giving all these nice initiatives that are coming through. I hear that you have a committee that is looking at the Immigration Act as well. But as a new member who has only been elected for the last six months, I have a different view. I have a different picture of what's happened in the last six months. I feel like I have become a clearing house for your department for all the mistakes and things that are happening that are not consistent. My files keep piling up and I feel I'm wasting my time working for you; I think I should be working for the constituents.

This committee you have formed that is reviewing the Immigration Act, I haven't heard it contacting us to find out if we have any input or not, since we are out there in the front. There is a problem here between what is happening out in the field and what you're telling us here.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, I will tell my new colleague and my new member of Parliament that when he works on immigration cases in his riding office, he works for his constituents, and if he doesn't want to work for them that's his decision. When he came to me two weeks ago to ask for a ministerial permit, it was on behalf of one of his constituents. He is not working for me, he's working for his constituents. We are elected to work for our constituents. So I don't understand the declaration of the member. This is my first clarification.

Second, the group I appointed is an independent, expert group that is looking at the legislation. It is clear that after the group tables the recommendations and the government looks at the report, the committee will be involved. It will be to decide about our immigration policy for the 21st century. I think we will be obliged to change the legislation, so the parliamentary committee would be involved in all the details of that new legislation.

The Chairman: Thank you.

That brings an end to our information-gathering session with the minister. We are pleased that you came with your support staff.

Members of the committee, please stay for a minute, because I think we have one item of business to cover.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: After consultation, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that I read the motion and that you take a vote on it at the next meeting, so that all committee members can have a copy of it and so that the clerk can get it translated and distributed.

So, I hereby give notice of this motion, which I shall now read. It states: That the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration invite the departmental officials from the war crimes section to appear before the end of the session.

So we would have a special meeting on the procedure followed in the case of war crimes. I do not feel it necessary to mention a date, but it would be good if we could hear them before Christmas, or at least before the end of the session. Is that all right?

[English]

The Chairman: It's seconded by Mr. Reynolds.

There's no problem. We'll deal with it. It's really a notice of motion.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That was a very good commercial, by the way, that the member put forward.

The Chairman: All right. Since there's no further business, the meeting is adjourned.