CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 29, 1998

• 1530

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)): I'm calling the meeting to order, Wednesday, April 29, 1998. The order of the day is the main estimates for the fiscal year 1998-99, votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 under Citizenship and Immigration.

We are very fortunate today to have a very distinguished team with us. I will introduce the members of the department first: Janice Cochrane, deputy minister; Marc Lafrenière, associate deputy minister; Greg Fyffe, assistant deputy minister, policy and program development; Georges Tsaï, assistant deputy minister, corporate services; and Gerry Campbell, assistant deputy minister, operations.

And we are very fortunate to have with us the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

After the presentations, we will follow an open-forum discussion format. In other words, a theme is proposed by the opposition and then anyone else can follow through on the very same area of concern. I'll watch, but make sure the clerk gets your signals so we can put you on the list when you intend to ask a question.

Welcome, madam. I understand that you will have a presentation to make first. The floor is yours.

[Translation]

The Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee members, it is a pleasure for me to appear before you today. I always appreciate having an opportunity to meet with committee members to discuss the situation in my department.

As you know, we were all very busy in 1997-98, and I would like to thank you for the support and advice you gave to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration over the past 12 months. This is the type of co-operation that enables us to fulfill our mission.

I know that you already had an opportunity to look at the Report on Plans and Priorities, which gives quite a comprehensive overview of what we can expect over the year ahead. Since our time today is relatively brief, I will not go over things you already know. Rather, I would like to add some missing information. The Report on Plans and Priorities is relatively brief, and we had to make some choices regarding its contents. I will therefore take this opportunity to add some of the missing pieces.

[English]

As you are aware, the government recently changed the structure of the estimates. We were looking for something different from the traditional numbers and charts, something that made sense to the public and to parliamentarians. We wanted a straightforward document that set out where we expect to go. In short, we wanted a document that would show Canadians what kind of value they were getting for their tax dollars.

I think that the Canadian public would be satisfied with the citizenship and immigration report this year. The story it tells is a good one, I think. We have accomplished a great deal and have positioned ourselves well for the years to come. We strove to improve our programs and to deliver better client service. We have developed innovative new partnerships and we have built on the successes of the past.

Any discussion of the citizenship and immigration department's plans and current activities must obviously start with the legislative review. This has, after all, taken up a considerable amount of my department's time and energy and it will continue to impact on all areas of the department for the next year.

• 1535

The legislative review was designed to find ways to streamline and modernize our legislation. Times change and our tools should too. I asked the legislative review advisory group to look at the Immigration Act and to make recommendations on how to improve it. Over the past 20 years it has been amended several times and now lacks a certain consistency, clarity and coherence.

I didn't ask them to try to set policy for us. I wanted them to produce a report that could act as a catalyst for focused discussion. They certainly succeeded in that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: As you can imagine, theirs was an incredibly complex and time-consuming task. We certainly appreciate all that they have done. I'm sure that at times it has seemed like a thankless task. They have opened themselves to considerable criticism. But the work they have done has allowed us to embark on a frank and open discussion with Canadians. Their willingness to offer their ideas up for examination has made progress possible. As you know, their report made 172 recommendations, some of them sweeping. We are examining these recommendations right now.

We recently held cross-Canada consultations. We managed to get to seven cities and met with 115 groups. Moreover, we are carefully reading the 2,000 written submissions received by fax, mail and Internet.

Clearly, I think I can say that people care passionately about immigration in this country. They should. After all, we are talking about people's lives and about the future of our communities and our country.

I should point out, right off the top, that no decisions have yet been taken concerning what changes we expect to implement. It is still too soon. There are still many issues that need to be thoroughly examined. I can tell you that we are looking at some very diverse suggestions and questioning many of the fundamental principles underlying our system right now.

Clearly, I have no intention of speculating on certain issues right now, but having engaged the legislative review process, it doesn't mean that everything has stood still. That obviously isn't the case. There has been an incredible amount of activity on all fronts in 1997-98 and there will be more in the days, months and years to come.

[Translation]

As you know, the mandate of Citizenship and Immigration Canada may be broken down into four main areas. We try to maximize the socio-economic benefits of international immigration, we help new- comers integrate into Canadian society, we co-operate with our partners to manage access to Canada and, finally, we provide protection for refugees and other individuals who require our help. It might be advisable to deal with each of these areas individually, but, as I said before, I do not want to repeat what you already know from the Report on Plans and Priorities, and we don't have enough time to take an in-depth look at the situation. Let me just deal with a few important topics.

Clearly, international movements of people offer tremendous potential for Canada. The task of Citizenship and Immigration Canada is to make the best possible use of this potential. One way of doing that is to choose immigrants who can make a social and economic contribution to our country. We choose people with skills and abilities that can help promote the growth of our country. We also choose people who have the will, enthusiasm and energy required to come here to make their dreams reality.

I am pleased to announce today that we have reached the immigration levels established for 1997: we have a total of 215,899 immigrants and refugees. These levels are objectives we set each year that take into account Canada's ability to absorb them and to generate the social and economic benefits related to their arrival.

• 1540

However, in addition to choosing immigrants, we promote trade, commerce and travel. In the global environment in which we live, our country's prosperity depends on our ability to promote the free movement of not only goods, but also people. We need think only of tourism, one of the pillars of our economy. We would also like to have foreign students come and study in our educational institutions, and we are looking at how we can improve both our relationships with the educational institutions and our procedures abroad. We would also like professionals to see Canada as a good place to do business and invest.

Last year, we processed over 700,000 visa applications for visitors, students and workers. Our goal is to offer fast, competitive processing within time periods similar to, if not better than, those of other countries. I can confirm that despite our reduced resources, we are achieving these goals.

I'm particularly proud of our successes as regards visas for foreign students: 70% of the applications are processed in a month or less. Our acceptance rate is 85% for student visa applications. I think these figures illustrate the efforts being made by our employees in Canada and abroad.

Obviously, our resources are limited. Since the workload is steadily increasing, our employees are under a great deal of pressure. However, I think the figures I mentioned show that we have learned to channel our energy effectively. We make the best possible use of our limited resources thanks to our restructured network of services abroad. We adapt the distribution of our resources and personnel as required.

Thus, despite significant budget cuts, we have managed to meet the challenges resulting from our increased workload and the potential available throughout Asia, by increasing in the capacity of our office in Beijing. We are also considering adding another satellite office in the region to offer services to visitors.

In addition, three million dollars will be earmarked for improving our services in Taiwan. This will include staffing additional positions and renovating the office. This will enable us to improve the processing of visitor applications and to increase compliance with the program as a whole.

[English]

I would now like to turn to an extremely important part of our program, our integration services. As you know, once immigrants arrive in Canada, they must often face a series of adjustments and challenges. They must adapt to a new country, with a new culture, and often a new language. But we must not forget that integration is a two-way process; the host community also plays an important role.

That is why Citizenship and Immigration Canada is so involved in developing and delivering settlement services. The quicker people integrate, the quicker they become full and productive members of society, and ultimately this is our goal, to welcome and encourage our newcomers to participate fully in our communities and to eventually become Canadian citizens.

Over the last year, Citizenship and Immigration Canada has continued to advance the negotiations regarding the transfer of settlement services to provinces. In March 1997, the federal government announced an increase of $63.3 million annually to fund immigrant settlement programs, for a total of $315,100,000 for 1998-99.

As you are aware, we want settlement services to be funded federally but administered in the communities where immigrants settle. This seems to be a very logical approach. After all, the communities know where the money can be put to best use. Direct delivery is not a simple matter. It requires close cooperation with the provinces and with community groups. We want to develop a flexible system, but we also want to make sure the funds are administered responsibly.

• 1545

Our government will maintain a role in integration services. We are working to develop new partnership arrangements with the provinces. Progress has been made on several fronts, but we will need more time and the provinces will determine the pace.

I have spoken about finding ways to facilitate the movement and the integration of people. That is an important part of what we do, but as you know, it is only part of what we do, and at Citizenship and Immigration Canada we also have a clear responsibility to protect the safety, security and well-being of Canadians. There are criminals and other undesirables who would very much like to come to a prosperous country like Canada.

There are criminal organizations around the world that would like to set up shop here. We have a duty to make sure that they don't come to Canada, and if they do, we have an obligation to remove them and to maintain order and fairness in our program.

We work with a variety of international law enforcement partners and with other governments to accomplish this. We share information and expertise on different topics such as organized crime groups and people-smuggling rings. Of course, no matter how effective a system is, it will never be perfect. That is why we are committed to removing people who don't belong in this country, individuals who have either entered Canada under false pretences or who pose a threat to the population, or in the case of failed refugee claimants, those who have been determined not to be in need of Canada's protection.

The removal of persons from Canada is a highly sensitive, complex and sometimes emotional issue. It often involves legal challenges and complicated international negotiations. I know that this is well known to the committee, as you have been studying this issue at length.

As you know, problems in effecting removals arise primarily from two causes: uncooperative clients and/or uncooperative countries.

Uncooperative clients include those who dispose of their documents prior to arrival, those who refuse to sign applications for replacement documents, and those who do not turn up when convoked for removal.

Uncooperative countries fall into two categories: those who refuse to accept their nationals back and those whose bureaucracy amounts to an impediment. These are problems that are not easy to surmount, but I can assure you that this is a high-priority issue for my department. I can tell you today that in the last year we have made considerable progress. I think the numbers demonstrate that.

In 1997, 7,968 individuals were removed from Canada. This is an increase of 36.5% compared to 1996. Furthermore, the 4,800 failed refugee claimants who were removed represent an increase of 95% compared to the ones removed in 1996.

I'm aware that people have a tendency to equate removals with criminals. This is generally speaking not the case. We do, however, place a special emphasis on finding and removing criminals. We will not tolerate the presence of people who threaten or prey upon the Canadian public. And as you know, in 1995 we implemented Bill C-44 to speed the removal of dangerous offenders. We also created a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week immigration warrant response centre to provide support to immigration officers and our partners in the law enforcement community. These initiatives have proved very successful, with more than 3,250 removals of criminals in the last two years, and they helped to lay the groundwork for some of our recent successes. We want to build on these successes, and I hope your committee will bring forward very good recommendations to improve the system that we have.

• 1550

Recently, we have also negotiated bilateral removal arrangements with a number of countries to facilitate removals, and we are currently negotiating with several others. We are pursuing other initiatives as well, such as developing a national database for seized passports. There are other initiatives on the table. We are developing a national case management system. This system will allow us to better coordinate case information and share data with our various partners. We expect to release the new system in the major enforcement centres in June 1999.

Another important aspect of our work involves, as you know, offering protection to refugees. I'm proud that Canada is continuing to uphold this tradition of responding to the plight of those in need. We are fortunate in this country and I believe we have a moral responsibility to share some of that good fortune with others. I'm happy to say that we achieved our overseas resettlement targets for 1997. In fact, we managed to exceed Canada's 1997 commitment to accept 7,300 people, government-assisted refugees from abroad, by over 250 persons.

The inland refugee determination process received the most attention in both the Auditor General's report and the legislative review report. Both documents suggested that the system needed to undergo some serious revisions. We are taking these recommendations very seriously and looking at various options right now. I know this makes some people in the country nervous. Let me assure you that we will not take any action that runs counter to Canada's humanitarian traditions. Canada has an obligation to help people in need of our protection. We cannot close our eyes and look away when confronted by death and misery. This is something we have heard from Canadians across the country, and the message from the consultations was clear. These are some things we should never compromise on, but at the same time we need a system that is not only fair but efficient.

[Translation]

Ladies and gentlemen, our policies and programs are multi- faceted. This makes them more complex, but they all share a common objective: To ensure a better future for Canada. That was the objective of immigration at the beginning of Confederation and it is still the objective today under the Liberal government.

Before answering your questions, I would like, Mr. Chairman, to thank the employees of Citizenship and Immigration Canada for all their work in the past 12 months.

As I said before, we have been very busy in the department and many employees have done much more than what was required of them. I thank them for their commitment and for their outstanding dedication to the mission of Citizenship and Immigration. These are the qualities that will help us move steadily forward, because the year ahead will see a number of changes.

We have made a commitment to take all necessary steps to ensure that our immigration and refugee determination systems are ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Immigration has been, is and will continue to be essential to the social, economic and cultural development of this country. I know we can continue to work together to see that Canada enjoys the full benefits of its immigration program.

• 1555

Thank you for your attention. I would be pleased to try to answer your questions with the assistance of my colleagues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

We will have an open forum, as I indicated. Some of you may have six or seven or eight or nine questions that were prepared. Well, pick two or three at a time and there will a sufficient amount of time that we can come back to you maybe two or three different times during this open forum. There is sufficient time to handle all your questions.

We will start with the opposition. Mr. Reynolds, please.

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

I would like to talk a little bit about the direct delivery system that you talked about. In the settlement dollars, Quebec is receiving $90 million a year, yet received about 13% of all the immigrants in 1997. That was down from 1991, when they were receiving approximately 22.4%, and it went as low as 12.2% in one of the years. It was 13% last year, and yet they're still receiving the $90 million.

British Columbia has gone from 13.9% in 1991 to in excess of 22% now, and yet they're receiving $47 million. I'm wondering if you're prepared to offer British Columbia the same program, the same deal you've offered Quebec as far as immigration goes.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, first of all, let me tell you that, as I said in my speech, last year we increased the budget of settlement services. For B.C. it will mean, if I remember well, $22.4 million more.

Mr. John Reynolds: Up to $47 million.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes. B.C. had already, I think, $22 million or $23 million and we will add $22 million, so the money they are receiving is almost doubling.

But you compare that to Quebec, and I'm aware of that. As you know, with the special Canada-Québec Accord that was signed under the Conservative government...and I think that at a certain point, Mr. Chair, the member was a member of that government at the time.

Mr. John Reynolds: I was never a member of that government.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Of the Conservative government?

Mr. John Reynolds: No.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: At that time, the Conservative government signed an agreement with Quebec. This is a binding contract. There's an amount of money put in the agreement despite the number of immigrants they will receive. This is not a ceiling or a floor. This is a number given to the Province of Quebec, and this is a binding contract, so there's no possibility of changing that.

Having said that, what we try to do is not make a fight between Quebec and other provinces, because as you know, the vast majority of our newcomers go to three provinces in this country, or to three cities, I could say: Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. What we've tried to do is to increase the settlement services for the other provinces. At the same time, it means reducing the gap with the money given to the Province of Quebec.

Let me tell you that I've received indication of a lot of satisfaction from my colleagues in different provinces when we increased that budget, and especially from the B.C. government, which was very happy with that kind of project.

Perhaps I will take the opportunity, Mr. Chair, to tell you that right now we are negotiating very intensively with the B.C. government to sign an official agreement for settlement services. So that's the way we've tried to solve some of the problems.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, I never was a member of that government, just so that's on the record. I was actually a member of the British Columbia government, the cabinet, at the time you signed the agreement with the Conservative government here.

• 1600

I met with the Premier of British Columbia last Friday, and I know you're negotiating, but I'm sure you must agree that even with an increase of $20-odd million during the last election, British Columbia is receiving twice as....

I don't want to get in a fight with Quebec. In fact, I'm very happy for Quebec. They negotiated a good deal, and they have a program that's working for them, but there's no reason why in British Columbia we should be sitting there taking twice as many immigrants as the province of Quebec when we receive half as much money.

I mean, that's about what it works out to, right to the dollar: twice as many people, half as much money. Why is the government not prepared to offer British Columbia the same program that's being offered to another province in Canada?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Let me be clear here. The Liberal government will never sign an agreement with the provinces without taking into account the number of immigrants the provinces receive.

The former government did so with the Quebec government. We won't do that. We will look at the settlement services, comparing the number of immigrants the provinces receive. That's why we're aware that many immigrants go to B.C. That's why we've increased their budget, from the $23 million they had, to $45 million.

Let me point out again that right now B.C. is satisfied with the settlement money we give them. That's why they are negotiating with us.

The Chairman: A point of clarification here regarding that question and your response.

You're negotiating right now with British Columbia, and you indicated that the numbers involved, the number of immigrants and so forth, would be taken into consideration during those negotiations. Is that an accurate interpretation?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: What I said was that last year, when we had a budget increase in settlement services—we had around $65 million more last year—we decided to distribute that money to the provinces according to the number of immigrants they receive. I think that will be the case in the future as well.

That's why B.C. receives so much money; they receive a lot of immigrants. From the new money of last year, it's clear that B.C. received $22 million more and Ontario received $35 million more. I think this is normal, because the majority of immigrants reside in these two provinces.

Mr. John Reynolds: My point is that British Columbia still receives half as much money as Quebec, and yet it's receiving twice as many immigrants.

If that's your position, Minister, that's fine, but you're not prepared to negotiate, with British Columbia, the same program that Quebec has.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, you know that Quebec is responsible not only for integration of immigrants but also for selection of immigrants.

Mr. John Reynolds: That's not the question I asked, though: the same program.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Okay. Being responsible for the selection of immigrants means the province has offices overseas to select people. They are responsible for integrating the people into society when they arrive in the country.

None of the other provinces have asked to receive the responsibility for selection. I'm open to any discussions about that.

Mr. John Reynolds: If British Columbia asked for the same program Quebec has, would you agree that they could have that same program?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: B.C. doesn't ask for selection responsibility, but what I'm saying is that I'm open to any kind of demand from the provinces. Why? Because immigration is a shared jurisdiction.

The Chairman: That's a very clear declaration. Thank you, Madame Robillard.

Mr. John Reynolds: But not with the same amount of money.

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): As I'm sure the officials had anticipated, I am going to be talking about the Ramon Mercedes case. However, I would like us to work together to try to reconstruct what happened.

On a number of occasions, probably quite rightly, you mentioned Canada's humanitarian traditions. You said you were proud of them and that you wanted to continue to pursue them in the department's work. However, I find it difficult to reconcile that with what happened in the Ramon Mercedes case.

First of all, I want to know whether all the necessary steps were taken to provide him with medical assistance as soon as the officers were aboard the cargo ship Echipper. That is the ship on which Ramon Mercedes had travelled as a stowaway. Can you assure me that that was done? That is my first question.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I will not be able to answer all the detailed questions of the honourable member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve about a specific case.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That is your job. This case was reported in the media.

• 1605

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: My job is to ensure... I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I should be given time to respond.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Go ahead, answer. Let her answer the question. That is what she is here for. You do your job, and I will do mine. Let her answer the question.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, this country has legislation that protects people's personal information, your information or mine. This legislation also applies to immigration cases. I do not intend to get into the details of the gentleman's file today. I cannot reveal the details of that particular file,...

Mr. Réal Ménard: Which people know about...

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: ... But I can assure the committee members that I myself examined all the circumstances surrounding the difficult situation that this person went through. As I said when I answered the question in the House, I looked at everything that happened in this case, myself, from the very beginning to the end, starting at the time when the boat arrived in Port Alfred until the end, when the person was returned to his country of origin.

When I look at everything that was done and the entire process that was followed...

Mr. Réal Ménard: You aren't answering my question.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: And I'm not going to answer it.

Mr. Réal Ménard: So! You can't have it both ways...

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: I will never answer questions about someone's personal information.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You aren't going to give us a speech about the generalities of life. I asked the Minister a question. Ms. Robillard, this is a public matter. You can't hide behind the Privacy Act. This matter is out in the public domain.

I would like to know how such a situation could have happened. That's what I'm asking you. So, there's no point in telling me the story of your life, or telling me about your feelings, or explaining a particular philosophy to me. Answer my question.

[English]

The Chairman: Please, that's enough already.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, let her answer the question.

[English]

The Chairman: Just a minute.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—Laprairie, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: You're out of order. Let the minister answer the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Well then, she should answer!

[English]

The Chairman: She was polite enough to listen to you. Now would you be polite enough to listen to the minister's response? All right?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, if she answers my question.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to break the Privacy Act. I will never reveal the details of a particular case.

Mr. Réal Ménard: What about when he lost his feet?

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I said that I myself reviewed all the circumstances surrounding this event. I said that the procedures that the immigration officers followed were entirely in keeping with the regulations and the Act.

Mr. Réal Ménard: What does that mean?

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: However, I also added that the immigration officers could have shown more compassion towards the person, Mr. Chairman, and I asked my colleagues to show more compassion in the future, if such unusual circumstances were to repeat themselves.

That being said, I would like to reiterate that all obligations were met in this case.

Mr. Réal Ménard: What were these obligations?

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no, I'm not finished.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Now we'll let Mr. Ménard calm down.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: She didn't answer my question. It's not over.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard...

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, you calm down, because she didn't answer my question. I would like her to explain what obligations she is talking about.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: She should specify what these obligations were.

[English]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: She should answer the questions.

[English]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Can I make a point of order, please?

[Translation]

Yesterday, I witnessed some extremely unpleasant scenes of members not respecting our ways of doing things here in Parliament. I have no intention of watching a different version of the same lack of respect today. An agenda has been set, each party has a certain amount of time, and parliamentarians should keep to a certain tone when they speak to each other. Mr. Ménard, I'm asking you to act like everyone else and to respect that tone.

Mr. Réal Ménard: She should answer the questions, because that's what being a member of Parliament is all about.

Mr. Jacques Saada: What about showing respect for other members, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Réal Ménard: The Liberals are looking out for one another...

[English]

The Chairman: Order! That's enough. That's enough, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: There is no official order. No, there is no order...

[English]

The Chairman: If you're not satisfied—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible] If we don't answer questions...

[English]

The Chairman: We will now go to Madame Folco, please.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Ms. Robillard, I...

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's a mockery. It's contempt for members of Parliament.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, don't you give me Mr. Ménard. Someone lost both feet and...

[English]

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): You have to have respect for the committee, now. We're working in a committee.

[Translation]

An hon. member: Mr. Ménard, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, don't give me Mr. Ménard. If she doesn't want to answer questions, she should leave.

[English]

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd love to hear all these arguments, but I'm not getting any translation of what's going on here.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Norman Doyle: Would somebody tell me what's happening here?

Mr. Réal Ménard: I can speak in English.

Mr. Norman Doyle: There's no translation. I want to hear these arguments.

• 1610

Mr. Réal Ménard: She didn't respond to my question.

[Translation]

It's a mockery.

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Folco, you have the floor.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Ménard, please, I have the floor.

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, this is a mockery. I'm sorry, but this is very important.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Are you going to keep this up for 45 minutes?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, and you know I'm capable of it.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: You could get yourself throwning out of this room, Mr. Ménard, and you know that quite well.

Mr. Réal Ménard: As if you could.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'm not chairing the meeting. The chairman is. So...

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is a mockery. We want to hear some answers.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Ms. Robillard, I'm pleased to welcome you here this afternoon, along with your officials, and I'm very pleased to hear you say that your department will continue in the great Canadian tradition of welcoming immigrants and refugees.

I have three fairly specific questions for you. The first has to do with the 1993 citizenship regulations. Part III of the 1998-99 Estimates says that the regulations governing the processing of citizenship applications may need to be changed to support the continued reduction of costs and increased efficiency. Could you tell us what changes you think are necessary?

My second question is somewhat more international in scope. We know that you are having discussions with Ms. Janet Reno, the American Secretary of Justice, so as to develop a strategy for managing our common border, since there currently are some disputes between the two countries. Could you tell the committee members how these discussions are coming along right now?

The third question is of great interest to me, and I think that the members of this committee will be interested as well. It has to do with the Not Just Numbers Report and the timetable for overhauling the Immigration Act. Could you tell the members of the committee how much time it might take to overhaul the Act or acts and what stages you would have to go through? Thank you.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to answer the three questions. I'll answer them in reverse order, though.

The last question was about the timetable for overhauling the Act. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, we received more than 2,000 briefs from individual Canadians and groups about this review of the Immigration Act. At least 600 of them, if I exclude one or two- page letters from citizens, really contained some very well-thought-out opinions. So you can just imagine how much analysis the department has to do.

We are reviewing these briefs, drawing conclusions from the public consultations and trying to identify the major themes. I'm sure you'll understand that the amount of time required might vary enormously, depending on the scope of the changes that are needed to the Immigration Act. Let's just say that things are coming along. I still hope that I will be able to table a new act at the end of this year or early next year. That was the last question.

The second, Mr. Chairman, was on the vision of the common border with the United States. I think the member has every reason for raising that issue. Our common border with our U.S. neighbours is very long indeed. I do not think any other two countries in the world have a border that long. Last autumn, I visited Washington and met with Attorney General Janet Reno. We agreed to work together on a common vision of that long border, and on seeing how U.S. and Canadian immigration services could work together.

After the visit, task forces got down to work and I must say are doing very well. One of them focusses on interception outside the country. You know that we have immigration officers in airports all over the world—we have them in 27 airports, I believe. The United States would like to set up a similar system. We are working with them to see how we could set up a system whereby people would be intercepted outside the country, before arriving in either Canada or the United States.

• 1615

A second task force is focussing on information exchange, trying to see how we could improve the information exchange system by comparing the technology used in Canada and in the U.S. They are also looking into reciprocal training.

The third task force really focusses on visitor visas. We know that our policies may differ from those of the United States. We are therefore trying to see whether the visa policies of our two countries could somehow be harmonized.

The three task forces are on the job right now, and are operating very well. I look forward to their findings.

Your last question was on the citizenship regulations indicated in the Report on Plans and Priorities. These are very technical regulations, which apply to practices. You are aware that we had to change some procedures owing to limited human resources; for example, citizenship applications are now submitted by mail. We have to adjust the regulations to our actual practices. This is not an attempt to amend the Citizenship Act or its fundamental direction, but rather to bring the technical aspects of regulations in line with departmental practice. Thank you.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I have one more question on a detail in the Minister's remark. Concerning your first answer, Minister, are you considering drafting the bill in stages? Would you be producing a working document? What stages do you think will precede the final bill?

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I think this will depend on the scope of amendments required to the Immigration Act. Allow me to explain what is involved, so that I can give you a concrete example.

If I decided to implement the 172 recommendations in this report—which I shall not, but if I did—the bill would be radically amended. If I were to amend our immigration and citizenship legislation so radically, it would perhaps be appropriate to come back with a working document and engage in further consultation.

But otherwise, if the amendments consist in some changes designed to improve the current system, we might move directly to introducing a bill. I cannot say more at this time, since not everything has been settled yet.

[English]

The Chairman: Very good.

Mr. Obhrai.

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

Thank you for coming, Madam Minister. I have two questions, so I'll go quickly.

You mentioned in your report that our intelligence agencies share information with other intelligence agencies. From what we have been reading, we have become highly concerned as well as disturbed to hear that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has on several occasions intervened with Immigration to help informants get status in Canada.

Ian Macewan, CSIS's top counter-intelligence officer for seven years, stated that on four occasions CSIS helped informants get status in Canada. You have people who are suing the government and CSIS as well for not fulfilling this promise. It is quite a big concern to us that CSIS was using the Department of Immigration as well as bullying people.

So can the minister explain to this committee the amount of influence CSIS has with regard to the processing of immigration and refugee claims? Can she assure this committee that CSIS plays no role in expediting and fast-tracking the files of those who serve as informants and spies, and that CSIS does not blackball immigration and refugee applicants when the individuals refuse to be informants and spies?

Has the department investigated these claims? If so, what are the findings? If not, when will this be investigated? We want to know who's running the Department of Immigration, you or CSIS.

• 1620

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, let me clarify first that CSIS is under the responsibility of my colleague the Solicitor General, and not under my responsibility.

But having said that, we all know the immigration department works very closely with CSIS for the security check of our people. When we tell you we have a security background, this is made by CSIS. So we work very closely with CSIS on that, to know about the background of the newcomers we want to receive in the country.

But having said that, to our knowledge, in our department, as to the allegation made by different individuals, we're not aware of any type of these kinds of interviews or deals that could be made by CSIS.

I think the director of CSIS says that this is in the guidelines to make a difference between when they make security checks for newcomers and when they do their job of security. It's two different things. There's no connection between the two. I think the Solicitor General himself said publicly also that he had the assurance of CSIS that this is not the case.

That's all I can say about it.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: But my question, Madam Minister, is very simple. It's your department; you are responsible for immigration.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Is your department involved in fast-tracking refugees that CSIS recommends or holds security checks on? Yes or no, because you just told me that you are not aware of it.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Has the department done an investigation?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I don't know if Brian has something to add—I have my enforcement director with me—but I would say no.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I would like an answer, categorically, yes or no.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I would say no.

Do you have something to add, Brian?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: We want a yes or no.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The answer is no.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: The answer, then, is your department is not aware of this.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You categorically deny it.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: This is my enforcement director, Brian Grant.

Mr. Brian Grant (A/Director General, Enforcement Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): I would just add that no, there is no special deal that CSIS does to accelerate cases.

What we are working on right now is how we can initiate security checks earlier in the process so we can find out that somebody might be a security threat to Canada. But that's a completely different matter from what you're asking.

I'm not aware of any acceleration of cases or any co-opting of refugee claimants by the security service.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: So you're also categorically denying than CSIS has approached your department for fast-tracking anybody who is supposedly working for them?

Mr. Brian Grant: I am not aware of any approach by CSIS on this, and the director of CSIS spoke to this yesterday before another committee.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: We have, of course, a lot of allegations coming out of this. So with somebody, somewhere, there's a problem. Somebody is lying or something is happening, so I'm asking categorically for an answer here.

If you're not aware, are you going to do an investigation? If you're aware, say yes or no. That's the bottom line.

A witness: We'd be happy to investigate.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: It's my intent to ask—

The Chairman: Yes, okay.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Can I ask a second question?

The Chairman: Okay, go ahead, quickly.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: We are also disturbed with the refugee boards, where we have noticed, time after time, the appointment of Liberal riding presidents and defeated Liberal candidates. In your platform, when do you think this is going to be abolished?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The board?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: No, the people, the patronage appointments that keep going onto the refugee board.

Ms. Raymonde Folco:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Great, thank you.

The Chairman: Order.

Ms. Augustine.

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

Madam Minister, I have three small questions. They're more for clarification than anything.

On page 11, you have some terminology that I'd ask you to speak a bit about. You talk about immigration plans for the future being designed to be consistent with Canada's “absorptive capacity”. Those are two words I have not come across before, and I would ask for some definition. What is our absorptive capacity?

• 1625

Also, could you expand a bit on “to consider the economic and social benefits that arise from the entry of highly skilled, qualified immigrants and visitors”.

At the top of page 11, under “Immigrant Selection—Economic Stream”, again in Citizenship and Immigration, you speak about: “support the entry of people who are adaptable to the Canadian labour market”, and again, that kind of terminology. I wonder if you can speak to the terminology there.

On page 16, one of the expected results is the “Improvement on the current service standard of 12 months for citizenship processing”. I'm asking what the new standard should be. Is there some suggested new standard, and is there a timetable for reaching that goal?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Let's start with the first one, the absorption capacity. I think when we decide to fix targets every year, the levels of immigrants that we want in our country...we always said, and we are seeing, that we have to take into account the absorption capacity. What is absorption capacity?

Ms. Jean Augustine: That's what I'm asking you.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: How do you measure that? What is it, exactly? Those are very good questions for our research of excellence, because it has to be linked also with the definition of integration and when do you consider this a success or not a success? I can tell you how we define it right now in the department, waiting for the results of all the research made in our country, with the five centres of excellence that we have.

Absorption capacity refers, of course, to the fact that the family will come here and that one or two parents will work. So will they be able to enter into the labour market? At the same time, we know the vast majority of our immigrants go to three cities: Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. Absorption capacity, when we speak about the urban challenges, will be what kind of pressure does it make when you have new people coming to a city? What kind of pressure does it put on the social institutions of this city, on the infrastructure of this city, the housing, the schools, the health services?

That is the absorption capacity: the labour market, that these people will be able to enter the labour market, but at the same time, that they will live in a community where they will get services like all other Canadians do.

That's why, when we fix the level—we have the objective of bringing it to 1% of the population—we're saying let's also look at the absorption capacity of our communities to receive these people. Integration is not only one-way. People always think that newcomers should adapt, but integration goes both ways. We Canadians also have to put some effort in to adapt to new people, and we need a trade-off here. It's not easy to manage; it's not easy to measure. But I think that's why every year we're very cautious with the levels of immigration.

Secondly, as to the question you asked about adapting to the labour market, especially for the economic immigrants, this is clear. Right now, as you know, our system is based not only on a point system but on a list of occupations, based on labour market studies done by HRDC. We have a general occupation list, and as you know, in some professions or jobs in Canada, we will refuse people because we will say we have enough Canadians to do these jobs.

• 1630

This is the way we select immigrants right now. It's a point system plus a list of occupations. So when we say we're looking to attract economic immigrants, we mean that we want economic immigrants who will be able to enter the labour market. That's the way I see it.

The last question was about citizenship and the delay we have in processing the demands in Sydney right now. Two years ago it took two years to get your citizenship. Right now, the reality is that it takes 8 to 10 months to get your citizenship in Sydney, and we hope we will be able to improve that.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Do you have a timetable for this?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The reality right now is between 8 and 10 months to give citizenship to somebody, but we would like to reduce that. You've seen that we've made a lot of improvements, but I don't think we have a timetable for reducing the time.

Do we, Janice?

Ms. Janice Cochrane (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): We don't have a specific timetable, but we have stabilized our systems in Sydney. We changed from an old technology to a more modern technology and we had the inevitable problems of start-up with the new system. Our service standard is now 12 months. We're down to between 8 and 10 months and we're hoping to have it down firmly to 8 months by the end of the year.

The Chairman: Mr. Doyle, please.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Continuing with the point that was made a moment ago, everything I've heard about the immigration department indicates that immigrants are generally net contributors to the Canadian economy. This is what we're told, anyway. So why do you set the level where you set it? Why do you set it at 1% if they are net contributors to our economy? Is it the policy of the department? Do you want more immigrants? Are they indeed net contributors? Why do you set the level at 1%? How do you arrive at that figure? I know it depends on the economy of the country and the unemployment rate and what have you, but if they are net contributors, why would we not want more immigrants here?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, we are not at 1% right now. We're at .07%. As I said, last year we received around 215,000 immigrants, so we're at .07% of our population.

The way we fix the levels of immigration is a very complex question, and it's a very complex job to do, because there's no magic way to do it and no mathematical tool to do it with. Each year we first of all consult all the provinces in this country, because, as you know, there's also an impact on the services in each province. Also, they're aware of the economy and the labour market in their provinces, so we consult all of them. And we consult the NGO community. We also look at what happened in the past, throughout our history, to our immigrants, at how they integrated.

And you're right in saying there's a net benefit. All the studies show that in the long-term view there's a net benefit to the country.

But having said that, as I explained, at the same time we have to take into account that it's not only a question of levels in our country. It's also a question of distribution. Some provinces would like to have more and more immigrants; I'm thinking about Manitoba and Saskatchewan or even the Atlantic provinces. The problem is, when we discuss that, we have to be aware that the majority of the immigrants will go to three cities—Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. If they were going to Manitoba or Saskatchewan or to New Brunswick, I would say that tomorrow we could double the number of immigrants to this country.

• 1635

Mr. Norman Doyle: So you have a different funding arrangement for Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver than you would have, say, for Manitoba or New Brunswick or Nova Scotia?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We have what?

Mr. Norman Doyle: Would you have a different funding arrangement? There is a partnership with the provinces on immigration and funding, so Vancouver would get a different amount of funding—

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: B.C. will receive more than Manitoba or Saskatchewan, of course, but—

Mr. Norman Doyle: So it's based solely on—

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: On the number of immigrants. But having said that, Manitoba and even Saskatchewan—I've signed a new agreement with Saskatchewan a few weeks ago—want to be more involved with us and to try to attract more immigrants to their provinces, and I'm very happy to see the involvement of these provinces. So that's why we signed a new agreement with Saskatchewan a few weeks ago. And we signed one last year with Manitoba.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Could I ask you about the consultation process that you had across the country? Not everyone had a chance, apparently, to make submissions to you when you went through the country. Is a more extensive public hearing process in order before you embark upon any changes, given the fact that there's been such a tremendous response to the whole thing? Do you have any plans for a more extensive public process across the country before you make any changes to immigration laws?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Not on the report, because I think that at the beginning people were very surprised to see the minister herself consulting, and the report is not a report from the government. So the people got very anxious about that, because they said if the minister herself consults it means that perhaps she agrees with all these recommendations, so they wanted to come to the consultations and they wrote a lot. But after this I explained, I think very clearly, that this is not a report from the government and from the minister, and I'm not bound by any of these 172 recommendations.

At the time of the public consultation, let me tell you that we received around 300 submissions, and I proceeded to see 115 groups. So a third of the groups that asked to be heard in the public consultation were heard. And we chose also national organizations that would represent many in each province. But as I said, a lot of people wrote on the report. They didn't ask to be heard, but they wrote on the report. So I think the next public hearings will be on the position of the government through legislation. And I can imagine that your committee will be involved in it.

The Chairman: Louise Hardy, please.

Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): I'd like to thank you for coming, and the report that you gave sounds really positive. But it also sounds as if there's nothing wrong and everything is working really well. Yet as a committee we've heard of this tangled ball of injustice and humanitarian acts that don't live up to our commitment to the United Nations around refugees. So as a committee we're working on recommendation 155. Yet this report doesn't belong to you, and our work is connected with other parts of this report.

So I want to know if you will be bound by our work, because it is connected to this work. Does that mean that this can go out and our work along with it? Quite frankly, I think everyone around the table was quite shocked at allegations we heard, and we'd like to know how deep they go.

On the area of CSIS, my concern was that people were being put through security checks over and over by CSIS, by Immigration, being kept waiting five and ten years to get landed status and being told if they gave information they would be given their status sooner. That's a group of people who are making those allegations, and I don't think that as Canadian citizens anybody wants to be a part of this.

So I would like to know when we can expect something from you, and will it meet our commitments to the United Nations for refugees, something that is really concrete and something about which people, not just the committee but citizens of this country, can say this is where our minister is taking us, and if we agree or not agree, we can focus it on our minister.

• 1640

I don't know if you realize it, but the Yukon doesn't have an immigration officer full time. They're only there through the nice weather, and then they're gone.

The Chairman: There for fishing season.

Ms. Louise Hardy: The second language in the Yukon is German. There's a really large immigrant population in the Yukon, and they have nowhere to turn. They're forced always to go to their MP, because we have a department that has no appeals and no oversight body. There isn't a process they can go through. If there's anything they need, they immediately have to go to their MP. There's no officer.

That was one of the other concerns people brought up. It's an extremely powerful department and has a justice system that seems to be unto itself. There's no way into it. There's no way to get explanations.

Can we make our immigration policies consistent with a Canadian justice system that we can all be proud of?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, let me point out that when we look at our immigration and citizenship programs in this country, and the results we've had over the years, I think we should be proud.

Having said that, I don't want to deny the fact that we have problems in the system. Not everything is perfect. These are very complex issues, as you know, because you've started to work on some issues here at the committee.

So these are very complex issues. As I say all the time, the problems we face in immigration are never black or white. They're sometimes not easy to resolve.

But when we look at what Canada has done in the world—you spoke about the traditions of Canada, and the position of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—let me tell you, we are considered by UNHCR to be world leaders in the treatment of refugees. Canada is already considered that in the world. That's why we received a special medal from UNHCR many years ago.

But we have to balance, all the time, our humanitarian approach with the integrity of the system and the protection of Canadians. It's not easy to decide where to do the trade-off, but let me assure you that on the humanitarian side, the credibility of Canada around the world is very high, and we want to maintain that.

With regard to service in the Yukon, I will ask my deputy minister to say some words.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Thank you.

As you may know, we closed many of our local offices as part of our program review and downsizing. The regions that are not served by local offices now are accessed through call centres. We have three call centres that serve the entire country. One in British Columbia serves B.C. and Yukon.

We have achieved a success rate of over 90% in terms of accessibility. Over 90% of the calls that came in to the call centre, as of just after Christmas, were answered to the satisfaction of clients during the spot checks and so forth that we performed.

That is the way in which clients who normally would have dealt with immigration officers face to face in local offices are now able to obtain the kind of information and advice they need.

Ms. Louise Hardy: Thank you.

The Chairman: Okay. We'll jump now to Mr. McKay, and then we'll come back to Mr. McNally.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Minister, for your appearance. I admire your ability to draw a crowd. Usually we're fairly low in the group here. I'm just hoping there's some work being done back at the department today.

I wanted to make reference to a problem you raised in response to a question of mine the last time you appeared, and that is your relationship to the Ontario funding. At that point you alluded to difficulty in making a deal with Ontario.

As you know, in both Ontario and Toronto, and in my riding in particular, the way in which the money goes from Ottawa to Queen's Park to the municipality to the ground leaves very little to actually make it to the ground. So I'm curious as to whether there has been any change in either the quantity or the pattern of the funding under the settlement arrangements.

• 1645

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: When we increased the budget of settlement services, there was of course a large part of that budget that went for the settlement services in Ontario, but settlement services in Ontario are under the responsibility of the federal government right now.

We have an orientation to work more closely with the provinces, and feel that the provinces should administer settlement services according to some standards and according also to some accountability to the federal government. That's why we work with some provinces to try to have an official agreement on that. I must say that the negotiations with B.C. are going very well, and I'm hoping to be able to conclude these negotiations in the near future, but this is not the case with Ontario. We are just like at the beginning.

Mr. John McKay: Are we at the same stage we were the last time I asked you the question, which was the last time you appeared before this committee?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think not, because there have been meetings between the officials. But the last one was in November 1997 and it's now April and we haven't had another meeting with Ontario. So it's not going very fast with Ontario.

Mr. John McKay: Is there any thought of dealing directly with municipalities?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: That is very difficult for the Canadian government to do, because as you know, municipalities are constitutionally under the responsibility of the province, and it is not my intention to go over the provinces.

Mr. John McKay: My second question is with respect to your budget, etc. On page 6 you set out your budget, and it's basically $650 million, give or take a few million. It's basically flatlined, flatlined both for 1998-99, 1999-2000, the year 2000-01. There's very little change in the actual settlement moneys.

You've indicated on page 11 that your targets for immigration and refugees are about 200,000 to 225,000. So in some respects it's business as usual in terms of both the budget and in terms of your numbers.

In the summary of the Auditor General's report, he says, in paragraph 25.3:

We note, however, that Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board have serious difficulties dealing with claims quickly and efficiently. We are particularly concerned by the size of the backlog, the lengthy processing times and the difficulty of carrying out removals. We have made recommendations aimed at approving results at various stages in the process.

If there is no change in budget, or if there is no change in numbers, how can this committee have confidence that things will change with the department?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, I think you are asking the question of the department, but at the same time you are speaking about the board. Let's be clear here that the board has its own budget and that the chair of the board manages her budget according to her priorities, and that the backlog of the board is not the backlog of the department.

Mr. John McKay: No, but I'm looking at the program spending.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: But you also have a document like that for the board.

Mr. John McKay: I'm talking about Citizenship and Immigration—the big budget. I'm not talking about the board as such. I'm not limiting my comments to the board; it's the department.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You're reading from the board's document.

Mr. John McKay: No; I'm reading the one for Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: What I want to say is that there is two documents.

Mr. John McKay: Yes, I know.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: One is Citizenship and Immigration Canada the other one is the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Mr. John McKay: I'm ignoring the Immigration and Refugee Board one. I'm referring to the Citizenship and Immigration.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Okay. So your question is?

Mr. John McKay: Page 6. I'm sorry if I misled you, but I thought it was fairly clear.

• 1650

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: And so?

Mr. John McKay: So the question really is.... Your budget is flatlined at about $650 million. Your numbers are coming in at exactly the same figure as last year, and the Auditor General expresses rather a categorical skepticism about the department's ability to move claims quickly and efficiently. This is not limited to just refugee issues. This is the overall issue.

The question I have for you, then, is this: what confidence can you give the committee that things will change, that processing times will be down? You're limited in the money coming in and you have the same numbers of people coming in. So what's changed?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think you're right in saying that we have some problems with backlogs and with inefficiencies in the department. But I don't think the solution to that is to increase the budget: the solution is to revise our processing in the department. I think this is the way we try to solve some administrative problems in the department. I could ask the deputy minister to be more specific about that.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Mr. Chair, when the Auditor General spoke about the problems with refugee processing, for example, he indicated his view that the problems are systemic, that they're inherent in the system and the way the system is designed. In his view, they can't be cured simply by putting more money into the current system. This is one of the reasons why the minister, with the department's support, launched the legislative review process two years ago; it was to try to find ways of dealing with late 20th century problems that are more efficient than using a 20-year-old system that is obviously creating backlogs and inefficiencies.

The Chairman: Mr. McNally.

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

Just to follow up on what my colleagues Mr. McKay and Ms. Hardy have said, I too have some concerns about some of the things that are happening under your administration in your department. We heard some really disturbing testimony last week from individuals who came before this committee talking about things happening at the Celebrity Inn, with guards beating individuals and what not. It's really been very disturbing. And of course this is directly under your administration.

We've heard about individuals who are frustrated, who seem to be telling us that the Privacy Act sometimes seems to them like a screen to hide behind. We've been hearing about individuals writing letters directly to your office and then getting responses from the citizenship and immigration department; those are two separate entities yet they're getting responses from the department rather than the office. That's what they're telling us.

I have two questions. First, to build on what Mr. McKay said about the backlog of individuals who are waiting to determine their future here in our country, we're hearing about months and years of waiting and you just finished saying that you didn't think the answer was to increase the budget but to go back on process. Are there some specifics that you have in mind in order to make this more effective, first of all so that individuals get a response from you in regard to their future here—those who are asking for it—and secondly, so individuals who are asking that their cases be dealt with in a quicker manner can get on with their lives and not be in limbo?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, let me clarify something here, because I'm aware in part, I must say, of what you've heard here in the committee. I want to clarify something about the backlog and the time it sometimes takes for us to solve one problem.

Yes, in some areas of the department we have a backlog. We said that two years ago it took two years to get citizenship and now it takes 10 months or 12 months. We have a certain backlog over there. But we have backlogs like that everywhere in the system. I think the backlog at the IRB was also pointed out very clearly by the Auditor General. This is one question.

• 1655

The other question that some people ask and that I think the member asked, because you had some cases in front of you.... Let me tell you something. When you see a case in front of you where it takes five, six, seven, or eight years to decide about the case, just consider that this is an exceptional case and there's a very serious reason for why it's not solved. It could be for different reasons, but it's not because we need more budget and more people to do the job. It's because we have serious questions about that person, about the background of that person, about what she has done, and we want to be sure before accepting a newcomer as a Canadian that all the checks are done.

Even when we do this job very seriously, we know we have some cases of some Canadians we found in the country, after years, who passed through the system. So when you see examples where it takes 10 years and the situation is not solved, just think it's because the situation is very complex and serious.

Mr. Grant McNally: I have one last question, Mr. Chair.

You mentioned in your speech, Minister, protecting Canada and stopping individuals from coming to Canada who wouldn't gain entry here. We had some witnesses come before us from the RCMP who talked about interdiction programs that they actually, it's my understanding, initiated. They consulted the department and said this was something they thought would be a positive.

You mentioned people smugglers and whatnot in your speech. Here's a specific program that some individuals have tried, in cooperation with your department, and it looks like a very successful program that's able to screen out individuals through those people smugglers who are bringing people into the country illegally.

I don't see anywhere indicated in the estimates here any money allocated to those kinds of programs at the front end of the system that are going to alleviate a lot of the different things we're talking about here. The RCMP have mentioned this as a positive route to go, working in cooperation with other countries. I'm wondering if any specific dollars are going to be set aside for this, or if there are some proposals or some specifics that can be implemented, because this is a really positive move and one that could be in place.

Do you have any plans to expand that as a part of your department?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: When you look at the budget of the department and think about these kinds of activities, you can see this is part of the enforcement branch budget. That direction was very privileged in the program review. They were cut very little compared to other sections of the department. So it's part of the enforcement budget.

Brian could be more specific about that program with the RCMP.

Mr. Brian Grant: Just to clarify, I believe your question comes from a report that appeared in one of the Vancouver newspapers.

Mr. Grant McNally: No.

Mr. Brian Grant: There was a report in a Vancouver newspaper about a new initiative.

Just to go back, we introduced the notion of officers working together overseas over 10 years ago now. We talk about our immigration control officers who are posted abroad. The RCMP also have what they call liaison officers posted—

Mr. Grant McNally: Yes, I'm aware of that.

Mr. Brian Grant: They have worked together in the past.

What we have right now that is very encouraging is much more cooperation. The minister mentioned earlier the greater cooperation with the United States on overseas interdiction, which is very important, because the United States has close to 120 officers, including officers who are law enforcement officers.

This draws in our RCMP officers. We also draw in U.K. officers. We were meeting last week with Germany, Italy, and Japan to—

Mr. Grant McNally: If I could interrupt you for a second, this sounds like a very good program, and you're obviously the one who's probably advocating for some resources to continue it—

Mr. Brian Grant: But the answer is that the way you do it is not necessarily.... In the past everyone tried to do it on their own.

• 1700

Mr. Grant McNally: Right. Working in cooperation—

Mr. Brian Grant: The important thing is to combine and share your resources.

Mr. Grant McNally: I agree, and I think that's a good route to go. The dollars put into something like that, even though they might seem like a big line item on the budget, are going to save...well, even more resources available.... It's started very short, like a two-week program. I'm thinking why not expand that?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think that's the way to do it, Mr. Chair. I think that we were one of the first countries to have control officers in different airports of the world, and many countries followed us and now we work in cooperation with them in different airports. So it means that we will be present in many more airports around the world, and I think the cooperation is especially good with the enforcement officers of the U.K.

So I think that's the way to go internationally, because these movements are international. The trafficking of immigrants, and the poor people who are abused in that system, right now is developing around the world, and we must be very cautious about it. That's why we need to maintain these links internationally to follow this movement and to be sure Canada doesn't become a safe haven for these people.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Sophia Leung.

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

Madam Minister, thank you for your presentation. I found a lot of helpful information.

I'm pleased to hear that you will increase services in Beijing and Taiwan. My first question is, are you going to use the $3 million to open an office in Taiwan?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'm sure, Mr. Chair, that the member knows the question was for my assistant deputy minister of operations. She has often discussed Taiwan and what's going on over there with him. So I leave the answer to my assistant deputy minister, Gerry Campbell.

The Chairman: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Gerry Campbell (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): You're correct, Mr. Chair, we have found amongst our scarce resources $3 million to use over the next two years essentially to double the size of our office in Taiwan. We already have an office in Taiwan. It deals with visitor visas. The numbers have gone up exponentially each year and they've reached 142,000 a year.

As a result, we have heard when this has been raised with us on a number of occasions...we are going to dramatically expand the office. In the first stage we will continue to deal with visitor visas. We will continue to maintain a high level of service, but we're hopeful that as a second stage we will be able to move to a full processing office—not immediately, though. We're still very stretched for resources.

Also, as mentioned, Mr. Chair, we're increasing the size of our visa operation in Beijing, which has been tripled in size over the past six years, from 1992 to 1998. We've gone from 21 staff to 63 staff over the past six years. In addition, we have plans to open a visa office in Shanghai to deal with visitor visa applications.

It isn't easy to do this. These three posts are among the few around the world that had any increase in staff at all. So I hope that answers your question.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

My second question is, in China are you going to be more open for the high school applicants? I have heard you literally refuse the high school students but you are also very controlled on the college students' applications. Is there any reason behind that?

Mr. Gerry Campbell: Yes, there is. I wish I could be as positive.

There is a reason. According to studies, to information that's actually come from the Chinese government, 96% of students who leave the People's Republic of China don't go back. So yes, your information is correct. The refusal rate is high. It is particularly high amongst primary school students. Many are coming to primary schools in Canada, some to secondary school. They of course leave the system in which they're being trained to learn Chinese characters, and when they come to Canada the intent of many of the students is not to go back, unfortunately. Of course the student program, the student movement is not intended to be a surrogate immigrant movement. If they want to immigrate, they have to follow the rules and immigrate through the normal procedures.

We still deal with every case on a case-by-case basis. There's no policy that says all students will be refused or most will be refused, but the acceptance rate is far higher among post-secondary students. I'm sure that over time we will become more liberal in the acceptance of visas, but right now we have a problem with students who don't go back. Although the refusal rate is high, China remains one of our major source countries of asylum claimants.

• 1705

Ms. Sophia Leung: It's a big market for Canada.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the minister made mention of negotiating with B.C., and I'd like to know what is the status for the federal government's arrangement with Manitoba and Saskatchewan. You did touch on it a little bit.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, we've signed last year with Manitoba and we signed this year with Saskatchewan, and the two agreements are different. I could imagine that the one with B.C. will be different, too. It depends on the will of the provinces to get involved in the different steps that we have to follow to try to get newcomers to this country. So it could be for the selection process, and it could be also for the integration.

I will give you an example. We have a category in our policy. We call it provincial nominees. It means that to answer to certain needs of a province, economically, the province could decide to bring some people in even if they don't meet the general selection criteria. We call that provincial nominees. We had an example of that with Manitoba, and now with Saskatchewan. In the official agreement, we put that we would like to try a pilot project with Saskatchewan for 150 people. So it means the province, to answer to some economic needs, could get involved in the selection of these people and we would accept them.

So I think that's the kind of flexibility we want to have with provinces when they want to get involved in immigration with us, and we're really pleased with this.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Minister, in answer to my colleague's question, you said you were concerned by current events in Taiwan.

I am concerned with something far more basic. There are 262,000 people in my riding, which covers a large area of Quebec. On April 1, you decided to close the Chicoutimi office and transfer its services to Quebec City, which is outside the region. Is this the only office you have closed down, or have other parts of Quebec and Canada with just as many people seen their offices disappear? On what criteria was your decision based?

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely valid question. Human resources downsizing measures have affected our offices in all parts of Canada, and in some cases it meant we had to close down offices.

In Chicoutimi, our services are currently sharing space with Revenue Canada. At the time, Immigration Canada staff in Chicoutimi was down to one full-time individual. When we assessed that individual's workload, we observed that he was occupied only 20 to 30 per cent of the time, which resulted in a productivity problem. I am not questioning his productivity as such, since he was there to meet existing needs, and existing needs are in fact low in a region like Chicoutimi. We therefore decided to transfer responsibility for the entire region to our Quebec City office. An employee from Quebec City travels to the Chicoutimi region for five or six days each month, to provide services. It's a productivity issue. In the current context of budgetary restraint, we could not keep a full-time employee who was occupied for only 20 or 30 per cent of his time. We had to restructure service delivery in that area.

• 1710

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I am not very satisfied with that answer, Minister. Your actions appear to have been based on productivity figures. I know your Chicoutimi employee very well. You are aware that the port of Grande-Anse is also part of the region. The situation my colleague was deploring a few moments ago also occurred in our region. What would have happened if there had been no one on the spot? From now on, whenever an illegal immigrant arrives by ship, we will have to call in someone from Quebec City. That makes no sense, Minister. Our region receives a large number of immigrant students.

I question the validity of your decisions. I have spoken to the official who provided services in Chicoutimi and his version of events is quite different from yours. He was often out in the field, and provided what we call personalized assistance. He was always on the move to provide assistance. In any case, I am eager to see whether your decision was indeed wise, and whether you will genuinely succeed in meeting the needs of our region.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, once again I would point out that this decision was based on the volume of work in the Chicoutimi region. To my mind, having a full-time employee who's occupied only 20 to 30 per cent of the time fully justifies reorganizing the service delivery structure.

If needs increase in the future, I am quite sure that our Quebec City branch will review the feasibility of assigning a full- time employee to Chicoutimi. But once again, given the budget constraints affecting the whole region, I think we had no choice but to make that decision.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My two questions are somewhat related.

My first question is on the pilot project on workers in the field of technology. Is that project still ongoing? Has it succeeded in achieving the objectives for which it was established?

My second question, which is related to the first, is this: when you held hearings in Montreal, a group recommended that you use Canadian immigration services abroad—that is, individuals, positions and offices outside the country—to actively promote the recruitment of immigrants, particularly in high technology. I remember that we drew a parallel with the activities of such companies as IBM and Microsoft, who sent people where the talent is, where the training is taking place, to find potential recruits. It was suggested that we use our offices abroad in a similar way to actively promote measures that will attract highly qualified immigrants to Canada, particularly in the field of high technology.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer both those questions. My colleague can provide details if necessary.

We need temporary foreign workers in high technology. A subcommittee of this committee had studied the problem to identify ways of facilitating their entry into Canada and to accelerate the process. On completion of your study, a pilot project was established. The project is still ongoing, and is working very well. It has been so successful that we decided to extend it until December 3, 1998. It will have to be assessed, of course. We must always be careful with pilot projects to attract foreign workers to Canada temporarily because the process raises some concerns among Canadians. They wonder whether we couldn't find qualified people here in Canada. In the case of this pilot project, the answer is no. Human Resources Development Canada has worked on it very painstakingly. The pilot project targets very specific positions.

• 1715

Your second question was on the subject of attracting more qualified workers to Canada permanently or temporarily. When it comes to attracting them permanently, our embassies across the world obviously have an important role to play. A few years ago, for example, most immigrants from India were brought in under the Family Reunification Program. Our employees in India have took very active and proactive measures, travelling to different parts of the country to try and attract more qualified workers to Canada. I think they have been successful, as the statistics on qualified workers from India demonstrate.

I don't know whether that answers your questions.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, it does.

[English]

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Gerry, do you want to add something to that?

[Translation]

My assistant deputy minister is currently taking French courses. I'm sure that he will want to show off his skills to my colleague.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm all ears, Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: I do apologize, but I think it will be easier if I speak English.

[English]

We've had mixed success, to be honest, with proven projects, including that one, because even in the high-technology sector there are areas that are in very high demand, as the high-tech sector reminds me constantly.

There are other areas that are not, and that's why we worked on the pilot project with the software council. They represent both the employers and the employees, and the seven, eight, or nine sectors they chose were sectors where both the employers and the employees agreed there was a demand that needed to be filled.

Our officers abroad know a certain amount about this, but they are by no means expert in the high-technology area. It's very important to make sure they encourage people to apply who have the right qualifications to fill the labour market gap in Canada.

I think there is a great deal that can be done in this area. We are working with some of the provinces. New Brunswick, for instance, came to us with a request for our assistance in encouraging high-tech workers to go to that province. Effectively, we made their information available at our embassies abroad and used the computer coding of the occupational categories to alert people in those particular fields to the opportunities available in New Brunswick.

So we're very open to ideas on this, but it's probably better for us to do this in concert with the provinces than with the private sector, because there's a potential conflict of interest. If we begin to work with individual groups in terms of promoting entry to Canada, we will draw in immigration consultants and others who have a vested interest in getting their clients a visa. So that's an area we have to be cautious about.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Jacques Saada: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I was certainly not in a position to even think of suggesting a formula for combining things with the private sector. My concern—and you have answered this, as have you, Madam Minister—is more in line, for instance, with a comment that was made to me twice within 48 hours in May 1997 by prominent leaders in the field of computer systems information. They said that if they were able to find 20,000 new graduates in this field, most probably they could find them jobs in Canada within a week.

I was referring to the fact that some private companies that have enough size to be able to afford it do go from university to university or city to city to proactively try to find these brains and bring them over, and take care of the process and so on. I was more referring to the fact that our own embassies, for instance, could play this specific role. I wasn't referring to the role of the private sector. I was just comparing two different things, if you wish, that had a commonality to them.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Reynolds.

• 1720

Mr. John Reynolds: I just have two questions.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chair, my answer, please.

The Chairman: I thought you were making a statement, not asking a question.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to hear more.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be very brief. I missed the nuance. I guess I need more time on French.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gerry Campbell: You're absolutely right. The embassies can play that role. I agree with you entirely when you say that there's an opening there to bring in high-tech sector workers through the regular immigration program, which would benefit the country and benefit the workers.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have two questions.

Since the minister thought I was involved in the Conservative government when the decision was made with the Quebec government with regard to their program, I'm wondering if the minister, who I know was in the Quebec government at the time, was involved in the direct discussions with the Government of Canada when that agreement was signed with the province of Quebec.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'm sorry, but I didn't get that.

Mr. John Reynolds: Were you involved as a minister in the Government of Quebec when the agreement was being negotiated?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I was part of the government, but I was not involved in that negotiation.

Mr. John Reynolds: Nor the discussions? At all? Fine.

In a letter you wrote to my colleague Gurmant Grewal on March 10, you said:

I have been informed that immigration officials at the Islamabad High Commission have recently investigated allegations of staff malfeasance. These investigations led to staff dismissals and to the prosecution of several former employees in the local court system. The New Delhi consulate office has also undertaken investigations, with similar consequences.

Can you tell us how many people we're talking about? I know we can't use names, but how many people were involved in being dismissed, how many of them were prosecuted, and how many have been convicted?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'm not sure I have the statistics with me today, but it is clear that we had some problems not only in Islamabad but in New Delhi. Perhaps my people have the statistics. I will ask them.

But generally speaking, Mr. Chair, I can say it is clear that when we have a complaint about one of our employees, even if it's a local employee, an inquiry is made right away, sometimes administratively, sometimes with the RCMP or the police overseas.

When I look at the number of employees that we have, not only in Canada but overseas, I must say that we receive complaints about less than 1% of our employees. But when we receive complaints, it's very serious.

What I want to add before getting my assistant deputy minister to answer more in detail is that from these experiences we've learned that we're better off, first, to improve—and we did it—our background checking when we hire local employees; second, to give better training to these employee once they are in; and third, because, as you know, Mr. Chair, there's a lot of money circulating in our offices abroad, to oblige the manager to do a regular check on the customary fees that we have in our offices.

I think these examples give us the opportunity to revise our way of doing things in these offices. But I will ask my assistant deputy minister perhaps to give—

Mr. Georges Tsaï (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We don't have the specific statistics, but in both cases, the numbers were not significant—and we are referring here to New Delhi and Islamabad. The number given by the minister, which was less than 1% of criminal allegations, is the correct number.

Mr. John Reynolds: Were they ever convicted? I know they were charged—you said they were—but were they ever convicted?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: I don't have the number, Mr. Chair, but it is a small number.

Mr. John Reynolds: Were any ever convicted?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: There were some convictions, yes.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Now, before we have our last question, I would like to tell the members of the committee to please stay for a couple of announcements regarding next week.

Mr. Ménard, you have the last question, please, one question.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm not sure it will be the last one,

[Translation]

but I will have a final question.

Minister, I would like to come back to the case of Ramon Mercedes, and give you my views. You are of course not required to answer, but you will agree that having you before us today is a special opportunity. Let me explain why I believe there were four irregularities in this case.

First, your officers should have requested medical assistance as soon as they discovered the existence of Ramon Mercedes.

Second, Mr. Mercedes' lawyer, Gisèle Saint-Pierre, attempted to communicate with her client, but he was apparently not allowed contact with her on your officials' instructions.

• 1725

Third, and I would like to be clear on this, Minister—though I am not saying you should take personal responsibility for what happened, I would consider it both appropriate and courteous if you were at least to tell us today what measures you have taken to ensure this does not happen again. I know that you consider these unfortunate events as sad as I do, yet you appear before the committee and say that you cannot talk about the case because Mr. Mercedes' identity is known. This is not fair play, to my mind. This is not the sort of relationship there should be between opposition and the government.

In conclusion, I would remind you that when the Chileans went on strike I told you had made the right decision, because they wanted to be considered as a group and had come in for other purposes.

You can always count on me for a frank opinion. In my view, the fact that I am in opposition and that you are a member of Cabinet does not automatically make you wrong and myself right—or vice-versa. Today, however, I am hurt by your refusal to answer my question on this issue. You are not responsible for it but we might have expected you to reveal what you planned to do to ensure it did not happen again.

That said, I still retain warm feelings of friendship for you.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, on this subject I cannot share the views of my colleague, the member for Hochelaga- Maisonneuve. If he had broached the topic of this individual's unfortunate experience in very general terms, we might have had a very interesting discussion.

When stowaways arrive in Canada—and they do, as you know—what are the obligations and responsibilities of immigration officers when the ship lands? We might have discussed those. What are the obligations and responsibilities of the ocean carrier? We might have discussed those as well. And if we had discussed the situation...

Mr. Réal Ménard: More generally.

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: ... Objectively, you might have had an opportunity to recommend ways of changing some of the responsibilities of ocean carriers or of the Immigration Canada carrier.

However, Mr. Chairman, I will never comment publicly on the personal experiences of any given individual. I feel it would be very disrespectful.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But this is not a question of respect. We don't need to look at general aspects, but individual aspects, Minister. That's too easy.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madam Minister Robillard.

We appreciate the two hours that you've taken from your busy schedule in order to contribute to our knowledge.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Thank you.

The Chairman: Members of the committee, regarding next Thursday's visit, the plane will leave the airport here at 8 a.m. and fly to Pearson. We get there at 9 a.m. At 9.30 a.m. we will tour the facilities. We'll be talking to the guards and to the detainees, and there will have to be some guidance and instructions regarding our relationship and our interaction with the people who are there. You will be told more about that at the session when we arrive there, simply because the other people have to hear exactly what I have to tell you.

We will be meeting with enforcement detention officers and then we're all through at noon. Then anyone who wishes to travel back to their constituency office may do so from the Toronto airport, or they may come back to the Ottawa airport.

Mr. John Reynolds: What airline are we going on at 8 a.m.?

The Chairman: I believe there are two airlines. Air Canada goes at that time and so does Canadian.

Mr. John Reynolds: Have you made us reservations yet?

The Chairman: No. Everyone is responsible for their own transportation.

Mr. John Reynolds: That's fine.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You've made them?

The Chairman: No. You could use your points or...use your points.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes.

• 1730

The Chairman: If you don't want to use your points, I have to be honest with you, at the last budget meeting I got the motion through for $14,000, and we could pay your trip from here to Toronto. Now, if you're going to leave from Toronto and go to Vancouver, that's your—

Mr. John Reynolds: I'm going home.

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that we were also going to be meeting with a few adjudicators.

The Chairman: We're going to be meeting with Mr. Mantzell, one of the directors. And I don't know what Wilma Jenkins' role is, do you?

Ms. Maria Minna: Regional workers?

The Chairman: I don't know. That's just identifying the working area. But go ahead and ask your question again.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Could we ask for more information regarding who we're going to meet next Thursday?

Ms. Maria Minna: I just want to clarify the purpose of going this week to the front lines.

So we are in fact meeting with enforcement officers who are—

The Chairman: And I just finished saying that we are going to be meeting with enforcement detention officers.

Ms. Maria Minna: Okay. What about adjudicators? I thought we were doing them as well.

The Chairman: I don't know.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Excuse me. We are having a meeting tomorrow at 11 a.m. Could we ask for more information regarding those details for tomorrow's meeting?

The Chairman: Okay. I know there have been a great number of phone calls made back and forth, and we have some problems, but we'll try to settle it all for tomorrow. I had to give you the times so you could make your appointments for air transportation to Toronto. Now you know exactly the timeframe in which you're going to operate. All right?

We'll see you at 11 a.m. tomorrow. The meeting is adjourned.