CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 29, 1998

• 0911

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order. We will proceed pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), resuming a briefing session with departmental officials on how the system works.

Mr. Grant, will you be in charge of the group this morning?

Mr. Brian Grant (Director, Program Development, Enforcement Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): No, it is Mr. Sheppit.

The Chairman: Oh, it is Mr. Sheppit and Mr. Fields. They introduced themselves yesterday, so I guess the questioning starts. According to the rules we adopted yesterday, I will start with Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, I don't have a lot of questions. I think we went through most of this last year, as well, and in the summertime.

One short question I had that I asked Mr. Tsaï yesterday was about the Vancouver detention centre. It's my understanding that there is no detention centre in Vancouver any more.

Mr. Brian Grant: That's correct. It has been closed. So we use the jails now.

Mr. Grant McNally: Yes, okay.

Mr. Ménard, if you want to ask some questions, go for it.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I have a lot of questions.

First, I would like to discuss the problem that we often encounter in our riding offices. You know that I am a member from Montreal. I would say that I spend 30% of my time meeting people with immigration problems; problems, but also, obviously, solutions. The most difficult problems always concern security checks, where there are delays. When we contact the Minister's office or your officials, we learn that the medical procedures are going well and that the file is being treated with due diligence. We have seen delays of a year or a year and a half. But with the security checks, we have the impression that everything is terribly mysterious and terribly secret, and I find this somewhat worrisome.

I know that, strictly speaking, the IRB is not the responsible agency. I am told that there is another agency in the Solicitor General's department that is responsible. What can we do so that members of Parliament can have information quickly. How do you explain the fact that it takes so long and that the process is often highly mysterious? We know that people are summoned to interviews, but we often do not know why. We do not know exactly how to go about getting this type of information. In my opinion, this is a real problem. I would like to have your point of view on this.

[English]

Mr Bill Sheppit (Director General, Case Management Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): I think you are correct to some extent. As a first point, it is important to realize that the vast majority of security cases are cleared in virtually no time at all. For probably 95% to 98% overseas the security and background clearance is obtained in less than a month.

Inside Canada, about 95% of in-Canada applicants are done in less than two or three days, because it's done electronically between the processing centre in Vegreville and CSIS headquarters.

The big difficulty with a lot of those cases is with refugee claimants in Canada, many of whom have come in without documents, or with false documents. We don't know who they are. When they come in, as part of their refugee claim they will say they are a refugee, because they were involved in opposition to the government. They belong to political parties that are opposed to the government in their country of origin.

• 0915

It becomes much more difficult for us—and I assume for CSIS—simply because we don't know who they are. So, to start with, you have the whole problem of identity. In a lot of cases—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We can understand that it may be difficult in the case of political refugees, who are often underground in their countries, for the Department of Justice or your counterparts to disclose information to such countries. However, I am aware of the case of Iranians, for example, who have been in Canada for a number of years, and have filed an application. There are a number of countries, for example, Iran and Turkey, that Canada does not recognize as a source of political refugees. In such cases, it is extremely difficult.

Explain the process to me. What sort of security information do you seek abroad?

[English]

Mr. Bill Sheppit: In those cases, in a lot of cases in those countries where they belong to an opposition group, the opposition will have a legitimate political arm, and may also have a terrorist arm.

I can't recall specifics of the names of the groups, but the challenge then becomes to determine what the person did with their membership in the group. It's added to the fact that they don't have documents, or they have false documents, when they appear before us. So they come in with one set of documents, and then they say no, that's not really my name; this is my name, and this is what I did. You need to verify that, and it becomes extremely difficult.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: For example, let's take a case that is not too difficult; a person in the system, who is not a political refugee and has passed the medical requirements and who comes from Lebanon. Next comes the security check. What information do you ask for abroad? What do you need to know to ensure that a proper security check has been conducted? What type of administrative exchanges do you have with other countries? How can we, as members of Parliament, be better informed of the process and how can it become less secret? Does the Canadian secret service carry this out? For example, we have difficulty knowing when the interview will take place. It is all shrouded in great mystery, and is often what delays the decision on a case.

[English]

Mr. Bill Sheppit: With respect to the cases of persons who are applying in Canada, the application is referred to CSIS for a security opinion. You'd have to ask them for details on the nature of their exchange with their overseas counterparts.

On cases we deal with overseas we will look at the information provided to us by the applicant. We have security profiles that look at various social groups, political or other organizations that have a history of terrorism, or where a membership could lead to somebody being inadmissible. If it appears they're admissible, then the visa officer will often make the security decision. If they have any doubts, then they will refer it to CSIS. Again, CSIS will make their inquiries, and then provide us with advice.

Where it becomes extremely problematic, especially in Canada, is in relation to an inadmissible category in the Immigration Act, somebody who is or was a member of an organization that is or was a terrorist group. An example is the ANC in South Africa, which is now the government. You could have belonged to the ANC 10 or 15 years ago. At the time you belonged it may or may not have been a terrorist group. You may or may not have been involved in terrorist activities. You might have been involved in handing out pamphlets. You might have been a teacher, and it was advantageous for you to be member of the ANC to get a job.

So it becomes extremely problematic, because it's not just membership. You want to look at the nature of the membership, the nature of the group at the time you belonged to it, and whether or not you're a threat to Canada, or whether or not you were engaged in any terrorist activities.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do I have time for a small question?

• 0920

Mr. Telegdi touched on the subject yesterday. It is difficult to understand how Canada decides what countries are sources of political refugees. For example, on Monday, before coming here, I met with a constituent who is threatened with deportation to Zaire. Things do not appear to be going very well in Zaire. I understand that one can come from a country where there is a civil war or conflict without being necessarily threatened. However, I would like you to explain to us how Canada decides that some countries produce refugees and others do not. How could we be more involved with this?

I have tabled a motion, and I hope it will be passed by my colleagues. It proposes that we be briefed on countries around the world. According to the Auditor General, the international community claims that there are a dozen countries that produce Convention refugees, according to the rules that you presented to us yesterday. As an official of the department, what can you tell us about the list? What is it and what is the decision-making process?

[English]

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I think there are two aspects to your question, which are sort of interfused. I believe that one of them relates to countries to which we don't deport people. Brian may want to add more detail when I'm finished.

There's an interdepartmental committee that looks at countries where the situation, the social upheaval, is such that in all but the most rare circumstances, we don't want to deport people there.

I believe there are five countries, which would be Afghanistan, Zaire, Algeria—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Where you do not deport people.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Afghanistan, Algeria—

[English]

Mr. Brian Grant: Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: —Burundi, Zaire and Rwanda. That's fine.

[English]

Mr. Bill Sheppit: These are where normally, because of the social situation there now, it's just so dangerous for everybody that we don't deport people there.

The only exception is if they are a danger to the Canadian public. So if you get a serious criminal or a terrorist, then notwithstanding the normal ban on deportations, we would make a recommendation to the minister that they be removed.

In terms of refugee-producing countries, you are familiar from the hearings last spring that anybody can claim refugee status. They have to meet the definition of a refugee.

In situations of social upheaval overseas, we will consult with our international partners and the United Nations to see if resettlement is the preferred option.

Generally when you have upheaval and dislocation of people there are three choices. The first would be repatriation back to the country they came from. In the past, for example, there have been been a number of people, for example, from Cambodia, Burma, Pakistan, who have left because of social upheaval.

When the situation calms down, the preferred option is repatriation; they go back. This is what's happening in Yugoslavia now to a large extent, where the United Nations is assisting in developing a situation so that it's safe for people to return.

The second option would be resettlement in the country or location they've fled to. And then the third and last option would be international resettlement. I'm basically talking of mass movements here à la boat people from Vietnam.

As we saw in the early 1990s, the trouble there is that resettlement often becomes a magnet and aggravates the problem of dislocation. So there were people leaving Vietnam, Cambodia, and even Vietnamese who had gone to China who wanted resettlement in the west. They were still getting into small boats, and they were still risking their lives on the high seas and being attacked by pirates because of the magnet of the opportunity of international resettlement.

• 0925

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Is it finished?

The Chairman: It's finished.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Is it back to me now?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I don't want to take advantage.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Mahoney.

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

I would like to follow up on that last point, and then I have some other questions.

You've specifically identified five countries where you will not deport people. What do you do with those people? Are they just simply released into the population? Are they given status? Are they detained? What happens?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: It's a deferred removal order, I believe, so they're still under order of deportation. They would be released if they don't constitute a danger to the public of Canada, and if we're sure they're going to appear for any future dealings with the department.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What kinds of numbers are we talking about, say, that we would currently have in both situations, in detention and in general release?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I couldn't say. I suspect it's very small in both cases, but we'd have to look to see if we have anything on that.

Brian?

Mr. Brian Grant: One point to add is that it is an administrative suspension. As Mr. Sheppit said, they are still under a removal order. They do not get any status in Canada. We don't land them. As a consequence, if there are criminals in that population, and they are serious enough criminals to represent a threat to Canada, we will remove them even though we have a suspension.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You will remove—

Mr. Brian Grant: Remove them—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Deport them?

Mr. Brian Grant: —to their country. We'll deport them to their country, even though we've suspended deportations to that country for most people. If the choice is between a threat to Canadians or a threat to the person, we will remove, and we have done that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay.

Mr. Brian Grant: We also have experiences with those countries where people will go home voluntarily, even though we think there's a risk in their country. The numbers are probably very small. I think the Algerian population might be the largest, primarily in Montreal. We have seen some movement out of Afghanistan, not just to Canada, but western Europe as well. This is a problem for all countries returning— Anytime you have that, of course, it's part of the magnet to which people will come.

The others are fairly small: Zaire, Rwanda, Burundi. There are very small numbers there.

May I just add one other comment on the process? The process is based on a policy that says that Canada removes to all countries without exception. However, from time to time there are these administrative suspensions.

We looked at Zaire almost two years ago, when we were watching as Laurent Kabila's army came across Zaire. It is, as you know, an enormous country. At one point they were stopped about 1500 kilometres from Kinshasa. We had daily reports coming out of Kinshasa that while it was tense in Kinshasa, everything was normal, and it was safe there.

And we watched, and when we saw— At a certain point you have to make a decision. You see the movement coming, and you determine when we work with the foreign affairs department and officials in our department with daily reports coming out. When you see the movement coming you have to then make a decision.

Now, we do that in cases where we realize the situation looks as if it's going to persist for some time. So we'll say all right, there is an administrative suspension, and the minister will decide that. But in some ways that is the formal process of what happens in every case.

There was a reference last night to the situation in the former Yugoslavia. In situations like that we will watch very carefully for each one, each removal. As you make the removal arrangements, part of what you have to determine is whether you can get the person back there, and get the person relatively safely back there.

Now, if the person decides to do something foolish, you have no control over that. But as you make the arrangements, it means getting them through transit, airports, proper visas—all of that—escort if needed, and into the country and off the plane. You're not delivering them to a firing squad. So we would look at that.

If the situation looked as if it were going to destabilize for a considerable period of time, then essentially we would take a decision: look, don't waste your time trying to make arrangements to send people back to Algeria, for instance. It's not going to clear up for a while. We'll review it at some time, and then we'll go back. But always on each case, we would look at it.

• 0930

So we were obviously watching the former Yugoslavia very carefully in the last couple of weeks to see what happened.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: When people arrive in these kinds of tense circumstances, and the decision is not to deport them back—even though it's a deferred deportation order—and they're then released into the community, generally is there— As a rule, do they have people to go to?

I know that's a general kind of question, but I'm just wondering if they're fleeing— Does it involve the African countries more, because there would tend to be strong support groups with the former Yugoslav republic. But I'm not sure that there is the same situation with these other groups. Are we just throwing these people out on the street with no support?

Mr. Brian Grant: No. I think that you have to bear in mind that these people will have been in Canada for a couple of years.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay.

Mr. Brian Grant: They will have come, and will have made a refugee claim. They've been through the refugee process, which can take 13 months currently. They've been found not to be refugees. They've had access to a personal risk determination, and that takes several months. The possibility is there for them to go to the Federal Court for judicial— So you add it all up, and you're looking at the fact that they've been here about two years, so they haven't just arrived. They have acclimatized here. They have been allowed to work during that period, so many of them will have worked. Alternatively, they will have made arrangements for some sort of social assistance.

People who come will usually gravitate to a community that already exists in Canada. You're right, some of them are quite small, but they will find somewhere. In addition, the non-governmental organizations provide assistance for them.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have one staff person in Mississauga, who probably spends 90% of his time on immigration issues. Given that the Pearson Airport is in my city, it's a pretty big problem for our office. But from what he has reported to me and the files I have reviewed with him, I find that our biggest frustration is overseas. What's the relationship between say the bureaucracy here and either the embassies or agents general or whatever facilities we might have?

At one of these meetings, for example, I asked whether we had a facility in Bulgaria, and I believe we don't. They have to go to another country for interviews, or for application. But there tends to— Again, it's always dangerous to generalize, but my experience has actually been quite stark in that the attitudes of some of the people overseas, particularly Southeast Asia, towards the immigration process— It's almost like they've been burnt so badly that they just don't believe anything any more.

My staff person spends an absolutely inordinate amount of time trying to get to the truth, trying to get to the bottom line, trying to get some kind of sympathetic ear. This not by any means to facilitate the entry of someone who should not be allowed into the country. But sometimes you have family members who are constituents pressing you to allow this cousin, or whatever, into the country, and you have an intransigent attitude on the other side of the ocean. It becomes very frustrating for a political office to deal with this, and I don't think it should be political in any way whatsoever.

I'm wondering what kind of relationship you have. Is my sense correct that there's some burnout factor in this industry, if you will?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Hopefully not.

Administratively the program managers overseas report to the director general of the international region here at headquarters. Rod and his operation are essentially responsible for quality-of-service issues relating to the posts abroad.

• 0935

My shop, the case management branch, is responsible for ensuring that the Immigration Act and regulations are appropriately followed across the board, whether overseas or in Canada. But the visa officers themselves have the authority to grant or deny a visa. They can't be told by anyone, yes, you should issue a visa in this case, unless there's a blatant error. In that case, to avoid going to Federal Court, we would say, listen, we would suggest that you take another look at this, because this is the legal precedent. This is what the regulations say, this is what the manual says. We'd suggest that you might have made the wrong decision in this case.

As I mentioned yesterday, particularly in visitor visa cases, it's a very difficult situation, and it's very problematic, because it is subjective. You're looking at the intent of the applicant. The difficulty, particularly in southeast Asia, is that you have a much lower standard of living and people who are making much less money than we do in Canada.

So you get somebody applying for a visitor visa who's coming in and looking at spending possibly one or two years' salary. They may never have travelled before. I mean, I have difficulty getting six months' leave. I'm sure you would have difficulty getting six months' leave. They say they're going to get six months' holiday and come and spend two years' salary and visit relatives in Canada. The visa officer is charged with determining whether that makes sense and the person is likely to return to their home country.

So it's a very problematic area. We do a lot of training for our staff before they go overseas, and once they're overseas, to ensure they're familiar with the local customs and the culture of that community.

You often get situations where, for example, the situation of single female children is considerably different from what it is in Canada. In Canada, for example, a daughter who's 24, 25, or 28 is likely to be on her own and fairly independent.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We hope so.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Yes, or you're trying to push her out of the house and become independent. In other cultures, that's not the case. As long as the daughter is single— A single daughter at the age of 28 might be an old maid in some cultures and therefore is totally dependent on the family. That's the type of training we give to our staff to help them make that decision.

The Chairman: We'll now go to Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, gentlemen.

The Chairman: Although this is—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Good morning, gentlemen. How can you tell? It's been quite a week.

The Chairman: Although it is the second round, I would give Leon more latitude. This is recognizing that Grant did not use all his questions during the first round. Thank you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you. I just want to follow up on Mr. Mahoney's line of questioning. It was very interesting questioning.

You said that people coming from these five countries who don't qualify as refugees are given deferred removal orders. If you're sure that they will report, or be available, if you want, I'd just like to ask some questions on that.

How many actually do comply, and how do you follow up? How often would you ask for contact? Could you just give me a feel of how that works?

Mr. Brian Grant: I'm not sure of the answer. I'm not sure there is a national answer. There would probably be a local answer. I'm not aware of any guidelines requiring them to report every two weeks or whatever.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So how long would these people be in Canada under this deferred removal order? Would there be people who have been here twenty years under a deferred removal order?

Mr. Brian Grant: We don't have any that long, but we have not removed to Afghanistan since 1994. So that would be one of the longest we've had.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So do you anticipate—

Mr. Brian Grant: About five years.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —that these people will stay in Canada under the deferred removal order indefinitely? Is that—

Mr. Brian Grant: Legally, yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

Mr. Brian Grant: Now, there is the possibility of applying for humanitarian and compassionate consideration.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In other words, they could apply to become immigrants? They become landed?

• 0940

Mr. Brian Grant: Yes, they could apply for that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: See, that was my next question actually. I wonder what percentage— Can you give me some idea and answer this in the way you think would give me the best information? How many, or what percentage roughly over a certain period of time, would apply to become immigrants and go through that compassionate, that special kind of, stream in the immigration system?

Mr. Brian Grant: I couldn't guess, and I can't guarantee we can get that. But we can look to see whether we can do that.

What we will have to do is look at all the applications made under subsection 114(2), which is the humanitarian and compassionate provision. We would then look at how many people were under removal order at the time.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So there's no—

Mr. Brian Grant: But it's not a number I have off the top of my head.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There's no tracking of—

Mr. Brian Grant: They are free to apply as many times as they want.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There's no tracking of that at all? To evaluate how these deferred removal orders, how that whole system is working, wouldn't you kind of want to know how people are reacting to that? How many are there? How long are they staying in the country under those orders? How many are becoming landed or are going through the immigration system under the humanitarian compassionate stream?

Mr. Brian Grant: Yes. To the extent that our current systems allow us to do that, we will track them. As I mentioned last night—and we've talked about it before in this committee in the discussions that led to your report—we have a system that is not a tracking system. It's a case-management system called FOSS. So getting these sorts of numbers is very difficult in FOSS, because it's not a tracking system. We are now working on a tracking system that will allow us to do this much better.

In the absence of a national tracking system there are some regional tracking systems now to track their cases. If we go to Montreal, for instance, they would have a system where they could track the people that way.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I was at the Vegreville centre just last week, and they have a number that is put on the form. If it's the first time, say, this person has visited the country, they will look back and see if the person has visited before. If they've been given a number, that goes on the form.

Isn't that a kind of a tracking system? Wouldn't it be very easy with the computers that are there to at least have some tracking system just based on those numbers that are already being used to determine what is really happening with the people who are being allowed to stay in Canada under this deferred removal?

Mr. Brian Grant: My experience with technology is that nothing is very easy. But that aside, what we can do— You're right, there's an identifier number given to each person entered in our FOSS system. What we can do is go and follow the number, and find out what the person has done.

So in each case we can find whether a person has made a claim to H and C to be landed under H and C grounds.

What we can't do easily is to tell that there is a certain number of people from this country under deferred removal orders. This is the percentage who have made claims, this is the percentage who have been accepted. That's more difficult on this system, because it cuts things this way rather than that way.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: The other thing is that I don't think you want to get too exercised about it, because I don't think we're dealing with any significant number. If you look at the countries involved, these are countries where a refugee claim is probably more likely than not to be successful just because of the upheaval in the country.

If a refugee claim isn't successful, then there may be a positive risk removal that would allow the person to stay. And they're more likely to be accepted under humanitarian and compassionate grounds, again, because of the situation in the country.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What would be some of the most common reasons for the refugee status to be refused, and yet for people— I'm trying to figure out how— If they're being refused as refugees, there must be some risk indication.

• 0945

To me it seems a little odd that these people would be allowed to stay under the deferred removal order if there is a real risk to Canadian society.

Mr. Brian Grant: Sorry, I didn't catch the last part.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Why would they most commonly be refused as refugees?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Because they don't meet the definition.

Mr. Leon Benoit: They did, yes. But for what reason? What are some of the most common reasons?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Well, I mean, they don't fall into one of the designated social groups, they weren't involved in political opinion, they're not a minority group, they don't have a well-founded fear of persecution. They're essentially what would be termed “economic migrants” where they basically don't like the situation in their home country, and they've left.

But the IRB can only grant them refugee status if they fall within the refugee definition. Or they may fall within the refugee definition if they're looked at overseas, but they don't have a hope of successful establishment in Canada, just because of their family situation, or their educational background or lack thereof.

They may not meet the definition, but they could, for example— Battered spouses, for example, are an area where they may not fall within the refugee definition, but there would be good grounds to accept them on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. That would occur if a woman is in a situation where she's likely to suffer domestic violence on going home.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How many people would fall into this category on average, say, in the last five years? How many would be allowed to stay in the country under the deferred removal order? How many in total would there be in the country under deferred removal orders right now?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: We'd have to get that for you. My guess would be possibly 100 or 200. I wouldn't expect more than that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Oh, that small a number. Okay. So we are dealing with a very small number?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Yes. But we can get that number for you and send it back.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. I guess if I'd asked that question first, I might not have had to get into some of the others.

Yes, I'd sure like some more information on that.

The Chairman: One last question, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I noticed, kind of figured out, something in visiting the centre. If you're looking at the mainstream of the immigration system and the visitors system, it probably works pretty well.

I think that where the problem comes is where you're going into the stream that circumvents the normal process. My guess is that to deal with the abnormal would involve a lot of cost to the system. I mean, I think that's something you'd find in any system.

Do you have cost breakdowns on that? Would that be available, so I could get a really good idea of the cost to the system of the different categories of immigrants, refugees, and visitors?

The Chairman: Mr. Sheppit.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: In his report last November or December the Auditor General pointed out that the department didn't have an idea of what the refugee determination system cost Canada. We've been working diligently on that since the report was tabled.

I'm not sure that we have a final answer yet, because you're looking at a number of government departments, including not only ourselves but the Immigration and Refugee Board, and then whatever the provincial costs would be.

I know we don't have a cost on that. We can certainly see what we have, and see what we can provide you. My suspicion is that, as with anything else, it's almost the 80-20 rule, where 20% of the activity consumes 80% of the resources. I suspect it would be in that order, but probably not as drastic as that. But we'll see what we can come up with.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, you have five minutes.

• 0950

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, five minutes pass very quickly. I would like to pursue the matter of refugee status and comment on your reference to the Auditor General. For a number of years, there has always been a considerable delay in the treatment of cases involving political refugees.

The Auditor General proposes an explanation, and I would be curious to have your assessment of this explanation. This is the first time he referred to it directly. He explained it as a clash between two organizational cultures: the members' culture and that of the public servants. The Auditor General had noted that the co- existence was not always harmonious.

As committee members, we have to try to understand why it can take two or three years before a final decision is made on a claimant's application. Do you think that this committee should examine this analysis or explanation more closely? And I am making myself clear?

[English]

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I'm not sure I understood your reference to the two different cultures.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: In his last report, the December report, the Auditor General, to whom you have referred, mentioned one of the avenues that might explain why the IRB has been unable, since its creation, to make expeditious determinations of refugee status.

One of the explanations, to which the Auditor General devoted three pages, is the clash between organizational cultures: the members' culture and that of the public servants. The members' culture is linked to the fact that there is often a high turnover and it takes a year and a half before people are functional and able to make decisions. As for the officials, their culture is based on the fact that they are permanent members of the public service. There are sometimes clashes between the two cultures, and this is why the IRB is not always able, according to the Auditor General, to achieve common goals. As someone external to the process, do you think that this committee should examine this line of analysis or explanation more closely?

[English]

Mr. Bill Sheppit: It's hard to say, because I don't deal with refugees on a day-to-day basis, nor do I have that many dealings with the refugee board. From what I've seen, they're making a lot of effort to reduce the backlog. I've certainly been on the fringes of specific discussions that would indicate there may be other reasons for the backlog, rather than a cultural difference. I think certainly the Auditor General's report, when he highlighted the turnover and his perception of the difficulties of the appointment system, drew attention to a possible area.

From my own perspective, I would think that the nature of the workload flow is more accountable for backlogs than a cultural difference, where, for example, with the Chileans you had a large number of people who arrived in a very short period of time, so that you have a system that's geared to—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Allow me to make a comment. I agree with your analysis. My question, as you know, is not intended to embarrass you. I wanted to have the opinion of someone who is not a member of this tribunal, which is, in fact, the largest tribunal in the country.

What conditions or criteria precede Canada's decision to lift the visa requirement? I will give you two examples. First, take Chili. You know the history as well as I do. Many analysts feel there is a direct link between the fact that Canada lifted the visa requirement and the influx of 3,000 Chileans, of whom 1,000 returned and 2,000 stayed.

My second example is the following. Recently, I had the pleasure of visiting the Baltic states with the Speaker of the House of Commons. At each of our official meetings, the people stated that the three Baltic countries were being discriminated against because they did not require a visa for Canada, while we required one. So what are the conditions? By which process does Canada decide whether to lift the visa requirement for some people who want to come here?

• 0955

[English]

Mr. Brian Grant: First of all, it's a decision that is agreed upon by the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to lift or impose, and they bring different aspects to the consideration.

The law says that everyone requires a visa. So there is a universal requirement for a visa unless we have exempted a country. So the status quo is a visa and we will lift. There is a fair amount of interest among many parties to lift visas, mainly for commercial reasons such as ease of travel, and we will endeavour wherever possible to lift a visa. There are cases—Chile is one, the Czech Republic is another—where we lifted the visa hoping that the movement would be stable, that it would benefit Canadian business people—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are trade considerations taken into account?

[English]

Mr. Brian Grant: In large measure it's commercial. It's movement of people to visit families back and forth. We try to facilitate the movement as much as possible. In those two examples, obviously it got out of hand both in Chile and the Czech Republic and we had to reimpose. And it's always difficult to reimpose, because you're trying to open up as much movement as possible.

When we consider lifting a visa or reimposing a visa, we look at a number of factors between the two departments, and they will deal with the quality of the document itself issued by that country—the passport—and the quality of the document-issuing process.

So we're concerned not only that the nationals of that country might abuse the privilege of coming without a visa, but nationals of another country might use that passport if it's a weak passport. So we'll look at the quality of the passport. Does it have security features in it? Is the issuing—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Does this mean it can be easily reproduced?

[English]

The Chairman: Réal, excuse me, I think your question is over now.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to raise a point of order. When the officials appeared before us the last time, I asked them to provide each committee member with an annotated copy of the Immigration Act. They said they would, but I never received it. Before they leave us, I would like to repeat my request.

Mr. Tsaï made a commitment to this effect, but he was no doubt unable to meet it in the time frame we requested. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to have an annotated copy of the Act.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, I'm sure we can get it from the Library of Parliament.

Anyway, I now yield the floor to—

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I think that all members should be issued as a matter of course on an annual basis a copy of the annotated act with the regulations.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): I agree totally.

Mr. John McKay: I don't even know why that's in question. It shouldn't come from the Library of Parliament or from anywhere else, but from the budget of the department or the committee, one or the other.

The Chairman: I thought I could secure it, but I don't object to your suggestion. If you would like some assistance from the department and the department would have the courtesy to be a messenger of those documents to us—and I hope you won't mind—just again to make the committee members—

Mr. Bill Sheppit: It's commercially available. We buy it from the publisher.

The Chairman: Is there a cost to it?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: We should get it either out of our budget—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: I will take that into account—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But I would like to obtain an annotated copy.

[English]

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Our preference would be your budget.

The Chairman: I will take that into account as we consider our budget. But it's a very good point. We have noted it, and I will pursue it later on.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Our copies would have to be annotated, that is, with explanations.

[English]

The Chairman: They annotate yearly the regulations.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: The two things that drive immigration are essentially falling birth rates in the country and brain drain. I know that people in British Columbia are particularly agitated about the issue of brain drain. It's largely anecdotal, but there's nevertheless some truth to it.

One of the issues that keeps coming up is the issue that the processing of business immigrants and skilled worker immigrants takes way too long. I'm looking at some charts here, and one chart says “time required to process”. It gives 80% of all final cases in months, for all 1997 for all posts, and it goes through a variety of posts. In skilled workers, Ankara is 16 months; Beijing 25 months; Belgrade 27 months; on business class 29 months out of Belgrade; Bogota drops to 17 and 13; and on and on.

• 1000

That is a point of considerable frustration for people who are most “attractive” immigrants, the people we want to bring in to fill certain job categories, and so on. What progress are we making, if any, in this processing category? Really, why should it take 16, 20 or 25 months, two years plus, to process 80% of your claims? I assume that leaves 20% that are over those numbers. Have you a general explanation for that?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: We totally share the frustration.

One of the problems is that people are free to apply at any office they wish, so we often see a situation where we'll resource an office overseas in expectation of a certain level of work, and then for a variety of reasons, the workload changes considerably.

Beijing is a case in point, where up until five years ago, essentially, overseas travel was impossible. The Chinese government didn't issue passports. There was no such thing as tourism. We had a quiet little office that did some student authorizations and some family reunion. Then China liberalized economically. They liberalized internally so that there was tourism, international travel, business delegations galore, and just an exponential growth in business.

When we built our present embassy in Beijing, it took ten years to construct because the Chinese government provided the contractors. At a certain point in time they wanted to host the Asian Games, and all the contractors were diverted from all other construction projects and allocated to work on building facilities for the Asian Games. I'm not sure, but my perception is that by the time the new embassy building was finalized, it was already too small for our needs. So physically, we have problems in redeploying resources.

The resource issue is a real one. Globally, I think the total cuts to our overseas staff is in the vicinity of 20% of the Canadian-based officers, as a result of program review.

Then, as I indicated, we will resource an office to a certain level, and for reasons outside of our control, such as the role of lawyers and consultants, they may decide that they want to move their clients through a particular post. I think of Bonn as a possible example.

We had a visa office in Brussels a few years ago. When we decided to close it, 5% of their workload was from people in Belgium, and 95% was from people from other countries. It just didn't make sense for us to maintain the office there when we could reallocate the staff to the home country where the people were coming from.

Mr. John McKay: Concerning Bonn, that looks like you're right on the average, a 16-month average processing time.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I think you'll find, though, that the majority of applicants who are being dealt with there are non-German.

Mr. John McKay: They're non-German.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: So it's very problematic for us. It's like a dog chasing its tail, where we get to a certain point— and there are variable costs involved between various countries. For example, I would suspect it's much more expensive to put people into an office in western Europe than it is in the subcontinent. In some cases you're never going to put enough resources into an office, because the potential is just so big.

One of the things we've done recently is establish designated business centres to deal with business applicant cases, where we've designated ten missions abroad as business centres, and people who are applying as business immigrants, either entrepreneurs or investors, have to file their application there. That allows us to develop the expertise to maintain a pool of skilled staff.

• 1005

Mr. John McKay: So the business centre is outside the embassy then?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: No, it's in the embassy, but it's a visa office. If you want to apply as a business applicant, you must apply at one of those offices. They're located—

Mr. John McKay: Does that discourage or encourage people to apply?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Hopefully, it encourages them. They're located in countries where 85% of our business immigrants come from. So you get away from the problem of people applying offshore.

I was in Hong Kong, for example. We had very good expertise on cases from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South China. At one point in time, an immigration lawyer asked us if we would deal with cases from Russia. We didn't know anything about Russia. We didn't have the language capacity. We didn't know anything about the economic situation other than what you read in the papers. It would take us considerably longer to process a Russian case than it would to process a case in Hong Kong.

So by the establishment of the business centres, we hoped to develop the expertise. We know what we're looking for. We'll know what the documents mean when somebody presents them.

Say you're dealing with a country you're unfamiliar with and somebody presents a letter of reference from Bank 123. Well, Bank 123 could be the most prominent, reputable bank in the country or it could be some fly-by-night organization down in the corner that isn't a bank by Canadian standards at all. That's where the expertise becomes helpful. We're hoping the business centres will help attract people and allow us to improve our processing times.

The Chairman: This is your last question.

Mr. John McKay: The last question may be unrelated, but not totally so. You agree though that this frustrates the overall goals of the—

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Yes, it frustrates everybody.

Mr. John McKay: The second question was with respect to your skilled workers. I just don't understand your statistics here. Under the category of skilled workers by intention to work, I look down and see that almost 25% of them have no intention to work. Why would you recruit a skilled worker who has no intention to work?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Where are you with that?

Mr. John McKay: It's on page 65 of your facts and figures.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I don't have that.

My assumption on this is that it would be dependants of skilled workers.

Mr. John McKay: Oh, so dependants get thrown into the category of skilled workers.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Yes. So if we accept the principal applicant as the skilled worker, then his wife and children are included in that category. So if you have dependent children who are attending school, they don't have any intention of working.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. So when you say there are 56,000 skilled people coming in—

Mr. Bill Sheppit: That would be workers and their families.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: With anything in decision-making, black and white is easy to deal with, but we have a whole lot of grey, which is more difficult to deal with. If we end up doing our job right, we'll rejig it to make the system better using the same resources.

What I'm wondering about in particular is the security considerations on removals. The former Yugoslavia is a perfect example. When they had a government under Tito, everybody got along reasonably well.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: They had no choice.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: No, they did have a choice. A lot of people intermarried. They were getting along fairly well.

Then all of a sudden, all hell breaks loose and xenophobia goes right to the top. If you are a minority within a majority, you are at a greater risk. Also, if you happen to be married to someone of another minority, you're in a totally impossible situation. Let's say you're a Croat married to a Serb. For a Muslim, it's the same thing. Then you find you have no place in that area, notwithstanding what the Dayton Accord says. There's just incredible hatred, and it's not necessarily by the government. It doesn't have to be the government. It can be groups set up akin to the KKK in the United States. The civil rights workers were not killed by the government; they were killed by the KKK.

• 1010

When you are doing risk assessment, I think that's very important because situations can flare up. I can imagine right now in Yugoslavia the plight of the minority groups. They are at much greater risk than they would be normally—even the UN doesn't have them under threat of imminent bombing, or they can resume bombing any time. When you say you do your risk assessments on removal, to what extent do you take those into account, especially when you're not sending back dangerous people?

The Chairman: Mr. Sheppit.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I think there are two aspects to the question, and I'll defer to Mr. Grant for part of this.

In terms of refugee selection from former Yugoslavia, the government target this year is in the order of 7,300. If I recall correctly, 60% or so of those are people from the former Yugoslavia through our missions in the area, whether it's Bonn, Vienna, or Belgrade. I know a large number of those are exactly the type of people you've described—mixed marriage situations where they are more at risk than the general population. We certainly are aware of the problems that face them, and that is taken into consideration in our selection of refugees from the area.

Brian, do you want to talk about the risk assessment?

Mr. Brian Grant: It is important to realize that when we have this removal of population, most if not all of them have made refugee claims. It's been determined by the IRB that they do not meet the definition of a refugee, part of which could come from your description. That's the first screen that would pick up a number of people whom you've described.

After that they have access to an administrative review for personal risk. So if there's something about their personal situation that doesn't relate to the definition—they're not a member of a group, etc.—that would endanger them if they went back home, a fairly small number of people at that point would be allowed to stay, based on that.

Now we've reached the situation where, for all intents and purposes, the person has no fear of going home and we're watching the general risk. This is the one I spoke about earlier that may lead to a suspension. The general risk is considered a risk throughout the country, so there's nowhere in the country you can escape from it. That's what we would consider to be a generalized risk.

At this point you have been through two processes that will have picked out those people who, because they are married to somebody from another ethnic background or because of their personal situation, have been pulled out and allowed to stay in Canada. It's unlikely in this fairly small population we're dealing with now for removal to the former Yugoslavia, for instance, that this situation would arise. If something transpired in the country of origin in the interim, the person can make a humanitarian and compassionate claim for a risk review at the very end, and we will do a risk review immediately prior to removal. We can look at anything that might have flared up at that point. They're called tarmac reviews by some people. They're literally that late. They could make those claims at the airport.

The Chairman: Last question.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: When a person has no fear—I don't know who you mean. Do you mean the person who's going back has no fear?

My other question is—and I want to understand this perfectly well—you can apply for a risk review when you're at the airport?

Mr. Brian Grant: At any point you can apply for a risk review because you're afraid to go home. The situation may have changed. You may have had your refugee claim and it was determined you were not to be a refugee.

• 1015

Then you had your PDRCCC claim, which is your personalized risk. The certain period of time will have gone by, during which you were making arrangements for the person to go home. At that point you may say things have changed and you are now at risk. We will use the officers who do the personal risk to assess that once again. They will look at any new circumstances that should be taken into account.

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to follow up on some of Mr. McKay's questions, I would like to get some quick percentages from you on the number of immigrants who come in under the so-called economic classes compared to the family class. Could you just give me the quick numbers on that?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: The family class, I believe, is 39% of the total, which was 180,000.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You said, in response to one of Mr. McKay's questions, people who are part of a family of qualifying immigrants under the economic class—as a skilled worker, I think was what he was asking about—would be included in the statistics of the economic class generally.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: The family class would be relatives of Canadian citizens or permanent residents—spouses, dependent children or grandparents primarily—and their dependants. That would be 39% of the overall total. The skilled worker category would be the skilled workers plus their immediate dependants who are coming with them.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So that would include spouse—

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Spouse and dependent children.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What I'm getting at is what percentage, roughly, of the total immigrants we have allowed into this country, say over the last five years on average, would actually have been allowed in because of their skills or education or the fact they were going to start a business in Canada? The statistics really don't show that.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: We don't have the chart Mr. McKay was reading from, but if I recall correctly the average number of dependants per principal applicant was in the order of 2.1, 2.2—something like that. So of the total economic immigrants, including entrepreneurs and investors, one-third would have been destined directly for the labour market and the other two-thirds would—

Mr. Leon Benoit: So roughly how many would that have been last year and the year before?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Last year it would have been—

Mr. Rodney Fields (Acting Director General, International Region, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): There were 220,000.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Roughly 40,000 would have been selected for their specific skills and 80,000 would have been their accompanying dependants.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It causes a great concern to me that so few of the total number of people actually coming in have skills or education, or the resources to start businesses in this country, yet we have a system that, according to the minister's report this year, couldn't meet the target. As Mr. McKay said, it was in the economic classes where there was the biggest shortfall in meeting the target. That is a real concern to me. I imagine it is for you too.

What do you need to do to change the system to reallocate resources to make sure we can get these people we need in the country now? I have been travelling the country, as I'm sure most MPs have, and hearing from business people that they desperately need people with certain skills and education in this country, and they can't get them.

• 1020

I know it's a very broad question, but I'd just like to hear your thoughts on that. In your position, you've obviously thought a great deal about it. I'd appreciate your candid comments on what you think you could do to reorganize so that we can use the resources to better target the people that we need now.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: To some extent, I wish it were that simple.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, but what's the problem? What's stopping that change from happening?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: It would be really nice if we could come in and say that if you gave us x amount of money, we could do this with it and could give you this many immigrants. To some extent, it's a much broader issue, as the minister commented when she tabled the levels document. We had a significant decrease in immigration from Asia this year because of the Asian economic downturn. To some extent, that's outside of anybody's control.

As I mentioned to Mr. McKay, I was posted in Hong Kong for a number of years. In that situation, when the economy was growing, the average price of an apartment was $1 million Canadian. People would take out a mortgage of say roughly $800,000, and they would expect the value of the apartment to increase, as it did for a number of years. Right now, the property prices have decreased by approximately 40%, so that apartment that was worth $1 million is now worth $600,000, but you still have a mortgage of $800,000 on it. You might have been given a visa and planned to go, but if you sell your apartment now, you're still going to be on the hook for another $200,000. You can't afford to move.

There are a number of situations like that one. It's just not specific to Hong Kong, it's right across Asia. In a lot of countries, people have every intention of moving, it's just not economically in their interest to do so now. They have to hunker down, weather out the storm, and wait for the situation to change.

The global competitiveness of Canada is an issue. There's certainly a perception that I don't think is particularly well founded. There was a series of articles in the Winnipeg Free Press this past week comparing Winnipeg to Minneapolis on the relative cost of living. The series of articles gave the impression that if you're a Canadian and you move to the States, you'll instantly get a 40% increase in salary and life will be better. I believe it's the Winnipeg Economic Development Corporation that has done a countering series of articles that basically say that's not the case, to take a look at it because it's not quite that simple. There's certainly a perception in part of the world that Canada is a much more expensive place to live than are a lot of other countries. I'm not sure that's well founded when you look at what you get for your dollar.

The Chairman: I'll give the floor to Raymonde, and then to Steve.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I would like to get back to Mr. McKay's question on the delays involved in getting a visa for an entrepreneur or investor. I would like to preface my question by saying that I know most of these entrepreneurs or investors are honest people. However, I also know there has been discussions of the possibility of a regulation or a new method apparently involving the assessment of these requests on the basis of how the capital was accumulated. The idea would be to ensure that the applicants have not laundered money before arriving in Canada.

So I was wondering whether there is, in fact, an assessment of the investors' capital. If so, what kind of time frames are involved for the issuance of visas to these investors who, correct me if I am wrong, come from South East Asia for the most part.

[English]

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Yes, we look at the source of funds. Partly because of the definition of “entrepreneur” or “investor”, it's required that they have earned the funds themselves. If you inherit money, that doesn't necessarily mean you can run a business. If you've earned it yourself and have developed it, it gives us more hope that you're going to be able to establish a business in Canada. We therefore look at where the money came from.

• 1025

It's extremely difficult in some situations. I think of China and Russia, where you have fast-growing, fast-developing economies without necessarily the government infrastructure to provide an impartial report of what your income was. In the Canadian situation, you'd ask to see a T-4 from last year or an income tax assessment as evidence of what the person's earnings were. In countries where the economy is developing, there often isn't a functioning income tax system. It therefore becomes much more difficult for us to be satisfied that the source of funds is through the individual's own efforts. And we also want to make sure they're legally obtained, as well.

We do recognize that the vast majority of applicants are honest. To some extent, that's why we establish the business centres: so that we can develop the expertise and familiarity with the various countries where the majority of our business applicants come from, and thus make it easier for everybody.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Can you mention delays that are involved in doing this kind of evaluation? What is the average?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Ideally, there are none. In the ideal situation, the vast majority of these applicants are represented by counsel or lawyers or consultants. If they provide a good package, that will address our concerns.

With the application form, what we generally do is look for evidence of what their income was over the past three years in order that we can discount a bad year if they've had one. We're looking to see that they have established a business that is running and that they're not just gradually running the business into the ground. If they provide all that information up front with the application, then it doesn't necessarily take any time at all. We do perform a random sampling of cases and verify it with host governments, but that's a very small percentage of the cases and it adds possibly a month to the process. But as I say, in most cases it's just dealt with as part of the process if they provide the information to us with the application form.

The Chairman: I'll go to Réal, and then to Steve.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: First, I would like to say that I am really counting on you to get an annotated copy of the Act. It is very important for us to be able to do our work.

I would like to get back to the determination of refugee status, and make sure that I have clearly understood the answer that you gave me a little while ago. In compiling the list of countries that it recognizes as producing political refugees, Canada decides on the basis of two conditions. There is the condition that you mentioned under the Convention, and the fact of having left one's country. The list is drawn up in consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the associated UN Agencies. Is my statement is correct?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: There is not really a list as such, because anyone can claim refugee status, regardless of their country of origin.

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is in Canada?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Even abroad. Anyone can enter one of our embassies abroad, for example, the embassy in London, and state that they come from a given country and claim refugee status.

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is how I understand it. I understand that regardless of where a person comes from, nothing prevents him or her from making a claim. At the point of entry, the claimant is asked to complete a personal information form, and this is analyzed by an officer who makes an initial determination as to a minimum basis for the claim.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I understand that. But I do not understand why we see people in our constituency offices who are removed to some countries and others who are not. What is the decision-making process by which some countries are recognized as producing claimants?

• 1030

Last March, I went to India with the Governor General. We recognized there that Afghanistan had produced political refugees, and Canada had emphasized the contribution of India, which had welcomed a number of Afghan refugees. So decisions are being made somewhere and it is recognized that such and such a country produces claimants. In his last report, the Auditor General refers to some dozen countries, based upon information that he had obtained from your department. What level of tension is necessary so that a country is recognized as producing claimants?

[English]

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I don't think that happens as such. What tends to happen is that there will be a limited number of countries that produce refugees at any one time, given the situation in the country in question. The IRB will determine, on an individual basis, whether or not the person qualifies as a refugee. It's not a situation in which someone is a refugee if he or she is from Afghanistan. It's more a case that if the person is from Afghanistan, this is the situation he or she might face as a member of a particular social group, as a member of the opposition, or something like that. It's driven by the individual based on background, rather than vice versa.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Therefore, there is a measure of discretion left up to each board member. I visited the IRB and I know that, as a quasi-judicial tribunal, it is administered at arm's length. It has blue folders that are consulted and maintains a documentation centre that gathers data on development in various countries from the UN and various other sources so that the members can be informed on the current situation in any given country. But since there is no list, authority or directives from the Department of Foreign Affairs or your Department, this may explain why there is a broad regional variation.

For example, the Auditor General's report stated that a given community might have 40 per cent of its application approved in Montreal, 30 per cent in Vancouver and 35 per cent in Toronto. These points may help us to understand the regional variations.

[English]

Mr. Bill Sheppit: We certainly provide input to the IRB and their documentation centre. Foreign Affairs does as well. But I think you'd be better placed to pose your question to the IRB when they are here today, because that's the very—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to ask one last question on this subject. For three years, the community groups involved in the reception of immigrants and political refugees have been demanding a decrease in or the end of landing fees. According to the Department documents, these fees generate $216 million of income. Obviously, this is a considerable amount. There are two types of fees: processing fees and landing fees. Do most countries have a system similar to Canada's and do they levy processing fees and landing fees?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Sheppit, do you want—

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I don't know. It's not my area of expertise. I know we've been negotiating with the provinces to transfer responsibility for settlement to them, but I couldn't tell you how. We can get back to you on that, on what the settlement money is spent on.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: A final question? No?

[English]

The Chairman: No, Steve, please.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It seems like nobody had any questions when we started out this morning.

I have two areas that I'd like to explore with you. First, in your PowerPoint presentation yesterday afternoon, one of the screens showed the differences between four countries, two of which were the United States and Canada. I believe it was in refugees, but you'll remember it. It seems that I recall a figure saying we were at some 70% in approvals, and the States was 30% or whatever.

Mr. Rodney Fields: Forty percent.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It was 40%? Australia might have been another one, and France was the last one. They were all dramatically lower than us. Some people would see that as good news, some wouldn't. I'm wondering what the main reasons would be for the difference. Why are we approving at so much higher a rate on a percentage basis—particularly vis-à-vis the States, if I might add?

• 1035

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I think there are a couple of things. One is that in the case of the European countries they don't necessarily grant permanent residence to people who are in need of protection. I think there's a much more temporary protection given, for example, in the case of Germany, where there were a larger number of people from Yugoslavia who went to Germany for three to five years on a temporary basis, and then when the situation changed they were expected to leave. So the notion of asylum varies from country to country.

Vis-à-vis the United States, I'm not familiar enough with their situation to comment on why their rate is lower than ours.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Last time we discussed the relationship between Canada and the United States around the issues of fraud and criminality vis-à-vis people applying for even visitor visas or refugee status or whatever. My experience in a previous life as a legislator in Ontario dealing with workers' compensation was that there was great hue and cry about the fraud that existed in the WCB in the province of Ontario, but when you got into it in reality it was somewhere between 2% and 5% of all claimants, and even that might be exaggerated.

What's the situation, in your view? And I also find it interesting how organizations can actually tell you how much fraud's in the system. It seems to me that if you can figure it out you should be able to eliminate it. But is there a similarity here? Is it really a perception issue, a political issue, rather than reality?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: What type of criminality are you speaking of?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I was going to ask you that, about what type of criminality. We hear things like money laundering going on, the false document issue. At the last sitting of this committee an attempt was made to have on the agenda the issue of how many minister's permits have been issued to people who might have a criminal record, and the opposition wanted to bring forward all the names and the types of crimes and the countries of origin, etc. I'm trying to get a handle on whether we have a system that is fraught with fraud, with crime—or is it just perception?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I think to discuss that you have to really put it in the context of the millions of people who cross the border who are genuine visitors who don't have any problems, who just go back and forth because they are our largest trading partner and ally and we're theirs. So I'm not sure what the numbers are of two-way flow of Canadian and American nationals, but if there are 41 million foreign visitors to Canada every year I would suspect that probably 35 or 36 million of those are Americans. In that context, 4,000 minister's permits covering the vast range of criminality is minimal.

I know that the Solicitor General has visited the Attorney General in the United States, and there's work there on the cross-border crime forum. Certainly the Americans view telemarketing, for example, as a uniquely Canadian contribution to North American crime, where you get bucket shops up here of telephone operators who are preying on elderly people in the United States and trying to get them to invest in snake oil salesmen or whatever the particulars of it are. I have no doubt that there is cross-border crime, just because it's there, but—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It would seem more to be issues for the justice department—

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —than for the immigration department.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: It impacts on us because it involves people. And we work very closely with the justice department and the RCMP and Solicitor General when we've identified people who are in that situation, but I think on the whole, given the number of people, that it's—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's minor.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: It's not unreasonable.

• 1040

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Just very briefly, as the chair is cutting me off, I believe the bill—I can't remember what it's called—in the United States Congress that would require visas for Canadians to go into the United States has been put on the back burner, at least for the time being.

Is that something you're monitoring? Is that something you think we, as a committee, should monitor?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: It's something the Canadian government has been deeply involved in through our embassy in Washington. It's something that we, as a department, have been involved in through a meeting between our minister and the Attorney General. There has been an increasingly close liaison and information sharing between our department and the American Immigration and Naturalization Service.

But it's obviously something that's a big— There's a lot of other work going on as well. Foreign Affairs is leading an interdepartmental group that's looking at relations with the United States and the border. Revenue Canada just released a discussion paper on the nature of the border. Again, obviously, given the relationship between the two countries and the impact on Canadian society and normal Canadians, it's something that's very important to us as a department, and I think to the government as a whole.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to follow up on Mr. Mahoney's questions, I understand the reason the Americans backed off is that they found they just couldn't really put a system in place to handle it. It's not because they're not really concerned about Canada's contribution to crime in the United States or the threat to national security, but because they just couldn't find a system that would work to really handle it.

That's my understanding.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I think a number of factors were involved. Certainly INS made no bones about the fact that they couldn't implement what they wanted to implement. I think there was certainly a very large-scale lobbying effort on both sides of the border among the American governors, for example, and the business community both in the States and in Canada. There was the argument that it would take 17 hours for trucks to cross through the tunnel between Windsor and Detroit and the economic impact that this would have.

There were a lot of factors. Is there just one factor? I wouldn't presume to know. I don't know.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But for us in Canada to pretend that we don't have a very serious problem with a criminal element finding its way into our country is burying our heads in the sand. If we don't deal with the problem, this could have a huge impact on Canada's economy, because if things are slowed down at the borders between Canada and the United States, we're going to pay a dear, dear price if we have a huge surplus.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I'm not suggesting that there's no criminality, but I think certainly, from my perception, the reality is that the criminal flow goes both ways. There are Americans who come here to commit crimes. American terrorists come to Canada. There are also Canadians who go to the States.

I grew up in Niagara Falls, and the border didn't exist for me. You would go over for dinner in Niagara Falls, whether it was New York or Ontario. I think that's the situation for a lot of Canadians, criminals as well as ordinary people.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, but that problem certainly is there, and that's why I'm encouraging this committee to take that on as its first priority. It should deal with the criminal element coming in and the threat to national security resulting from that.

Mr. Mahoney mentioned organized crime. Certainly there's terrorist activity. The director of CSIS said very clearly that Canada has become kind of a centre of terrorist activity around the world. That has to be a concern to us. I think it's something that has to be dealt with.

You have your role in that. I think it's important for the committee, but we'll talk about that among the committee later.

The Chairman: This is the last question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You're talking about inland immigration processing. You said that approximately 14% of all persons granted permanent residence last year had their applications processed within Canada.

Approximately what percentage would have them processed outside Canada while they're in Canada? In other words, it would be by just going to the American centres or some other centre by mail.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: We don't know.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You don't know?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: No, because according to our records, they're being processed overseas by an overseas post, which meets the technical requirements of the act.

• 1045

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you have an estimate?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: No.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You can't even go by postmarks?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Do you have any?

Mr. Rodney Fields: Not off the top of my head.

It is perfectly legitimate for people in Canada on valid status to apply for permanent residence outside of the country. Many apply to our regional program centre in Buffalo. The only way we would be able to find out who is in Canada and who isn't is to go through and exhaustively find out where the mailing address was for these people. It's hard to capture. We could get a ballpark figure, but that's about as good as it would be.

The Chairman: Andrew is next, and then the chair would like to pose a few questions after that.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, I really resent the implication that we're overwhelmed with criminality, and comments to the effect of Canada being the centre of terrorist activity in the world.

I came to this country as a refugee. Six or seven million Canadians were not born in this country. This country was built on immigration. To all of a sudden make it seem like we're the centre of criminal activity, I really have problems with that.

If we're going to have the Reform Party take the same approach as they have taken with crime and try to misrepresent the reality and then deal with the perception, we're going to have problems at this committee.

There's no question that, yes, any crime is a problem, and we should be trying to make it better, but to say that we're a centre and our numbers are overwhelming, I think is going totally in the wrong direction.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The director general of CSIS said that, not me. I was quoting from him, for Pete's sake.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I would have problems that, and I hope this is not the way we are going to be proceeding, because I think most people on this committee, certainly on this side, recognize the issue of immigration. They recognize that we are a country of immigrants and recognize that we probably have, as much as the Reform Party doesn't want to say it, the best country in the world and the best institutions in the world.

That's not to say it doesn't have some problems, and that's one of the things we as a committee are here to deal with and to make input on, but we certainly don't want to give the impression to the public that Canada is the haven of criminality. So let's try to keep it on a positive focus, where we are going to try to improve the way things operate.

Mr. Sheppit, I know in the case of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, one of the things they are very much concerned with as they expand towards the EU is guarding their external borders. The whole security of movement of people becomes then a problem of border controls. I guess the weakest border control becomes the weakest link.

We have a very good exchange with the United States of America, and we have reasonable border control outside of that in Canada, because it's hard to get here. In the United States, I guess their biggest problem is people from the south. There is no question that the reason the OSCE is doing this is because they are fearful that terrorism is going to be the new wave, especially from fundamentalist groups, versus states actually going to war. I think that would probably mean that we're going to have to have some exit controls as well. Can you tell me if the department is looking at that, what are the plans, and how can we maybe even get to the point where we can coordinate standards with Europe?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I might be tempted to accuse you of reading our internal mail.

Certainly, as I mentioned, the minister met with the Attorney General just over a year ago. Since that time, we've been working in very close co-operation with the Americans on exactly the same type of framework in a North American context. There has been a great deal of discussion. We've signed one agreement so far on information sharing, and we're working on a couple of others, basically to establish a North American perimeter. The Minister of National Revenue mentioned last week that he'll be entering into discussions with Americans about common standards on swipe cards for people traversing the border.

• 1050

We've been talking to the Americans a lot, and within the Canadian government as well, about establishing a North American perimeter, because the vast majority of people who come in from overseas, especially into Canada but right across the board, come in through airports. It's easier to maintain standards and selectivity at seven or eight major international airports than it is across 3,000 miles of border between Canada and the United States. We're certainly looking at that.

In the broader international context, we've been working through the G-8, ICAO, and other organizations, in terms of common international standards—again, information sharing. The G-8 at their summit meeting in Birmingham in May, I believe, talked about the importance of taking initiatives to combat transnational organized crime, people smuggling and the smuggling of women and children, and we're involved in that in a big way as well.

Mr. Grant can give you much more detail on the international side of what we're doing, if you'd like, but we're certainly involved in a number of activities on that side.

The Chairman: The chair would like the permission of the committee to pose a few questions.

First, you are aware that the record in the passport for visitors' visas is stamped with two dates. One is the visa issued on that given date, and it is valid until a given date. Are you aware this has been a source of confusion as to the validity of a stay within Canada once the visitor has arrived in Canada? Visitors think they can stay for as long as the visa is valid and has not been exceeded. The law itself states that once it is stamped under the act that visitor's visa is valid six months from the date of being stamped with a date. Yet the visa expiry date printed when the visitor obtains the visa in a foreign post says it is valid until a given date. Usually that's much longer, a year or sometimes two. Are you aware of the problems this has created?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Not particularly, no. I think the wording on the visa itself is something along the lines of valid for presentation until such and such a date. When somebody comes in, as I indicated, 95% of them are seen by a customs officer. There are certainly signs in the airport that indicate that your stay is valid for six months unless there's another date.

How large a problem it is, I couldn't say. I'm certainly not aware of any anecdotal evidence about that.

The Chairman: I have a lot of anecdotal evidence, myself.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Yes, obviously you do.

The Chairman: Next, you indicated one of the criteria used for a family with a very meagre salary or almost no income, or no income, wanting to visit Canada and how could that person pay for the transportation and stay for say 12 weeks in Canada. Does the foreign office take into account the promise of sponsorship or payment for the travel by the relatives in Canada?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Yes. As I said, they look at the whole package of the application, including who they're going to. For example, it's much more logical that somebody would visit close relatives in Canada—

The Chairman: Than a general visit.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: —than a general visit. It's more logical, whether the tourist industry likes it or not, that people will come and visit Canada in the summertime rather than in the middle of winter.

The Chairman: Is it true that an affidavit of support is required of visitors applying for the visa?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I think it depends on the country and the situation. Certainly a letter of invitation or an affidavit of support or some evidence of support from someone in Canada is helpful as part of the package, but the various offices will have specific requirements, depending on their experience of their clientele.

The Chairman: Would you be kind enough to provide the committee with information as to the type of usage of this flexible requirement by the various foreign offices in the world? Perhaps because of the flexibility, the news has spread in various communities, Filipino, Chinese, Indian, Ukrainian, and Polish, and they compared notes. They will see that this is required or that is not required. This has created an element of confusion and sometimes difficulty.

• 1055

Perhaps you could provide the committee with the current practice as to whether this is required or not. I have asked myself this. I know of two offices in the world where they say this is not required, yet people applying say it continues to be required. There is this confusion in knowing that every bit of support cannot be enforced in law.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: It's my experience that there's nothing like the immigration program to generate myth, disinformation, and confusion. We'll be happy to provide you with clarification on that.

The Chairman: On the need to pay for the application fee again, say a member of Parliament has made an approach for the reconsideration of a denial of a visitor's visa. Do we have a clear guideline as to when the fee may be waived if the fee has to be paid again by the applicant on whose behalf a member of Parliament has made an appeal for reconsideration? In other words, the member of Parliament wants to assist the foreign office by providing useful information.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: It's my understanding that whether it's a member of Parliament or someone else, if the original decision is being reconsidered, then it would be covered by—

The Chairman: The original fee.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: —the original fee. If there's new information being provided that wasn't included at the time and a new application is required, then a new fee would be required.

The Chairman: When can landed immigrant minors apply for citizenship? Are they automatically included in the application of the parents, adults, or what?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: They may be included in their parents' application, but the parents would have to apply. To apply on their own, they would have to be 18.

The Chairman: Okay, that's my last question.

Leon, we only have a minute left.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Oh, that's okay.

The Chairman: I'll go to John Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): I'm glad to be here to hear the discussion. I hope it will be helpful.

I have two questions; you have triggered one. I have had requests from people wishing to visit the country to send a letter that they can present in Pakistan and India that will help them to get here. This happens because I know their relatives who are here in my riding.

I have taken the position, Mr. Chairman, that there are rules and procedures. I say they should apply. There's a valid family member here who's prepared to support you and so on.

I don't want to get involved. It's not because I don't want to be helpful, but I have found over the past five years that if you get too involved, somebody at the other end in Cuba, Pakistan, or somewhere gets turned off. So what I think is a perfectly legitimate case becomes some sort of a bureaucratic problem over there. I know that the minister and you are just as far away as I am. In fact, I had a three-way conversation in one case that I didn't believe whereby the person said this and our employee said that.

The Chairman: John, will you ask the question? We have to vacate the room by 11 o'clock.

Mr. John Finlay: I'm sorry.

Am I right, or should I write a letter every time someone wants me to? I take it from your answer before that probably I'd do just as well to do what I'm doing and wait until there's a problem before I write a letter.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I'll answer that with an example. When Vancouver hosted in 1986—

Mr. Rodney Fields: The world's fair.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: —the world's fair, the B.C. premier sent out letters of invitation. I can't tell you how many thousands of those were included as part of visitor visa application forms on the grounds that the individual had been personally invited by the premier.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's a good reason to turn them down.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I would continue to do what you're doing.

Mr. John Finlay: I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Go ahead, please.

• 1100

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Mahoney mentioned that there was some concern in the press about the number of minister's warrants, special permits, that end up apparently being for criminals. I just want to be assured that the minister didn't know they were criminals when those warrants were issued and that this was something that happened afterward.

The Chairman: Mr. Sheppit, you can have a quick answer.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Permits are granted to people who are inadmissible to Canada. I assure you that the minister takes a close look at that issue every year. The definition of criminality varies considerably, going from people with drunk driving offences who are truck drivers to more serious criminals.

The Chairman: On that note, I would like to thank the officials from the department.

We'll meet again at 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4.

The meeting is adjourned.