CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, December 3, 1998

• 0910

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): I would now like to call the meeting to order to pursue the consideration of visitors' visas. We have with us again the three witnesses we had yesterday: Ms. Tromp, Mr. LeBane, and Ms. Atkinson; and we have an additional witness in the person of Mr. Francis.

[Technical Difficulty—Editor]

• 0911

• 0915

The Chairman: I'll say again for the record that we are resuming consideration of the visitors' visas agenda. We have with us the three witnesses we had yesterday: Mr. LeBane, Ms. Tromp, and Ms. Atkinson; and we have an additional witness in the person of Mr. Kent Francis, a foreign service officer.

On that note, we would like to start with Mr. Benoit, if he's ready to pose the first set of questions.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Good morning.

If I could, I want to get a little bit more information on something that was asked about yesterday. I asked about it just at the end, and I didn't feel we had enough time to pursue it. It was a quick question.

Again, how did you came up with the figure of $50,000, when you just threw that up as an amount that you know people are willing to pay? You must be thinking of some particular cases when you mention that.

I'd just like to get an idea of the types of operations you know of that are set up to get into the country people who otherwise wouldn't be allowed into the country.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp (Director General, Enforcement, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): As I said yesterday, this is information we get from our intelligence reporting. We get it from various sources, occasionally from people who have been smuggled in. When they arrive, they will tell us what they've paid. The numbers can range anywhere from $10,000 up to $50,000. These are the kinds of figures we are told about and know about.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like you to explain a bit more about how these operations work and maybe refer to a couple in particular, if you could. I just want to get a really good picture of how these work, and then from that I hope we can get an idea as to how they can be countered, maybe.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Well, I don't have in hand any specific examples I can give you, but certainly, speaking generally, I can tell you that often smugglers operate as sophisticated organized crime networks. Sometimes they may not be so sophisticated. They operate most often with forged documentation and require payment from individuals. They might bring them through various routes into this country.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Which documentation is most likely to be forged?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Some countries' documents are less secure than other countries' documents.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So these would be documents from the country of origin mainly, or visitors' visas as well?

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Director General, Selection Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): The sorts of documents that can be used are things such as passports from visa-free countries. As we talked about yesterday, not every country requires a visa, so the documents of countries that do not require a visa are documents of choice for people-smugglers, because it means they can show a document to an airline official and get on the plane to go to Canada.

The other problem we tend to have is that once a smuggler has a good document, they can recycle that document so that more than one person can use that document.

Mr. Jeff LeBane (Director General, International Region, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): If I could give you a specific example—and it's known in the press today and it's discussed—in Trinidad and Tobago, their passport is not a secure document. What happens is the laminate over the picture can be taken off, for example, and you can substitute quite easily the photograph under the laminate. It would take a great deal of detection to establish, first of all, if it's a legitimate passport. That's one aspect, and it's something we're working on with the Trinidadian government. They're very seized with the issue right now, because that document is exposed and anyone can use that document.

• 0920

The other challenge related to that, when you start altering a document, is the access of individuals in a particular country to a register—a birth register, for example. In certain countries, such as Trinidad, you have easy access to civil registers. People can go in and alter the official record or take out extracts. You can recreate a person. There are real challenges.

In Haiti, for another example, a person can come forward to the civil authorities at any point in time with witnesses and say, “This is my true date of birth.” They can enter into the civil register whatever date of birth, with witnesses. That invites abuse.

So if you connect what can be put easily into the civil register and the ease with which you can alter a travel document, it's easy to gain access to other countries.

Mr. Leon Benoit: These documents are then used in application for a visa, and they're hard to detect at that point? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In other cases I imagine the visa is completely bypassed. You can just get documentation from passports—including Canadian passports, I suppose—and get in that way.

Again, you've used some figures as to how much people are willing to pay. Could I just get an idea, from intelligence, of which countries this is most commonly done in, or at least where there's a significant amount done? Particular countries must be showing up through intelligence that's being collected.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: The primary countries are those that are in fact top countries for in-Canada refugee claimants, so Sri Lanka, India, China, Pakistan, and Iran.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Have you found this out from people who have applied, then? Is that where this information has come from in many cases—people who have come in under visitors' visas and then applied for refugee status?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Again, the percentage who have visitors' visas who come here and apply for refugee status is very small.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I know that, but I'm asking.... When I asked the question about which countries of origin this shows up in, you said countries that you're most likely to have refugees apply from.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I think you said something like 1,300 people applied for refugee status out of a total of 750,000 people who applied for visitors' visas. But is that where you're getting your information from then—from these people who have applied and you see that they came in under visitors' visas? Or is there some other way of finding this information?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: First of all, we're able to track some of this information through our intelligence systems, our monitoring of improperly documented arrivals and where they're coming from through our immigration control officers overseas. So our interdiction activities and our interceptions allow us to see where some of these people are coming from and where the movements are of the smuggler networks.

Often what happens with the smuggling networks, and one of our significant problems, is that the individuals will board an aircraft with fraudulent documentation, and when they arrive here in Canada, they don't have the documentation. But again, through the numbers and the percentages that we do intercept....

Our interdiction programs—stopping people who are improperly documented from coming to Canada—are very successful. Since 1989 we have doubled our interception rate through the use of our immigration control officers overseas, enhanced training, and so on to stop people before they get on the aircraft.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: If I may add to Ms. Tromp's answer, it's not simply stopping, through interdiction, people leaving their countries, or even when they arrive here. We're also trying to deal effectively with the smugglers, and these are very sophisticated individuals or organizations. We are picking up information globally, working with other allied governments to share information.

• 0925

If you have, for example, a group of people who are being smuggled collectively from Sri Lanka or Pakistan, they're not flying to Canada directly, obviously, so they'll have staging points. They may travel legitimately to Turkey or to Moscow, and their documents may be in order up to that point. Smugglers will meet them at that point and facilitate their movement on from there. They have various staging grounds.

As we watch them, they watch us. We know, for example, that in Europe there are key points today that are new staging grounds to move these people to Canada or the United States.

Our challenge is to work effectively, not just with traditional governments such as the United States or the United Kingdom, but with countries en route—for example, Turkish or German officials.

The Chairman: We will proceed now to Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I'd like to insist that you conduct the investigation that I spoke of yesterday into the incident involving Mr. Alex Maskey, the Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland who was denied entry into the country. Perhaps you don't wish to discuss this particular case in committee, and I wouldn't want to take up the committee's time either, but I would appreciate your writing or phoning me with more information about this case, because some irregularities in the system were noted.

Perhaps this is a field of shared responsibility and maybe Mr. Maskey didn't do everything he should have done, but the fact remains that this is an individual highly committed to the peace process and he was unable to speak to CSN delegates. I would like this matter to be clarified. If you would like to share this information with me immediately, that would also be fine.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We in fact do have some additional information from yesterday that we can share with you. We did some checking, and in fact Mr. Maskey was not refused a visa; he did not formally apply for a document. He had been in contact with the Department of Foreign Affairs, as we understand it, and Foreign Affairs had advised him that he would require a minister's permit. As we talked about yesterday, there was a requirement for him to have a minister's permit because of a previous criminal conviction.

He apparently went to Boston initially, and in Boston we do not have an immigration presence and we do not have any visa officers, so they were unable to deal with his request. He was referred to New York, and evidently there was not enough time, I guess, for New York to deal with his request for a minister's permit, so he ended up not making a formal application.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: He applied for, but was denied a minister's permit. Why would someone from Northern Ireland coming to New York not apply?

I would also appreciate an official response in writing. I will contact Mr. Maskey in Ireland and ask him what transpired. Understandably, there is no reason to deny entry to persons who are committed to the peace process and who come here as guest speakers.

I can understand that officers are enforcing the law and that visitors with criminal records must obtain a minister's permit. There's no way either you or I will change this requirement. However, a mix-up occurred and we must get to the bottom of this.

Pursuant to section 18 of the Immigration Act, a visitor may be required to deposit money as a security or guarantee. Did you say that these persons were prepared to deposit $50,000 on average to secure a visa and that this formula was frequently used? How frequently are the provisions of section 18 of the act invoked?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'm not sure we have any specific information on how many times that is invoked. We'll have to get back to you, Monsieur Ménard, specifically on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: However, this provision is included in the act and can be invoked. Are these security deposits one way of dealing with the problem, namely the fact that 10% of people fail to obtain a visa? Do you believe that this is the way to resolve this problem?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, as we've talked about, the posting of any kind of bond can only be done on the basis that, number one, the visitor is deemed to be a bona fide visitor. It's a way of ensuring compliance with terms and conditions that may be imposed on that visitor.

• 0930

The fundamental issue we've been talking about is how we deal with those visitors where the visa officer has decided that the individual is not a bona fide visitor and is not coming forward to Canada for a temporary purpose—where the visa officer is not satisfied that the individual has discharged that burden of proof that they are not an intending immigrant.

We have no provisional cases.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Which explains the cases that we have come across. To begin with, a person who is prepared to post a $50,000 bond is relatively well off, financially speaking. Personally, if someone were to ask me tomorrow to put up $50,000 as a guarantee, I wouldn't be able to do it. I don't know about you. Yet, I'm a frugal person. I don't drink and I don't smoke.

[English]

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): You still have your pension.

Voices: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm having trouble understanding why visas wouldn't be granted to persons who want to come to this country for a family event, be it a wedding, funeral or some other important function. In recent years, I've met a number of people who belong to Montreal's Algerian community. When a death in the family or some other important family related event occurred, visitors were unable to get a visa because immigration officials were concerned that they might not return to their country of origin. The practice was to systematically reject their visa applications.

Let me put my question to you a different way. If a prospective visitor applies for a visa and that person's children remain behind in the home country, shouldn't this factor be taken into account? Logically, if the applicant has children or a business back in his country of origin, normally he should want to return home. How heavily do these factors weigh in the final decision?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Certainly the family ties in the home country—the fact that there are children and extended family in the home country—is one of the factors. But again, as we emphasized yesterday, a variety of factors need to be considered, and there's always the balance between those factors that would lead you to believe an individual would return to their country of origin and those factors that would lead you to believe a person would not return to their country of origin.

Certainly the fact that there is family in the country of origin—there are children, there are businesses, there's extended family, there's activity—is very much used in that decision-making process. But that has to be weighed and balanced against the pull factors that are bringing a person to Canada. And of course the visa officer has to make an assessment looking at all of those factors together.

So it's not that those issues are ignored in making the decision. They are some of many factors that are taken into account.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could you get that information to the committee? You're saying that 90% of all visa applications are approved. That's what the deputy ministers also told us. Do you have any way of verifying if, a posteriori, your decision to reject the other 10% was the right decision to make? Do you have a breakdown by country of the applications rejected? For example, which country has the highest refusal rate? It would be interesting to have some data on the 10% of applications rejected. Is it your feeling that in most cases, the decision to reject the application is justified?

Maybe the committee is getting worked up for nothing and that basically, there is no problem since 90% of all visa applications are approved. However, in constituency offices in Toronto as well as Montreal, the impression is that something is really wrong with the system.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think we do have some information on the refusal rates at various posts, and Mr. LeBane would like to address that.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Mr. Chair, you asked this yesterday, and we will provide a supplementary in writing, but I do have today the—

The Chairman: So you could send it in writing.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Yes, but I can give them to you orally right now.

The Chairman: Sure. Proceed, please.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: But I would just caution you. We collect our data on the basis of posts, not countries per se, because a person can apply at any one of our programs over the world. So the statistics I'm giving you are a very clear indication, but it's not 100% accurate.

• 0935

For example, the highest refusal rate in the world is Dhaka, our post in Bangladesh. The refusal rate is 52%.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: What percentage?

[English]

Mr. Jeff LeBane: It's 52%. The great, overwhelming majority of those people obviously are Bangladeshis. There may be the odd person from India or China who chooses to travel to Dhaka. I want to be careful that we understand that.

The second-highest is Sri Lanka, our program in Colombo, and the refusal rate is 46%. The third-highest is Haiti, our office in Port-au-Prince, and it's 45%. Accra in Ghana is 43%, and Lagos in Nigeria is 42%.

Mr. Chair, you asked for five or 10. I have the next five, unless that suffices for the purposes—

The Chairman: Members of the committee, would you like to hear the last five?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay, sure.

An hon. member: Where's India?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: India is much lower; it's not in the top 10.

An hon. member: Where is it?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: I'll give you the top 10 and then I'll give you some others that you might be interested in.

The Chairman: Yes, proceed to the top 10.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Okay.

Rome is 39%, but Rome we have to be careful about, because it gets travellers from all over the world, and most of those people being refused would be from different parts of the world.

Islamabad in Pakistan, 38%; Kingston in Jamaica, 34%; Seoul in Korea, 33%; and Amman in Jordan, 31%. In Jordan, I would point out, we get a significant number of people applying from Iran and Iraq.

Those are the top 10. They are not surprising, given the fact that those posts have a lot of people who have relatives in Canada, a lot of ties to Canada. So the fact that they're there is not necessarily a surprise.

The percentage of visitor refusals for New Delhi is 26%; for our office in Beijing, China, it's 13%; and for the Philippines it's 13% as well. Those cover not all but most of our major programs.

The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, certainly it is the interest of the chair that, if you can, you provide the committee with a complete list so that the research staff can look at it.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Yes, absolutely.

The Chairman: Good. Thank you.

Mr. Telegdi now has the floor.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. LeBane, did you think about some of the things we discussed yesterday in terms of what might work as guarantees from this side?

Mr. John McKay: And your complete solution.

An hon. member: Could you mail it to us?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jeff LeBane: I would come back to my earlier comments.

First, the way our legislation is presently structured, we can discuss at length bonds and affidavits, but if they have no means that effectively can guarantee the removal of the person at the end of the day, if they allow avenues for other recourse....

It's an interesting discussion, but if you're looking for a remedy, then we would have to look at a very significant review of immigration legislation; a re-examination of the definition of the visa; and a redefinition or an introduction of some component, some sub-unit, of, if you want, a family-class visitor visa or a family-class minister's permit, which would facilitate these grey areas and would facilitate these people coming.

• 0940

You could argue that they could have the opportunity for extensions within that, but there would be no opportunity.... There would probably be a humanitarian component, if there were a death in the family or some extreme situation arose, but there would be no opportunity to make a non-genuine refugee claim, no opportunity for a change from a temporary status to a permanent status.

When you look at that, the immediate issues we face are these. If you were to struggle to create that, there are charter issues. We talked about the charter.

We have a certain flexibility today for all the anomalies and problems we have. If we went to something like that, one of the consequences on the other side of the coin would be as follows. Many, many people come here as visitors, they meet Canadians, and they get married. The system is very generous in that regard and allows for landing. If you were to re-craft something to limit any opportunity for an exceptional circumstance, that's one of the challenges on the other side.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: If I could just add to that, picking up on Mr. LeBane's last point, when you try to codify in legislation or regulation a situation that arises in the context of processing, then you lose flexibility to be able to deal with the myriad of different human situations that we run into in the immigration program.

We have a good level of discretion in the system now, and there are pros and cons to having that level of discretion. On the one hand, it means we have that flexibility and we can respond to the variety of different situations that we run across every day in the immigration program. On the other hand, it means that discretion, by its nature, is dependent on the individual decision-maker and the judgment that individual decision-maker applies to the circumstance at hand. So we run into perceived problems in consistency.

It's a dilemma in terms of where you draw that line between having a system that is absolutely transparent, because you have everything codified in regulation, and having a system that is very flexible and allows for individual decision-makers to use their judgment and the tools at their disposal to respond to circumstances as they arise.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Prior to coming onto the Hill—

The Chairman: Mr. LeBane would like to add something.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: If there's time.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Well, I want to do some follow-up. I don't want him using up all my time, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: I can wait until you finish.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Before I came onto the Hill, I used to be in a community agency. One of the things we used to do was a bail program, where we had to deal with people who were going to either come back to court or commit further offences.

Depending on what the requirements were, we'd have a pretty good idea as to whether somebody was going to return and not commit any offences. More often than not, it had a lot to do with the support they had in the community and to what extent somebody would come forward and put up surety, those kinds of things.

People are not going to put up surety if they know they have a good chance of losing it. We're dealing with an imperfect....

You're dealing with judgment calls; you're dealing with grey areas. The officer on the ground, say back in Delhi, might not know the whole story. Back here, we know another part of the story.

Let me tell you, my office does not got to bat for cases we don't believe are legit, because as Mr. McKay said, undertakings are difficult at best. But I know of many cases where the individual would have been quite willing to put up a substantial bond to accommodate a family member coming up for a particular period, and in some cases it's time-sensitive.

If there were some kind of mechanism to do that, it could go a long way to solving some of the prickly problems we end up having in our office. And I don't think we'd be compromising the system as long as you had that there.

• 0945

It would have to be enforced; there's no question about it. It would have to be enforced.

If it gets into the paper that somebody loses a house because they guaranteed something, well, so be it—and that will get around very quickly. But if we can take a look at that when we go through the review, we could be partially solving a difficult problem that many of us encounter, and keeping the integrity of the system. I don't think anybody around this table wants to damage the integrity of the system.

The Chairman: Mr. LeBane.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: First of all, when we get your representations....

We're dealing with not a large number of posts. We get to know the program manager and the senior officers at the posts through correspondence and sometimes visits, and vice versa.

We know your integrity, and our answer is not always no. We do respond; we do change our decision. If we don't issue a visa, on occasion we will issue a permit. So first of all, I'd say we do respond.

The more interaction we have with members of Parliament and our offices abroad, the better. We had this conversation a little bit last night. We have the members of Parliament saying to us, “I know my constituent. I'm very committed to this. If you issue the visa, I will ensure that when the gentleman in question returns to the country, he will come in to your office and return the permit or confirm that he's come back.”

We've also had from many MPs letters saying, “I sponsored this person. He has now made a refugee claim in Canada. I will be much more careful in the future.” When we get subsequent letters of support from these members of Parliament, we're working on the basis of their integrity. Yes, there was a mistake, but we continue to look favourably at these requests. We don't always say no.

Mr. Chair, we thought it might be helpful for you, if you are interested, to ask questions to Kent Francis. He's an immigration foreign service officer who's just come back from Guatemala. He has served in India, in Colombia, in Argentina, and most recently he was our program manager in Guatemala. In the course of his career, he got many letters, directly or indirectly, from members of Parliament. If you wish, he could comment on strengths and weaknesses in the letters, or if you have other questions you want to put to him, I leave that to you. He's available.

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi still has the floor.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I'd like to shift it back again, because I think Mr. McKay said it. I might know the person, but it's a lot more comforting for me when somebody comes in and says, “I will put up $50,000 or $25,000 if this person returns. I will undertake any cost.” So it doesn't cost the taxpayer any money if they try to abuse the system, for example by claiming refugee status, and now they can apply for legal aid, which has to be funded, and everything else around it.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Yes.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I would feel a lot better if that kind of system were in place, because we would have a guarantee by that individual who has made that undertaking and who's putting up those moneys.

I had a fellow whose daughter was getting married. He happens to be from India. He happens to employ 800 people in my riding. I knew when he came to me that the people were coming for the wedding. He had to get a minister's permit for three of them. I'd have no problem with this fellow putting up whatever guarantee is required, because he had a big wedding. I feel quite comfortable about that. If somebody screwed up, that would be too bad for him in the sense that it would cost him money, and it wouldn't cost the taxpayers any money.

That would be a very good kind of guarantee, better than any undertaking that I or most MPs could give. Somehow if we had that in the system....

• 0950

And it doesn't mean you have to eliminate all discretion everywhere by just having a special category.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: No, I understand.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Then you'd find that once they come in and they have to have a deposit on hand or what have you, you'll know if they leave the country, because chances are they will pick up the deposit on their way out. They're not going to leave it behind. So all of a sudden you have some kind of exit control that you can check fairly readily.

The Chairman: Mr. LeBane, do you have any comment to that observation?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Well, it's an option for consideration.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

The next one is Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

First of all, thanks for coming back this morning. I appreciated your candour yesterday. I have not always said that about witnesses from the department, so when we get good testimony, I say that, as opposed to my other comment about department witnesses in times past.

I want to go back to the issue of the arbitrariness of the decision. Instead of focusing on the ties, I'll focus on one of the things that, again, drives a lot of us crazy, which is the apparent arbitrariness of the decision with respect to medicals.

Here the focus is really New Delhi. I'm surprised to hear your rate is so low in New Delhi, but it would be interesting to know what are the applications in the pipeline as well, because it seems, from our side of the fence, to be an endless paper chase, just an endless paper chase. If you want to come to Canada as a visitor for next December, you'd better start now, because you're going to be running around.

A whole bunch of cultural factors that I'm only dimly aware of are in play there, but the medical one seems to me to be strange.

So let's go to the refusal. Could there be something designed whereby the host family undertakes—and this again would have to be a meaningful undertaking, a real undertaking—to eliminate the possibility of that individual making a claim on the Canadian medical system? Could something meaningful be done there?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: There are two parts. I'd like to address part of the answer, and Ms. Atkinson will address the medical issues and what you raise.

One thing that has come out a number of times in your questions, directly or indirectly, yesterday and today, is the servicing of visitors from India and the long timeframes. We have put in a very significant number of measures there to facilitate visitor application processing.

If you have travelled to Canada, if you're a frequent traveller, you can send in your application. There is no requirement to be re-interviewed. We waive a lot of cases. If you are a business traveller or if you travel to Canada many times, you can submit your applications and passports through travel agents. Many people do that.

We've opened up a facilitation office, if you will, in the Punjab in Chandigarh, to give out forms and answer specific inquiries. We make area trips throughout the country. We go to Bombay about every five or six weeks to interview people who've had no relationship or dealing with the mission before. We make area visits to Calcutta. We make area visits to Dhaka, which is in Bangladesh, but it's part of our territory.

We go out. We don't just sit there and require people to come in in person.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Maybe I can say a few words about the medical process, because you alluded to that as being one of the delays in people getting visitor visas.

As you probably know, under the immigration legislation, we have a twofold medical responsibility. People are examined to determine whether or not they would make an excessive demand on health and social services, but secondly, to determine whether they would be a threat to public health.

In the visitor movement, the rule is that if you are coming to Canada for longer than six months and you reside or have resided in a country where there is increased public health risk, then you are required to undergo and pass a medical examination. For visitors, we are largely looking at the threat to public health, because visitors by and large do not have access to the publicly funded health care system in Canada. If they require treatment, then they have to pay for it, because they're not entitled to access under the publicly funded system.

• 0955

In terms of designating countries and determining which countries we need to examine visitors from, we're largely looking at the incidence of tuberculosis. That is our primary consideration in terms of public health risk. That's why visitors are required, if they come from those countries and are coming to Canada for longer than six months, to undergo a medical, which includes a chest X-ray to check for tuberculosis.

Mr. John McKay: My concern has not been so much with the public health aspect of the risk, which I appreciate and understand. My concern is with the 62-year-old male who's coming for a family function and has a heart condition and will have a heart condition for the rest of his life, and who's being turned down on that basis. At one level I can argue that this is going to be an excessive demand on our system. The issue is the risk and how to manage the risk.

The host families here have asked me if they can buy medical insurance in some manner or another that will alleviate the risk to the Canadian medical system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any programs along those lines. I'm not aware of anywhere it could be purchased. Is that an area that could be usefully explored?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I would say it's probably very difficult for people to get private health insurance if there's a pre-identified medical condition. So that may not be a solution.

In terms of whether these are areas we can explore, we are indeed looking at our routine testing and our medical processes, as they apply to both immigrants and visitors, to determine whether we have the right mix in the kinds of test we currently do for immigrants and visitors, both on the basis of public health risk and on the basis of excessive cost. In the visitor movement, that's certainly a valid point, and it's certainly something we'll be looking at in the context of—-

Mr. John McKay: What about the times—?

The Chairman: I forgot to alert you that we are already on the five-minute round.

Mr. John McKay: Oh, there's a five-minute round?

The Chairman: Yes. Can I proceed with Mr. McNally?

Mr. John McKay: Did he get 10 minutes?

The Chairman: No, he will get five minutes.

Mr. John McKay: No, did he get 10 minutes?

The Chairman: Before it was 10, 10, 10, yes.

Mr. McNally.

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

I appreciate the difficulty you're often in with these kinds of questions, because you have to work within the rules that already exist and you don't have the ability or authority to change the rules, even when you see things that could be changed to make some improvements.

I want to go back to what Mr. Benoit was talking about: the travel documents and abuse of the system. As you indicated yesterday, when there's an abuse of the system, that requires all these other measures that we're talking about now being put in place. Then people who possibly should be able to come here get screened out because of other people who abuse the system. If we focus on the abuse of the system, that might in turn help the kinds of individuals Mr. McKay is talking about.

Going back to what you were mentioning earlier, Mr. LeBane, you were talking about staging points and individuals moving from one country to another before coming to Canada. I was wondering if you could pick up on that point you were making when Mr. Benoit ran out of time. You were talking about how individuals watch you and your movements, and they adapt to those movements themselves. What particular steps would you see that could be put in place to curtail that kind of activity?

The Chairman: Perhaps I should interject here.

Mr. Grant McNally: Sure. I can hear the bells ringing.

The Chairman: No, not so much for the votes.

If indeed we would not like the potential for those with ill motives coming to Canada to hear of these steps we have to take to put a check on them, maybe that is a question that should be answered in camera.

Mr. Grant McNally: Oh, I don't know if they're going to be reading our minutes.

The Chairman: I'll leave it to your discretion.

• 1000

Mr. Jeff LeBane: We can keep our comments general.

Mr. Grant McNally: Just general, yes. We're not looking for any secret documents or anything.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: In terms of our enforcement strategy, obviously we want to resolve the problem at source. We want to keep the problem away from Canada. It's much more cost-effective and it maintains the integrity of the program. So that's our first objective.

As has been said, our immigration control network abroad is effective. It continues to develop its relationships and information-sharing, working together with other like-minded countries. We do things together with them.

The biggest critical challenge we struggle with in the department is that, as we said yesterday, we have 25 to 30 immigration control officers overseas. That's a very, very small number. The majority are individuals, but also, at different missions, it's broken up into a part of an officer's time: he may be doing visitor work for half the day and enforcement work for the other half.

So we have a limited number of officers. We try to work with other countries and share information and do joint operations together to maximize our benefit, but because of that limited number, we cannot be everywhere. Those very sophisticated smugglers who have a lot of money can stage their operations at weak points, where we are not, where there may not be like-minded countries, and where we're vulnerable. They certainly know where our immigration programs are abroad, and they probably know where we have immigration control officers too. In some home countries where malfeasance is a serious issue, they also probably know to some degree our dealings with host countries.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we're running out of time, and I just want to ask this other question and make sure I get an answer from you on this one.

We had some RCMP officers speak to us last year about interdiction and working in cooperation with enforcement officers abroad, and I think that's a really wise move to make and a good way to go. They had indicated that if they had approximately 15 or 20 officers able to operate as a flying team, so to speak, almost in response to the people-smugglers....

Intermittent reinforcement is always the most positive, when you don't know when someone is going to be in which place. If that were in operation abroad and the people-smugglers didn't always know where they were going to be, that would help to curtail the system as well.

I don't need an exact number, but in your estimation, how many immigration enforcement officers would it take to make a more effective dent or send a message abroad to these people, who are obviously abusing the system, that this is going to be a priority and to make it tougher for them? We have 25 now. Would you say 50 or 70? I know it's a hard question, a very hard question.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes, it's a very speculative question and difficult to answer.

I can tell you we are extending our reach, though. Because of the factors Mr. LeBane and you just spoke about—and I alluded to this yesterday—in fact a number of other countries, such as Australia, Britain, and the United States, are setting up similar networks to ours.

One of the most resource-effective, cost-effective ways of extending our reach, if you will, is to enter into information-sharing and cooperative arrangements with those countries so that in fact we are working cooperatively and expanding our network by working with them and with their officers overseas to extend our reach. They might be more active in a certain part of the world and be able to help us there, and we likewise could help them.

We are very active on that front, and I guess the success of our network is one of the reasons other countries are now moving in that direction as well.

• 1005

The Chairman: Mr. LeBane.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: You raise a very good issue. How many more? I can't give you a precise figure. We need more. It's recognized in the department, and we're doing our best to get more resources, because it's very....

The concept of a sort of swat team going in has value, but there's also equal value in having officers assigned abroad. The reason for that is that you have to have a face there to feel with host governments, to get their trust. Smugglers are prepared to invest three, four, or five years in moving people slowly. They're very careful. Certain movements from Asia talk in terms of generations moving people. If you have people posted to countries, you can establish a level of trust with host countries, with travel agencies, and with international organizations. That's why we're quite pleased with our ICO network.

Swat teams have value—

Mr. Grant McNally: It would seem that in combination it would be more effective—

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: —not one or the other.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: In fact each year we do a couple of interdiction exercises like that. We don't necessarily plan in advance where we're going to go, because again, it would be dependent on where the vulnerabilities are at the time, but we do have that combination of initiatives to tackle the problem.

The Chairman: Now Mr. Telegdi has the floor again.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I actually had the occasion to do citizenship court; I was handing out the documentation. It was the 125th anniversary, so we were doing 125 people. I had an RCMP officer assisting me. He was giving me the right documentation for the right people. What was amazing was that we did have some difficulty in matching them up. So I can imagine at airports, when people are coming through, that might be difficult.

Let me get back to Mr. McKay's question on the idea of getting private insurance. I come from an insurance town, and these folks will insure anything. The best demonstration of that are the Norwich Union ads, where they say you can get insured without a medical. They will do it. They will find a price and they will do it.

It might be worth checking into whether that would be a reasonable option, because it would take the workload off the department, it would be less costly, and we would be guaranteed that it would not have a cost on the health care system once they came over here. I would suggest that we check with some of the folks in the insurance industry, because that could really speed things up.

The other question I have is this. In many of our visa offices, we have Canadian nationals working and we also have people we hire from the host countries. What kinds of things are we doing to try to ensure the integrity of our own folks and certainly the people who work for us in those postings?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'll address the medical issue first.

I appreciate the comment on insurance, that it may be possible for people who are intending to visit Canada to get the kind of private medical insurance you're talking about. But even if people were able to get that private medical insurance, it would not take away our duty to examine people in the context of public health risks.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: No, that's fine.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: So there would still need to be a medical process, a medical examination. In terms of speeding up the process, we would still need to do those medical exams.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: In terms of protecting the integrity of the program, first of all, as you know, our locally engaged staff are actually employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs. They're not our employees. So the first thing we have to recognize is that we have to, and we do, work very closely with Foreign Affairs in providing our own training programs on immigration, and Foreign Affairs provides training programs as well. We work with them very closely on how we're going to respond effectively to malfeasance issues.

• 1010

We have malfeasance issues abroad with locally engaged staff. When we hire locally engaged staff, we make sure we articulate very clearly what is acceptable and what is not acceptable conduct for locally engaged staff, what are the parameters of their work, and if they violate those parameters, what are the consequences. We do have challenges, and you read about them in the papers. Most recently the case of Damascus was in the papers, and we responded to that very quickly.

In terms of dealing with malfeasance, such as theft, we also have to work with local authorities, and there are local conditions of employment. But the first instance is that in order to protect ourselves, we have to be very clear and articulate with staff as to what they can do and what they can't do.

Our challenge today is that because of program reductions, we have a lot fewer Canada-based officers abroad. We have cut our staff abroad significantly as a response. In order to deliver the program, we have had to empower, to give more authority, to locally engaged staff. And because of cost recovery, a lot of money is being handled out there. There's a temptation. What we're trying to do as a department is take the money-handling out of the embassies and put it in banks so that the challenge isn't there.

In terms of Canadian staff, we'd certainly like to have more Canadians working abroad at our missions as support staff. We have a very active employee couple program, where spouses are travelling with their husbands. We train them so that their skills are portable and we can take them from mission to mission. Because they are Canadians, they often have enhanced reliability in handling sensitive information.

In some countries we do not have the liberty of selecting our own locally engaged staff.

The Chairman: I have a dilemma here: it's either John or Leon. From our agreement, the way I have it here, I had been calling on John.

John, would you yield to Leon at this point?

Mr. John McKay: Yes. I'm a nice guy. How many minutes did he give me last night?

It's fine.

The Chairman: Okay. We'll clarify the rules in the future.

Leon.

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

Good morning, Mr. Francis.

Mr. Francis, in Montreal a week or two ago, a Mr. Fox was charged by the RCMP for illegally helping Russian refugees, or people who were applying for refugee status into the country. In that system there's supposed to be a proper rotation that would help protect against any one individual having, let's say, control over a situation where that could happen.

In the posts abroad, as mentioned yesterday, there's a rotation of staff, again, to help protect against those who may wish to get involved in criminal activity. There's a lot of money to be made. The temptation would be there for people who are inclined that way.

I just want you, from your experience, to explain what kind of rotation you've seen at the posts you've been at and what protection is put in place, other than the background checks and those types of things that are done initially, to ensure that it's very difficult for any individual to be involved in criminal activity.

Mr. Kent Francis (Foreign Service Officer, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): I assume you're referring to staff rotations within the embassy.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Exactly, and between embassies as well—the whole picture.

Mr. Kent Francis: I took several steps recently, in my last posting in Guatemala. It was designed for several reasons: to try to enhance local employees' ability to perform and to learn new skills, and also to try to monitor for any problems of possible malfeasance.

There are many things you can do. One thing is you can assign local employees different tasks over periods of time. This is what we did in Guatemala, for instance. We assigned locally engaged staff to various types of teams to deal with certain types of cases. Then, over a period of time, we would rotate them to a new team.

• 1015

Mr. Leon Benoit: Could you give us a little more detail on the length of time they'll work at a particular task, just to give a really good picture, or as good a picture as you can, of the protection that's there?

Mr. Kent Francis: Okay. For instance, in the visitor visa team, it was a one-year rotation. We felt one year was appropriate, because it would take time for the local employees to learn what they needed to know for the visitor visa program. One of the problems with trying to rotate too quickly is that you're constantly training new employees and you're not as efficient as you could be. But by the same token, if a person is in the position too long, then problems can arise. So we felt one year was appropriate.

Another thing we can do at posts overseas is, within the immigration computer system, called CAIPS, it's possible for me, as a program manager, to go in and review decisions made by local employees. I can pull up a list of cases that a particular employee has dealt with and review those cases to look for any abnormalities.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Is there a standard audit procedure to ensure that does happen, or is it just at your discretion and as time would allow?

Mr. Kent Francis: Within the cost recovery system there is a formal audit process where you match your CAIPS records against your cash receipts to ensure that everything is properly accounted for and deposited. That was done every two months in Guatemala.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's just in terms of handling cash.

Mr. Kent Francis: Yes, that's in terms of handling cash.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But I'm talking about protecting against local employees or in fact the Canadian staff overseas getting involved in criminal activity, such as people-smuggling, for example.

Mr. Kent Francis: That's left very much up to the discretion of the local program manager, but by and large, I would look at it on a regular basis, perhaps every four to five months, and also to monitor the performance of my officers. I could look at what they were doing, and also it would help me identify problems.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Can you give a little more detail on what you're looking for?

Mr. Kent Francis: I'm looking for consistency of decisions. That may not necessarily reveal any malfeasance, but it may reveal perhaps a training problem or a problem where an officer may be overly generous or overly hard on a particular type of case. It can cut both ways.

You would look for consistency of decisions. You would look at documentation that was submitted to see if you would reach the same conclusion as the officer.

The Chairman: Mr. McKay has the floor now.

Mr. John McKay: I have a couple of issues.

By the way, just on the insurance link, insurance is nothing very fancy: it's a pooling of a risk. If you look at a timeline out, Toronto in particular, but the country in general, is all going to a country of minorities. There are significant pools of ethnic communities, even in my own riding in Toronto. I don't know why, say, the Indian community couldn't approach a private insurance company, at the prodding of the immigration department of course, and say, “This is a significant problem for us.” They could work around that whole issue and, again, take the medical system out of the risk. I leave that as a side comment.

Apparently about 2,000 students come each year to Canada as visitors and then apply to change their status. The most significant benefit of them changing their status is that they cease to be foreign and become domestic for the purpose of paying tuition. I'm sure there are other significant benefits as well, but that on the face of it strikes one as a bit of an abuse of the opportunity we've given to people to study in this country.

I'd be interested in your comments as to whether you see that as an abuse. If it is an abuse, what meaningful things could be done, given other difficulties vis-à-vis brain drain, vis-à-vis people who we might really like to stay in this country, and that kind of thing? I'd be interested in your comments on that.

The Chairman: Who would like to take that one?

• 1020

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'll start.

As you know, the current Immigration Act requires that everyone who wishes to apply for an immigrant visa to become a permanent resident in Canada must do so abroad. There's no provision within the act for landing individuals within Canada. We do make exceptions to that general rule on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, primarily for spouses and dependent children. Mr. LeBane alluded to that before.

In the case of students, we don't have a program related specifically to students and changing their status from being a foreign student to becoming a permanent resident. But it is true that people who are here as students or as temporary workers or as visitors may choose to apply to become permanent residents.

Generally they submit their application to a visa post abroad. Many of them apply through Buffalo, because that is the closest visa post. They are assessed like any other permanent resident applicant. If they meet the requirements of the selection criteria and if they meet the statutory requirements in terms of criminality and medical and so on, they may be issued with an immigrant visa.

Mr. John McKay: This is really a no-loss from a student standpoint. If you're in first-year engineering at U of T, you spend a weekend in Buffalo, and if you lose, you've lost nothing, and if you win, you have a passport along with a degree.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, when we look at students, as with any other permanent resident application, some of the selection criteria they have to meet are the education requirements, the occupational skill requirements, and the experience requirements. So it would be highly unlikely that a student who had no work experience in the occupation they chose to be assessed under in the point system would meet the requirements of those selection criteria, unless they had a validated offer of employment.

It may be that the individual is in first-year engineering, for example, at the University of Toronto, but presumably in that person's background, before they came to Canada as a foreign student, there's education, there's work experience, and there are occupational and language skills that mean they meet the current selection criteria. And if they meet the current selection criteria and all the statutory requirements, we will issue an immigrant visa.

They're not abusing the system. They're making a legitimate application in a legitimate way and meeting the requirements.

Mr. John McKay: Yes, I understand. There's abuse and there are benefits from both parties' standpoints—both Canada's standpoint and the student's standpoint. So the department at this point doesn't see this as an abuse or an area of difficulty, then?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No, not at the present time.

Mr. John McKay: What about the universities? Are they a little upset that they're losing some tuition?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, you'd probably have to talk to the universities about that.

Mr. John McKay: But that is the net effect?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, for the individual institution, yes, they would in fact lose revenue.

Mr. John McKay: And is my number of about 2,000 a year correct?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'm not sure whether we have an accurate count of how many people who are students in Canada make application overseas and are accepted, ultimately. I'm not sure we have any specific figures on that.

Mr. John McKay: Our ever-clever researcher has produced for me an article in the Ottawa Citizen dated 10 November—or maybe that's 11 October; I'm not sure.

The Chairman: 1998.

Mr. John McKay: It's entitled “Foreign students save millions by `immigrating': Practice costs universities $5,000 per pupil”. So $5,000 times 2,000 is—what?—$10 million or $1 million? That's why I'm in politics and not math.

It doesn't quite feel right, but I understand the pros and cons there. I wonder whether you could say, “Well, you can apply, but this is not going to have any impact on your tuition costs.”

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I would say that for a foreign student who successfully made an application for permanent residence and was granted permanent residence, we could not then turn around and say, “But you're still a foreign student for the purpose of paying your tuition.”

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi has the floor now.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Usually foreign students are most successful in applying once they're just about finished their course, particularly if they were able to obtain some work experience, if their language skills are at their best, and that whole host of issues.

• 1025

I have had some problems with foreign students more on the ethical side, as to our brain drain from other countries, because so often the people are really needed back on the home front. But clearly it's an area where Canada really tends to benefit. Especially with our numbers being down, we really are getting, in many cases, the cream of the crop, as much as it might hurt the country that could really, much more than us, utilize their skills.

Let me ask you about your experience in the system. What would you see as the greatest abuse of the system's integrity?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There are any number of potential areas of abuse.

We've been talking about people-smuggling. We've been talking about the fraudulent use of documentation by the people-smugglers and by the smugglees, the people who are being smuggled. We've talked about some of the initiatives we have undertaken to try to deal with that particular issue, and that is a significant issue of integrity and an attack on the integrity of the program.

Interestingly enough, as we've talked about, it's an issue of integrity not just for us but for other countries as well. People-smuggling is an international problem, so we are working with our international partners in international fora to try to deal with that particular issue.

On a smaller front, we've touched on and alluded to some of the problems of fraud and malfeasance in some of the countries of origin. Documentation fraud is one: people are submitting legitimate applications in the system but are submitting fraudulent documentation to support their applications. That is an area we're constantly vigilant about, and it's an area where we need to take the time required to assess applications carefully, to ensure that we are detecting those fraudulent documents.

Again, that runs into the problem of speedy and efficient processing, because if there are concerns about fraudulent documentation, then you do need to take the time to look at individual applications. It is going to take longer to process applications if you need to take the time to look at applications carefully.

It is one of those issues we have found in the context of the immigration program in the last year. You alluded to meeting our immigration levels and so on. Given the source countries we are dealing with in terms of our economic movement, we are having to pay more attention than we might have had to previously to the documentation that's being submitted.

In some countries, documentation is very easy to obtain—clear, very credible documentation where there are no questions as to the source of the documentation are readily available. In other countries, those systems and that infrastructure does not exist, so getting clear, credible documentation is more of a challenge. Therefore it's more of a challenge for the decision-makers in the field to assess that documentation, and that has an impact on processing times as a result.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit has the floor now.

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

We're all concerned about some of the problems in the system that result in us allowing into the country people we don't want in. I think one of the reasons for our concern is that we've had the police, especially from Vancouver and Toronto, but from other places as well, express a real concern that the rate of crime by people who are here illegally, or by people who are here legally but who really shouldn't be here, is increasing quite dramatically.

Last year we saw a leaked document from the Vancouver Police showing that 70% of the very serious crimes were actually committed by people who were here illegally, which is another issue, but certainly it is a problem. We can't deny that.

• 1030

Of course the trick is to decide what an acceptable level of risk is. At the same time, especially when it comes to visitor visas, we want visitors. I think we want as many visitors as we can allow into the country at a reasonable level of risk, whatever that means. That's of course what we have to determine, so that's why the interest in this.

Mr. Francis, I'd like to go back to what I was starting before. From your point of view, having worked at different posts—I think you had three or four postings—just what kind of security is in place to make it difficult for both the staff you hire in that country and the Canadian staff to get involved in criminal activity? Because the temptation certainly would be there. There's a lot of money in people-smuggling and that type of thing.

You made some general statements. Could you give enough detail so that we could really get an understanding of the protection that's in place?

Mr. Kent Francis: The Canada-based staff would be foreign service officers, and before a person joins the foreign service, they go through quite an extensive background check conducted by both the RCMP and CSIS. We are representing Canada as foreign service officers, so there's a requirement that we be able to properly represent Canada.

That doesn't mean there's not a temptation there.

Mr. Leon Benoit: And there have been some cases. I don't think there have been a lot.

Mr. Kent Francis: Not very many, as far as I know.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You'd know better than I that there have been some cases where the Canadian staff have been involved.

Mr. Kent Francis: As for what we do at post, I alluded to some of that already, specifically where we review performance of local staff and the Canada-based officers.

The locally engaged staff are required to undergo a bit of a background check when they are hired. Usually it will require a police certificate, depending on the country in which they live. That's dependent upon the local circumstances of the particular country and whether or not those types of documents are available.

Again, an extensive training of locally engaged staff is conducted, especially at the senior levels. Those who are hired on at what we would call an immigration program officer level or higher are brought to Ottawa for training purposes, where they are given extensive training in the Immigration Act and the regulations, and then that performance is monitored once they get back to their home country.

What do we do to try to ensure lack of malfeasance or no malfeasance in people-smuggling? Depending on the office, you can adopt several steps. In Guatemala we were concerned about referrals by locally engaged employees to the visitor visa section specifically—somebody referring a friend or a relative to the visa section to obtain a visitor visa.

We adopted the policy that a locally engaged employee could recommend another person for a visitor visa only with the approval of their Canada-based program manager, which meant that Canada-based program manager had to put his or her signature on the request in writing.

We also said it had to be program-related. So, for instance, if the locally engaged trade officer were arranging a business delegation, that officer would go to the program manager, and the program manager would sign off on it, saying, “Yes, this is a legitimate trade-related visit and it has my approval.” That would then eliminate the temptation for people to approach other locally engaged employees to say, “Well, you work at the Canadian embassy. Recommend me for a visa.” We found that to be a very effective screen.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. McKay now has the floor.

Mr. John McKay: I'll just ask about two areas quickly, going back to that student visa business. I read the article, and it said Canadian universities are losing about $30 million a year. If I were running a university, I'd be pretty upset with losing that kind of revenue stream.

I also appreciate the difficulties we have. We are moving to a knowledge-based economy and we want the best and the brightest here. And I appreciate that we compete with Australia, the United States, Europe, etc. for these students. What do those countries do about similar situations?

• 1035

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I know that in the United States, for example, students can also adjust their status, although it's not exactly the same sort of system as Canada's in terms of permanent resident versus visitor. They can adjust their status to an H-1 type of visa, which is a long-term temporary visa. It's not permanent resident status.

Mr. John McKay: Does that give them a break on the tuition?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I wouldn't know that. I don't know what kind of impact that has on the tuition fees they pay at American universities.

And I don't have any detailed information on the Australian system as to what effect changing their status has on their ability to pay or not have to pay foreign student fees. I know that in the Australian system people are able to adjust their status, but I can't tell you what the impact is on the institutions.

Mr. John McKay: That strikes me as a pretty important area, and it's going to a point of continuing aggravation. In one way or another, the taxpayer picks up the tab. So if we can't get a response today, I wonder if we could get some response in the future.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: There has to be a certain balance, and obviously you would appreciate that. A lot of universities take a very active part in recruiting students, because of all the employment.

Mr. John McKay: I know.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: One of the overall benefits for Canada is that it's not just a brain drain, but many go back and help position Canada down the road, in local economies, in directing other students—

Mr. John McKay: Oh, you're talking to the converted here.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: We're not arguing with that. But if I'm a university president and I think I'm getting $10,000 to $12,000 a year and I end up with $3,000, that's a pretty major problem. One way or another, the student body pays. One way or another, the taxpayer pays on that sort of thing. So I'd be interested if you could give us some comparisons, because maybe an adjustment needs to be made or maybe it's just something we eat. I just don't know.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Okay.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'd just like to add one last point. We certainly can follow up on what happens to universities in the United States and Australia, for example, when foreign students adjust their status.

We do work very closely with universities. We have an advisory committee on international students, on which the universities, community colleges, and private institutions are all represented. We meet on a regular basis with this advisory committee. That's really the forum for all of these issues to be raised.

Mr. John McKay: Geez, you're more political than I am.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I won't comment.

Mr. John McKay: I have a follow-up question, and I will go back to where I started. My line of questioning was concerning the family visits and the grief that we, as members of Parliament, have with respect to family visits. We've been talking about visits in a global sense. Can you or do you keep statistics on the breakdown between visits generally and visits for the purpose of family, i.e. weddings, funerals, and that sort of stuff? Is there any breakdown?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: No, we don't have that.

Mr. John McKay: Do you have an educated guess, and would it vary from country to country?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Because of cultural norms, obviously it would have great importance for India. For other countries it would be less so. And they would be invisible for those countries that are visa-exempt. If somebody is coming from France, the United Kingdom, or Australia, it's invisible. It's not an issue.

Because of cultural norms, you hear about mainly countries such as India, and to a lesser extent some Muslim countries, such as Pakistan. But we don't keep those types of stats.

Obviously in a post such as Delhi, a very high percentage are related to those issues.

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: But we don't keep—

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit has the floor at this point, and after that, the chair would like to pose a few questions.

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

• 1040

I have some questions on cooperation. In looking at visitors to Canada, are the authorities and governments in the countries of origin pretty cooperative when it comes to concerns expressed by Canada about people we really don't want coming to the country? Are they willing to get tougher on documentation or to try to improve documentation? Are they working with Canada and other countries that have a lot of visitors to try to improve the system so that we can make it work more quickly and efficiently and with a lower risk? Generally, would you say that?

I know it's a very general question, and I'm sure some are more than others, but what's happening generally in that? Maybe you can refer us to particular countries.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: I would say generally—and it's a big “generally”—yes. Certainly when there is a very evident weakness in a country's passport, it's going to hurt them and it's going to embarrass them. It's in their own best interest and in the interest of their own pride to improve the document, putting aside our own concerns.

For example, I talked this morning about Trinidad and Tobago. They're very seized with this. We have a real enforcement issue of concern with that document, but they are very much, in their own right, seized with this. It is a priority for them.

Other countries, for example in eastern Europe, have had some serious passport issues. When we go to them, we're only one amongst many countries. Many of these countries want to enter the European Union, the Schengen Agreement. It's a problem for them. We might come to them and say, for example, “Basically we're satisfied with our relationship and we'd be prepared at some point to consider lifting the visitor visa. There is no abuse between our two countries, but there is an impediment with the passport.” They'll be very receptive to that, generally, yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's for passports. What about when it comes to visitors and Canada having somebody to go to in their country to get some kind of assurance—accurately, or relatively accurately—that this person is likely not to be involved in crime or to cause a problem in Canada?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: That's a much more difficult issue for them. In a certain sense, I think most countries would be very reticent to make commitments on whether one of their citizens is going to comply with Canadian law or break it. I don't think most countries would go that step.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'll tell you why I'm asking. Part of the reason I'm asking this is I've talked to members of Parliament from most of the eastern European countries, who have said they're concerned—especially the ones trying to get into NATO and the European Community—that they may be seen as a country that is a source for criminals getting into other countries. If they're viewed in that way, they're not very likely to be viewed favourably for acceptance into NATO or into the European Community. It isn't just a situation where they'd be all too happy to get rid of their criminal element. There's a big stake for them in this.

I'm just wondering whether there's some real cooperation between Canada and other countries to try to help these countries—if they need any expertise, for example, or that type of thing—to deal with this problem.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: There are groupings in Europe to facilitate the development of eastern Europe in data-collecting and information-sharing. For example, the Budapest Group works to help the former eastern European bloc to develop and meet the standards of Schengen and the European Union and respond to those challenges, yes.

• 1045

The Chairman: The chair would like to pose a few questions. Most of these can be answered yes or no, with a very brief amplification. I will not put a preamble to any of the questions.

One, is there any penalty on the Canadian staff when that staff has given his approval on a recommendation by a locally hired staff and the case proves to be not a good case?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: If it's malfeasance, there is a sanction. If it's simply a decision badly taken but without bad thought, no, there is no penalty if people make mistakes.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: If I could just amplify that, we talked about intent yesterday. Again, in these sorts of situations, we're often dealing with trying to guess someone's intent, which as we know is very difficult. Sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong. But if a decision is taken and any logical person could have come to the same conclusion based on the evidence, then there's no sanction against the individual who took that decision.

The Chairman: Okay.

A statement has been made that the rate of crime by illegals has increased dramatically. Do you agree with that statement? Do you have data to refute it, or what?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: No, we have no data on that.

The Chairman: Okay.

Is there any differential in salary between the locally hired staff and the Canadian staff for the same work?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Between Canadian locally engaged staff and local locally engaged staff?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: No.

The Chairman: Okay.

In terms of medical insurance, are you concerned mainly about the contagiousness of disease or about the disability the disease poses? That's just to follow the question of Mr. McKay.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, both, because under the requirements of the legislation, we have to be concerned with both protection of public health and protection of the health and social system from excessive demand.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Mr. Chair, I don't know if you have time, but some looks are being given to my answer about salary differentials. May I go back?

The Chairman: Yes, please amplify.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Canada-based rotational officers are paid a certain salary universal. That is completely different from locally engaged people's salaries, which are usually based on local standards. Canadian persons who are working in those countries as locally engaged staff are paid the salary of the country of the locally engaged staff.

The Chairman: Okay. For future evaluation by the committee, would you be able to provide us with a list of the source countries from which applicants have come when they apply in foreign posts? Could you provide us with that list?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: You want a breakdown of the citizens who are applying in the posts that Mr. LeBane talked about—that is, country of last permanent residence or citizenship of the visitors?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: We're noting that. I don't know, Mr. Chair, if we have the capacity to capture that information, but we'll look into it and come back to you.

The Chairman: Okay.

As for the question of a surety bond, do you see a value in having a pilot project on a voluntary basis for those who volunteer to post a bond, to offset that bond and then determine indeed the magnitude of compliance with the original declaration of those who would post the bond? Do you see a value before we implement any policy change?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That would involve a policy change, so I don't think we can commit one way or the other, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Okay.

Concerning those who reapply, when do you decide that a repeat application fee has to be imposed?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: When an application has been made and a final decision has been taken, if the person comes in and submits a new application, he has to pay a new fee.

The Chairman: Following reconsiderations on appeal or representations by members of Parliament, on how many occasions are the applicants required to submit another application that necessitates another fee payment?

• 1050

Mr. Jeff LeBane: I don't have that precise information.

As an example, they would not have to pay a fee if the member of Parliament made a representation, and on the review of the file, it was discovered that a manifest error was made by the officer who did the interview, such as omitting to review key information. Where an error was made on the part of the office, there would be no new fee.

The Chairman: But if there is no so-called error, but new information has emerged from the member of Parliament's representation, when do you decide a new fee has to be paid?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: My expectation is that a new fee would be required.

The Chairman: Later on, could you provide the committee with information on the number of instances in which a fee has been required and the number of instances in which a fee has not been required?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't know whether we have that or can extract that data from our database. I'm not sure we can.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: I don't think we can.

The Chairman: So I think the committee.... Well, anyway, the recommendation will be later on.

Of all applications, what has been the median time for refusing an application and for accepting an application? Do you have an average time it takes to accept or refuse an application?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: On visitors?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: The norm is to provide same-day service.

The Chairman: And the vast majority have been decided on that basis?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Yes.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's correct.

The Chairman: Okay.

With respect to foreign students, is there a guideline that unless one has completed the intended study and period of study, only then can one apply while staying as a student in the country? Is there a guideline for that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No. Again, as I said, if you apply and you meet the requirements, you will be accepted. There is no prohibition against foreign students making an application for permanent residence, as long as they do it appropriately by applying from outside the country.

The Chairman: Can you review that so that, should there be any interest on the part of the committee to pursue that question in the future, it can be looked into? Because with the so-called J visa, when I went to the States, I could not apply for anything until after I had completed my intended stay. But that is for the future.

The last question is this: Would a change in law so that visitors are assumed to be intending immigrants make a difference in processing?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's an interesting question that we could certainly debate, but the fundamental would still be the same: a visitor coming to Canada must be coming for a temporary purpose. That's a basic, fundamental concept in the legislation in terms of defining “visitors” versus “immigrants”.

The Chairman: But beyond the basics, could you tell the committee, later on, in what way the processing would change—the pace, the tempo, etc.—if in fact the assumption changed? Later on, can you can provide the committee with a response to that question?

Lastly, the act says the person is not an immigrant. It doesn't say anything about an intending immigrant, unless there is a typo in the copy of the act that I have here. It says, “A person who makes an application...is not an immigrant”. It does not say “is not an intending immigrant”; it says “is not an immigrant”. In other words, if you look at that sentence, at that point the person is not an immigrant. If one makes an assumption that they are not an intending immigrant, there can be a flaw in logic.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, it's probably a question of semantics and terminology, but an immigrant is a person who seeks landing.

The Chairman: Oh, I see.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It's someone who seeks permanent residence in Canada.

The Chairman: So one seeking landing is already considered an immigrant?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's right, and when you become landed, you become a permanent resident. That's the appropriate terminology.

The Chairman: Okay.

Thank you so much again, on behalf of the committee.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: You're welcome.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.