CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, December 9, 1998

• 1538

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): The meeting of our standing committee is now called to order. Today on the agenda we have consideration of the performance report for the period ending March 31, 1998, and immigration targets for economic immigrants.

We are delighted to have with us the Hon. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, along with: her deputy minister, Ms. Janice Cochrane; Mr. Jeff LeBane, the director general; Mr. Greg Fyffe, the assistant deputy minister; Ms. Martha Nixon, operations; and Georges Tsaï, corporate services.

Now we would like to hear from the minister and her staff, if they would like to make any opening statements.

[Translation]

The Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, committee members, I am very pleased to appear once again before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

As you know, this has been a very busy year in these two important areas of public policy. This week, I tabled a bill on citizenship in the House of Commons that reaffirms and strengthens the value of Canadian citizenship. The right to citizenship is perhaps the most valuable possession one can have in our country, and it must be valued and respected.

• 1540

Furthermore, with the help of my officials in the department, I consulted other governments, groups that work in the area, and the public about the report of the Legislative Review Advisory Group. I will soon be passing on the results of our work to Canadians, and I will announce our plans to implement a simpler, more transparent and more effective Immigration Act for the 21st century.

Today, however, I would like to talk to you specifically about my department's performance report for the period ending March 31, 1998. Mr. Chairman, as you know, this report stems from the commitments that the government made to improve the reporting of expenditure management to Parliament. I would also like to look at the immigration levels for 1998 and tell you about the levels we expect in 1999.

With respect to performance, the department will still have to work hard to develop the necessary tools for more effective evaluation of results and performance. But I am pleased to report that my department reached, and often surpassed, the performance targets that we set earlier. As you will see in the performance report, we obtained these results with fewer employees and fewer financial resources. Because of this ongoing reduction in human and financial resources, we had to make adjustments to our operations so as to maintain the program's integrity.

In 1997, a total of 215,899 people, 24,215 of whom were refugees, were allowed to take up permanent residence in Canada. More than one million visitors, students and temporary workers entered the country. These results show that we reached both our objectives. On the one hand, we benefitted as much as possible from international migration, while on the other hand, we maintained Canada's long-standing tradition of protecting refugees and other people requiring humanitarian assistance.

Managing the immigration program means managing a good many operational and administrative sectors. Thus, to reach our objectives and the performance level that we set, we had to establish new partnerships and enter into agreements with the provinces, other federal departments such as Justice, Foreign Affairs, International Trade, Human Resources Development and Health Canada, as well as with other countries, including the United States, naturally. For example, we have a strategy to cooperate with the United States at the border, in order to simplify border crossings, while at the same time keeping illegal migrants or undesirable travellers from entering either country.

With respect to refugees, we began to work more closely, and we will continue to work more closely, with the Immigration and Refugee Board to make the process for determining refugee status faster and more efficient.

In all our activities at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have to find the happy medium between facilitation on the one hand and enforcement on the other.

In response to industries' request for highly-skilled foreign technicians, we implemented a special pilot project for information technology professionals so as to speed up their admission to Canada.

We know that our immigration and refugee policies are among the most generous in the world. Only a handful of people try to take advantage of our generosity, and to protect the program's integrity, we will continue to take measures to remove people who enter Canada illegally or who are a threat to our country's safety.

The performance report includes many figures and charts dealing with specific objectives and programs. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions you or members of the committee may have in this regard.

To give you an idea of the extent of the department's program, I would particularly like to draw your attention to the fact that the department spent $669.5 million during the 1997-98 fiscal year, and that we have more than 4,000 employees in the department who work very hard to provide the best possible service.

• 1545

[English]

Turning now to the levels, the immigration level for the calendar year 1998 was established at 200,000 to 225,000 persons. The committee should remember that this level is a target, not a quota, and that it is not established unilaterally by the federal government. The Immigration Act requires that I consult with the provinces and other interested parties before establishing the level for any year.

This year, for the first time in many years, we will land fewer than the lower end of our target level for the year. Immigration is a complex subject, and so many factors come into play that it is difficult to isolate specific cause-and-effect reasons for this decline. Undoubtedly the economic crisis in Asia had a significant impact this year. We have experienced a significant decline in applications, primarily in the skilled worker category, much of it due to uncertain economic conditions in Asia.

One consequence has been a significant change in our primary source countries. We also have seen a high visa wastage rate in the economic categories. These are people who have already been selected and issued a visa, but declined to come at the last moment. Over 15,000 people changed their plans, affecting ours as well.

Adding to this decline is a reduction in the number of dependents accompanying the principal economic immigrants. For the family class, there has also been a declining trend for a number of years, but I'm pleased that the number of immediate family members being sponsored is starting to rise again.

On the refugee side, we are on track to meet our commitments for government-sponsored refugees, once again demonstrating our humanitarian concerns.

This government recognizes the importance of immigration to our country. Consequently, we intend to maintain the same target level in 1999—200,000 to 225,000 people. It will be a challenge to reach this level, but we are optimistic that international financial markets will stabilize and that this will create the conditions necessary for more qualified people to choose Canada as a place to live, to work and to raise their families.

In any discussion of immigration, it is important to avoid simply focusing on numbers. Behind every case is an individual or a family with a very real human story. Throughout our history, Canada has been an attractive destination for people from around the world, and that remains true today. Because of our efforts to achieve fiscal stability and to promote innovation and growth, people continue to see substantial economic opportunities in Canada.

We continue to support efforts to reunite family members with their close relatives from abroad. This provides strength and incentive for those in Canada. We will also continue to offer refuge to persons in need of protection.

We welcome newcomers to our country because they are vital economic and social actors in our country. Our doors will remain wide open, despite difficult situations abroad. Through our actions and through partnerships with key organizations and stakeholders, we will continue this proud tradition. Immigration has been key to success of our nation. Canada will remain a welcoming land, and together we will build a stronger, more prosperous and open society.

• 1550

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm ready to answer the questions of all members.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister. We would like to start the questioning with the Reform Party.

Mr. Benoit.

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

Welcome, Madam Minister and guests.

Madam Minister, last year, in the economic class of immigrants, you fell short by about 20,000, while at the same time we're hearing of more situations where we have organized crime, where we have criminal elements and others that would be considered by any Canadian, I think, as undesirable. They're coming to our country and, more importantly, I think, they can't be removed in a proper fashion.

Yet, after almost three years, the first piece of legislation that you bring to the House is a piece of legislation on citizenship, when we have these desperate problems—and I don't think I'm overstating the case by calling them desperate problems—where economic class immigrants and legitimate refugees are in effect being pushed to the back of the line in favour of lawyers who are good at finding loopholes in our system in favour of bogus refugee claimants who often don't want to go through the immigration system because they know it's a lot easier to apply as a refugee.

I want to say that I'm quite concerned that the first piece of legislation you've brought forth does nothing to deal with these desperate problems we see in the system. I think it's a real concern when business people in Canada who require expertise from outside the country just can't get it, and I've heard from many people who are in that situation. That's a real concern, Madam Minister.

But in regard to the citizenship legislation that you have introduced, I have another really critical concern, and that is in the area of you deeming that any child born in Canada will automatically be a Canadian citizen.

Now, what a lot of people called for, and what you considered yourself instead of that, was putting in place a requirement that at least one parent would be either a permanent resident or a citizen of the country. I think many Canadians feel that's a reasonable position to take, Madam Minister. But you chose instead to take the position that any child born in Canada will be a Canadian citizen.

Now, particularly when we have the situation which is before the Supreme Court right now, that of Mavis Baker, where her lawyer is asking the Supreme Court to prevent her deportation in spite of the fact that her deportation has been ordered and has been backed up by the Federal Court, and the case that will be used will be based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.... Because you've taken the position that all children in Canada will be Canadian citizens, it leaves it wide open for the court to say, “Really, we have a clear indication from the minister.”

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says that you can't separate a child from a parent. These children, even though they're born of an illegal immigrant, are Canadian citizens, and therefore, it's not reasonable to deport the parents. I suggest that there is a reasonable chance that the Supreme Court could rule on that basis. You have left this wide open. I'd just like you to explain to me and to Canadians why you've done that.

The Chairman: Before I call on the minister, Mr. Benoit, I would like to remind the committee that the bill is now in the House, that after second reading it will be referred to this committee, and that therefore there will be a greater opportunity for debate on that particular bill.

Having said that...Madam Minister.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1555

[English]

First of all, with respect to your first comment about the fact that I've tabled this citizenship bill before the decision was made on immigration and refugee protection issues, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the member doesn't know that work has been done for over 12 years on the modernization of the Citizenship Act in my department. And perhaps he doesn't know, too, that the parliamentary committee, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, made a report to the government to ask for changes to the Citizenship Act. So I think—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Also, Madam Minister—

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Let me finish—

Mr. Leon Benoit: They also, in the report, ask for some changes to the—

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit—

Mr. Leon Benoit: —Immigration Act.

The Chairman: Order, please. I would appreciate it if the minister is allowed to complete her answers, just as we have allowed you to pose your preamble and question.

Madam Minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Having said that, I think that both citizenship and immigration are important policies for the future of Canada, as you know, Mr. Chairman.

You've seen this week that I have tabled the Citizenship Act. I'm very enthusiastic about that proposed legislation, and I hope the members of the committee will also work on it with enthusiasm, but this is not to say that we are not also working on immigration and protection and refugee matters.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that early in the new year I will be able to announce publicly the decision of the government on these matters.

Now, for the second question about the children born in Canada automatically receiving citizenship in Canada, in law, we call that the principle of jus soli, the right of soil. This is a fundamental principle of the current legislation that we apply in Canada and for me to question that fundamental principle, we must have proof—and data—that we have a major problem.

Certain Canadians are saying that people abuse the system and that some women come to the country only to give birth to receive Canadian citizenship. I'm hearing anecdotes about that, Mr. Chairman, but I don't have any specific data on it. And why do we not have this data?

As you know, in our country, the registration of birth is done by provinces, and when the provinces do that they do not register the status of the woman. Is she a visitor? Is she a foreign student, a foreign worker or an asylum seeker? They do not identify that, so it means that we don't have the figures.

Before changing a principle like that, we must have the figures in front of us in order to be sure that we have a major problem. That's my first point on that question.

Second, it is clear, Mr. Chairman, that I won't comment on the Baker case. This is in front of the Supreme Court right now and we are involved in it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There's no need to comment on that, Madam Minister.

But, Madam Minister, on May 13, 1998, now several months ago, when this issue came up you asked the question yourself when you said we don't know whether there are 10 cases or 500 cases or more. And yet, in all those months, you haven't answered that question yourself.

And at the same time, because of the position you've taken on this issue, you're making it wide open once again for the courts in this country to make the law that should be made by Parliament. And there's a good chance that the courts will make some new law that is unacceptable to Canadians because of the very weak position and the wrong position you've taken on this issue.

Once again, many Canadians call for at least one parent to be either a citizen or a permanent resident of Canada. And do you, Madam Minister, not feel that's a reasonable position? And if you're not sure there's a problem, why on earth not? If you can't get that out of the system in five months.... I know you said that you don't keep track of that kind of thing, but there has to be some way you can get at least a pretty good idea of the numbers.

The Chairman: Madam Minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I do not know how the member knows that Canadians don't agree with that.

• 1600

As the minister responsible for that legislation in Parliament, I think that if we want to revise a fundamental principle of the legislation we first need proof that we have a problem, and second, we also need to define the scope of the problem.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There's a problem, Madam Minister, in that you've left it wide open for the Supreme Court to make the law. Courts should not be making the law, and that's exactly what you're allowing by taking the position that you've taken.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Again, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to comment on the case that's in front—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm not asking you to comment on any particular case, Madam Minister—

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit—

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Could you not interrupt me when I'm speaking?

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, can we allow the minister to complete her answer, please?

Madam Minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Again, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to comment on that specific case.

But if you want to speak about the time people stay in our country as asylum-seekers and say that they stay too long in the country before having a decision about the protection of Canada, I would agree with that. If we have a problem with time in the refugee determination system, we must find ways to improve the efficiency of the system instead of changing a principle of the Citizenship Act. That's the choice of the government.

And again, Mr. Chairman, now that the bill is in front of Parliament, your committee will of course have the possibility of discussing that legislation clause by clause.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister.

At this point, I have been advised by Mr. McNally—apparently he had received a report from the whip's office—that one of our colleagues, Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen, has collapsed in the Chamber and has received CPR.

The Chamber has been shut down and I think committees have also been closed. My suggestion is to proceed to see what has happened to our colleague.

And as much as we would like to proceed, I await the pleasure of the committee.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Cohen?

Some hon. members: No!

The Chairman: Yes.

Do we adjourn the committee?

An hon. member: Yes.

An hon. member: This happened in the Chamber?

The Chairman: Yes, apparently.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): She's in the hospital, I assume.

The Chairman: And have all the committees been closed?

The Clerk of the Committee: This is what I was told by the Liberal whip.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could you repeat what you just said, Mr. Chairman?

Mrs. Lucienne Robillard: I understand that Shaughnessy collapsed in the House of Commons, and they tried to resuscitate her. The House decided to suspend its activities.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, under these circumstances, and from what I've heard, I think it would be reasonable to close the committee down, but I would like assurances that we will have the minister back very early in the new year.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'm ready.

The Chairman: In a situation like this, when we say we will adjourn, which is my recommendation, I don't think there is any need to ask for an assurance at this point. It is not within the spirit of that request, I would suggest.

We will adjourn the meeting. There is unanimous consent.

Madam Minister, with regret, of course, because there is an emergency we will adjourn this session and we will advise you appropriately.

The meeting is adjourned.