CIMM Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

1535

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.))

Dr. Brian Gushulak (Director General, Medical Services Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

1540

The Chair

Dr. Brian Gushulak

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin--Swan River, PC/DR)

1545

Dr. Brian Gushulak

Mr. Mark

Dr. Brian Gushulak

Mr. Inky Mark

Dr. Brian Gushulak

Mr. Inky Mark

Dr. Brian Gushulak

Mr. Inky Mark

Dr. Brian Gushulak

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)

Dr. Brian Gushulak

1550

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Dr. Brian Gushulak

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Dr. Brian Gushulak

The Chair

1555

Dr. Brian Gushulak

The Chair

Dr. Brian Gushulak

1600

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Dr. Brian Gushulak

The Chair

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.)

Dr. Brian Gushulak

Mr. Mark Assad

Dr. Brian Gushulak

The Chair

Ms. Nicole Girard (Acting Manager, Enforcement Implementation, Legislative Review, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

1605

The Chair

Ms. Nicole Girard

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Dick Graham (Director, Legislative Review, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

The Chair

Mr. Dick Graham

The Chair

1610

Mr. Dick Graham

The Chair

Ms. Nicole Girard

The Chair

Ms. Nicole Girard

1615

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Nicole Girard

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Nicole Girard

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Nicole Girard

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Mark Assad

1620

Mr. Dick Graham

Mr. Mark Assad

Ms. Nicole Girard

Mr. Mark Assad

Ms. Nicole Girard

The Chair

Ms. Nicole Girard

The Chair

Mr. David Dunbar (Team Leader, Counsel, Selection Team, Legal Services, Citizenship and Immigration, Legal Operations Sector, Department of Justice)

1625

The Chair

Mr. Frank Andrews (Deputy Director, Economic Policy and Programs, Selection Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

The Chair

1630

Mr. Frank Andrews

The Chair

Mr. Frank Andrews

The Chair

Mr. Frank Andrews

The Chair

Mr. Frank Andrews

The Chair

Mr. Frank Andrews

The Chair

Mr. Frank Andrews

The Chair

Mr. Frank Andrews

The Chair

Mr. Frank Andrews

The Chair

Mr. Frank Andrews

The Chair

Mr. Frank Andrews

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1635

Mr. Frank Andrews

The Chair

Mr. Frank Andrews

The Chair

1640

Ms. Nicole Girard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby, CA)

Ms. Nicole Girard

1645

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Nicole Girard

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Nicole Girard

Mr. Dick Graham

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1650

Ms. Nicole Girard

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Nicole Girard

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Nicole Girard

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Dick Graham

1655

The Chair

Ms. Nicole Girard

1700

The Chair

Mr. Dick Graham

The Chair

Mr. Dick Graham

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Dick Graham

1705

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Dick Graham

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Nicole Girard

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. Dick Graham

The Chair

1710

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Paul Sandhar-Cruz (Deputy Director, Social Policy and Programs, Selection Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Sandhar-Cruz

The Chair

Mr. Paul Sandhar-Cruz

The Chair

1715

Mr. Dick Graham

The Chair

Mr. Dick Graham

The Chair

Mr. Dick Graham

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Dick Graham

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.)

1720

Mr. Dick Graham

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Mr. Dick Graham

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Dick Graham

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Mr. Dick Graham

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Dick Graham

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Mr. Dick Graham

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Dick Graham

The Chair

1725

Mr. Dick Graham

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 053

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Colleagues, we're resuming our discussions with the administration on certain aspects of the regulations. I want to welcome Brian Gushulak and Frank Andrews to the table.

David, I believe you were here this morning, and I appreciate that very much. I know Joan Atkinson had to leave. Perhaps I could say that if there were any more questions on anything with regard to refugees, Daniel Therrien is here to answer them. I know we've gone through that section, so I don't believe there are any other questions. If there are questions from members on anything having to do with refugees, though, I would ask you to perhaps indicate now that you have some questions. If not, we'll go to the next area, which is part 4 of our contents. No? Then we'll move on.

Part 4 is on issues relating to inadmissibility. The first one is the big one, of course, that being health and this so-called definition of “excessive demand”. Brian, I know you're the guru with regard to health matters. I think most of our witnesses to date...perhaps you can give us a little bit of background on what you think this excessive demand is. I know the regulations say there are documents and that there is a way of being able to access the individual costs. That's supposed to mean it can be determined whether or not there's excessive demand, and that excessive demand is therefore one of the issues related to admissibility.

Could you give us some background? Most of our witnesses, of course, indicate that this could be very problematic. In fact, most of them have recommended that we look at the individual specifically, perhaps just in terms of the average cost as prescribed or documented on an average basis. And there are also other reports, as you know. Perhaps you've heard of the Conference Board of Canada one that indicates that there may very well be some differences between gender and differences at all ages. Our witnesses are saying that perhaps we ought to take a precise look at the individuals and their age, making it age-specific as opposed to just using an average amount of Canadians over the past number of years.

They have also indicated that perhaps looking at that average over a five-year or ten-year period seems to be excessive. So could you just give us a little background on how you see the health and excessive demand issues? I'm sure we'll then have some questions relating to that.

Dr. Brian Gushulak (Director General, Medical Services Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The issue of excessive demand in terms of inadmissibility for immigration purposes in Canada is a historic method of trying to manage the impact of individuals arriving with diseases and conditions that could adversely affect the availability of health services for people who are currently in the country. The excessive demand criteria as currently used were developed for the 1976 Immigration Act. Before that, the ability to exclude individuals on the basis of chronic diseases existed, but was not defined in the concept of demand.

We take our advice and our focus in looking at issues of excessive demand in the immigration context primarily from the Federal Court and from colleagues who advise us when these decisions are contested or challenged. One of the major recommendations over the past ten years—the years in which I've been involved with the process—has been a lack of a definition of what is actually meant by “excessive demand” in that context.

The regulations as written are an attempt to define a threshold level for the determination of excessive demand. In looking at it, it's important to realize that this is the end process of a medical examination and evaluation system that begins with the individual medical examination of an applicant for immigration.

The individual's clinical and medical status is assessed by a physician, and abnormalities and illnesses identified in that initial examination are referred progressively into the system, where they are more specifically evaluated. Those evaluations do take place at the level of the specific individual. The threshold level as presented is the reference standard by which the abnormalities detected during the immigration medical examination are compared for a definition of excessive demand.

¹ (1540)

The Chair: I'll go to questions in a moment, but why wouldn't what you just said be in the regulations? Perhaps it's somewhere else. Is it in guidelines? Is it not stated in regulations that you do look at the individual first, and that if that does in fact raise more questions, you then go to the “excessive demand” definition?

As I read it to members from the definition on page 20 of the regulations, you only have paragraphs (a) and (b). What you said about looking at the individual is nowhere to be seen. Perhaps you can tell us where we might find that.

Dr. Brian Gushulak: That reference is in the definition of the medical examination, and the medical examination is mentioned in, I believe, regulation 27.

The medical examination is the individual medical examination of the actual applicant. The excessive demand determination process takes place at the end of the medical evaluation component, for those individuals who have been noted to have abnormalities that would reasonably be expected to be associated with increased costs.

The medical examination is also the entry point for the assessment of public health and safety assessments for individuals. I just want to make it clear that each individual medical dossier does start with the individual applicant and is not an aggregate assessment.

The Chair: Thank you for that, Brian.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin--Swan River, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not only concerned about excessive demand. On that point, I'd like to ask you how much hard data is available in terms of excessive demand going back, say, ten years. We talk about excessive demand, but what is it in terms of its history, so that we have some hard information?

¹ (1545)

Dr. Brian Gushulak: I'll try not to provide specific numbers off the top of my head, but I will try to give you some aggregate history with this.

As I mentioned, the ability of the department and of the nation to deny admission to individuals on health grounds is one of the long-term health admissibility requirements of immigration legislation that extends back several decades and is actually referenced in some of the early parts of the legislation.

The demand terminology, “excessive demand”, comes out of the 1976 act and regulations, and was structured at that time, in the opinion of two government medical officers, such that the admission of the individual would be reasonably likely to be associated with excessive demand on health or social services. Historically, the number of individuals who have been refused for excessive demand represents less than 1% of total applicants. The levels vary depending upon the year, but in absolute numerical terms, we are talking about 2,000 to 4,000 people.

Mr. Inky Mark: When we did the tour of the ports of entry, quite a common comment was that people want to come to this country for health benefits. Is there a way to screen out people who are going to make health demands on the system when they come to this country and just want to be here for that purpose?

Dr. Brian Gushulak: The question—and the reason I'm thinking a little bit—of whether or not the actual desire to seek immigration for better health is one for which I am not aware that there is defined data. When individuals seek a better life, I think health is one component of that. But I am not aware of studies looking at the desire to immigrate solely on the basis of seeking better health care.

The excessive demand component is designed primarily to identify that cohort or group of applicants who would be inadmissible because of a particularly onerous need for services that are either expensive or in short supply.

Mr. Inky Mark: Have any data been kept on, for example, the demands placed on the health system by the parents or grandparents of Canadians who come here? Is there any data to deal with that area?

Dr. Brian Gushulak: On the actual, individual-based data on health care utilization, I am not aware of extensive studies in that regard. Clearly, there have been utilization studies of individuals who are evaluated for their use of services. Statistics Canada does those studies when they look at their health factors. But the actual relationship between cohorts of arrivals and specific utilization of health care services is in the preliminary stages.

Mr. Inky Mark: Good, because one of the accusations I've heard, Mr. Chairman, is that elderly parents come here, use our health system, and then end up going home. Perhaps it's a rumour, but you know what rumours are like, so I was just wondering if the system kept any data on the senior population that has actually come here, and on their demands on the health system.

Dr. Brian Gushulak: No, once individuals have a legal right to be in the country and have completed their provincial qualifying status for health insurance, they are managed as provincial residents. Individuals who do not have a right of permanent residence in Canada would not qualify for provincial health insurance and health insurance utilization, and would manage their health expenditures either through their own personal insurance or private funding.

Mr. Inky Mark: So generally speaking, there have not been any studies looking at that area of elderly people coming to this country to take care of their needs through our health system. There are no studies of any sort.

Dr. Brian Gushulak: Not that I'm aware of, sir.

The Chair: Madeleine, do you have any questions?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I was pleasantly surprised to hear you say that barely 1% of people were not accepted because of the risk of “excessive demand”. Can you tell me whether the majority of that 1% were elderly people or children grappling with a severe disability or a disabling chronic disease?

[English]

Dr. Brian Gushulak: The majority of individuals who are recommended for medical inadmissibility under the current process represent a spectrum of diseases across all age groups. There is no specific, age-related component, and our refusal process is based on the diagnosis of the malady itself. Common refusal diagnoses for excessive demand would be, from a medical point of view, multi-system organ failure; individuals with end-stage renal disease; complicated malignancies that will require extensive services; or severe neurological impairments, resulting from either traumatic or organic issues. Clearly, the incidence of things like malignancies increases as people get older, but the aged are not overly represented in our refusal statistics.

¹ (1550)

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In light of the definition that is to be found in the regulations at this time, do you think that there may be a risk that this percentage will increase, all the more so since age groups are not specified? For instance, in the case of elderly people and for those with long-term chronic diseases, I imagine there is no way to get a clear idea of the situation, but I am thinking of older people in particular.

[English]

Dr. Brian Gushulak: The studies we have looked at indicate that, on the majority, most migrants are healthier than the Canadian population on arrival, if we look at their utilization patterns.

The excessive demand threshold is designed to provide a benchmark so that individuals who have specific high-cost or high-demand services will be measured. For example, dementia requiring institutionalization clearly has an age-related component. If we look at particular diseases that are more common in certain segments of the population, we will see age-related associations, but those associations will be based on the epidemiology of the disease itself, as opposed to age. For example, malignancies that we see in middle-aged people will obviously be more common in middle-aged people. Dementias requiring institutionalization and total care are more common in the elderly, and they will be represented more commonly in the elderly, but age itself should not be reflected in the refusals.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: There is a health problem that appeared about 25 years ago, and it is known as AIDS. Among this 1% of people who were deemed not to meet eligibility criteria, how many had AIDS? Would anyone who was simply HIV-positive have been refused for that reason?

[English]

Dr. Brian Gushulak: The issue of HIV/AIDS is currently dealt with as we deal with all other diseases, based on the stage and severity of the disease as reflected in the demand and need for services. When an HIV-positive migrant is identified, the individual assessment of that particular case is undertaken for the status and nature of the disease and for the expected treatment requirements.

In this country, the recommendations for treatment currently depend on the clinical status and laboratory evaluation of the individual, so the outcome for people with HIV/AIDS, from an immigration point of view, can depend on their status. It can be admissibility or a recommendation for medical inadmissibility, reflecting their status.

Because this disease is more common in younger age groups, we will see it reflected in a demography of the disease existence, primarily in populations between 20 and 45.

The Chair: Brian, some of us are obviously concerned that if you only take the average of all Canadians, it would seem to me that if you want to sponsor your mother, she might be over 60 or 65, and there are statistics that prove older women...the utilization is such that if she had bad arthritis or something like that and you used your definition of excessive demand, she would never get in here.

I don't know if you saw this, but the Conference Board of Canada has released a study entitled The Future Cost of Health Care in Canada, 2000 to 2020. If you look at one of their sections and go by age—and that's why I think the committee would like to recommend that it be age-specific and not necessarily an average—as an example, for ages 25 to 34 for a male, it was $784 in 1999, and $1611 for a woman in that age range. At 65 to 74, the figures here are $4881 for a man and $4578 for the woman.

The problem is that if you used an average basis, I think you're going to penalize older people, in my opinion, or maybe even younger women, whose utilization tends to be a little more than that of younger men. I don't know which model you're using—perhaps you're using provincial health care costs or averages of Statistics Canada—but it isn't age-related, in our opinion, and it would therefore be a better measurement of excessive demand.

Plus, our witnesses say that going out five or ten years is a little problematic, because who knows what those costs are going to be? It all depends on what formula you're using to determine what those costs are. They say that a better way is to perhaps look at the most recent costs—a year or something like that—as opposed to trying to extrapolate this out for five or ten years in looking for an excuse to keep people out, especially if we do in fact want to reunify families or attract good, qualified people to the country.

¹ (1555)

Dr. Brian Gushulak: I'll try to answer that in two parts.

I think the clear indication to help with the vulnerable and with the unification of families is reflected in the exemption of the excessive demand component for certain aspects of the family class and protected people.

The other piece I would like to describe is this: When we are looking at the application of the excessive demand criteria, it is an abnormality in the physical examination—an illness or a condition—that triggers the process of the medical case into that framework. It is not simply the normal status of the individual. When an elderly person is examined for immigration purposes, abnormal illnesses or conditions are being sought, not simply routine care related to being old.

The excessive demand threshold, as defined in the regulations, gives us a number against which we can compare the costs for that particular condition or illness, in a finite terminology. It is not the assessment of the individual's general health status, it is primarily directed toward the assessment of specific conditions and illnesses.

The Chair: I think you might have to clarify...again, I refer to the regulations that don't read as you state them. The other thing I should also point out is that parents are not exempted from the excessive demand criteria.

In public health, if I could ask, again, our witnesses have indicated that there are certain diseases that are transmitted, and some less so than others. Why would we not recognize in the regulations that some different types of diseases are casually transmitted and that others are not? In fact, you're taking a wholistic approach to all communicable diseases and want to assess them on that basis, as opposed to distinguishing between some and some others.

Dr. Brian Gushulak: I believe the intent of the regulations actually is to reflect the desire to look at the nature of the communicability. In regulation 29(b), the second factor is the communicability of the disease, and the regulation in 29 for the assessment of public health provides a framework within which, through guidelines, we can assess the risk to public health for infectious diseases.

Operationally, how this works by guideline is primarily focussed at the detection of tuberculosis of the pulmonary kind, which may be transmitted through a respiratory route. The regulation is written to provide a framework whereby specific diseases can be assessed for those three criteria, and the degree of communicability is covered, I believe, in regulation 29(b). It does not indicate that all communicable diseases will be subject to exclusion, but it provides a framework wherewith, by guideline, we can determine which diseases may be subject to inadmissibility, again based on their public health risk.

º (1600)

The Chair: Fair enough. I guess it's sometimes in the reading when it comes to whether or not one could further define the level of communicability, and whether or not that might assist. Whether or not that's in guidelines or whether or not it's in the regulations, that's why the concerns have been raised.

You have time for a final question on this one, Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: On the same issue of health, the 2000 Auditor General's report really came down hard on our department from the point of view of our system, its staff, its positions, and what they do overseas and here, in terms of monitoring the whole thing, basically. What has changed since April 2000? Do you have more staff? Do you have more—

Dr. Brian Gushulak: Actually, a great many things have changed since that time. I'm part of the reflection of that process. Since that time, the actual structure of the medical units within the department has been centralized into one branch. Currently, our resources are now aggregated into one unit, which allows us to utilize those resources more flexibly. We have been successful in increasing the number of staff, and will continue to do that. We have not doubled our staff, but we are in the process of incrementally increasing the staff that we have and using them more effectively. And we're also following a plan to address the concerns raised both by the Auditor General and some of our own internal reviews.

The Chair: Mark.

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Just to follow up on what Mr. Mark brought up, I understand that when there's a health examination, or whatever it's called, for prospective landing in Canada, it's good for six months only. Is that right?

Dr. Brian Gushulak: For the people who are examined for immigration purposes—and there we have applications for permanent residence, and then we have certain long-staying visitors or certain individuals who may be staying a short time because of their occupation—the medical examination validity is currently twelve months.

Mr. Mark Assad: It's twelve months.

We've had problems whereby they get the examination, but before their thing is processed, it goes beyond that year and they have to have another one. That seems to be quite an irritant for us.

Dr. Brian Gushulak: I understand, sir, but the basis of the validity is primarily related to the risk of the acquisition of tuberculosis. Our technical advice from Health Canada in that regard, for the validity of the medical examination, is based on that particular component. We do have the option to review each case individually, and we may extend the validity for short periods in exceptional circumstances, based on the individual assessment.

The Chair: On the next subject, with regard to presence not detrimental to the national interest, perhaps someone can tell me something, because our witnesses tell us that the regulations are silent on this particular issue, and that the minister is essentially allowed to say whether or not someone is inadmissible for the purposes of detriment to the national interest. Two or three witnesses, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, indicated that this could cause some pretty severe consequences for people in terms of qualifying or applying for refugee status, or even under the PRRA, the pre-removal risk assessment. Since there are no guidelines and no regulations in regard to how, when, and why the minister might want to say someone is detrimental to our national interest, how is he going to be able to determine that?

Ms. Nicole Girard (Acting Manager, Enforcement Implementation, Legislative Review, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to address that question.

The provisions you're referring to exist in the 1976 act and have been rolled over into IRPA. Both acts say the following individuals are inadmissible for security reasons: terrorists, spies, and the like; unless these particular individuals satisfy the minister that their presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest.

This is in fact an exception to the application of the inadmissibility provisions. It's a kind of forgiveness clause, and the onus is squarely on the person concerned to satisfy the minister—and I don't believe this is one of the decisions that is delegated—that the presence of that person would not be detrimental to the national interest.

º (1605)

The Chair: That's my precise question. What is the mechanism? The regulations are completely silent on how a person initiates that. For instance, how would the African National Congress be able to come in here if the minister has a book somewhere that lists countries or organizations from which all individual are inadmissible until it's proven to him or her that they're not a detriment to national interest? How does it happen that the exception is taken off? There are no regulations that say how that exception will be dealt with.

Ms. Nicole Girard: I was just about to get to that, because this was what we heard in terms of a concern from NGOs when we met with them, both on the act and the regulations. They're concerned that in both the 1976 act and IRPA, there are no regulations that flush out the process. So their concern was what you mentioned.

The existence of this forgiveness clause is not widely known, so folks don't know where and to whom they should apply, what sorts of documents they should submit, etc. When we met with the NGOs, we discussed the idea that we would undertake to review our current process and, for this particular forgiveness provision related to detriment to the national interest, perhaps try to model something around what we currently do for rehabilitation, with a view to having in place a system in which it's clear to whom folks need to apply, what sorts of documentation they need to submit, etc. But this is more a matter of process and of clarifying what's required process-wise to make one's case to the minister, as opposed to something in regulations.

The Chair: I know, but this is a fairly significant issue. If we left the guidelines or some sort of application without reference in the regulations, I think we'd be asking a bit much. Perhaps we can guide you on that.

I can't disagree with what your approach might be, but the fact is that this is pretty serious stuff in terms of who may or may not be admissible to this country. Everybody's inadmissible until the minister says there's an exception.

Mr. Inky Mark: [Inaudible—Editor]...in a democracy, and others aren't. The process could be transparent, and there should be a procedure permitting people to apply for determination. There have to be some rules of the game, if I can put it that way. If they're determined to be dangerous, a security risk, there's no procedure and no definition. Basically, we just leave it to somebody else. Well, in a democracy, I don't think that's the right way to do things.

Mr. Dick Graham (Director, Legislative Review, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Can I respond to that?

Nicole made a reference to the rehabilitation process. The rehabilitation process has been in the act since 1976. That act doesn't lay out a process by which somebody will make an application, nor do the regulations. Those procedural details are in our manual system.

Under the rehabilitation process, we have thousands of applications every year. It's not something that happens just occasionally, it happens thousands of times a year. People come to us, they access the system, and they know how to access the system because those things are laid out in our manuals. The consultants, the legal people, and anybody else who cares to look at our manuals, can do so because they're public information. So it's laid out, but we do not put it into the regulations because it's procedural.

So, yes, there is a process, as she said, and we're going to put that same process or a similar process into our guidelines. But it is fairly procedural, not something that needs to be framed in law.

The Chair: Yes, it does.

Mr. Dick Graham: Well, as I'm saying, we have one right now.

The Chair: I know, but this is a matter of opinion. At the end of the day, on Bill C-11, we went to great lengths to talk about who is not going to be admissible to this country, and everybody told us to make sure that's in the regulations. Now, the administration is saying to forget the regulations, that you don't want to tell anybody through the regulations, that you'll tell them through your procedure books, and by the way, all of those procedure books and manuals are available and open. To whom?

You have to be a lawyer and/or a Ph.D. to understand some of this stuff. Now, to suggest that we couldn't put a reference in the regulations on fundamental questions of what our democracy is based upon, and that there is in fact a procedure or a guideline for how one would apply to the minister on admissibility or on appealing an inadmissibility hearing on the basis of being a national threat...that's the least a democracy like ours could do in the regulations.

º (1610)

Mr. Dick Graham: As I said, we are setting up a different process, and we have that in place for rehabilitation. That's a decision you'll want to make in terms of making recommendations, and I'm sure we'll consider it seriously.

The Chair: Well, as we get to the other one, it's even more serious. I can tell you that this committee....

Section 64 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act says a permanent resident, someone who might have been in this country for fifteen or twenty years, may find themselves in difficulty with the law if convicted of a crime that carries a sentence of over two years. I think the committee will remember how many representations by our witnesses said the spirit of Bill C-11 was that before a report was issued by an immigration officer to deport this permanent resident, a number of factors would be taken into consideration, including how long they were here and how many people were in their family. When we come to look at the regulations, the regulations are again silent on something as fundamental as how we're going to deal with the rights of permanent residents even though they might have run afoul of the law.

So with regard to section 64 of the act, what can you tell us about how you're going to deal with permanent residents who have been here and find themselves in difficulty with the law, before we just deport them without any mechanism to appeal to the minister? Again, if you're going to tell me it's in a procedure book or a manual someplace, I want to see it in the regulations. Tell me why it's not there.

Ms. Nicole Girard: Thank you.

We're certainly going to consider very seriously any recommendations that the committee may want to make in this area, and we do acknowledge that it has been a hot issue and continues to be a hot issue.

As the committee will know, the process currently in place leaves room for discretion in terms of when a permanent resident will be referred to an inquiry at which findings of inadmissibility for reasons of serious criminality will be made. In fact, our statistics show that we actually remove something to the effect of less than 5% of permanent residents in such circumstances.

The Chair: I don't care whether we remove 1%, 5%, or one person. I want to know where in the regulations a permanent resident gets protection from this in this country, in this democracy.

Ms. Nicole Girard: I understand.

There are three things I would just like to raise for the committee's consideration. One, we have consistently said we would look at the delegation issue, which is the level at which a decision is made to actually refer a permanent resident to inquiry. Currently, these decisions are made by a manager at a local CIC. Because of the importance of the rights at stake versus the public safety concern in the kinds of criminality we're talking about, when a two-year sentence is imposed, we have committed to raising the delegation for the level at which these decisions are made. That's the first thing, and it's one of the elements of delegation that has to be addressed in our guidelines.

There's another issue on which we're looking to strike a balance. IRPA has done away with the danger opinion process, which was a process that was in place under the 1976 act to remove an appeal right. Essentially, what having a danger opinion does is take away the H and C assessment that the Immigration Appeal Division otherwise would have done in the case of a permanent resident whom we are seeking to remove on the grounds of serious criminality. As you've mentioned, instead of a danger opinion, we now have this ten-and-two objective criterion for the removal of a permanent resident.

In passing IRPA and doing away with the H and C assessment by the IAD in these types of serious criminality cases, our concern—the issue that's central to all of this—is that we do not reintroduce the H and C assessment at the lower level. When we look at whether a permanent resident should be referred to inquiry for serious criminality, the manager is going to have to look at the crime that was committed, the circumstances around the crime, and the gravity of the crime—provided that it meets that two-year test—in deciding whether or not the case should be referred.

º (1615)

The Chair: So if he doesn't like the person, he can just issue a report and deport him.

My point is that even our colleagues over on the Senate committee that looked at Bill C-11 suggested that this was one of the biggest failings in Bill C-11, and suggested that the regulations do three things. One was that mandatory consideration of all circumstances before the issuance of an inadmissibility report. The second was that the humanitarian considerations set out in the Ribic case be used as the criteria—and the Federal Court has even dealt with this, so if the highest court in the country has dealt with this, I don't know why CIC can't do so through regulations. And the third was to perhaps create a special class for which no report can be issued if, after five years, we haven't moved to declare someone inadmissible.

I'm sorry, Nicole, but based on your answers, it seems the administration has been very casual about perhaps the most important issue—section 64—and how we protect our permanent residents, albeit that some of them may have gotten into some difficulty. And by the way, it wouldn't take much to get to that threshold of a two-year conviction. Remember, we had that big discussion.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Is the time factor the intent of this provision? In other words, is the system concerned about the first three years when the permanent resident might get into trouble? I agree that it doesn't take much to get two years in the clink as far as getting into trouble is concerned. What is the intent of this provision or this regulation?

Ms. Nicole Girard: Is your question why it's two years, as opposed to some other...?

Mr. Inky Mark: No, it's not on the two-year thing. What is the intent of deporting them under the class of permanent resident? Is it a time factor that you're concerned about, like going from one to three years?

Ms. Nicole Girard: No, it's not a time factor. It's strictly an issue of the protection of the public and a desire to replace the danger opinion process, which, after being in place for a number of years, was judged to be not satisfactory in terms of achieving the result it was designed to achieve: the removal of permanent residents who are convicted of serious crimes and/or are deemed to be a danger to the public.

Because the process hasn't produced a satisfactory result, because of all the litigiousness and the fact that these cases get gummed up in the courts, and because the danger opinion process was criticized for being subjective, the government sought to replace that process with an objective and transparent criterion. What that boiled down to was the replacement of the danger process by the ten-and-two criterion, so that a permanent resident does not have their appeal right removed unless they're convicted of a crime for which a sentence of two years was imposed. And although we've heard the concerns about two years, we've also heard the opposite concerns in the sense that sentencing practices are not uniform across the country.

Mr. Inky Mark: I see it as a broad-brush approach. We already have one problem, but now we're creating a bigger problem. The problem with the bigger problem is that it covers...probably 95% or 99% of newcomers to this country are law-abiding. That's where I see the problem.

Ms. Nicole Girard: But the process isn't meant for the law-abiding newcomers, it's only meant for the small number of permanent residents who have this serious transgression, for which we have to look at removing them.

Mr. Inky Mark: Maybe we should deal with them in a definitive, separate manner.

Mr. Mark Assad: [Inaudible—Editor]...about the fact that it's not in the regulations. It's a most important issue, and it did come up. It came up in the Senate, too, and everybody seems to be concerned about it. We had briefs and whatnot on this subject, so it seems to be quite important. I understand that it's for the very, very few, in a sense. Nevertheless, because of the concern it has generated, I don't think this committee can be indifferent about it. We are going to make suggestions. We hope they will be seriously considered, because we certainly would get a lot of flak if we didn't make suggestions on that issue.

º (1620)

Mr. Dick Graham: I might point out one more thing.

By going to this—and this is just another thing that will happen—as Nicole has suggested, one of the reasons why we did away with the “danger to the public” thing was that we were getting so much litigation. Every case was going to court, whether there were grounds or not. We expect the same thing would happen if we put in the regulations that the decision-making process had to deal with these things. By putting it in regulation, we're saying that there's a process here, and that in itself is subject to judicial review. That's just a point that has to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Mark Assad: Yes, but it's not as if we have cases of this nature every day. It's not something that is frequent.

Ms. Nicole Girard: No, you're right.

Mr. Mark Assad: It has to be quite a serious and heinous crime.

Ms. Nicole Girard: It is for a small number of cases, but the important point that Dick is adding is the balance to be achieved in determining what is a fair process for the removal of permanent residents who are a danger to the public and who made that ten-and-two test. You have regulations versus no regulations, and the potential that these regulations will attract litigation. That's most definite, and potentially will add on an additional layer of judicial review, which will ultimately delay these removals.

The Chair: The problem is that we had a threshold before that was called a danger opinion. A danger opinion wasn't issued lightly.

Let me give you a practical problem, though. Right now, even your own unions and people who work for you are saying that in the absence of regulations or in the absence of any guidelines, if an immigration officer is given information that this person, Joe Fontana, was a permanent resident, created something, and was convicted for two years, all the officer would need to do is submit a report. The adjudicator would take it to someone, and there's no discretion right now. It says that if you get two years and you're a permanent resident, in two years, you're out of this country.

It doesn't talk at all about the facts that we talked about in regard to Bill C-11. We talked a little bit about taking into account how long the person has been here, whether or not they have any family members, so on, and so forth. Those were talked about ad nauseam with everyone, including the minister and including the department. What the people are saying is that what Bill C-11 didn't do or try to do is not reflected anywhere in the regulations. What you're telling me is that there are no guidelines, there are no regulations, and that all you're going to do is leave it up to the goodness of an immigration officer who may or may not want to submit a report, with no discretion as to whether or not he has to take any other matters, humanitarian or otherwise, into consideration, into account.

Ms. Nicole Girard: I have a couple of quick points of clarification. First, it's clearly our intent to have guidelines on this issue. They're not done yet, but they will be in development shortly. Second, just to clarify things in terms of the immigration officer doing the report and having that report go straight to an adjudicator, there is a middle person there who receives the report from the immigration officer and has to decide whether or not he or she is going to refer this permanent resident to an inquiry that will trigger their removal. The point I was attempting to make earlier was that we have to ensure that there is a higher delegation for the person making that decision. That would be another check.

The Chair: I know, but with all due respect, Nicole—and I know, David, that you might want to talk about this—those kinds of serious decisions are not guidelines. Again, we just talked about declaring someone detrimental to our national interest. On such fundamental issues as how we protect permanent residents and give them an opportunity to appeal, surely it addresses more than having guidelines but not having regulations. That's my point.

David.

Mr. David Dunbar (Team Leader, Counsel, Selection Team, Legal Services, Citizenship and Immigration, Legal Operations Sector, Department of Justice): I have two things, really. To a certain extent, I think we need to distinguish between the substance of the decision and the process we use to make that decision. The substance of the decisions we're talking about is set down now in Bill C-11; we have that now, so that's what we work with. In regulation, we deal with the process.

Based on what I've heard, I'm worried to a certain extent that committee members perhaps have the sense that, absent regulations governing the process of decision-making, CIC is essentially given carte blanche and can do as it likes in decision-making. That's not the case.

There is long-established common law with regard to administrative decision-making. It governs things like the fact that a decision-maker cannot exceed his or her jurisdiction, and governs what is referred to globally as fairness or natural justice. That covers things like the granting of notice, the timing for making submissions, he who hears must decide, whether or not reasons are required, etc. All of that is very much dealt with in the common law, and you can turn to reams of judicial decisions in all kinds of parallel administrative decision-making that will guide you in how you make your decision in any particular administrative process.

So CIC does not operate in a completely empty field here. There's quite a bit of law that guides CIC in the kind of process that has to be followed in making a decision on national interest and security cases, in denial of permanent residency status, etc.

º (1625)

The Chair: The Federal Court has spoken volumes numerous times, so you'd think we would learn from what the Federal Court says. The Ribic case is a perfect example of this.

Anyway, in our report, we suggested that something ought to be in the regulations. Even if it sets out a reference to guidelines, at least people would then know we took section 64 seriously enough to put it in the regulations, because right now it's silent. We spent 20% or 30% of our time on Bill C-11 talking about rights for permanent residents on that particular issue.

Let's move on to part 5, applications. There are a number of issues under this section of applications, such as the place of application for the visa, restoration of temporary status, residency requirements, and permanent resident cards. I know all of them are very important. Perhaps you can give us an overview. And let's leave permanent resident cards or the maple leaf cards separate, because I'm sure that issue might take a little time, as will residency requirements.

On the two issues with regard to the place of application for visas and restoration of temporary status, could you tell us a little bit about those regulations, numbers 9 and 19?

Mr. Frank Andrews (Deputy Director, Economic Policy and Programs, Selection Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The purpose of regulations 8, 9, and 10 is actually to try to determine what an application is, and what we therefore have to process. The purpose of regulation 9 specifically is to provide the department with the tools to manage the applications that come before us. As you know, references have been made to centralization of processing, and we certainly have centralized processing centres now. The purpose of regulation 9 is to try to give the department the tools it needs to in fact do that in the future, be it in a year or in the long term.

You'll note that we say, “Subject to Part 3” in regulation 9(1). They have to make the application at the place “that serves the applicant's place of habitual residence.” The terms “habitual” is chosen very deliberately, Mr. Chairman, in order to avoid having people coming before us to submit their applications where they had their legal permanent residence or legal temporary residence. For example, a student studying for only a year or two in the United States could in fact apply in the United States for whatever visa they sought, rather than being forced to go back to India, back to Russia, or wherever.

The term “habitual” doesn't have any definition in our act that I'm aware of. As such, that gives us a lot of flexibility to allow people to apply wherever they find themselves, as opposed to applying tens of thousands of miles away.

The Chair: Maybe one of the problems, Frank, is that “habitual” is not defined. All of our witnesses, from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, to the Coalition for a Just Immigration and Refugee Policy, to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, have all asked if we are going to try to make it easier for people to come to this country—perhaps temporarily, like a student—and therefore be able to apply where it's convenient, and not necessarily as you said. Everybody gets the impression that they have to apply from the country in which they're residence may very well be located. That's problematic, especially if Bill C-11 says we want to attract more temporary workers, more students.

What happened to the in-landing class that we also discussed ad nauseam in Bill C-11? Is there a problem defining “habitual” so that it doesn't mean the country you come from, but where your residence may have been for the past year or two? That way, it may take away some of the problematic views that all of our witnesses, from the chamber, to lawyers, to students' unions, to you name it. Unfortunately, they all see it as you see it.

º (1630)

Mr. Frank Andrews: Yes, and we've heard these comments as well, Mr. Chairman.

The reason we chose “habitual” is that of flexibility. We don't want to force a refugee, for example, to apply back in the country they've fled. By using “habitual”, of course, it means where they find themselves, and ostensibly where they would register with the UNHCR.

We've heard the comment about the understanding that people have to go back to where they've come from. Our concern—and I'll raise it from my own personal experience overseas—is that if somebody who is in your country for three days wants a visitor's visa and you have to determine what the translation of the document they're showing you is, let alone having to do any more security checks, it's difficult to provide that service on short notice. This has been my experience in all the posts I've had.

I understand the concern about defining “habitual” better, and we'll certainly look into that. There's no question about that.

The Chair: We may have four or five ideas for you.

Mr. Frank Andrews: And I'd be more than happy—

The Chair: But what you're essentially saying, though, is that you'd stay away from Moscow, Beijing, or New Delhi, because it's going to take four years to get anything processed over there. Maybe that's the point. What they're saying is that there's discrimination implied by picking the term “habitual”.

Mr. Frank Andrews: Mr. Chairman, we didn't want to imply discrimination, but in my last posting, I had somebody from Uzbekistan apply to my mission in Trinidad. All their documentation was submitted in a Cyrillic language. I'm not sure if it was Uzbek or Russian. For me to process that application while sitting in Trinidad, of course, I'm going to have to refer a lot of the information to people who have that expertise, and they won't necessarily be sitting in Trinidad. We have to find the line between that sort of situation and that of the student who has a one-year scholarship at MIT and wants to continue their studies in Canada. The term “habitual” was our attempt at trying to find the line that gave us the flexibility to deal with that.

The Chair: We may want to help you define “habitual”.

Mr. Frank Andrews: By all means.

The Chair: If that student in the United States came from China but was at MIT and wanted to come to Canada to finish their studies, you're saying he could and should be able to apply in the United States, as opposed to going home?

Mr. Frank Andrews: Yes.

The Chair: Well, “habitual” doesn't do that. You don't define it, so we have some ideas for you.

Mr. Frank Andrews: We'd be perfectly happy to listen to them. We will take any advice we can get.

The Chair: How about the restoration of temporary status?

Mr. Frank Andrews: I can address that, Mr. Chairman.

We recognize that for some people, once their temporary resident status has expired—either through negligence on their part, because they forgot, or whatever—there has to be a method of allowing them to retain that status or apply for it again. This was our attempt at that.

The Chair: On this particular one, most witnesses have indicated that thirty days might seem to be a little.... Knowing how quickly—or not so quickly—we move, do you think thirty days is a fair amount of time? Or should they have perhaps sixty days or ninety days to be able to restore that temporary status? Again, there are an awful lot of safeguards in the system in terms of them abusing their privileges and so on, but thirty days, according to our....

Mr. Frank Andrews: First of all, as you will note, Mr. Chairman, there is a provision in the regulations for people who apply just before their status expires, in order that they may continue working or studying, as the case may be, until we've rendered a decision. If we don't have a decision before their initial status is expired, they may continue to study, work, or visit in Canada. That's already within the regulations. If they get it in before their status has expired, even if it's the day before, they're still allowed to continue doing that.

The Chair: Yes, but what if they do it the day after?

Mr. Frank Andrews: Then there's a time limit, as you've rightly pointed out, and people have suggested that more time be granted. We've heard that comment probably as much as you have.

The Chair: Yes, but the question is whether or not you're going to change it.

Mr. Frank Andrews: It's under advisement.

[Translation]

The Chair: Very well. Madeleine.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With regard to this issue of restoration of status, the period of time needed to issue visas can vary enormously. I think deciding on 30 days or any other period does not make sense. Of course, someone who would have a two-year visa for instance—I have not often asked for such a lengthy visa, but I suppose it could happen—may not realize at a given point that the two-year mark has passed. So, the length of the visa should be taken into account insofar as the recovery time is concerned.

We are all human. It is not necessarily ill will or a lack of concern, nor does it prove that the person is harbouring nefarious intentions toward Canada.

º (1635)

[English]

Mr. Frank Andrews: Yes, I totally agree, and that's why the provision was there. Again, it's another one of those fine-line questions. We have to try to draw the line between the person who, in good faith, just forgot, or something like that—they put away their passport and didn't look at it for a year—and those who abuse the system. That's our point. Again, as I've mentioned, we've heard the comments as well that thirty days isn't enough, and we're certainly looking at that.

The Chair: Thank you for that, Frank.

Let's go to residency requirements, regulations 59 and 60.

As you know, we had a lot of discussions on that one during Bill C-11, so I won't get into the issues of two-of-five and so on. I think the spirit of Bill C-11 was that when it came to determining whether or not a person had to be outside the country and we weren't going to burden them any more by having them prove that they had abandoned the country, the two-and-five formula works well. But we were going to recognize that people sometimes had to be with their families outside the country, had to work outside the country. The residency obligations in regulations 59 and 60 don't seem to reflect that, or they define it as Canadian business and so on. I wonder if you can just take us through the rationale of regulations 59 and 60, on residency obligations.

Mr. Frank Andrews: The act certainly recognizes that certain humanitarian and compassionate considerations will come into play in a decision to begin with. I believe that sits in section 28 of the act.

Our intention is for this to cover certain situations that are out of the ordinary, such as a person, through good faith, wanting to remain here and retain their residency. For whatever reason, however—whether it's because they're caring for elderly parents, because their schooling has taken them abroad, because they work for international organizations, etc.—there is a humanitarian and compassionate consideration that can be exerted in those cases, without widening the net for everybody, for the lack of a better term.

You're quite right, Mr. Chairman. We don't want to go into intention, into the idea that they intend to abandon Canada as a place of permanent residence. The two-and-five is recognition of this. But where we come from, we use the humanitarian and compassionate considerations that are mentioned in the act as the response to your question. We're already working on the instructions to officers on how to interpret humanitarian and compassionate considerations, and some of these situations fall squarely into those.

The Chair: Are there any questions on that one? No?

Other than the fact that the regulations could again be clearer with regard to that, both the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Barreau du Québec indicated that if, through no fault of their own, a person had to remain in a particular country—perhaps they had to care for their parents—something could be in the mechanism somewhere, maybe in the regulations—and maybe it's in your guidelines or something like that—for them to be able to prove they hadn't abandoned, even under the two-and-five situation.

Explain something to me on this one. A permanent resident could be away from our country for two consecutive years in the first two years, but if he or she was in fact here for the last three years, that would be five, except when it comes to the permanent resident card, which we're going to get into. All kinds of determining factors come in as to whether or not that should be the case.

If we have any particular suggestions on how to clarify that, or if we talk a little bit about that humanitarian and compassionate stuff in our report, you might find those things there.

Let's talk a little bit about the maple leaf card and the permanent resident card. As you know, a lot of people are still stuck about why we need one. We understand it's in Bill C-11, but let's talk about whether or not it needs to be renewed, for what period of time, how and when you can apply, and from where.

Again, I wonder if you can just give us an overview, because our witnesses continue to be concerned about that card and the information that card should contain, from biometrics.... If it's only supposed to be a travel document, like a passport, why don't we just ask them how old they are, what their name is, and what their address is? We still don't know what this card is all about, and people are therefore feeling a little uneasy not only about the fact that it has to be renewed, but about what information it is going to contain.

As Margaret Young, our researcher, found out by going on the web, all kinds of people are already offering not only the maple leaf card, but any kind of document you want. They can do it over the web for next to nothing, and you won't be able to tell whether it's a fake or a good one.

Nicole, are you going to take a stab at that?

º (1640)

Ms. Nicole Girard: I'll take a stab at it, and others can complete it and help me out.

As the committee will recall, the permanent resident card is intended to replace the IMM 1000, which is the record of landing that doesn't particularly contain any security features and is vulnerable to abuse. The PR card is being introduced as the new high-tech card that will facilitate the re-entry of permanent residents into Canada. A permanent resident who has a permanent resident card outside of Canada is presumed to have PR status. That's something new, and is not in any way attached to the current IMM 1000.

By January 2004, I believe, if they are transporting people back to Canada and those people say they are permanent residents, the regulations will require transportation companies to require that permanent resident card. That's one of the checks and assurances for us in terms of ensuring that people abroad who want to travel to Canada and who claim they are PRs actually do have a document that the airlines will require to facilitate boarding in that sense.

In terms of the information the card will contain, I believe it's basic biodata. There is no plan at this time for a biometric, although I believe that's something Immigration is looking at in a wider context for the future, in terms of where biometrics may be appropriate to ensure the integrity of our processes.

The Chair: Are there any questions?

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby, CA): Thank you.

From our perspective here, we certainly think the card should expire in the same way that passports expire. In essence, the card is the precursor to obtaining a passport when you become a Canadian citizen, so the card certainly shouldn't last longer than when you become a Canadian citizen and actually get a passport. They should expire in the same length of term.

I'm interested in the veracity of document. We know Visa credit cards, even with the hologram on them, are produced en masse in Asia. I would think these factories could produce these cards unless there are more deeply embedded biometrics in them in order to ensure the bearer or producer of the card...there are some kinds of additional checks to ensure someone is the legitimate owner of that card.

In a manner similar to that of the previous immigration minister, you said there's a plan that could potentially include biometrics, but it's only maybe a photograph and a name at this point, and that's about it. Can you tell me a little bit more about this? Yes or no, are you going to include the biometrics in order to raise the standard of ensuring that, yes, the person is the legitimate bearer of the card? Where are those plans going? Tell me more about that level of security.

Ms. Nicole Girard: The short answer on biometrics is no for June 28. It's an issue the Americans are obviously interested in as well. It's an issue that we have to continue to examine in the general immigration context.

You're right. Probably the only foolproof method of ensuring that a PR is the rightful holder of this card is to have some sort of biometric in some sort of system that will confirm he or she is the rightful holder.

This is a serious issue. It's a hot issue in the public forum. There are all sorts of concerns around privacy and whatnot. In order to move forward on this issue, we will have to consult with a number of stakeholders, probably including the committee. So it's not something we're ready to move on in the short term, but it is something we're committed to looking at in the medium and long term.

º (1645)

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay, I'm getting the same kind of dance again.

The Chair: I heard a no to biometrics, so I don't know—

Mr. Paul Forseth: It was a no for June 28.

The Chair: In a short tango. For a longer dance, who knows?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, okay.

You talked about having to consult with various stakeholders. Besides getting a report from this committee, who are the stakeholders you're going to have to consult to raise the public confidence that this card is going to be worth anything?

Ms. Nicole Girard: I'm sure the committee is aware that NGOs like the Canadian Council for Refugees and the UNHCR have expressed a lot of concern about the issue of biometrics, about issues of invasion of privacy, and whatnot. Other typical stakeholders include the Canadian Bar Association. In going down the road of biometrics, these are the kinds of partners I was referring to in terms of the folks we would have to engage in discussions on this particular issue.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I find that statement absolutely incredible.

The Chair: I don't know about B.C., but our health cards are not biometric in Ontario, our drivers' licences are not biometric, and a whole bunch of other things are not biometric.

Mr. Paul Forseth: The whole issue is whether or not the card is worth the plastic it's made of, and whether it's going to be any good or not. That's a large public issue. I just want to know where the department is going. What is the big resistance to using the technology available now to have a card that has a fairly high standard of confidence? What's the problem?

Ms. Nicole Girard: I'm not intimately aware of all the security features specifically contained in the card we're looking to produce on June 28, although I am generally aware that there are a number of them.

Mr. Dick Graham: If I may address that, to some extent, the card that we're producing is an expensive card. It is much more expensive to produce than a Visa card. The security features include a picture that is embedded in the card. It's not a picture somebody can take out and put back in. It's embedded in the card, it's part of the card, and it won't be easily reproduced. There is also some coding in it that will match the information on the front to the person who owns it. Somebody will therefore be able to swipe the card through a reader to make sure it hasn't been tampered with, that the date of birth or anything else hasn't been tampered with. But the card itself is very high technology. It's an expensive card that is much beyond what we would expect.

In terms of what you would deal with in putting in a biometric and who would complain about it, there are a lot of civil liberties people who would complain about it. We'll have to consult with the Privacy Commissioner before we go ahead with that. We'll have to build a model that will be acceptable to the people of Canada not just in terms of security, but also in terms of what that security is defending—our right to privacy as individuals. It's a balance, and I believe the government is not prepared to make that decision at this time, until we can give them the information.

So it's something we're moving on going into the future, and we'll see where it comes out. But we can't answer that question today, because no decision has been made.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Anybody else?

Madeleine, on the other part.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Nicole, in your statement you said very clearly that biometric data were not being considered at this time. What I understand from that is that they may be considered at some point. Should the department consider including biometric data on the permanent resident card, can you give this committee the assurance that it will be consulted very closely and in a very transparent way in this regard?

Personally, it would not bother me if this type of data were included on my personal identity card. However, if there are no biometric data in my passport, I would not want there to be any on my permanent resident card. It is that simple. What is good for me may be good for others, but if it is not really good for me and if the Canadian population as a whole rejects this idea, I think we have to listen to them.

So, can you give me the assurance that should the department begin to seriously consider including such data, the committee will not be placed before a fait accompli and will be consulted during the process?

º (1650)

Ms. Nicole Girard: The department has committed itself to consulting all parties who are concerned by this important issue, which does give rise to a great deal of controversy. I think it is obvious that the committee has a role to play here, as it does vis-à-vis any important issue in the area of immigration. So, when we get to it, we will of course have to consult all interested stakeholders, including the committee.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It might be wise to ensure...

[English]

The Chair: I'm not doing another public hearing on cards. I'm telling you that right now.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You will make sure of that, will you not?

[English]

The Chair: That's right. I've heard about enough about these cards.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: My concern is urgency. Why is it so urgent to do this if we don't know what we're doing? In other words, movement of people around the world is an international problem. Have we consulted with other countries in terms of what everybody's doing? Why don't we do these things together, instead of producing a card that may be irrelevant down the road? If it's already costly, what's the urgency about putting this card out June 28? I just don't get it.

Ms. Nicole Girard: I'll ask Dick to add some details, if he can, about what we've done in terms of other countries, but I'll try to address your question around urgency.

From our perspective, the urgency is that we still have the IMM 1000, which we use and which permanent residents are using to travel. It contains limited amounts of stuff in terms of security features, and is vulnerable to abuse. It's not good for the integrity of our program. It's not good for airlines and transportation companies, which are subject to being assessed violation fees for having carried folks who are not the legitimate holders of these documents. We are therefore aiming for as soon as possible, for the summer, to introduce this new high-tech card, which is tamper-proof, in order to have something in place that will essentially replace the IMM 1000 for travel purposes.

Mr. Inky Mark: Is the urgency because of the loss of IMM 1000 forms, or has this been a problem that has been persistent over the—

Ms. Nicole Girard: It's a long-standing problem that we have wanted to address for some time. We're finally at the stage at which we can begin to address it. It's something that is very much wanted and has been awaited by transportation companies, as well as by the department in terms of ensuring the integrity of our processes and minimizing abuse of immigration documents.

Mr. Inky Mark: I still don't agree that there should be an urgency to do it just because we're trying to fix our own problem in light of what's happening even between the United States and us in terms of developing a common security process or measure, even with cards.

The Chair: I think Inky's question is whether or not this is going to be in interim card. I heard other decisions are going to come, but you're going to spend millions of dollars making interim cards, mailing them out to every new permanent resident, and asking all existing permanent residents to apply. And what are we going to tell them? Are we going to tell them this is just an interim card until we decide whether or not it's going to be biometric or something like that, and that they then have to go through the whole process again?

There is no doubt that we need a new card. That IMM 1000 is crap, and obviously we have to move to a better card. Anything is going to be better than that thing. But I think Inky's question is on what you've led us to believe now, and that's that no firm decisions have been made for the long term in terms of biometric cards and everything else. Why are we going to do interim cards if, in the future, we're going to go to permanent cards?

Mr. Dick Graham: These are not interim cards in the sense that we will be pulling these ones back and putting new ones out. They're interim cards in the sense that any product we put out there is going to be interim because the technology will continue to change. But the technological standards of the card we are putting out meet the international standards. I mentioned earlier that coding is going on the card so that it can be swiped through a reader and people can match the information on the stripe to the cardholder. Those are international standards, and the same standards that go into our passport. You have a stripe at the bottom of your passport. The technology is the same technology in the end. The reader is meant to read either one. So we are doing that.

In regard to working with the Americans, for example, we are doing that. Because we can put biometric technology into that card, it means we won't have to pull it back. If and when the Government of Canada decides that it wants biometric features on the card, the same card and exactly the same technology will be used, except that we'll be adding in another line of coded information. That line of coded information will be in the form of exactly the same technology the rest of the world is using. The western world has long had standards, and we're meeting those standards. Canada is not going off on its own on this.

º (1655)

The Chair: Can I ask you some technical questions?

To some people, including some of our witnesses, there are mixed signals. If it's a travel document, it should not have any more information than a passport has—because that's what it is; it's a travel document. We're not questioning a person's permanent residence again, are we? Yet if one looks at the proposed application and at the process and it's five years, for a lot of people the regulations don't make it any clearer that it won't be an attempt to revisit their status as permanent residents, because nothing in the regulations says it won't happen. Therefore, people are suspicious.

Some people also mention the whole issue of guarantors. I've signed many a passport, as you know, and the requirements for a guarantor for a permanent resident card are more onerous than they are for a passport. You're asking this guarantor to practically put their profession on the line, because they ask some questions that even go over and above the passport questions. I can tell you the passport questions: Have you known this person for more than two years? Do you know them to reside at such and such an address? Are you prepared to sign this picture, this photograph, saying that they are who they say they are? That's it.

But on the application for this permanent resident card, the requirements placed on the guarantor are pretty onerous. I wouldn't sign one, because you're asking me to vouch for something I might not know an awful lot about. It's no wonder that people are starting to question whether this permanent resident card really is a travel document or whether it is something else.

I wish somebody would be clear with us about what the heck this thing is supposed to be. Is it to replace the IMM 1000? If it is, then it's a travel document and nothing more. Yet there are certain things built into this permanent resident card. As an example, you're going to issue permanent resident cards to all new permanent residents. They won't even have to apply for them. But all permanent residents who are already here will have to apply for them. Usually they have to apply for them inside and outside the country, but because of the onerous requirements of guarantors, because of this five-year provision—there are even provisions that you won't issue them for a year, or for only a year in some cases—there are an awful lot of convoluted rules here with regard to permanent resident cards. That's why a lot of people are very suspicious about what this card is going to be.

Ms. Nicole Girard: The PR card is both. It's a travel document to facilitate the re-entry of permanent residents who are outside Canada. However, you'll also see in IRPA that it carries with it the presumption that the holder is a permanent resident, so it's also the status document described in section 31 of IRPA. To that is attached the notion that when we issue a PR card, we want to be satisfied that we're doing due diligence as a department, and that we're issuing the PR card to somebody who is in fact a PR.

Hence the question in the application for the PR card, about whether or not you essentially satisfy this residency test. That's why we ask for the information around the five years. We ask if they have been in Canada or outside Canada. This is an effort on our part to do due diligence on the residency test, in order to satisfy ourselves that we are issuing a card to someone who is in fact permanent resident and continues to retain that status. If there is any issue in that regard, then we potentially have to start a process to look at whatever evidence there is that perhaps shows this permanent resident hasn't retained their status. That's where the regulations pertaining to the issuance of a one-year card come into play—which you mentioned in your comments.

» (1700)

The Chair: Everybody in the country who has a permanent resident card, who will be issued one, or who has an IMM 1000, is presumed to be a permanent resident unless someone can prove that they're not. While you said the permanent resident card is a travel document, there is a presumption there. We'll always presume a person who has a card...in fact, even if you don't, the regulations say that if a person is traveling abroad and doesn't have a permanent resident card....

The regulations don't compel a permanent resident to have one of these cards. They only compel the transportation company to accept it as a travel document, but it doesn't tell the permanent resident that they must carry one of these cards. Yet you're saying it's a presumption. It will be used to presume you are a permanent resident if you have one, or that you're not one if you don't. That's why a lot of people are asking why there are so many more questions other than those in a passport application. Why is it that the guarantor has to answer so many questions on behalf of this person? That's why our witnesses have raised an awful lot of questions.

People are not asking about whether or not you actually need one. We've had that discussion, we've had that debate, and IRPA says there shall be one. But they're now asking what kind of a card it will be. If you're saying no to biometrics, that's another thing I think the majority of people have indicated that they weren't prepared to accept at this point in time, until they find out some more about this technology, the privacy issues, and everything else.

Again, in terms of the regulations, how do we fix some of the misperceptions out there that the permanent resident cards and the requirements of these cards go far beyond those of a travel document?

Mr. Dick Graham: As Nicole has said, it does create this presumption of status, or that we have put a lot of safeguards in place. Perhaps we have too many safeguards in place—you may be asking the right questions here—but we have put them in place purely from the point of view that there is a need for security around this card.

Keep in mind that copies of IMM 1000s are selling for $10,000 or $20,000 in some places right now, because people can get passports made to go with them. We therefore want to assure ourselves that the card not only has a high quality, but is in the right hands of somebody who should have it. That's why it's going to be a very marketable item on the market. If somebody can get hold of one because we haven't done our job properly and have issued it to somebody who is not a permanent resident, then we have a problem. That was the rationale.

The Chair: Well, I hope not one shows up, Dick, not after what you just said.

Mr. Dick Graham: Yes, I know. I'm personally responsible.

The Chair: Are you? That's what we like. Accountability.

Go ahead, Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: On that note, just to give me some idea of the process, they're going to start at the end of June. What's your expectation in terms of numbers, in terms of the time to process these things, and who is going to get them first? In six months, how many are going to be out there?

Mr. Dick Graham: We don't have absolute numbers here; the department has them, but I don't have them with me today. The plan is to put them out starting June 28. On that date, we will start issuing cards to new permanent residents coming into Canada. The only people who will get them initially are the ones coming in.

The plan right now is to start issuing cards sometime later in the fall, sometime around October. We will hold an advertising campaign across the country to explain to people what this card is and what it's going to be used for—to facilitate their travel back into Canada—and we will start inviting people. So that we don't get 500,000 applications all at once, the plan is to do something along the lines of saying that people whose names begin with the letters A to D can apply during this time period, and we will start processing those.

We do believe there are a high number of permanent residents in Canada. Because people move freely in and out of this country, we don't know the absolute number, but we're looking at hundreds of thousands of applications. Over the course of the next year and a half or so, we will therefore start extending them to everybody else, until such time that we feel the vast majority of people who need one will have one. From that point on, we will then just be issuing them as applications come in.

» (1705)

Mr. Inky Mark: Our current concern is the backlog on immigration issues, but now we have another new process starting. Do you have the manpower to complete this process?

The Chair: Inky, don't complicate my life.

Mr. Dick Graham: That's why we are spreading it out over a period of time. It's so that we don't get that backlog.

The Chair: If I hear “permanent resident card” or “backlog” anytime after today in my lifetime, I'm going to....

Steve, you're the final one with a permanent resident comment.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I'm sorry I missed this. I was—

The Chair: So are we.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, I think I came in at the right time, because I just heard that there is some kind of delay in the biometric application on the permanent resident card. Is it a delay, or are you...? Let me just help you out before you answer.

I received a call last week from someone in the media who said she had been talking to someone in your department and was told the biometric was off the table. I told her that was news to me, because that's certainly not the discussion we've been having in caucus and among colleagues. I was then assured it was absolutely true, to which I replied that I didn't agree, blah, blah, blah. A media story then came out showing that there was some dispute.

I just left the House of Commons, where the Deputy Prime Minister made a rather compelling speech announcing his thirty-point plan made with the Governor of Pennsylvania, on secure borders and calls for biometrics in a permanent resident card. I've also talked to the Minister of Immigration. It was pretty clear to me that he's on the same page as I am. So the political people around this place are saying we're going into biometrics, that it's at that page, yet we're getting staff talking to reporters and saying that's not going to happen.

Ms. Nicole Girard: If I can just comment, I was trying to clarify this in response to a question that was asked earlier about whether or not we will be ready with a biometric on June 28. The answer I gave was a no. However, in referring to the context that you've just cited, which is the thirty-point plan with the U.S., we have committed to exploring biometrics as an issue.

In the future, we potentially may have a card with biometrics, but we're also aware that there are extreme sensitivities around this issue domestically. NGOs are opposed, the CBA has concerns, the Privacy Commissioner has concerns, this committee has expressed interest in being consulted, and the department is committed to a consultation process.

Dick was also referring to the fact that some exploratory work has to be done and some fairly high-level decisions will have to be made around the how and the when exactly. The consultations will have to be part and parcel of that process.

So, it's a no for the short-term, but it's clearly a yes in the medium to longer term, as you have pointed out.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I understand that there have been some...the word that was given to me by the reporter was “tenders”—yes, that was the word—that the tenders are not completed yet, and that we are continuing negotiations. I wasn't aware we had tendered anything, so I told her I thought she probably had the wrong terminology, but she insisted that this was what she was told. I would have thought we would have been going out with RFPs of some kind to look for ideas in order to kick them all around, and that's what I said. She insisted the word “tender” was in there. When I talk about tenders, they're documents that are closed, and you open ten of them and pick the one you want. You don't negotiate in a tender situation, but you do with an RFP.

Are we calling for RFPs for some form of technology to be added to this card at some time in the future? From our side within the ministry, we can then deal with whether or not we want that speeded up or whether we want to have a report on the different types.

Mr. Dick Graham: The RFP process has already gone forward, but we are not looking for technology to be added to the card for biometric purposes, because the card we are producing is in fact capable of holding, of taking, the biometric. If a decision is made to go with it and the government so wishes, the department will be capable of adding that biometric to the card, because the card is capable of taking one.

The Chair: We've discussed this card for half an hour to forty minutes. I'm sorry.

» (1710)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, my apologies, but—

The Chair: I know, but we're not discussing it anymore. You asked the question and you gave us some good information about what the Deputy Prime Minister said and what the Minister of Immigration said, so we'll deal with it politically. We have to move on here, though, because we have fifteen minutes left before we have to go vote.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, let's just be careful what we say to whom, when we say it, and all that kind of stuff, because I don't like getting a call from a reporter on a Friday afternoon when I have no ability to confirm this information. She's someone who has generally been reliable in my past dealings with her, and she's telling me biometrics are off the table. Remember, these people can and do interpret things for their own purpose.

The Chair: Thank you for that, Steve.

Committee, we have about fifteen to twenty minutes left, and we have to deal with detention, regulation of immigration consultants, humanitarian and compassionate, entrepreneur programs, and everything else. I know we can't get to all those, but I think we'll deal with two important issues between now and when those bells start to ring, and whether we need to call you back tomorrow or whether we'll just draft our report on some of these other issues.

First, with regard to the regulation of immigration consultants, the minister asked us to specifically do that. Most of our witnesses have said it has taken too long. We've had an MOU on the table for a long time, but there seems to be a holdup. Everybody points to the department and says it's at fault for the fact that this thing hasn't been fixed in at least five to ten years.

There's an MOU, so where's the holdup? You want it, the minister wants it, everybody wants it. Why can't we have regulations with regard to immigration consultants? We're going to put it in our report, so what's the holdup? You've had an MOU and you've had a draft agreement with a whole bunch of people, as I understand it. What seems to be the problem with saying, “For the purpose of this act, any individual who wishes to deal with immigration matters shall be a registered immigration consultant”, whether it's in a voluntary or self-regulatory body with a code of ethics, or whatever.

Mr. Paul Sandhar-Cruz (Deputy Director, Social Policy and Programs, Selection Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll address that issue.

Yes, it's true that in late 1999, the department did enter into an agreement to work with two bodies of consultants in Canada, with a view to those bodies establishing themselves as a self-regulatory regime. There's no singular reason why it didn't advance to an acceptable level. It was due to a series of factors, including resources and priorities. There was also certainly a cloud of uncertainty in dealing with our provincial partners, because of the Mangat decision that was before the Supreme Court.

As a first step, the agreement specifically called for the establishment of an occupational standard to define exactly what an immigration consultant was. That process didn't come to fruition, and we're now at a stage at which we've had to regroup. As you pointed out, the minister has therefore made clear his intention to seek the committee's advice on next steps.

The Chair: But we've heard from our witnesses that there seems to be no problem on their end in terms of defining who should be an immigration consultant. I think it's at our end, or at least at CIC's end, in terms of who you're prepared to accept as a registered immigration consultant. Or is it still a problem of both parties coming to an agreement on who in fact is going to be a registered consultant?

Mr. Paul Sandhar-Cruz: It's a culmination of many factors. During the process of dealing with the immigration consultants, Ontario had a report from Justice Peter Cory on paralegals operating in the province, with a recommendation to regulate paralegals in Ontario. That was happening at the same time.

The Chair: But this thing has been discussed for five or ten years. We put it in our report, and it should be in the regulations. If you can fix June 28 as the coming-into-force date, do you think you might be able to get it done by June 28 when you're going to get permanent resident cards, a bill, everybody trained, and all that? Do you think this might be part of the June 28 announcement too?

Mr. Paul Sandhar-Cruz: I don't know that it would be—

The Chair: Well, we're putting it in the regulations. You get it done like the minister said he wants to get it done, okay? If you're asking us to do certain things, then after five or ten years, surely to God you guys can get your act together with everybody who wants this thing. I don't know why it's not happening.

Turning to part 2, if I could, we just had part 2 of the regulations tabled yesterday. I know the members, and even our research staff, haven't had a good chance to look them. We want to include them as part of our report, so can you just quickly tell us what in part 2 is different from what's in the present regulations? I know it's about fees. We've had transportation companies talk a little bit about some of their concerns in regard to the amount of money or security or bonds they have to put up, because, as you know, they have to return people who have gotten here illegally or whatever the case may be.

What's new in this part 2? Can you give us a quick synopsis?

» (1715)

Mr. Dick Graham: As quick synopsis, I'll just go through them quickly.

The seizure process is basically the same as it was before. The biggest difference, and one that keeps interesting people, is the issue of allowing the return of a vehicle if the person pays $5,000. The clarification is that the $5,000 is only payable when people are considered to be part of what has gone on. In other words, if we seize a vehicle from somebody whose car was stolen, we're not going to ask them for $5,000 to get it back. If your car has been stolen, or if you lent it to your brother-in-law while thinking he was going down to the gas station for cigarettes but he ended up smuggling somebody across the border, you will get your car back free of charge, not for a payment of $5,000.

On the issues around transportation companies, the transportation companies have been given a little, and we've also tightened up in a few areas. We are taking some responsibility away from them, but we're also clarifying what it is that they're going to have to pay for when removals happen. In the past, the regulations were unclear on what they were going to have to pay for in the process. We've now clarified that, so they can see up front what we will make them pay when they bring into Canada somebody for whom they have to be responsible.

The Chair: Any big surprises? Any shockers?

Mr. Dick Graham: No, there are no shockers in there at all.

The Chair: Nothing like part 1, right?

Mr. Dick Graham: No, there's nothing like what's in part 1.

If I go through these, we have some transitional provisions in here. These transitional provisions are basically ones that clarify things when they're carried over from the old act to the new act. For example, because there's no “danger to the public” provision in the new process, they make sure that somebody who was declared a danger to the public under the old process is still deemed to not have the right of appeal under the new process, because we don't want to be in a situation in which we're saying somebody who was a danger to the public yesterday isn't a danger to the public today.

A number of other issues deal with appeal rights, in order to make sure that people who have appeal rights continue to have appeal rights, but when I got involved in drafting these things, there was nothing in there that I felt was going to be of great interest to you. I'm sure there are some issues that people will have, but they'll mostly be from the transportation companies.

The Chair: Do any members have any particular questions?

Inky, and then Yvon.

Mr. Inky Mark: Are the penalties severe enough to deter repeats, especially with regard to international companies that operate around the world, like big shipping lines?

Mr. Dick Graham: Are they severe enough? Canada's system of dealing with the transportation companies is being copied by other countries around the world. The transportation companies like it because it's clear and objective. At the same time, it puts the onus on them. We basically sign an agreement with the transportation companies, and we're keeping that. We're not raising the fees, we're saying they're responsible for somebody if they bring them in.

What we have is a system of graduated fees. If they reduce the number of people they're bringing in, they pay lower fees, so it depends on how they work. In exchange, we give them training and we provide them with some equipment. And the permanent resident card is also somewhat of a promise that we've made to them to give them more security.

Those are things we're doing on our side. On their side, they're screening people out, and we have a rather successful screening process going on overseas.

The Chair: Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, my comment concerns regulation 273. Could you tell us what exactly is going on with the $5,000, which an innocent third party must pay to recover his or her vehicle? Why must an innocent third party pay to recover his vehicle if he did not break the law, but another did? Can you tell us exactly what is going on? This seems quite ambiguous.

» (1720)

[English]

Mr. Dick Graham: Basically, if you look at regulation 273, the regulations on seizures are basically graduated. If we start with regulation 273(1), pertaining to a person who is in possession of a thing, it says they may apply within sixty days from the date of seizure. If that person wasn't involved and wasn't using it at the time it was seized, they can just apply to the minister for it. If they're seen to be blameless, the minister can give it back to them.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Without paying?

Mr. Dick Graham: Without paying.

[English]

The $5,000 comes in when the person is deemed to have some culpability, when the person is considered at least to have known what has been happening with their vehicle. They haven't been doing it themselves, but they know it has been happening. If you gave your car to somebody while knowing they were going to smuggle somebody across the border with it, you're going to have to pay to get it back.

There is also the possibility that you will never get your vehicle back, $5,000 or no $5,000. If you were driving the car and were smuggling people across the border in the trunk, we can take the car and keep it—not that we want a whole bunch of cars, because they're expensive to deal with.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Here's my second question. The fees will increase by $50 to take the new maple leaf card into account. Will this fee be added to the cost of the application or will it be added to the right-of-landing fee of $975? If it is added to the application and the application is refused, the person is paying for nothing.

[English]

The Chair: We'll give you a deal for $999, including the card.

Mr. Dick Graham: It's not part of the right-of-landing fee, because that's a right-of-landing fee. It's not for service. It will be added to the cost recovery fee. The $50 will become part of the cost recovery fee made at application time.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: But if he does not have the card, why does he have to pay?

[English]

Mr. Dick Graham: If you don't have the money?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: If he does not receive the...

[English]

The Chair: [Inaudible—Editor]...don't come into the country.

Mr. Dick Graham: If you don't have the money, or if you don't—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: If he does not receive the card and his application is refused, why should he have to pay?

[English]

Mr. Dick Graham: Within the Canadian cost recovery system, you are not paying for cards for permanent resident status. The cost recovery process designed is within Treasury Board's rules and is for services rendered, so it's part of the processing fee. As part of this processing fee, we are processing people towards having a permanent resident card. So, no, you will not get your money back for the card, because you're not paying for the product. You're paying for the service of processing.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I am asking you the question suggested by our researchers. I don't know if they understand the answers or if they have received replies to the questions.

[English]

The Chair: We understand everything.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: You understand the answer?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, and we're all part of the—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I asked the two first questions they suggested. If they understood the answers, everything is fine.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon, your questions and our suggestions are already in the report. See how quickly we learn?

Steve, you're okay? Yes?

Does anyone else have anything? No?

Okay, I'm going to leave you with this last question, even though we may have some questions as we start to review in the next couple of days, in order to finalize our report.

I know we talked about it, but tell us about the importance of June 28. Why does it have to be June 28?

Mr. Dick Graham: Why does it have to be June 28? The main reason is that, as the minister has said, there are provisions in the act that improve our ability to increase the security of Canada. We are ready to move into a new way of looking at our security provisions. Our funding is based on it to some extent, so the sooner we get the pieces into place, the better off we are in terms of moving ahead. June 28 is the date that was established, and that's what we've been moving toward for some time now.

The Chair: I think it's clear that June 28 is the day, but for the purposes of skilled workers, entrepreneurs, and everyone else, the main date is now going to be at least January 2003, unless the committee, after our discussions today, suggests it could be two or three months thereafter in order to deal with the backlog, right? The date for the skilled worker class, the entrepreneur class, or some others, is not necessarily 2003. The minister has already agreed that it would be moved off. There's a transition period, but it's a little different in terms of effective dates, right?

» (1725)

Mr. Dick Graham: Right. For the enforcement provisions, the offences, and things like that, we're bringing them in right away.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'm sorry that I might have been a little short or a little anxious. After six or eight months of Bill C-11, border security, and finally getting to the regulations....

I want to thank you all very much for your assistance today. If we have some additional questions for you before we write our final draft, I hope we can count on having you answer them.

We're adjourned until Wednesday at 3:30 p.m., when we'll start consideration of our first draft report.