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, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 20, 2003

1100

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

Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

1105

1110

1115

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

1120

Mr. Denis Coderre

1125

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

1130

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Denis Coderre

1135

The Chair

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

Mr. Denis Coderre

1140

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. Joe Fontana

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Denis Coderre

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Denis Coderre

1145

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

1150

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. Denis Coderre

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

1155

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

1200

The Chair

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.)

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Michel Dorais (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

1205

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Daniel Jean (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. David Price

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. David Price

Mr. John McWhinnie (Assistant Deputy Minister, Centralized Service Delivery and Corporate Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mr. David Price

Mr. John McWhinnie

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1210

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

1215

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

1220

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

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

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

1225

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

1230

Mr. Michel Dorais

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

1235

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Jean

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

1240

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel Dorais

1245

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Jean

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.)

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

1250

Mr. David Price

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. David Price

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Lyse Ricard (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

1255

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

1300

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 050

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 20, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1100)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Bonjour, tout le monde. Good morning, colleagues, Minister, and guests--Mr. Dorais and officials.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), supplementary estimates (B) 2002-03, votes 2b, 5b, and 10b under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, referred to the committee on February 26, 2003, the committee welcomes the opportunity to be able to talk to the minister a little bit about these estimates.

Minister, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much. I know, unfortunately, we don't have all the time we would want with you, and I know some of the officials will be staying with us. We had planned to meet for a couple of hours, and I know your timelines are pretty tight. Welcome. We look forward to your opening statements and your answers to a number of questions, I'm sure.

[Translation]

Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am naturally a little bit pressed for time, but the officials from the department, led by deputy minister Dorais, will be here and will be pleased to answer any technical questions, as well as any pertinent questions that colleagues may wish to ask.

This is the third time that I have appeared before you and I am always pleased to be here. As I mentioned, the senior officials from my department and I are prepared to provide you with our full support.

If I may, however, I would like to talk about another matter. I am appearing before you at a very significant time, on the eve of a troubling period for which my department is prepared. The war with Iraq gives rise to the fear of terrorist's actions against American and Western interests throughout the world.

Canada, like other Western democracies, is not immune to terrorism. As a minister in charge of one aspect of security in Canada, I would like to assure you that I am monitoring the situation closely and that my department has taken measures to enhance security. We are prepared to do more if required because we have a contingency plan that is part of the government planning process.

Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada have been operating under tightened security since September 11, 2001. The Canadian government is vigilant in his assessment of threats to national security. Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are working hard to, among other things, detect any new threats. Canadians can rest assured that we are doing everything possible to maintain national security. We have a policy of assessing each threat seriously, making inquiries and taking any necessary action to protect the people.

The government of Canada has the resources that are required to meet any immediate and long-term challenges with respect to national security, particularly terrorists threats. National plans have been put in place to protect the people and guide the government in its response to any terrorist threat. Such action includes: maintaining an open and secure border; providing for secure transportation; preventing terrorists from entering Canada; increasing law enforcement and intelligence activities; and increasing our emergency response capacity.

Á (1105)

[English]

Let me talk to you about what Citizenship and Immigration Canada is doing. We are part of the government's security apparatus and are working with partners, including American border and security officials, on a continuing basis to ensure security.

The list of measures is impressive and does not get the recognition it deserves in the face of overblown criticism of some isolated incidents that have largely proven unfounded. If committee members would like, I could go through that list with you or deposit it later.

As members will know, the U.S. went to a “code orange” state of threat readiness on the evening of March 17. This move was based on their assessment of a higher risk of terrorist attack. Canada--and CIC--is now at security readiness level 2. This means that CIC officers maintain a heightened sense of vigilance in their daily operations, whether in Canada or abroad. Security readiness level 2 applies when there is an increased threat to Government of Canada personnel, assets, and delivery of critical services that warrants enhanced vigilance.

In summary, my department has been working hard since September and has put in place effective measures to make our border more secure.

My officials have prepared a comprehensive operational readiness plan that contains detailed procedures and responses to other potential developments as we enter and move through these next months.

My officials are taking measures to ensure the safety and security of our borders. We are ready to do our part as part of the government's overall security plan. We have dedicated staff at our borders, within Canada and abroad, who are ready to do the necessary job in keeping Canada safe.

Mr. Chair, I note that there was some situation vis-à-vis what we call the “direct-back”. Let me give you some numbers, because I know that the United States--and we can witness that on the White House website--is talking about Operation Liberty Shield. Before the declaration of war from the U.S., we were doing some direct-back, but there are some numbers that I think it's important to have.

Right now, since January and February, we have had at the land border approximately 2,800 claims. The direct-back is only for 600 of them, and the result of that direct-back for no-shows is less than 25. So I think the system is working.

It's an ongoing issue. Right now we will continue as is, and if we feel there is some situation that demands us to take some other steps, we will do so.

[Translation]

I will now like to go back to the issue of the Supplementary Estimates.

Since my last appearance before you, a few matters has arisen that I should comment upon today. They fall into three general areas.

[English]

First, there are two budgetary items requiring supplementary approval that I need to raise with the committee. Secondly, I want to give you an update on our immigration plan for this year. And finally, I'd like to clarify certain matters regarding skilled worker transitional provisions. Let me comment on each in turn.

[Translation]

In the Supplementary Estimates, there is an adjustment of $50.7 million relating to amounts payable to Quebec by the government of Canada under the Canada Quebec Accord. This adjustment reflects the actual number of non-francophone immigrants landed in Quebec, for fiscal year 2001-2002.

[English]

Under the terms of our accord, we must re-evaluate annually the amount payable to the province, based on actual immigration activity during the previous year. This adjustment is made under supplementary estimates because final data are available only after the close of the fiscal year. In addition, we must factor into this adjustment the amount likely to be paid to Quebec under the accord during the current fiscal year. These amounts will be reconciled again the following year once final data become available.

A second resource matter has to do with loans provided to refugees. I should point out that this amount is 50% lower than a similar write-off request made last year. This year we are seeking approval to write off some $670,000 in loans that refugees have not been able to pay back. Moreover, this year's amount reflects a rate of repayment, though, of over 90% among refugees who have obtained such loans.

Let me turn now to our immigration plan for 2003.

I wish to clarify that we expect to be within our announced annual target for new immigrants. However, and in light of the resources voted by Parliament, I expect we will achieve the lower end of the target, which is set to range between 220,000 to 245,000 immigrants.

Á (1110)

[Translation]

We aim to achieve a mix of 60% economic immigrants, such as skilled workers and 40% from other categories including family class immigrants and refugees. This mix is consistent with the government objective set for the current year.

[English]

Given the continued growth in the overall family class category--and the 60% economic objective--we will still give priority to spouses and dependent children. This will result in slower processing times for parents and grandparents as we work toward the announced targets within the resources allocated by Parliament.

Let me now comment on the subject of transitional provisions for skilled workers.

I want to say first that it is my responsibility as minister to be open and honest with Parliament. It goes without saying that my officials have the same responsibility as public servants. We have done so in testimony before you, in replies to committee reports, and in our briefings of members who have visited our offices abroad.

[Translation]

The numbers we provided you on this subject last year when appearing before this committee were estimates. Moreover they were explained and identified as such. Such numbers are always a snapshot of a moment in time and will be different the next day as cases are finalized and new applications are received.

[English]

Any prospective figure on this subject is an estimate, because there are too many variables that affect movement in and out of the inventory of immigration applications.

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration never--I repeat, never--committed to the committee that there would be only 30,000 cases left by the date of transition to the new selection grid. It could not make such a prediction for a simple reason: the initial inventory was an estimate, and we just could not predict how many of the estimated 60,000 people eligible for the refund would in fact avail themselves of this option that we offered as a measure of fairness.

We also indicated clearly in our last appearance that the extension of the transition date for a few months would not clear the inventory of affected cases. This was because of the concentration of cases in specific locations like Beijing, Hong Kong, Delhi, Manila, and Islamabad. You've been travelling quite bit. You've been in the field. You know exactly what it means.

[Translation]

We indicated that the department hoped to process 90 000 of the pending cases awaiting a selection decision by the original date of December 31, 2002. In actual terms, the department will have processed more than 92 000 cases by the extended date of March 31, 2003. It will have achieved this despite the implementation of the most comprehensive reform of its legislation in 25 years.

It should also be noted that we will have achieved these results during a period when, for security reasons, we had to shut down or drastically reduce our operations in some of the missions with more substantial inventories. Missions such as Delhi, Manilla, Islamabad and more recently, Damascus.

[English]

In managing the transitional cases and in a gesture of fairness, we offered a refund option to 60,000 cases. Very few of these people chose to avail themselves of this option--as a matter of fact, it's 332. This is a strong demonstration of the desire people have to immigrate to Canada.

[Translation]

It also shows the challenge we have in selecting those skilled workers most likely to make a contribution to Canada in a situation where demand exceeds our needs and capacity.

I would also like to remind you that I appeared before you on January 29 and that, as a result of the decisions I made further to the committee's recommendations, not only have we shown a great deal of openness, but we have also provided an initial six-month extension including, at your request, an additional three-months, and offered a refund. Moreover, after March 31, people who will not have been interviewed and will not be assessed in accordance with the former selection grid, will be given five additional points. So instead of requiring a score of 75 points, they will only need 70.

Á (1115)

[English]

But to govern is to choose. I think we've been fair, we've been pragmatic, and if we had the opportunity, we would have been able to apply the regulation in full force last June 28.

We do our work within a framework of accountability to Parliament. We must also manage this program in accordance with the commitments made by Parliament and the resources voted by Parliament. We do so while delivering a new act and priority services for immigrants, refugees, visitors, and citizens, while also conducting enforcement work--priorities of which the committee members are well aware.

[Translation]

We have regularly provided committee members with the best information available at that time, in an effort to cooperate and out of respect for the work that you do. We will continue to show this same spirit as we help the committee in its work as long as I am minister.

[English]

Thank you very much. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, for your opening statement.

Let me also thank you for addressing the issue of the state of affairs at it relates to the United States and, obviously, the armed conflict. As you know, some members of the committee will be going to the United States Monday through Thursday to have dialogue and to continue to build bridges with our American counterparts at both the Senate and the House of Representative levels. We will be talking to NGOs and other groups that are very much involved in the movement of people between our two countries.

The statements you have made with regard to security and what our two countries are doing to ensure that both countries and our people are as safe as we possibly can be against terrorism are, I think, going to be useful. We look forward to meeting our American counterparts. I think your opening statement about some of the positive things our two countries are doing was very well said. We look forward to reporting back to Parliament and this committee on our trip.

I'm sure there will be a lot of questions about how money is spent on what I think is a very positive thing for this country, which is immigration. I'm sure numbers will not be the only question.

This committee has done some very good work together in terms of back-and-forth questions. Let's start with Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Minister, to the committee. It's always good to have the minister with us directly.

I note that you addressed the issue of information given to the committee about the number of applicants who would be caught in the new regulations, which are being made retroactive. I regret to say that I am unable to accept that explanation because of the fact that the Federal Court of Canada, on February 21, made a ruling that the minister and the department misled this committee and failed to correct the error once it became evident. This, of course, impugns the committee's ability to exercise due diligence in its work, to make proper recommendations to the minister and the department.

I take this matter very seriously, as do many others. I am tabling a motion today asking the committee to find you, Minister, in contempt of the committee and therefore of Parliament. The reason for this is that our democracy and our work as parliamentarians cannot be compromised in this way.

But I have some questions for you along that line.

The government website, when applicants applied for immigration, said that the points of the applicant were locked in at the time they made the application. That was on the government website. But midway through the applications, of course, as you are aware, the rules were purported to be changed.

On January 29, 2002, the committee was told by the department that backlogged applicants would be given adequate time to submit new information and documentation. However, applicants are now receiving letters—and I have copies of such letters—demanding that they fill out an entire new set of forms and provide all additional information and documentation in less than three months, or their application will be refused. In fact, some were given less time; some were given only three to four weeks.

This, of course, is simply not do-able. For example, in some parts of the world the English language test is administered only once or twice a year. In addition, these applicants are being asked to pay new fees to submit with the new forms.

I'm concerned, Minister, that Canada's reputation for fair dealing, for the values we hold of being honest and upfront with people, are being compromised by some of these circumstances, and so I would like to give you an opportunity to explain to the committee why the word of the Canadian government on its websites and to the committee is not, in fact, being carried out in the actions of the department with respect to these applicants.

Á (1120)

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: I would like to thank Diane for her question.

I even found out, at one point, that a lawyer who is currently before the Federal Court of Appeal in conjunction with a case that we all know well, had distributed a series of questions and a draft motion to the committee. I hope that Ms. Ablonczy is not going to table the same thing, but this is not a court of justice and I am very respectful of the judicial process. I will not be commenting on the content of the case, because we are in the midst of an appeal and I think that it would be inappropriate for me to interfere in this case at this time.

That being said, let us remember what occurred on January 29. On January 29, we tabled a flow chart with very specific figures—I remember this because I am the one who tabled the figures—, where it said that 60,000 individuals had filed their application or were in what we refer to as the paper screening process, that 120,000 people were going to be interviewed and that 35,000 people were waiting for a final decision. We said the following: for the 35,000, this will be a final decision; for the 120,000, this will be an interview; and for the 60,000, they may get a refund.

If Canada has such a poor reputation, why have only 332 out of the 60,000 requested a refund, given that they already knew at that time— December 31—that we were going to have new applications? Further to your recommendations, I also gave an additional three months. It is because the people think that Canada has a good reputation.

We are between two systems and we never said that we were going to deal with all of the files. The colleague who was replacing you, Diane, and who is a wonderful immigration critic, was present. Just look at the minutes. It is very clear that we never... Joan Atkinson was, both in our eyes and in the eyes of the Canadian government, a wonderful lady and an exemplary bureaucrat in immigration affairs. In my opinion, her name is synonymous with integrity. So I can tell you that we never misled anyone. We do not agree and we are going to appeal. We will see what happens then.

I think that we were very clear and we certainly were very transparent. These figures were estimates. When we say that we will settle approximately 40% of the cases, namely 90,000, and that at the end of the day we settle 92,000 cases, I think that we have done some significant work.

Mr. Fontana, you have been there longer than I have and you are familiar with the subject. You know that immigration is not static. In many cases, we have to make adjustments because of situations pertaining to security or other events. Despite that, we have accomplished what we had to do. Obviously, we always want to do more, but I think that the work was done and done properly. I do not think that we should challenge either the transparency or the integrity of the work done by our department.

Can we do better still?

Á (1125)

[English]

Is there a way to improve? Of course, but we are in a transitional situation here. We changed a system that is all of 25 years old, and to govern is to choose. Sometimes we take decisions that say, from now on, because of the shortage of one million skilled workers, we have to focus and use immigration as a development tool. And there are some criteria and necessities.

Instead of that, we understand there was a kind of in-between situation—and I'll conclude with this. But, we said, in fairness.... I could have said full force on June 28; we'll apply the rules June 28. No, we gave extra time—and we give extra time. Secondly, we asked for a refund. Finally, for those who are not being treated, we give an extra five points. It means they don't need 75 points to pass; they will need 70 points.

So I feel that not only in full fairness, in a pragmatic way.... We cannot apply—and I've said this; it's on record—two systems for years and years and years. We have to find that balanced approach between pragmatism and fairness, and I think we achieved it.

The Chair: Diane, one more question, please.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Well, I guess I'm sad, Mr. Chairman, that the minister chooses not to take the reproof offered to the department by the court, which found not only that the minister misled Parliament with respect to the numbers, but that he also failed to take the measures the committee was promised would be taken to deal with the backlog prior to the date when the rules would change.

I guess maybe the minister feels he's above the law, that this finding doesn't touch him, that he can just deny the findings of the court—which, I might point out, were made over many weeks of giving evidence and studying documents. I just find it alarming, actually, that the minister would sit here and say, notwithstanding the court and its clear finding: I did nothing wrong. In fact, I praise the officials who gave this wrong evidence to the committee. I praise the department, which did not carry out the measures that the committee was promised would be carried out in order to ensure fair treatment would be given to people caught in this transition.

I don't even know how to question that kind of attitude, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I don't know if that was a question within a comment, and I don't know if you want to answer it.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Well, I can answer it, Mr. Chair, and I'll be very short.

First of all, no, we're not above the law, and that's the reason why we complied with the judgment. We applied the ruling about the mandamus of the 102 cases; we've done that.

But the member is a lawyer too, and she respects the rule of law, since she's lectured me on the rule of law. There's an appeal process; there's a judicial process. If we feel we disagree with some statement, we have the right, because it's in our law, in our process, to appeal. Then we'll see. But I cannot comment on that.

All I can say is that we have the figures; we feel the figures were appropriate. There probably was some misunderstanding, but when you look at the record, never did they say there will be only 30,000 left and we will comply with them all.

So we agree to disagree, Diane. I not only believe that we complied—we've done what we've done with the judgment; we've complied with it—but because of the content and the consequences, what does it mean to apply that judgment overall, not only for immigration purposes but for other departments? That is an issue by itself.

I won't go further, but we believe we have the right to appeal, because if the appeal exists, it's so we can apply it.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I would just point out that it's not that we agree to disagree; it's that the court, after anxiously considering all the evidence, made a converse finding.

The Chair: I think the point has been made, Diane.

One moment, please. Just for the information of members, I believe this is the same grid as was given to us in our testimony that the minister has again provided to us. So there is a reference point, as well as for skilled workers pre-IRPA 2002—just so that we have a reference point for what all these numbers are that are being thrown around, especially for some of the new members of the committee who have joined us.

Sarkis.

Á (1130)

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Welcome to the—

The Chair: Can I get just one question from everybody? The minister has 15 to 20 minutes left, or maybe half an hour, and I want to make sure every member of this committee has at least an opportunity to pose one to the minister--those who want to.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: How about two short questions?

The Chair: No, one; one long one, if you want.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I would like to thank you for coming to this committee meeting. The timing is very critical for me. As you know, one and a half hours ago the Prime Minister spoke about the situation in Iraq, and the UN stated last week or the week before last that they will have about half a million refugees as a result of the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.

Do you think we have enough resources, or do you have plans in place, to help refugees coming from Iraq to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or to Syria maybe? And if you have, what are our plans to help refugees as a result of the U.S. bombing?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Well, I would say, of course, the situation is pretty early, but we are already part of UNHCR. We have some people in the field working with UNHCR. We have to take a closer look at the situation. Of course Canada will always fulfill its international duties, but I would say that for now it's a bit early to say what we will do, strictly because we will have to see what will happen.

I just came back from Cairo, and we spoke with the International Red Cross, UNHCR, and some other NGOs. It was public,so I can repeat it. You spoke about 500,000. We're talking about maybe 600,000. This is a situation by itself, but our people are in place there. We are witnessing the situation. We have resources to take on our responsibilities and fulfill our international duties. But I cannot say what we will do right now vis-à-vis the individuals.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: If I may ask a very short question on a second point, Mr. Minister, is there a comparison between our immigration budget and that in countries like Australia per capita--how much we spend to bring in new immigrants? Is our funding compatible to Australia's budget per person who comes to that country? I would like to know if it's possible--

Mr. Denis Coderre: I don't have the answer on the spot and neither do my officials, but all I can say is give us more and we'll be more than pleased.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Well, that's the point I'm trying to make. If you are below the Australian per capita expense per immigrant, maybe you should ask to review the situation.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I would say this. We don't have the figures, but we will get them and provide them to you.

Canada, Australia--there are some countries that really look alike, especially regarding skilled workers and economies. As a matter of fact, we're in full competition right now, and it's kind of interesting. But like Europe, they're making a tremendous effort to bring in more skilled workers, and because of our shortage of one million skilled workers, we will have to do something about that, of course. So we will provide you with the resources.

Of course, it's never enough, especially when we're saying that by 2009 the labour force will depend only on immigration. With the innovation strategy that we're promoting, what strikes me is that we have to find a balance between urban issues and rural issues. We have to find a way to have a place in the sun for everybody. The shortage of skilled workers is not only in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. You have some situations, as in Toronto, for low-skilled workers, and at the same time there are some situations we have to address with the highly skilled.

There are some regions and provinces that right now need more skilled workers. This is why I was pleased in the last budget that we agreed on the principle and there is some money attached to it. But we will have to find a way to prevent the two Canadas. We need a rural development issue. We need to put resources on that. With the bilingualism plan we have some new money to make sure we will be helpful for newcomers when they come with their families, so they have the tools to integrate regarding the language. There are some issues.

There are some pilot projects we're promoting, such as with foreign students, international students, in New Brunswick. I'm ready to provide deliverables in a short time in every region of the country to make sure we have a plan abroad to really regionalize immigration, but not at the expense of GTA, for example, or Montreal or Vancouver.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Thank you.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I will be mindful of the Chairman's orders; I will ask only one question. But first of all, I am going to make one brief comment.

You said, Mr. Minister, that governing was about choosing, which I can fully appreciate. However, if governing is about making choices, such choices must be made bearing in mind fundamental rules of equity. You will understand that the case of people who will not be heard under the old legislation is something that really bothers me in term of equity. Sometimes, time is money.

Mr. Chairman, I will ask the Minister a question about the appropriations to the Immigration and Refugee Board. For the past year we have been waiting for the refugee appeal division to be implemented. For many individuals who would like to make an application in Canada, the situation with our American neighbour does not seem to be as simple as all that.

Can the Minister tell us when the appeal division will be implemented? Many witnesses were very pleased with this prospect; that would enable them to swallow the new legislation. It seems to me that it is essential that this new division be established.

Mr. Denis Coderre: As usual, you have asked an excellent question. There are two aspects to this. I think that we also have to look at the situation bearing certain facts in mind.

In Canada, our acceptance rate for refugee status is 56%. In the United States, the rate is 53%. The United States also signed onto the 1951 Geneva Convention through the 1967 protocol, which added certain countries. This is a protocol that focusses more on geography, but it is exactly the same thing as the Geneva Convention. We have, of course, signed a safe third party agreement which we fully support because we believe that the United States is a safe third country.

That being said, I can recall stating, at the Canadian Council for Refugees general assembly, that we needed a ground for a appeal on merit. We believe that this is the case.

Over the past three years, we have received approximately 110,000 refugee claims, while the situation pertaining to resources and to the process is quite particular. Obviously, there are two sides to the coin. Some people are saying that we are too strict and that this doesn't make sense. Others are saying that some people are abusing the situation, and that it takes too long. Very often—and as members, you are familiar with many cases—people have been waiting for six or seven years. Some people say that we should keep these people even if they entered illegally because they are now used to the country, they have been here for seven years, etc.

So we have a situation that prompted me to do something. I said that within a year , I was going to be providing options. This week, I asked Cabinet to reassess the situation of the immigration and refugee board and I proposed a series of options. I said that we had to deal with the process while at the same time preserving the four main principles which, in our opinion, are essential, because we are a model in the world. As Diane said, reputation is extremely important, not only for skilled workers but also for refugees.

If I may, I would like do provide you with a quick refresher pertaining to these four points. First of all, Canada should continue to fulfill its long standing commitment to refugees. Secondly, Canada should continue to give asylum to people who indeed need to be protected. Thirdly, Canada should be able to fulfill his international obligations with respect to refugee protection. Fourthly, Canada should maintain its humanitarian tradition and preserve its fundamental values, which are compassion and equity.

So this is a situation that has prompted me to take action. I wanted to give some options to Cabinet, which is currently looking at the situation of the Immigration and Refugee Board. While respecting these four values, I wanted to deal with the whole issue of process, because we have to find a solution to deal with those who abuse the system, while at the same time preserving this compassion and speaking out on behalf of those who come here lawfully.

Á (1140)

[English]

The Chair: Minister, your answers are concise, comprehensive, and long, which means you're going to give us more time than originally planned, because we all like your length--

Mr. Denis Coderre: I'll finish with the NDP now.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Yes, but the Liberals are very important too.

Libby.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much for coming today.

I actually want to follow up on the question from my colleague from the Bloc. She raised the issue of agreeing to what we understood to be an earlier pledge--proposal--to add the appeal division in the refugee board. But as I understand what you're planning to do, you may add an appeal division, but you're going to scrap the board. You're going to institute a process of having civil servants deal with hearings.

I want to question the justification for doing that, because it seems to me many organizations that monitor our process--and you've just held it up as a model in the world, and one of the reasons maybe it's a model is that it's arm's length from government. I wonder how you justify the idea that we would do away with the independent tribunal board, even if you bring in the appeal division, and that we would now institute a process of civil servants.

I'm also very concerned about the issue around what's called direct-backs. We've been hearing more and more information about the number of people--25% or maybe more--who when they are theoretically getting these appointments get sent back to the U.S. They never come back, because the U.S. detains them now. Previously there was an arrangement with the U.S. that these claimants would be allowed to return for their appointments, but this is no longer the case. I think this is very serious and I would like to know what your department is doing. We hear all the time about this harmonization, but it seems to me that people are very much being hurt now by these much more restrictive policies in terms of direct-backs.

The Chair: I like how you sneaked two questions in there.

Ms. Libby Davies: And I hope he'll be able to reply to both of them.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Thanks for those questions, Libby.

First of all, I know that one of the great journalists who is with us today, Allan Thompson, will write an editorial on that.

I'm not going to comment on that because, first of all, I refuse to comment on that situation. We didn't say this is what we would do. There are some options. There is a situation where we decided to take a look and provide some options; I'm not saying and I never said that we're scrapping IRB. I said that there's a situation, there's some backlog, there's a situation of processes, and there's a situation of confidence for certain people who believe that we should take a look at it.

Ms. Libby Davies: Do you believe in an arm's-length process?

Mr. Denis Coderre: No, I'm not going to comment on that. I believe in cabinet confidentiality, and this is before cabinet, so I won't comment on it.

Regarding the direct-back, maybe you were not there, but I will repeat again the numbers I gave at the start. Right now for the land border there are approximately 2,800 claims. Of that we made 600 direct-backs, and the no-shows for interviews were fewer than 25. So the system is working.

I myself have been to Windsor and I myself have been to Lacolle to make sure that.... And we put a human face on it.

As a matter of fact, it's a case-by-case issue. There are some situations where we're doing some direct-backs, and there are some situations.... I remember that the day before I arrived they accepted a family; they didn't direct-back them. They said that because this was a situation by itself, and they accepted it.

I believe that the United States is a safe third country too. We have some informal discussions with INS. It depends on the port of entry, but I know that in Lacolle they have direct discussions with INS. They provide a list of the people they direct back; they have a kind of informal agreement to bring them back, and it works. If I look at the numbers they provide me, there are 600 direct-backs and there are fewer than 25 who didn't show up, so I think it's working.

But to be fair, I would say this. Because of the situation I will take a look. It's a day-by-day issue, but right now I don't feel we should change it.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Thank you.

John Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I'm going to ask you a troubling but very pertinent question, one to which I don't so much require an answer as at least a pledge to take it under advisement and perhaps take it to your cabinet colleagues. It's pertinent because of today's events.

I believe this is the first time since Confederation Canada has not followed Britain's lead when war has been declared in the name of the Crown, a Crown we both share. In Bill C-18 we have an oath of citizenship, a new version, that begins by saying: “From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada.” It goes on to say “I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms” and “to uphold our democratic values”.

Now, it seems to me that there is an inherent contradiction in this oath in the sense that our own Prime Minister has declared the invasion of Iraq to be an unjustified attack. The British Prime Minister has an opposite view. The Queen has issued a very moving message in support of the British troops as they take part in an invasion--or an attack on Iraq, if you will--that's perceived in an entirely different way by our leadership and by Canadians in general.

I'll simply ask you this. To me, there is a fundamental contradiction in making the equivalence between loyalty to Canada and loyalty to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, when she is also the monarch of a country that is now undertaking an invasion. So I would simply ask you to--

The Chair: Listen, I appreciate the question, but this discussion has nothing to do with Bill C-18; it's about supplementary estimates. I know that you're passionate about this issue because you've talked about it, but either you connect it to the supplementary estimates or ask a relevant question of the minister. This is a sovereign nation and we're not beholden to Blair, to the Queen of the United Kingdom, or to President Bush.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do point out that the minister himself made remarks on Iraq. But I have had my say, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the minister will simply take my remarks under advisement.

The Chair: What are you suggesting?

Mr. John Bryden: I'm suggesting he discuss it with cabinet, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Does he want to discuss how much it costs to support the Queen?

The Chair: You can argue your point on the Crown in Bill C-18, as you have for a long time, and we can appreciate that.

Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for coming to the committee, Mr. Minister.

I believe every person on this committee realizes Canada is totally dependent on immigration for the future. My concern when we talk about the estimates is that I see a world that is in a tremendous amount of conflict. I see greater costs in immigration, I see greater work in the departments, but I don't see the dollars that are there to carry out that extra work.

My concern is that I feel, as a committee member, that bureaucratic actions have to hone down the real costs or we lose a lot more in immigration. We are coming to putting rules in place that make it a lot more expedient for our civil servants in the way they do their job, but we're missing somewhat the client side and we're not putting enough resources in my opinion--it's only my opinion--on the client side.

I'm concerned that as costs escalate and backlogs escalate with all the kinds of problems we have, I don't see a clear way we're going to get through that. I just see us getting further into a quagmire unless there are more resources placed in the department.

My question is, are my observations of concern to you at all? And the second question I would have with regard to that is, is the department putting together a package to deal with the client-based side of immigration and not just looking at expedience as the tool with which we can handle the future?

The Chair: Now, there's a good question.

Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: And this is probably one of the most important--so I guess it's on division too.

I believe that of course there is a lack of resources, but at the same time we have to take a look at the administration of the program and the integrity of the program because we're talking about taxpayer money.

I believe that immigration is an investment. If we're also focusing on the process and, as an example, focusing on the recognition of foreign credentials, it will have an impact on the revenue of those newcomers because they will finally be able to contribute in their own field. Maybe they're a great taxi driver, but if they're a microbiologist, a nurse, or a doctor, it will have a major impact in the regions as well as in Canada itself.

So immigration is an investment by itself, and I believe that as Parliament we will have to closely examine our priorities vis-à-vis immigration. It's not just a matter of arriving at a port of entry anymore. It's not just a question of them coming up, as in the good old days, our saying welcome to Canada, and that's it. There is a situation because there are some costs attached to it with the integration, as a matter of fact, and that's why we changed the grid itself.

Our focus is that immigration is not just based on expediting a process, as you've said, it's also about making sure we have the people who will really be able to contribute but at the same time will have the tools to do so. Language is an issue because if they're able to communicate in our language, English or French, it will have an impact on the integration process. This is how you can contribute, for example, in some regions.

But there are some other issues. If it takes years and years to process a refugee claim and there is some cost attached to it...I mean, we are generous. We have principles, we have values, and we want to be protective of those values. But this is the kind of homework we can do among ourselves about the process itself.

But after this you will have the officials, who will be able to talk to you specifically about the numbers and the ratios, fast-tracking and all that stuff.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Thank you.

Deb, welcome to our committee.

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Joe.

The Chair: Sorry to hear of your departure in the future, but welcome.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you. I'm not leaving today.

The Chair: No, of course not.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you.

Thank you, Denis, for coming to committee.

I'd like to get back and ask a question or two about Justice Kelen and his remarks, and this is not the opposition or the government passing comments on this. This is a Federal Court appeal, and you said that it was a draft. In fact, the Federal Court of Canada says it is a final decision. Evidently his recommendations were based on CIC information.

Now, it's easy to come here and say that we never promised this or that, but when a Federal Court makes a decision on something, it would seem to me that they would have some sort of proof. Would your view be that he just made it up?

Mr. Denis Coderre: No. I would say this. If we disagree, there's a process and we appeal. We can talk about legal jargon, but I always was protective of the process.

As for saying we never promised, I'm not doing some cover up here. I'm taking all the facts. Look at what we've said on the record. Did we say that we would deal with it? And did we say that we would have 30,000, that this would be the last number? We never said that.

So we disagree. We complied with the judgment, though, because there was a mandamus and he asked us to comply with the 102 and we did. But there's some content and there are some implications for the future, not only for our department but for others. And I won't comment on what Justice Kelen said. All we say is that there's an appeal and we have the right to appeal.

Miss Deborah Grey: Yes, you did say earlier we do have the right to appeal. One wonders about ministerial responsibility and accountability on that also.

Regarding supplementary estimates, which we're talking about today, where will the cash come from for this appeal? Who is paying for the appeal?

The Chair: You probably have a legal envelope some place in that department, I'm sure. That's a pretty simple answer.

Thank you.

Let's move on.

Miss Deborah Grey: Excuse me. I'm not finished yet. My time isn't up yet.

The Chair: I'm sorry. It's not time, it's questions.

This committee does wonderful work together.

Á (1155)

Mr. Denis Coderre: The answer is Justice Canada.

The Chair: Thank you. You've had your question.

Mr. Denis Coderre: The last question.

The Chair: Minister, on behalf of this committee, I want to say a couple of things. And I want to pick up on what Jerry essentially said.

I'm not going to talk about misleading and I'm not going to talk about anything. This same grid was before us, and perhaps the explanation is such.... We were very worried that over 236,000 people had applied to come into Canada before the rules were changed. We as a committee were very serious about this. Your administration was very cooperative. We talked an awful lot about this particular grid and how we would move in the most expeditious manner in order to deal with people who had applied in good faith .

Now, the offer of the 60,000 for refunds was a magnanimous offer and a fair offer. The fact is that only a number of people took it up, meaning that now only 332 people, I think you said, have availed themselves of a refund. This means, then, that something in the neighbourhood of 59,600 have remained in our backlog. So 120,000 people were awaiting interviews, and as you said, there were 36,000 awaiting final decisions.

But if we had moved and you had gotten the resources--and this talks to where Jerry is. This committee, in five reports, has said that if immigration is an important investment then obviously you need the resources to process paper. It is unacceptable, I believe--and I think you've said the same thing in Cairo and other places--that's it's taking us two and a half years, three years, five years, six years to get people here who want to come here.

We've travelled as a committee and have heard from communities that have said they want more immigrants, and we need to do a lot more with settlement programs. Again, it's a client-based system that Jerry was talking about. Also, it is about how we can quickly move them into citizenship.

My point is, Minister, that regardless of the fact that 59,000 people didn't want their refunds and are still part of the system, and you dealt with 90,000--and there are all kinds of reasons--I think the committee and you as minister would want to look, in the spirit of fairness, at what it would take....

I know that March 31 is just two weeks away, and once these people have not been applied.... Yes, the 70-point offer is a great way of bridging the transitional issues. Forget about the legal suit that's before us. We now have close to, according to your numbers, 110,000 people who still have to be processed under an old system.

Within the supplementary estimates or within the estimates that you will come and talk to us about in May, is there no way of dealing with them as an administration so that the whole question of fairness, which we've spent weeks and months talking about, can be resolved in a way that I think is fair and equitable and will maintain the reputation of Canada?

That was one question.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, let's talk about fairness. We offered a refund to 60,000 and only 332 complied, but they knew that the new system was coming, first. So I think that's fair.

The Chair: I'm not even worried about them, because the offer will--

Mr. Denis Coderre: No, but we start to add numbers here.

Secondly, we complied with over two-thirds of all the recommendations of the committee at that time, when you proposed the recommendations and the government answered. I even gave an extra three months. We gave nine months. The most important thing, I believe, is that giving the five more points after March 31 will have a major impact.

Sometimes we have to draw a line. We cannot just go on and on and on, because you have certain lobbies at the same time or people who try to push the envelope all the time. We have to make some decisions because, at the same time, you have some concentration in certain offices. Talk about Beijing, talk about Islamabad, New Delhi; there are some situations. But the most important part is that we reached our levels. We asked ourselves to go between 220,000 to 245,000 and we succeeded, we complied. We had a quarter of a million, something like 226,000.

We do what we have to do. So we're delivering. Of course, we need more resources. The only way to make sure we will have better numbers is to have more resources to hire the levels. But because I'm accountable and transparent, my duty is to make sure we will be able, with the money we have, to reach those levels.

I believe we've done enough. You can make some other recommendations, but I believe that fairness was the statement that we've done since the beginning. That's my answer.

Â (1200)

The Chair: Thank you.

David.

And then, Minister, I know you have to leave. We'll keep Michel and company.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. It'll just be a short question.

In looking through the estimates, I was looking for a line that was talking a little about your project to promote rural areas more, to draw in refugees and immigrants into those areas, and I don't see anything in the estimates.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: The estimates pertain to the previous year. The budget gave us money for the region, so we could have pilot projects. If I'm still Minister of Citizenship and Immigration next year, and you are still a member of this committee, you can ask me the same question.

Mr. David Price: Basically, I'm looking at the...

[English]

The Chair: We will see you in May, Minister, when we're talking about the new year's estimates and your budget.

Thank you, Minister. We'll let you go, and we'll keep your administration with us because I'm sure we have some more detailed questions on this.

Go ahead, Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe all members of the committee have been given a copy of my motion and the covering letter, where I set out a rationale.

I know this is difficult for our committee to deal with. There's never a desire--

The Chair: I'm sorry, Diane, I'll deal with your notice of motion at the end of the meeting. Right now, if we have any more questions on the supplementary estimates, that's what I'd like to do.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I misunderstood.

I have a question with respect to backlog. The officials are probably aware, Mr. Chairman, of the document that has been released in which a CIC official in China is quoted as saying:

Under current conditions, an honest answer to the question, “If I submitted a skilled worker application in Beijing last month, when will I have an interview?” is maybe in five to eight years, but probably never.

So if I could ask a double question and then we could have an answer, I'd ask what resources or what administrative processes are being put in place, or have been put in place, to deal with this situation? Secondly, I understand that our website in China still indicates a processing time would be 48 months, not five to eight years. Has that been changed? Again, fairness and honesty are concerns of this committee.

Mr. Michel Dorais (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With your permission, I'd like to introduce the new member at the table. This is Alfred MacLeod, who is ADM for strategic directions and communications in the department.

This is an excellent question, and it relates to the inventory. Let me correct some figures, especially for Beijing. The current processing time in Beijing is 30 months. The papers that were released reflected a discussion. It was a partial release of a paper. I don't know why the entire paper was not released. It was an internal projection about what could happen if something went wrong, but this never happened. Fortunately, we took measures. We took a whole series of measures. The current processing time is 30 months. The projected processing time indicated on the website is 48 months. This is the estimate that we make today. If the inventory stays the same, if everything stays the same, it will take us an average processing time of 48 months, but the current processing time is a little better than that.

The inventory in Beijing has been reduced by about 25% roughly, and as it continues to be reduced, we'll hopefully improve that processing time.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, I was in Beijing last year with this committee, and as it happened, the applications that Beijing was handling in the first four months of 2002 had already exceeded the entire number of applications received in 2001. In other words, the number of applications being received in Beijing are growing exponentially. The only way those applications can be dealt with is if officials make over 100 “go” or “no go” decisions per day. Clearly, in a part of the world where we know document fraud to be endemic, this is completely unacceptable. So when you say the backlog has been reduced by 20% when we're getting a hugely increased number of applications, that's very troublesome.

Can you be more specific about how that backlog has been cleaned up and at what cost.

Â (1205)

Mr. Michel Dorais: I'll ask my colleagues to complete my answer.

One of the elements that are missing in this equation is the variation in intake that we had in Beijing over the last while. The inventory is not growing as fast as it was estimated to grow some years ago.

Perhaps you want to complete this, Daniel.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Jean (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): What is referred to here is an excerpt from an internal report that Beijing had sent, stating that if the trend continues... First of all, this trend did not continue. Secondly, this is a document that had been prepared with Beijing or Hong Kong in which it was suggested that that certain measures be taken, including using Hong Kong to manage our capacity in China. These measures were taken following this recommendation, and since then, the inventory in Beijing has dropped. If this inventory continues dropping, this will no longer take 48 months, but less than that.

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: All I can say again, Mr. Chairman, is that it's a CIC official. One of the top officials in Beijing is saying probably never, so there's something that's not connecting here. Was that official a liar? Does he not know what's going on?

You're telling us something so completely and utterly different that it's very hard to reconcile those two versions. I have that report. I've seen it. You're telling us something different. There's a huge disconnect here. Please explain this, because it's very troubling.

Mr. Michel Dorais: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I don't think there is a disconnect. A paper has been written internally that says, if nothing is done, here's what might happen. Things were done and it did not happen. So the results, the numbers I'm giving you today, are the best numbers I can provide you with. Those numbers are that 80%--I think that's the accurate statement--of all applications in Beijing are treated within 30 months. Our projected average processing time now is 48 months with the resources we have in place and with the current conditions. Those are projections. They're estimates. This is our best guess at this point in time.

The figures you are referring to are 2001, one official saying that if we do nothing here's what risks happening. It didn't happen, because we did things.

The Chair: David.

Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The minister talked about an inflow of money for refugee loan repayments.

I do not see that anywhere in the estimates. What is the percentage that they are being asked to pay and where does this money go? Is the interest put towards general revenues or does it go back to CIC?

Mr. Michel Dorais: I'm not aware of this figure. Of this money, I can tell you that 90% of the loans are repaid and that only that portion that is not repaid constitutes the shortfall.

Mr. David Price: Can you tell me the interest rate?

[English]

Mr. John McWhinnie (Assistant Deputy Minister, Centralized Service Delivery and Corporate Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): The interest rate is set by the Minister of Finance, but it is a market rate.

Mr. David Price: Where does the interest go? Does it go back in or--

Mr. John McWhinnie: It's a revolving loan fund, so it goes back into the fund.

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

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

You are undoubtedly fully aware of the fact that we are currently debating the identity card. We recently learned that the maple leaf card for permanent residents will most likely include biometric data. You will recall, no doubt, that there were some people around this table who were very much opposed to the inclusion of biometric data on this card and we demanded that we be kept apprised of the situation.

Generally speaking, I attend all committee meetings. However, I do not recall receiving any information. I think that this is a good time to ask you for such information. What is happening, and what are you waiting for before you come and talk to the committee about this matter?

Â (1210)

Mr. Michel Dorais: Mr. Chairman, as you know, the permanent resident card was designed so that it could eventually accept biometric data. This was always very clear. The minister announced that he wanted to debate the issue publicly. So the debate has been launched.

The department is currently looking at the issue and we are preparing the ground. We are reviewing the various types of biometrics available and the different ways to record the biometric data. There is no project currently underway, but this card was designed to eventually include biometric data.

Beside these studies which enlighten us with respect to this issue, there is the whole matter of privacy and the discussions that we need to have with the Privacy Commissioner before making a decision as to whether or not to include biometric data. There is also the whole issue of which type of biometrics to use, should we decide to proceed. We are simply doing basic studies right now. No decision has been made. I do not know if I have answered your question.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Could the studies that are now underway eventually be used for a national identity card?

Mr. Michel Dorais: Yes, indeed. Our current studies are generic in nature, and deal with the type of biometrics that exist, the type of biometric readers, the way they can be used, the security features associated with the various biometric data. We are getting ready so that we will be able to deal with the report of the committee, among other things, and the decisions that will be made in the future, as well as the advice we will have to give the government and the committee.

I repeat that the studies are still in the early stages, right now. We are still not anywhere close to being able to tell you what we intend to do.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You must realize that next week, we are going to Washington for four days. We will naturally be discussing this issue and we may even possibly travel abroad, in countries that have identity cards. Am I to understand that we will not have a draft document about what you already know? Is that the situation, if it is in such an embryonic phase? Some times it takes time for embryos to develop.

Mr. Michel Dorais: We do not have all of the available studies, but we are prepared to share everything that the department does have. This is a relatively new issue. You know that it was also dealt with in the 30 point agreement between the United States and Canada on discussions pertaining to documents and biometric features. The work that we are currently doing was undertaken in preparation for these discussions, but we do not have any proposals to put on the table at this point.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Michel,

I would like to inform the committee, because of the extent to which we want to understand the technology, that on Tuesday, April 1, we will be having a meeting with a number of biometric companies so that we can understand the technology behind whether or not it be on our permanent resident card, which has the capacity for biometrics, or whether or not it be on some other cards. Everybody in the world--even our provincial counterparts--is looking at foundation documents in biometrics.

I think the committee will find it useful to be able to understand the real technology behind biometrics. We'll be doing that on April 1.

Libby.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you very much.

I have two questions.

Actually, the first one is on the pilot project for the maple leaf card. I find it very contradictory that, on the one hand, we're told that there's an overall debate and discussion about a national identity card and the possible use of biometrics, and yet here we see the department already moving ahead with a pilot project. I'm not aware that it came to the committee at all or that there was any discussion about this. So I find it very alarming that we appear to be going down this road already.

So I want to know what assurances you can provide that whatever comes out of this pilot project will be fully disclosed with the committee and with interested organizations, because I think a lot of people see it as the beginning of a slippery slope in terms of where we're headed.

Secondly, the minister said in his comments today that we'll probably achieve the lower end of the target, 220,000 possible new immigrants to Canada. We know the red book has always said 1% of the population, which of course is far off what this is.

In terms of the backlog that exists, I don't know what your response to this is, but I can tell you that where I'm from, east Vancouver, where we deal with a lot of immigration stuff, there's a very common perception that the way the government holds the line is by creating these backlogs, because the issue is the staff resources.

It says here “in light of the resources voted by Parliament”. That obviously comes back to what the government considers to be a priority for resources that are required.

We can debate here about the level of the backlog and what's going on there, but the question also is, say, in the Beijing office, which is one of the ones that are usually brought up and that we deal with a lot, what changes are there going to be in terms of staff resources? If you can't deal with that question, then you'll never deal with the backlog. Maybe, as I say, there's a choice that's being made about the level of resources, because that's how you keep these numbers where they are.

Â (1215)

Mr. Michel Dorais: Thank you. I have three questions in here.

First, I'm a little confused with the pilot project, and maybe it's terminology.

I'm not aware of a pilot project to put biometrics on permanent resident cards. We have projects in-house that are studying possibilities. We have laboratory experiments to see how we can register biometrics on the card. We have bought results from some studies that were done in the States on the types of readers. We're doing all this to prepare ourselves, because at one point, as officials, the government will ask us questions, will ask us for advice. So we're preparing. But I'm not aware of a pilot project by which we would put biometrics on existing cards at this point in time.

Ms. Libby Davies: Is the contract not just let, though, to actually look at the use of biometrics on these cards?

Mr. Michel Dorais: No, the contract that we let was buying the results of a study that had already been made on the different types of readers of biometrics on cards. So instead of assessing that ourselves, we bought the results, on the contract. Eventually it may lead to pilot projects at some time in the future, but there are no pilot projects at this point in time.

The Chair: Maybe I'll just comment on that, if I could. I know you're new to the committee, but with regard to the permanent card and biometrics, we in fact recommended as a committee that we support biometrics.

The caveat was until certain privacy issues obviously have been cleared up--and we're still going through stuff--

Ms. Libby Davies: Have we given an undertaking for that?

The Chair: --but as a committee, we've done a lot of work on permanent resident cards and the biometrics and where they exist and don't exist.

I though I'd just give you that information.

Ms. Libby Davies: I still think there's a contradiction, though, because my understanding is, from reading the material, the committee was given an assurance that nothing would go ahead because we are engaged in the border debate. Yet it's beginning to happen.

The Chair: No, I'm sorry, Libby. We were told that it was going to make it possible, like on other provincial cards, including Alberta's, and new cards that are there that have the capacity of introducing biometrics. That's what we were told, that the card was going to be so novel as to be able to introduce biometrics if and when that decision was made. That's the difference.

But as a committee, on the record, we were in favour of it, save and except some privacy concerns that obviously we have heard from the privacy commissioner, and everything else.

I'm not going to redebate that whole issue.

Mr. Michel Dorais: The privacy issues, obviously, are part of that study I mentioned.

The second question was the target range. I think it was set to between 220,000 and 245,000 for the next year. This is a target, something we're aiming at.

Managing resources in the department in a responsible way pushes us in trying to see how we can fall within that fork, that target range that was identified by the government. We're trying our best. What the minister said is, according to the trends and the numbers we have and how we distribute resources now, we're probably going to be around the lower end of the target. It's very difficult at this point to pin an exact number on it, but that's where the indications are.

On the other aspect, I know the word “backlog” is used a lot, but we prefer to use “inventories” rather than “backlog”. The distinction we make is that some years ago we were not meeting our targets. We were way below targets, and in these cases we were talking about a backlog because we could not in fact meet the targets. But in recent years we have fallen within the targets set by the government and tabled in Parliament, and we tend to talk about inventories.

The current inventory is about 190,870 cases as of March 4. That's skilled workers. Out of that would be 100,000 or so who were left out of the previous regime. That's the current stage of the inventory. It's decreasing, as I said earlier. It has decreased in Beijing by about 25% now, so there is a decrease, and hopefully over time we'll be able to reduce it and report.

Â (1220)

The Chair: Libby, on your comment with regard to the vote in Parliament on estimates, you should know your sups. It's too bad we don't have the power to increase estimates, because that would be in keeping with what the recommendation said, that this department needs a little more resources. We can reduce estimates as a committee or recommend that this be done, but we can't, unfortunately, increase them.

Yes, Michel.

Mr. Michel Dorais: I just wanted to mention, Mr. Chairman, that we need an inventory to work with; we're certainly not aiming at eliminating the inventory. We need an inventory, for otherwise we can't work.

The other thing I need to mention, and the committee is very much aware of this because you have been to Beijing, is that it's not just an issue of dollars. We need to have room to put people if we want to increase. Currently in Beijing we're using the basement parking lot, as you know, as a storage facility for our files. There are many factors that contribute to what we can--

The Chair: You need money, physical infrastructure.

Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like the deputy minister to provide us with a cost estimate, which he may have prepared within the department, for implementing an identity card. Mr. Radwanski told us, a few days ago, that, in his opinion, that would cost between $3 billion to $5 billion. I also asked this question when the minister announced that a debate would take place. This was a concern that I had voiced. Are we heading towards a very costly measure which, once implemented, will be very difficult to control costwise? I was told that work would be done to provide us with estimates?

Have you begun this work and can you give us any indication with respect to the $3 billion to $5 billion price tag mentioned by Mr. Radwanski?

Mr. Michel Dorais: Mr. Chairman, although this question is relevant, it is premature. First of all, no decision has been made as to whether or not we will have a card or something else. The debate is wide open at the moment. It is very difficult to try to speculate on the cost of something when we have not yet even defined what this something will be. We are currently doing our best to do the basic work to help the government and eventually the committee in making substantial decisions as to which option to take.

It is much too soon to estimate the cost of a project that has not yet been defined. Like privacy matters, this forms an integral part of the cost of the indispensable elements when making the final decision, which might be in a few years time. Who knows?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: My second question, Mr. Chairman, will be preceded by a brief comment. When we are called upon to take a position here and make a recommendation, we will have to be able to consider the cost. We must not be told that we will find out how much it will all cost once a decision has been made. When we are called upon to assess a situation, we have to know the cost scenarios. If you are unable to provide us with specific costs, you could at least give us some scenarios.

In the estimates that you have submitted to us today, as well as in the estimates for next year, how important do you feel it is to give better funding to immigrant integration activities? We travelled to a few regions recently and everywhere we went we were told about the deplorable state of affairs with respect to integration and the lack of available resources. We were told about a few good experiences that were occurring here and there, in Halifax, at the YMCA. In some occasions, you do provide some money to help a community organization carry out integration work, but this is rare, given the requirements.

There are a lot of immigrants in my region. In Montreal east, the community organizations are bending over backwards to try to do the work, Mr. Deputy Minister, but they do not have systematic support. They spend half of their time negotiating grant applications. There is no recurrent sustainable funding; they have to improvise on an annual basis. The situation as it stands now makes no sense really. Our travels show that this was the case, but this is also shore up by our daily experience as MPs in our ridings: the funding is inadequate.

Have you made any efforts to meet this challenge and to ask for adequate funds?

Â (1225)

Mr. Michel Dorais: Mr. Chairman, we spend approximately $374 million a year on integration. Naturally, this also includes the contribution made by the Government of Quebec, which is responsible for integration in its territory and contributions to organizations in the rest of the country that are involved in integration.

Clearly, the immigration integration program is just as important as the recruiting program. There is no point bringing people here if they cannot be integrated into society. This is why our comprehensive immigration target, which is tied to a certain level of funding, is indispensable. If one year we were to have an astronomical influx of immigrants, it would be difficult for them to be integrated into society.

Could we do better? Of course we could. Part of this is due to funding, but there is also a part that is up to communities, provinces and organizations. The minister has initiated a series of discussions, over the past year, with the municipalities, provinces and organizations such as universities, who are all stakeholders in terms of integration. When a foreign student comes to study in Canada, it is the university that plays a role in his integration. When the city of Winnipeg signs an agreement with the province and us to integrate refugees into the community, it is involved in integration.

The answer probably resides in resources and partnerships. We have made a great of effort in the area of partnerships, but it is clear that if the immigration levels are to increase in the future, these levels will have to be funded, as the minister told the provinces, and there will have to be additional integration resources.

[English]

The Chair: Michel, you know that the committee will be doing a report specific to settlement and integration programs, and I think Yvon has been reflecting what all of us have heard throughout the country in terms of partnership, but also resources from all partners, essentially to deal with a lot more immigrants coming into the country, whereas the base budget has not been increased. Hopefully you'll read our report with some interest when we get it done.

Deb, and then Jerry.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thanks.

I just want to go back to wrap up this earlier section that I was talking about, this difference in backlog of 30,000. In fact, it was way higher than that. In fact, there could have been a difference of 70,000.

That qualifies, in my books, as more than just “oops”; that's an astounding number of people. Regardless of rights to appeal, etc., if there's any way somebody knows where the screw-up was.... “Sorry” just means so much to people that I think it would be a very good way of dealing with it.

You said you prefer to call them inventories, not backlogs. It sounds so sanitized; it sounds nice. Yet then you went on to say we need inventory; otherwise the system won't work. Surely we're not aiming towards backlogs or inventories or whatever you want to call them. That wouldn't look good to someone trying to get into our country.

I just want to briefly talk about some of the departmental situations. First of all, Mr. Justice Kelen's report wasn't a draft, as the minister referred to it; it was exactly a final decision from the Federal Court of Canada. It seems to me I wouldn't want to mess with them. If they make a decision, it is fairly important, I think, and rather significant. That certainly called up incongruities, if you will, in information that was coming out of the department.

Also, my colleague Diane just mentioned David Manicom, a CIC official, and you gave an explanation to that. We could flip a coin, I suppose, as to where the real story lies.

And now, the follow-up audit to the Tassé report, which was completed just this past December, identified faults in the handling of public moneys and the control of key immigration forms, staff uniforms, and badges. Lax security surrounding immigration forms is a particular concern. That audit states, “We found weaknesses in the safekeeping, record-keeping and reconciliation of these forms, from physical counts to records.”

Now, we can see a bit of a pattern here in lapses or inconsistencies—incongruities—with the department. Why do these lapses keep happening in your department, and what in the world can we do to straighten them up?

Â (1230)

Mr. Michel Dorais: There are quite a number of elements to the member's question.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think the issue is to make apologies or not. Ms. Atkinson said a number of things in front of this committee. In fact, she appeared in front of you for 35 hours. I've reviewed the whole 35-hour statement and I did not find any reference to 30,000 in her statement—any reference whatsoever. That's the first point I want to make.

The second point is that it's very difficult to deal with numbers, for two reasons. The first one is, the moment I tell you about a number—and I just gave one to you now: 190,870—it's no longer right. It's wrong; it has changed. The numbers that were tabled in front of the committee were tabled on January 29, 2002. That's some time ago, and numbers change. It's always difficult for an official to come and say, “The number I gave you last month is no longer the right number.”

The second is that we work with estimates. When we said 180,000—or if you want, 120,000 plus the 60,000 of those to whom we offered reimbursement—we made an estimate. We also, all together, concluded that of the 60,000, a large number will avail themselves of reimbursement. Well, 332...it did not happen the same way. All those numbers were on the table, but they were estimates.

I understand—and I'm often, quite frankly, very frustrated—when I see the numbers vary over time. But that's the nature of the business we're in. Why? Not because we can't count, but mainly because immigrating, and tabling a paper, following up on medicals, or whatever, are all individual decisions, and we can't forecast with absolute precision what those individual decisions will be. We gave 180,000 total. The actual number realized over that period of time was 196,434, as you can see in the paper we tabled today. So we were off by 16,000 in our estimates; it happens that way.

Regarding David Manicom's memo, I hope the committee will understand the explanation. David's memo suggested that if nothing is done—and he was ringing an alarm bell—this is what could happen. It did not happen, because we did a number of things; we funnelled files to different places.

I would obviously not comment on the judge's decision. It was always considered a final decision. We in fact complied with the decision of the judge and on the mandamus of the 102 cases, which are being processed right now. As the minister said, the decision is being appealed; it's in front of the court now.

Miss Deborah Grey: There's the Tassé audit as well.

The Chair: We've already dealt with the Tassé audit; we spent a lot of time, Debbie. Unfortunately, it's the problem when some new members come to join our committee that we have to regurgitate stuff we've already done. We spent a lot of time as a committee on the Auditor General's report that in fact talked about these inconsistencies. I'm sorry you weren't around, or Diane wasn't around.

If you want to answer the question, that's fine. But we've done our homework on this—

Miss Deborah Grey: I'm not asking about the Tassé report; I'm asking about inconsistencies with respect to—

The Chair: Yes, well, that's exactly what we did. We spent hours on it. I know that every member of Parliament—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Just as a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, the audit pursuant to the report was just completed in December 2002, so we've not considered it.

The Chair: Not that one, but we have considered the issues.

I'm sorry. If you want to—

Miss Deborah Grey: It's scary enough, if they're doing audits and then the same darn thing's coming up over and over again.

The Chair: Okay, okay. Well, there are some darn good things happening in this God-blessed department, you know. I mean, Deb, the world isn't falling over. I know that's your.... You know, Diane is so nice—no, listen—Diane is so nice to deal with, but you come in here and just want to cause all kinds of frigging problems the first time you've ever shown up in this committee.

Go ahead and answer the question, please, Michel, if you want to.

Â (1235)

Miss Deborah Grey: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Why?

Miss Deborah Grey: I beg your pardon. I'm here asking what I think to be fair and—

The Chair: And I'm trying to give you some information that this committee—

Miss Deborah Grey: You're having a temper tantrum.

The Chair: No, I'm not. I'm giving you information because--

Miss Deborah Grey: Well, you're calling this “frigging” and that “frigging”. In terms of order, that's unacceptable.

The Chair: I apologize for those.

Michel, do you want to answer the question, please.

Mr. Daniel Jean: Whenever we have an audit report that raises concerns, what we do is develop measures to respond to these concerns. What the member has brought up is that indeed the follow-up raised some concerns, and we have developed internal measures to deal with these concerns. We will continue to monitor and make sure we improve ourselves. As we say, we would like to be perfect. We're not perfect, but whenever we discover that we have problems, we try to do a fix.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you. I appreciate that.

I certainly hope you think I'm not here just to cause problems. Someone else does. But thank you for your answers; I appreciate them.

The Chair: Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, officials, for being here.

I know officials don't set the dollar amounts of budgets and estimates and the direction we're going, and that may make it difficult. But I see some inconsistencies in the estimates with the stated goals of the department. We're talking about 300,000 immigrants coming to Canada. I don't see the resources there to deal with some of the issues with regard to these, such as increased budgets in settlement.

I know one of the stated goals is to try to find a way to move immigrants from our major cities to other regions of Canada. Those costs are extremely higher, and certainly we can deal with the goal through partnerships, as Michel has said, but I believe further resources are clearly necessary, from the comments we've heard across this country. Those comments were very loud and clear, from every organization that deals with settlement of immigrants in regions.

In particular, I could point out testimony.... If you just review the testimony of people from Charlottetown, people from Fredericton, they all stated that it is essential that they have more dollars to help support those immigrants, or they'll be here for a brief period of time, then shoot back to Montreal or to Toronto and be lost to the area, because there are social supports and other mechanisms in major cities that do not exist in the regions.

Secondly, we have inventories, as you have stated. For those inventories, in my view four years is a long time. I'm not sure we have a way to control the number of people who apply to come to Canada, but a four-year inventory in dealing with people seems to me wrong, if our goal is to bring in the best, to bring in people who can help our society, and move our numbers to 300,000. The difficulty I heard is that we don't have room in Beijing, as you mentioned when dealing with the parking lot area. I heard the same comment in New Delhi, that we don't have room for the staff, let alone expanding and creating new facilities to deal with more people coming in.

So if our target is 300,000, it doesn't appear in the estimates that we're moving in the direction of easing some of those dollar pressures that are creating a problem. When I talk about settlement and about our missions abroad and different things, I don't see the dollars that are going to move this issue. How, if we get increases of applications, are we going to handle those? How are we going to move our inventories through the system more quickly? How are we going to handle all of these things that we are getting a great deal of concern about on a daily basis?

Â (1240)

Mr. Michel Dorais: This is a fundamental question, Mr. Chairman. I would hope there are not too many inconsistencies in priorities and goals and in resource allocation in the department. I'm not saying there are not any, but I hope there are not too many inconsistencies.

The goal or objective at the present time is the one that was tabled in Parliament, that is, for between 215,000 and 245,000. The overall policy goal the government has announced is to eventually move towards 1%. Definitely--and I will agree with the committee--to move further along to the target that has been given to us will require very significant resources. There is no doubt in my mind it would be a mistake to increase the number without providing for some form of integration, because those people would come in and not be able to integrate.

The regionalization issue is new. The minister has introduced new concepts; one is to work in partnership and the other one is regionalization. There is new money in the most recent budget that has been allocated to us in order to start implementing this, to look at pilot projects and see if it works, because there may be a different way of doing integration in smaller communities, for example.

We just don't quite know at this point in time how we can make that work exactly, but we're working with our new partners on experiments. Hopefully, as time evolves, we'll be in a position to facilitate integration in a larger number of places in the country. But we have new money to try these elements.

The Chair: Michel, could I interrupt, because unfortunately Jerry has raised a certain question. It's more about what's happening this coming year as opposed to last year. You're going to be coming before us in May for your main estimates on how we're going to achieve the goals with what kinds of resources.

This committee has been totally immersed in this whole discussion of how many people it takes to process 250,000. I'll give you advance notice, and if you could start to give some thought to the question we'll want to ask and talk about at length in May, I would appreciate it. And if you can, give us some documentation that will help us in preparing for that.

That is the crucial question. How long is a reasonable time to process applications, having people sitting around for two months, thirty months, four years, or whatever that number is? It varies every time we have a discussion around here. This is so we can find out exactly what the fairest possible model is, how quickly it can be done, and how many resources your department needs in order to eventually get us to where we want to be, which is what the minister said, up to 300,000 a year.

Sarkis.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

I have two quick questions. The minister mentioned constitutional cases in specific locations such as Beijing, Hong Kong, Delhi, Manila, and Islamabad. Of these five countries, how many of them utilize the consulate instead of the embassies to speed up the cases? In India I know we have the consulate besides the embassy, and we utilize that. Are there any plans, if we don't have a consulate in Pakistan, the Philippines, or India, to expand the network so we can target 300,000 if it's possible? That's my first question.

Here's the second question. I quite often hear in my riding--and I'm sure most members will hear the same complaints--things about certain countries or cities in the world, and specifically mentioned are Moscow, Cairo, Ankara, and maybe some other cities here; I'm sure I've missed a few other countries. It's about the element of corruption, especially with locally hired individuals: you pay the money, you get your visa.

No matter how hard I work on behalf of my constituents, I feel because of X, Y, Z reasons...but somehow one guy comes into my office and says, never mind your work, I have it already. It's very, very embarrassing for me. What's your mechanism to make sure that this doesn't take place?

Thank you.

Mr. Michel Dorais: If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I'll answer the second question first and then I'll ask my colleague to answer the first one.

On corruption, the department is certainly not perfect. I would like to believe we run a program that has a lot of integrity to it. Once a year we publicly table a report on malfeasance. According to all the investigation we conduct, it's very stable year after year; it's not growing. With the number, obviously, we have to follow up on each and every lead that is given to us. We have officers from the RCMP who are present at some of our posts abroad. The moment we hear of a possibility of malfeasance, an inquiry is immediately launched. It happens sometimes, and we make it public once a year that we catch people.

But generally speaking, I have to say to the member that our locally engaged staff is an extremely loyal group of people, and we are all working very hard to keep that level of integrity.

Â (1245)

The Chair: We found the same thing and said so in our report. I hate to repeat the same thing to Sarkis that I tried to tell Deb, but that was of concern to our committee and we did an awful lot of work on it. In fact, that was one of the points of discussion at every one of our posts we went to when we travelled last year.

If we can, I'd like to move on. Unfortunately, all of us have a lot of things going on--

Mr. Daniel Jean: This is actually an excellent question, and when we refer to the report from Beijing and Mr. Manicom, that was actually one of the recommendations of that report that was implemented.

What Beijing was saying was, let's use our capacity in Hong Kong to solve China, for example, and part of the responsibilities of Beijing were transferred to Hong Kong so we were dealing with our three offices in China. We have CIC officials in Beijing, in Hong Kong, and Shanghai. In Shanghai we don't really do immigrant work because we have a very small number of officers, but there again, by taking care of non-immigrants, we are giving some relief to Beijing so they can have more capacity. That's a good way of approaching capacity as long as you have the resources.

In India until recently we only had one operation, which was in New Delhi. As you know, in the new budget we have been given resources to open an office in Chandigarh. We currently have only one officer there because the physical infrastructure is not yet in place. But as soon as we have the physical infrastructure, we will have additional assets in India, in Chandigarh, and that's exactly to do what you've asked for, which is to expand our capacity by using some of our other offices.

The Chair: Thank you.

Massimo.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just quickly, I'd like to talk about money. What's the total budget for the department? What I see here is $1.1 billion.

Mr. Michel Dorais: I think it's 1.0-something, close to $1.1 billion.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Do we have a number where we just break down how much it costs for immigration? I know you said you spent $374 million on immigration programs, but how about just immigration, that is, processing applications, refusals, and acceptance? Do we have a head count? Do we know it costs $10 per person, $100, or $1,000? Do you have anything?

Mr. Michel Dorais: No, we don't. We have the total number, but we don't have a head count for one very simple reason. Treating a case in, let's say, Beijing, Paris, or Argentina would mean three very different costs.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: We could break it down into four or five different areas. We're going to be attracting immigrants from certain areas, especially if we're trying to introduce skilled workers, and we know they're going to be coming from certain countries more than other regions or areas.

Mr. Michel Dorais: I don't have them. Let me undertake to look at it and transfer what we have to the committee.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: How much do we spend on just immigration, processing and accepting, because if we're going to ask for more money, how much are we going to ask for? I know this is the magic question.

The Chair: Massimo, they all say the same thing.

New members of the committee, gee, we've done an awful lot of work in the past. We'll have a briefing session for the new members just to let them know about all the hard work we've done. We've asked the same questions and have gotten a whole bunch of information.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: No, no, but do we have it?

The Chair: Yes, we have some of those numbers, okay? I'm sorry to have to do that, but I get tired of hearing the same questions being asked and answered.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Okay.

What is the breakdown? Of the $1.1 billion, you mentioned $374 million was for integration programs. How much is involved in actual immigration?

The Chair: That's in terms of the future, in May.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: No, we have the numbers here.

The Chair: No, these are the sups. What we're dealing with today are the supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 2003. You can ask all the questions you want in May about how much we're going to spend next year.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: No, how much did we spend?

Mr. Michel Dorais: I hesitate to answer. I will provide the committee with the numbers. The reason I hesitate is that I don't know what is meant by immigration. Is border control included or not? Is it only the selection or does it include promotion as well? Does it include the corporate support to our staff abroad and all those elements? We'll provide the committee with everything we have.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I'm not asking that. You have one item that's a write-off of over $664,000. Why do you detail that one?

The Chair: Because that's part of the supplementary estimates. What you're going to learn around here, Massimo, is that you have to be a dentist: control the right questions to get answers out of things. But we're learning very quickly and slowly.

David.

Â (1250)

Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's not what you find in here, it's what you can't find; that's what we're looking for.

My question would be, where would I find the extra costs we've had to take on to meet U.S. needs or demands--I guess we'll say “needs”--for anti-terrorism?

Mr. Michel Dorais: I don't think we have the breakdown of U.S. needs versus our needs. We have made a major investment in security of $625 million over five years, if my memory serves me well, which was voted on in the budget after September 11. Some of those security measures were well received by our colleagues from the United States, and some of them were absolutely for our own purposes only. I don't have the breakdown.

Mr. David Price: When I look at the last page, I see there is an item for professional and special services and acquisition of machinery and equipment, which are additional operating costs. I guess it's $650,000. I wasn't sure whether it was million or....

Are those items that could be tied back to additional needs for anti-terrorism at our borders?

Mr. Michel Dorais: I don't know if my colleagues have the answer to that, but I think it's the purchase of some of the machines we put at the border points.

Lyse.

[Translation]

Ms. Lyse Ricard (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): As I am sitting beside the member, I can see that he has the Estimates for the Immigration and Refugee Board. I believe that this figure of $640,000 is for a new case processing system for a one-year period.

[English]

The Chair: We'll get those numbers, David, because it's a very good question. I'd like to have them before we go to the United States, to tell you the truth.

Madeleine, you may have a last question. Then I have one and we'll have to get out of here. We have a notice of motion and I have the vote on these estimates.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I do not know whether the Chairman will agree to letting me ask this question, but I am going to ask it all the same.

When Canada voted in favour of the safe third country agreement and we looked at the regulations, we had recommended that the persons who should be exempted from this agreement should include women whose grounds for claiming refugee's status pertained to domestic violence and anything to do with gender based discrimination.

According to my information, the Americans have not yet published their regulations. Perhaps you would tell me that they have in fact been published, but the fact remains that half of the people who show up at the border are certainly women, and perhaps this figure is even higher. Do you think that the government is going to wait even longer before making a decision on the right of women to be protected against evidence of domestic violence that exists in many countries?

This issue has nothing to do with the estimates, but it is nevertheless a good question.

Mr. Michel Dorais: Mr. Chairman, I can state that the United States has not published any guidelines to date. Their policy has not changed. They include this type of discrimination as grounds for applying for refugee's status, as we do, at this point. The minister is monitoring the situation, and if we need to change anything later on, he may make this decision.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: How long?

Mr. Michel Dorais: For the time being, nothing has changed.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sure you're going to ask that question of one of the senators in the House of Representatives. We'll be meeting with those who are part of the immigration committee there, so that's a very good question.

If I could just end it on this inventory...and I know March 31. Just so I understand it, there are approximately 30,000 people. If we were only talking about a universe of 120,000 applications awaiting interviews and the 36,000 cases awaiting final decisions.... Forget for a moment about the ones we offered the refund to, because they were at the beginning of the line or last in the line, and therefore there was an anticipation of old rules. But they were just starting the process, where most of the 120,000 people who were waiting for an interview are still in the system.

Now you've processed 92,000 according to your figures, and you had 156,000 in this universe. I think 59,000 or so are still sitting there--not the ones who haven't taken up their refund. How much time is it going to take you to process the ones after March 31?

On the administration, the minister said we were going to give a five-point bonus to those who were still in the system and applied before under the old system. We were going to give them the benefit of the doubt, in terms of whether or not the old system or the new system worked out. I'm just wondering how long it's going to take to clear this backlog of x number of people--if you don't want to get so precise--who are still stuck in this backlog of inventory, when we were discussing how quickly we could get it done.

Â (1255)

Mr. Michel Dorais: I'm very prudent with numbers, you'll understand.

The Chair: You know, some of us can subtract 120 less 90; it happens to be 30.

Mr. Michel Dorais: I would encourage you not to consider that subtraction, because those are not the numbers. The number that I can give you today is 104,000--plus or minus a few that are left in the inventory--that are affected by transition measures.

The Chair: Can you break that down further?

How many of those 104,000 are waiting for applications or waiting for final decision on applications and how many are still stuck at the beginning stage? It would be helpful to us to see how much progress was made with regard to dealing with that universe of 120,000 who were still waiting for an application this time a year ago.

Mr. Michel Dorais: Do you mean pull out other charts like this with the new numbers? We could do that, but the numbers, again, would be an estimate of the numbers today, so it's very important to realize those would be the numbers today. But we could pull them and provide you with that updated chart.

The Chair: That would be very helpful.

Mr. Michel Dorais: The next question is how much time we need. Quite frankly, I know it's frustrating, but I don't know. And the reason I don't know is because I don't know what those cases are. Whether it will take 30 minutes or 30 days to solve a case, I can't tell.

The Chair: I know the administration, the minister, and this committee were very concerned and serious about dealing with people in fairness. I ask you this because at the time we were talking about this retroactivity provision, which a lot of us found repugnant, we were going to try to deal with it with fairness. And I think the five points, the refund system, and the granting of extra time were helpful. But now I just want to make sure with regard to.... The SWAT team and the administration had indicated they were going to provide some additional resources so you could move files around to where in fact there was.... If you could, when you're preparing that, I'd very much like to have some basic timelines so we can reassure people. I know that for some the five points won't make a difference.

I tell you, some hell's going to have to be paid, and who knows, there may very well be some additional lawsuits on the basis that someone could sit around waiting for two or three years, find out that the five points after March 31 aren't going to make a difference in their life, and all of a sudden they would have passed under the old laws and not under the new. Who knows? That's why, as a committee, we'd like some of that information.

Mr. Michel Dorais: We'll try our best, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to caution the committee that this is not a linear relation. It's not because 100 cases take us x amount of time. A case in Beijing and a case in the U.K. are not the same sorts of cases. The conditions are different, the language is different. There are all kinds of things, and it's difficult.

The Chair: The Auditor General imposes some responsibility; apparently we have committees chastized that they're not doing their work. I'm trying to get the numbers, and I can only ask the numbers of the administration that is supposed to know the numbers. Hopefully, the whole system of accountability is supposed to work.

· (1300)

Mr. Michel Dorais: We'll give you all the numbers we possibly can, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: All right.

I have to get to the votes.

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Department

^ç	Vote 2b--Citizenship and Immigration--Pursuant to section 25(2) of the Financial Administration Act, to write off from the Accounts of Canada 2,659 debts due to Her Majesty in Right of Canada..........$664,730.

^ç	Vote 5b--Citizenship and Immigration--The grants listed in the Estimates and contributions.............$32,005,221.

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

^ç	Vote 10b--Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada--Program expenditures............$649,850.

(Votes 2b, 5b, and 10b agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall I report the supplementary estimates (B) to the House as the second report of the committee?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Diane, I think you wanted to give us notice of a motion, and then we have to depart.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I think all members have a copy of the motion. I don't bring a motion like this lightly. I know how difficult it is, especially for government members, to have to deal with this. But as I say in my covering letter, I think we have a duty and responsibility to protect the integrity of our parliamentary and democratic system.

I'll just leave this material with you. I know the chair will bring it back for discussion and vote at the earliest opportunity. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this with me personally, please feel free to do so.

The Chair: Yes, and we can't debate it. As you know, there's 48 hours' notice for this motion, and there are some--

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Do I need to read it just for the record? I probably should.

The Chair: If you want to, I'll allow you.

There are a whole bunch of other things I have to do between now and when we deal with this. I have to read Beauchesne's and everything else, but....

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: The motion is as follows:

That, given the judgment of Mr. Justice Kelen of the Federal Court of Canada on February 21, 2003, that found the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to have misled this Committee, this Committee report to the House that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is in contempt of this Committee and therefore in contempt of Parliament.

The Chair: All right, we will deal with that. I should tell you I'm not sure that the committee or the chair has the authority to find a minister in contempt of committee. If there's a point of privilege in the House.... But this is all debate.

What I'm saying is that the clerk has provided me, and I'll provide you, with some basic information, Diane. But we'll get into the substance of it, I'm sure, when we get back in April after the committee travels.

Thank you very much.

Michel, to you and your colleagues, thank you so much for being helpful.