CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 10, 2000

• 1534

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Colleagues, I first want to apologize. I know that sometimes these things can't be averted, and I know that while the minister is here and we're into discussing supplementary estimates, our very bill on citizenship is before report stage in the House. I know that has caused some difficulties for some of the members, including myself and others, who would want to be there for that debate at report stage. So I apologize in advance. Sometimes, unfortunately, these things will happen.

• 1535

The fact is, it is our responsibility as a committee to deal with the supplementary estimates when we have the minister available, and I think it's important that we take that opportunity to do so.

So I apologize in advance. It wasn't on purpose, obviously, but the main estimates are an important part of what we do, so I will—

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Do you have a point of order?

Mr. Jim Abbott: If I may, I would just like to make a note, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, when one is in politics for seven years, one has a tendency to be a little cynical.

I'm prepared to accept your explanation to this committee, but I would also want to note, as critic for the Solicitor General, that when we were discussing the money laundering bill, it came to the House at exactly the same time the Solicitor General was also before committee. So you'll have to excuse me if I'm somewhat cynical, if not of you—certainly not of you—then perhaps of some of the planning of your government.

The Chair: I take full responsibility. Of course, the responsibility falls upon the chair to manage the affairs as best they can for the committee, and so I apologize in advance. But we also know that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I'm sure the debate will continue not only for today but perhaps tomorrow, so there will be plenty of opportunity to do it.

I'll begin now with votes 1, 5, and 10, under Citizenship and Immigration, in the main estimates 2000-2001, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), and proceed to consider the report on plans and priorities relating to Citizenship and Immigration.

I have the pleasure of welcoming the minister, Elinor Caplan, to the committee along with her departmental officials.

Minister, welcome. You might want to introduce your departmental people, whom we've had the opportunity in the past two or three months of seeing on an ongoing and regular basis. It's been most helpful, and I think the committee, working along with you and the department, has managed to produce some pretty good work for you. We look forward to the next big challenge, which is the other bill that we might receive maybe as early as next week, probably one of the most important bills this House will ever consider, at least in this session on immigration.

So thank you, Minister, and we welcome you to talk to us a little bit about your main estimates and your planning priorities for the department.

Honourable Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you very much, Chair. I would like to introduce the management team from the department, if I could, and then make an opening statement.

With me are Janice Cochrane, deputy minister, citizenship and immigration; Michel Dorais, associate deputy minister; Joan Atkinson, acting assistant deputy minister of policy; Martha Nixon, assistant deputy minister, operations; and George Tsaï, assistant deputy minister, corporate services.

Thank you, Chairman. It's been a busy and productive nine months since I arrived at the department, and the current fiscal year promises to be a very busy one for my department. I welcome this opportunity to discuss with the committee issues that bear on the work we'll be doing together. We have a number of priorities we intend to concentrate on this year, priorities that support the key directions established by the government in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of this session.

Let me begin by taking a few moments to summarize the government's commitments that we have taken up in earnest in my department. All of these are means to a common end, that of building a higher quality of life for all Canadian citizens and permanent residents.

First, we are supporting a strong, growing knowledge-based economy by ensuring our immigration and citizenship programs attract the skilled workers we need and encourage their commitment to Canada.

Second, we are promoting safer communities by acting against those who would abuse our laws and hospitality. In particular, this will include action to combat human smuggling, which constitutes an affront to human rights and the humanitarian and compassionate values of Canadians.

Third, we are working together with a range of partners to help newcomers integrate more quickly, to reinforce the importance of citizenship, and to continue to build a diverse and cohesive society.

• 1540

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we are affirming Canada's place in the world by working cooperatively and collaboratively with other countries and with international organizations to help alleviate the desperate situation of so many refugees and displaced persons.

We are guided in our work with a clear vision of Canada's future citizenship and immigration programs. We will modernize the Citizenship Act of Canada to better reflect the true value of Canadian citizenship.

We have proposed a new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which will help us to maximize the social and economic benefits of immigration to Canada while ensuring our laws are respected. In drafting this act, we've had the benefit of hearing the views of Canadians from across the country, and I look forward to hearing the views of this committee as we proceed.

We'll begin discussions with the provinces and territories for multi-year planning levels for immigration to improve our capacity to coordinate immigration with the absorptive capacity of the provinces, territories, and municipalities in the spirit of the social union framework agreement.

We will continue our efforts to improve client service and achieve faster yet fair processing, while adding new resources to strengthen the integrity of our programs.

Finally, we will step up our international work with the United Nations, the UN High Commission for Refugees, and the International Organization for Migration, and our work with various countries to address pressing issues of shared concern such as people-smuggling, a problem that is international in scope and will therefore require international solutions.

More generally, as I've often said, we are committed to closing the back door in order to be able to open the front door wider. Opening the front door wider means adjusting our programs to see that we're able to bring to Canada the skilled workers we need, and to see that Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and convention refugees are reunited with their families as soon as possible. We are committed to strengthening Canada's humanitarian traditions by ensuring that we assist those who are in genuine need of our protection.

We are committed to working more closely with other governments, community organizations, and the voluntary sector to improve our collective capacity to help newcomers adjust to life in Canada and contribute to Canadian society. We are committed to ensuring that newcomers and native-born Canadians alike are made aware of the values that Canadian citizenship stands for and the importance of those values in supporting our quality of life.

I'm here today to answer your questions on Citizenship and Immigration's main estimates and report on plans and priorities. Before I do, Mr. Chair, I'd like to spend a few moments explaining some of the changes in our planned spending, which I'm sure have not escaped the notice of the sharp eyes of the members of this committee.

Planned spending in our business line of maximizing benefits of international migration is projected to increase significantly for the next three years. These allocations are necessary if we are to meet our commitments to Canadians. In the current fiscal year they are required to: (1) strengthen our processing capacity abroad and begin reducing backlogs; (2) improve the essential services we provide, including those that protect the security of Canadians; (3) continue our work on the Kosovo relief effort; and (4) cover the cost of marine arrivals on the west coast.

In future years this funding will enable us to proceed with some most important innovations, many of them within the context of the proposed Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Citizenship Act of Canada.

One is the development of a new model for selection of independent, skilled immigrants that is more closely tied to the requirements of the Canadian economy.

The second is amendments to immigration regulations and provisions in the new Citizenship Act that reflect the modern family. This includes extending the family class in our immigration program to cover common-law and same-sex partners and providing equal treatment for the adopted and biological children of Canadian citizens.

Third are steps to increase the integrity of our medical screening, including the introduction of an objective definition of “excessive demand”, and the modernization of the medical examination process.

Fourth are steps to provide more information on credential assessment services to clients abroad so that they are better able to begin working when they arrive in Canada. We will also continue to encourage the provinces and territories to expand credential assessment services across the country.

• 1545

Likewise, additional spending in the managing access to Canada business line will enable my department to meet its objectives, which include: a strategy to improve CIC's ability to interdict improperly documented migrants and work with our international partners to deter people-smuggling and trafficking; a national criminal security screening process for refugee claimants when they first enter their claims; and the development of a more secure permanent residence document.

Funding for immigrant settlement, language instruction, and resettlement assistance programs are all projected to decrease over the next three years. However, these decreases are from a higher-than-normal level of spending because of the Kosovo relief effort and reflect reductions in costs in this area.

Finally, additional spending in the corporate services will mean significant improvements in the transparency and accountability of our operations. The development and implementation of a performance management strategy, for example, will mean better measurement and analysis of the outcomes and effects of our policies and programs. This will mean a more thorough reporting to this committee and to Parliament on the progress we make.

This reporting will contribute to a stronger appreciation among Canadians of the importance of immigration and citizenship programs to our quality of life.

I'd like to thank the committee for your attention. My officials and I are ready to respond to any questions you may have. I thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, for your opening statement. We will begin ten-minute rounds with Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chair, thank you.

Minister, my colleague, our critic for immigration, asked you in the House what was going to be happening and how well you were prepared for the probable onslaught of future boats coming onshore in British Columbia this year. Three days after your response that everything was fine and under control and the plans were all in place, the RCMP in British Columbia announced unilaterally that because of your government's lack of funding for them and the costs they had incurred with the first boatloads that had come in, they were not going to act, in their policing capacity, to guard those immigrants.

When I asked the question in the House three days later, your answer was basically the same as it had been three days previously. I would like to know, specifically at the time you answered the first question, whether you were fully apprised of the fact that the RCMP in B.C. were not going to be guarding any potential immigrants coming in.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'd like to assure the member that the answers I gave in the House were accurate. We at Citizenship and Immigration have developed contingency plans, so whatever occurs this summer, on the west coast or the east coast, we will be prepared and ready.

I also want to be very clear that anyone who is legally detained in Canada will be properly guarded by trained personnel.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I accept your assurance in your second response that you have plans, but I would specifically like to know if you were aware, when you made your first response, there was going to be this substantial change, that the RCMP in B.C. were going to decline to guard the prisoners.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I've had extensive discussions with my colleague, the Solicitor General. We are discussing options with the RCMP and others to ensure that those who are properly detained will be appropriately guarded. Yes, of course, I'm aware of cross-government discussions.

The important thing is for people to know that we have a contingency plan in place, and any of those who are legally detained will be properly and appropriately guarded.

The other thing you should know is that emergency response is always done in partnership with other departments of government, which includes the RCMP. I know if we need them, they won't let us down.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Well, Minister, I won't belabour the point. I'll just say that unfortunately I don't believe I've received assurance from you, with your answers, that you were aware the RCMP was not going to be doing that. I would gently suggest to you that was a change you weren't anticipating with your first answer.

• 1550

However, let's go to another topic. About ten years ago there was a situation at the Hong Kong immigration office. There were very strong allegations, if not a statement of fact, that there was a compromise of the CAIPS system, and a number of inquiries took place over a period of time. I should tell you that as recently as yesterday, one of the RCMP officers who was involved with that in the mid-1990s was undergoing a very gruelling examination by the RCMP as to his involvement in this. In other words, it's an ongoing thing.

I find it really unfortunate, very bluntly, that we have a situation—if we take that as a starting point—where it's not too hard to believe the triads and other people could have used this gaping hole in Canada's front line in Hong Kong at that particular time. Then we see in the departmental management report that was leaked to my colleague that between 1998 and 1999 there was a 27% increase in the cases of staff malfeasance alone. Some of the reasons included lack of background checks. Some locally employed staff “had previous criminal convictions” or family “engaged in criminal activity”, and the report went on.

I realize you're recently in the role of immigration minister, but nonetheless Canadians should find it extremely distressing that, even if we start only ten years ago when there was a fairly demonstrable breach of the first line of defence, the people who come to Canada to help us build Canada as immigrants are the first people who are disadvantaged by people who end up coming in nefariously, or through the back door.

We have a situation where, even if we start only ten years ago, clearly, according to the report from your own department in 1998 and 1999, fully eight and nine years later, the situation is ongoing. Why in the world should Canadians believe that this department is under any kind of control? Perhaps I should ask you specifically, what are you as minister doing to turn this around? Clearly, it's out of place; it's out of step.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: First of all, I disagree with the premise of your question. I'd like to say I take very seriously any allegations or evidence that is presented of malfeasance in any of the offices, whether they be abroad or in Canada. Any and all allegations are investigated fully, and if action is appropriate, action is taken. The police are called in and investigations are done if appropriate charges are laid.

Having said that, you referred specifically to an investigation of ten years ago. There was a comprehensive investigation done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I know you'll be pleased to know they found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. I know there were a lot of allegations, but there was a very extensive RCMP investigation.

There's another point I'd like to make, and I think it is important because we all want to know that our offices are properly and appropriately staffed. I've had the opportunity to meet some of our staff, and I'm very impressed with the quality and dedication of the people I've met, so therefore this statistic is important. We have over 5,000 people working for Citizenship and Immigration worldwide, in Canada and around the world. The actual incidence of founded malfeasance is less than 1.5% worldwide.

I will say to you that 1.5% is too high; I wish there were no cases. But it's important to know that every case is investigated, action is taken that is appropriate to the individual case, and the actual numbers are relatively low. In less than 1.5% in total of all of our employees have we found actual cases of malfeasance.

The Chair: One final question.

Mr. Jim Abbott: May I say, Minister, with respect, that particular thing you said was done by the RCMP was in fact rewritten, not once but at least twice. It is an ongoing investigation by the RCMP today, as we presently speak.

I'm saying we started with a problem, and I'm only keying on this one problem from 1990. The point is that problem still isn't over. In fact, it involves not only many people within your department, but it has tentacles that go out into the RCMP and other services where there isn't accountability, and you're telling us that you do have accountability. I find it's not matching up.

• 1555

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm being very clear. I believe not only is there accountability, but also where we believe there is any evidence of malfeasance or wrongdoing within our department, an investigation is undertaken. Police, RCMP, or others are called in to investigate. Action is taken that is appropriate to the individual case. Amongst the 5,000 people who work for Citizenship and Immigration worldwide, the actual number of found cases of malfeasance is less than 1.5%.

I can tell you that not everybody is happy with a decision that comes from CIC. When an application gets turned down, sometimes feathers are ruffled and people aren't happy, and they will make unfounded allegations against honest, decent, hard-working people who are trying to do their best for Canada. So I think we have to be very careful not to tar with the same brush those who are falsely accused.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Minister, thank you again for coming.

I wanted to address the Auditor General's report that was released last month, page 13, chapter 3. In paragraph 3.45 he says:

3.45 Our review of the operation results of offices abroad shows that, on the whole, they are having considerable difficulty processing immigration applications quickly and effectively.

In the next paragraph he notes that your results are well below targets, particularly in the economic component of the program, 8% in one category and 26% in another.

He noted that processing times are increasing, particularly for the economic component, and he cites that in Beijing it takes three years to get an application through, Buffalo 35 months, and Islamabad about 34 months. Then he talks about the backlog that's in the pipe, something in the order of 280,000 potential immigrants representing 175,000 applicants as of late 1999. That statistical evidence in the Auditor General's report correlates with my own experience, and it does reflect, to my mind, a department and a system that are groaning.

I don't know what the answer is, but I'd be interested in knowing how you can possibly start to address this issue, because this is ongoing. It appears to be only getting worse, from this humble member's observation over the past three years. I'd be interested in your response as to how you see yourself effectively addressing the Auditor General's comments.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Actually, I welcomed his comments. He said that we needed more resources, and in the last budget we got them, in total $139 million this year alone and a commitment particularly for client service of $25 million this year and next year and additional resources the year after.

It's going to take some time. But one of the things I can tell you is that we are making improvements. I established two initiatives as a priority when I arrived at the department nine months ago. One was the development of the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I called that priority number one. Priority 1A was client service, so there's a client service initiative underway. We're looking at doing things better.

With the additional new resources, we're also adding temporary duty officers to our missions abroad that have backlogs. I mentioned that in my opening remarks. One of the things I'm saying to the missions when I visit them is that there is a difference between a backlog and a waiting list, and that's whether or not we are achieving our levels and meeting the statutory requirements to ensure that health and security issues are addressed for Canadians.

In my view, we are making progress. Many of our missions are operating extremely well. Some are in need of additional support. As I said, 81 temporary duty officers are being assigned overseas, and a special team for processing business cases is being established. It's going to take some time because fortunately there are a lot of wonderful people who want to come to Canada. So we have to find a way to process them as efficiently as we can and to bring those people here as quickly as we can.

• 1600

One of the things we're also looking at is an expansion of the temporary worker program and working with the model of the software pilot that was established. I think the committee is aware of the software pilot that was set up, a sector council with HRD and the software industry, where validated job offers were given out and then people were able to be brought very quickly into Canada to meet the needs of employers in the high-tech, knowledge-based sector.

Building on the success of that program, we are looking at how we can respond quickly to labour shortages in other areas. The advantage of that program is that people can come very quickly. Depending on what country they come from, they may not require medical screening before they come. That can happen here. There are certain countries and certain professions, such as health services, where the medicals must be done before they come in order to protect the health and safety of Canadians, and so we do that. But all of the other statutory requirements can be done after they're here.

That's why in the new Bill C-31 we've proposed an in-Canada landing class for those who have spent two years on a temporary work permit that will allow them to apply from within Canada. That will allow us to bring them here, do the processing within Canada, and not interrupt the employment contribution they're making to the economy of Canada by requiring them to either leave or to do the Buffalo shuffle. That's one of the policy changes in the new legislation that I think will help.

The other pilot project we're looking at is centralized in-Canada processing for applications. We're piloting that, to be very honest. We want to see if it's going to work. We want to evaluate it to ensure that it's meeting the objectives of faster processing but also ensuring that there is integrity in our program.

Mr. John McKay: I think that begs the question, if in fact an individual is found to be inadmissible on the basis of either criminality or something else and has been here one or two years, how are you going to get them to go home when they have their temporary work visa? I assume you've thought of that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We have people here on temporary work permits now. It works quite well. At the present time, for anyone who is here on a temporary permit, when the time period expires, they either have to leave the country or apply through Buffalo if they want to stay. There are people who come as visitors or students. We expect that when people enter Canada with legal status, they will live up to the terms and conditions of the visa they have and that if they want to apply for permanent residence, they will do so in the proper way.

That's why I say we want to open the front door wider. One of the ways of doing that is to allow spouses and dependants, people who have been students in Canada and worked for a year, as well as those who have been here as temporary workers to apply from within Canada.

It has been cumbersome in the past, forcing them to leave the country to apply. I don't think it has worked particularly well doing the Buffalo shuffle. We should rationalize and recognize the reality, which is that we want to keep people who are here—

Mr. John McKay: In some measure it's worse than that, because effectively you're forcing people from Beijing or other places that have very slow processing times to apply from another site, and then that site can't verify the information back, etc.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The other interesting point on processing times is that they do vary depending on how many applications come in. I was very impressed when I was in Beijing with some of the enhancements they've made in the processing of student applications, visitor visa applications, as well as immigrant applications and doing it in a timely way. Processing times do change depending on how many applications come in.

There are nine business centres established around the world, and what tends to happen is that when one gets stressed, applications will move to another area. So having what we call a SWAT team, which is really a group of temporary duty officers who can go in and help out if a post is stressed, is one of our ways of responding to that.

• 1605

Another is better training for staff and having additional tools and resources, for example, standardized testing for English language by outsourcing that, letting people have the test rather than coming in for an interview. You take the test. If you pass the test, the results come in and it's assessed. That way, a lot of interviews can be waived.

So we're trying to find ways that will enhance and keep the integrity of the program high and at the same time facilitate and expedite arrival in Canada of those with legitimate business interests, those who want to come legitimately as students and visitors, and also encourage, as quickly as we can, those people who we need to sustain our prosperity and take the jobs that are available.

Mr. John McKay: One short question—

The Chair: And a short answer, please.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Sorry about that.

Mr. John McKay: The questions are not that long.

The Chair: I know.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): But they're very complex.

The Chair: I was going to remind the minister how frustrated she used to get when she used to be a committee member when the ministry used to go on forever and ever.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's just that there's so much to say about these.

The Chair: I know, but ten-minute rounds in five minutes...it's amazing—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: But you're not going to hold me to the 35-second test.

The Chair: Oh no, I wouldn't be as cruel as the Speaker would be on that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Okay, I'll try to keep it short.

Mr. John McKay: We have a very generous chair.

One small question that is near and dear to my heart has to do with my own riding, which has been a refugee receiving centre, and the City of Toronto has been pretty frustrated with picking that up. You instituted a pilot program on December 1 at the airport. Are you in a position to report on the results of that pilot program?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes, I am. It's working extremely well, and we're actually considering expanding that to other ports of entry.

The Chair: Thank you. That was very good.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I am obviously here as a visitor, since I am no longer a member of this committee. Mr. Chairman, I have nevertheless maintained a strong interest in immigration issues and vivid memories of my time here in this committee. I would like to ask four questions.

You will have a busy year with revisions to the Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act. It is good that these acts are being amended. We have been strenuously calling for that for a very long time.

You have received my first question, concerning section 8 of the Citizenship Act, which may infringe on the Quebec government civil law system. I would like you to indicate to us, in a non- partisan way, as you are capable of doing, what you intend to do to meet the concerns of the Quebec government.

I will ask you my four other questions because I will get cut off, but you will not.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Réal Ménard: As you know, the governments of Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario are worried about the relatively ineffective process of refugee status determination. I know that you are going to deal with these problems in the legislation, and that seems to me to be a fairly positive step. However, can you tell us, for information purposes, how many claims were handled last month and the average waiting period in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto?

Here is my third question. On page 17 of your departmental estimates, you talk about ministerial intervention in the refugee status determination process. I would like you to give us more information on what that means.

Here is my last question. We have a certain number of concerns regarding the revisions to the Immigration Act as they apply to the smuggling of immigrants. This is a concern that must be taken into account. We have the feeling that we are not really living up to our international obligations if children are kept in custody. When I was a member of this committee, we studied this whole issue of detention and recommended that special rules apply where children were concerned. That does not seem to be reflected in the legislation. I would like you to reassure us regarding our international obligations and tell us what we can hope to see.

Do not speak too quickly. Be clear, concise and non-partisan.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have problems with that.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: How much time do I have? I'll start with the fourth question and work backwards.

• 1610

I want to assure you that we are living up to our international obligations. Nobody likes detention. Nobody likes detention of minors. But in order to keep these young people out of the hands of snakeheads and traffickers in human lives, I believe protection and detention is therefore necessary and appropriate.

We are working with provincial governments, discussing how we can address this in the future. I spoke this morning with the minister from British Columbia, for example, and I'm aware of the position of the Government of Quebec.

The whole issue of detention is one that is dealt with in the legislation. Of course, regular reviews are part of our procedures, but I feel that the only way we can ensure that snakeheads and traffickers in human lives don't win is to not let them have access to their profits, and that's the young people they have lured into their clutches.

I understand and I share your concern.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are the detention rules for children going to be different from those for adults? That is what worries people who have humanitarian concerns.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I understand, and on the issue, as you know, when there are minors, that's where the provinces are involved. Minors, depending on whether they're under the age of 16, for example, are usually in the care of the Children's Aid Society or the ministries of the provincial governments, and that's why we have to ensure that, for minors, all appropriate care, education, and support is given. This is a new phenomenon, and it's something we are working to improve. But I take your concern and I share your concern.

You mentioned the statistics from the three offices—Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. I'll ask my staff to give you that information, but it is the goal of Bill C-31 to make the refugee determination system faster and yet fair. I'll say it the other way. We want it to be fair but faster, and that's why we are consolidating at the IRB all the protection decisions and all the definitions.

It has been suggested by some that we have expanded the definition for refugee protection. That's not true. As this committee knows, we've taken the decision from the IRB, from the PDRCC, and from the humanitarian risk assessment and proposed to consolidate it all in one decision at the IRB, a single-member panel, coupled with an internal paper appeal, so that we will have people removal ready in a short period of time.

The provinces all support that, and I'm hoping this committee will work with me to see that the act is passed quickly, because in fact it's a very important initiative.

The average processing times that you asked for are, during the year 1999, Montreal, 10.1 months; Toronto, 10 months; and Vancouver, 10.6 months.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could I have a copy? It's going to be my birthday tomorrow.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Okay.

The last question you raised was in regard to the Citizenship Act. You've referred to the issue of adoption, and I'd like to be clear about what the policy is. The policy intent of the Citizenship Act is to ensure that children, once they are adopted, whether that's overseas or in Canada, are Canadian citizens. We want biological children and adopted children to be treated the same. I recognize that the civil code in Quebec has some differences from other provinces. We believe the accommodations can be accomplished by regulation, and until very recently those discussions seemed to be going along very well.

The Department of Justice has given us their opinion that the act, as it stands, accommodates the differences and concerns. I know you have a different opinion. The opinion we've received says that the requirements that are within the act can be accomplished through regulatory change.

• 1615

The Chair: I'm sorry, Réal, but unfortunately it was a five-minute round and that's for both questions and answers. When we get to yours—

Mr. Réal Ménard: I thought it was ten minutes.

The Chair: No. It's ten and ten and then five, five, five. We've changed it slightly since you were here.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's my birthday tomorrow.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: So far it's gone eight and a half minutes, but I will allow you one last question because it's your birthday.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Oh, thank you.

[Translation]

I am going to ask one last question because I am going to be giving a speech on your bill in the House.

In Quebec, the Civil Code specifies that the final adoption order must be issued by a Quebec Court of Justice. Minister Perreault sent you a letter containing the following question: how can clause 8 of the bill grant status outside Canada when there has been no order from a court of justice? How do you intend to reconcile all that?

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I answered Minister Perreault from Quebec by letter today, but I'm going to ask my associate deputy minister to share the contents with you verbally.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Dorais (Associate Depute Minister, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Thank you, Minister.

The bill says that when a child is adopted, he or she is eligible for Canadian citizenship. In Quebec, in order for a child to be adopted, the court has to issue an order. So there is a problem: what happens between the time the child arrives and the time the court issues the order? We have administrative means to admit children into Canada pending the ruling, but we cannot confer citizenship on a child that has not yet been adopted. Quebec has chosen this civil code approach, and we are adapting the Act to the Quebec civil code. We are being consistent with the Quebec civil code as a whole.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Just to be clear, the intention of the legislation is to grant citizenship as soon as the adoption is complete.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Don't be sad I'm leaving. I'm going to give a speech in the House about your own bill.

Mr. John McKay: Bon anniversaire.

The Chair: Thank you, Réal.

Leon.

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

Good afternoon, Minister.

In answering a question from your colleague Mr. McKay, you made some statements about how the new act would provide for students or temporary workers or certain prescribed groups to apply for immigration from within the country. I've heard you make several statements like that, which in fact are not in the new act. There is a short statement, one sentence, in the new act saying that this can happen, but there's no more than that, and I've heard this again and again.

To start with, over the past few months you've made statements on targets for immigration in the future. You've come out with 430,000 as one target and you're on record as having said that. You also said 300,000, which of course was in the red book. That's another target you've put out. Yet in the year that just ended, your department failed to meet even the very modest target of between 200,000 and 225,000 total immigrants, including refugees. In fact, you ended up somewhere under 180,000, I believe. That's missing the target that's in place now.

The Auditor General has said in his most recent report that he's observed:

...deficiencies in the management and delivery of the economic component...that, taken together, lead us to conclude that the Program's integrity is seriously at risk.

The Auditor General went on to say:

It is highly questionable whether the Department can handle the number of applications involved in meeting the annual immigration [target] set by the government and, at the same time, maintain the quality of decisions and the Program's integrity at an acceptable level and ensure compliance with the Immigration Act.

This Auditor General's report was probably the most damning Auditor General's report ever on every department, and I've heard many say that. How can you be talking in seriousness, Madam Minister, about increasing the targets to 300,000 in the short term and 430,000 in the future when you can't even meet the target of 200,000 without proper integrity, according to the Auditor General?

• 1620

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thanks very much. The actual target for last year was between 200,000 and 225,000, and the number of landings in Canada was just under 190,000; it was 189,000 and several hundred.

The target established for this year is 200,000 to 225,000, and the long-term goal of this government is 1% of the population. In order to achieve that, I've said very clearly that we do need additional resources. We also need the support of the provinces so that we can see that all regions of the country will benefit from immigration.

We know that at the present time the majority of immigrants coming to Canada come to three centres. There are many provinces in the east and in the middle of the country—Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan—that would dearly love to have more immigration to their provinces. That's why we're doing a number of things.

First we have additional resources. A $139-million base increase this year is going to enhance our capacity to process. That will mean we will be able to achieve our targets this year of between 200,000 and 225,000. Secondly, we're working with the provinces on provincial nominee agreements to enhance strategies for both attraction and retention in those provinces that are anxious to see the arrival of additional—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Even with those, Madam Minister, your government's target, set in the red book in 1993, was 300,000. How well have you done in terms of working towards meeting that target? Every year since you came into power in 1993, the number of immigrants who have been accepted into this country has gone down. Your target is meaningless, Madam Minister, and that's clear. Every single year, in spite of you talking about meeting these grandiose targets of immigration, the actual number allowed into the country has been decreased. How do you square what you say with what you do?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think it's important that you not confuse the language of a target, as established under the levels announcement tabled on November 1, with our long-term stated goal. That goal remains. I've said very clearly that we're only going to be able to achieve that goal if all regions of Canada benefit from immigration and if we work cooperatively with the provinces to develop both attraction and retention strategies to do that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You've had seven years, Madam Minister. Your government has had seven years.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: However, last year the target was 200,000 to 225,000 and we were able to land just under 190,000. That is 10,000 short of the target that was established for last year. This year, with the additional resources, I am confident that we will achieve our levels and our targets and that we will do so at the same time as we are able to ensure and maintain the integrity of the program and ensure the health and safety of Canadians. Not only have we received additional resources, but through our client service initiative we are looking for ways to improve our processing and be able to respond to the needs of Canada.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If I can pin you down—

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benoit. It's not your birthday, too, is it?

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's my birthday today.

The Chair: Then you have six minutes and ten seconds, which is more than generous.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So I should get another four then.

The Chair: David Price.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Last week I asked a question to the staff and they suggested that I keep it for you this week. I hope they prepared you for it.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: They didn't tip me off.

Mr. David Price: Here it comes.

In my riding I have seven border crossings. Border crossings, as you know, are really the very first line of.... Well, they're customs officers, but our customs officers really become immigration officers at those border crossings. It works out very well that I didn't get an answer to the question last week because it is really evident now, as I'll go on to tell you.

The problem is.... You've seen in a lot of the media lately stories about customs officers not being trained and not having powers of arrest. They do have powers of arrest now, but only in certain cases, and they don't carry arms of any kind. What happens now is that certain of the larger border crossings are going to be given training and arms—pepper spray, that is—and powers of arrest. In the case of my particular—

The Chair: David, I'm just wondering—

Mr. David Price: This relates directly to—

The Chair: You seem to be talking about Revenue Canada.

• 1625

Mr. David Price: Yes, and Customs too.

The Chair: Could you get to the Immigration part of the equation?

Mr. David Price: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. David Price: Where was I?

The Chair: I remember pepper spray.

Mr. David Price: That seems to stick, doesn't it?

The Chair: We should start using spaghetti sauce as an example.

Mr. David Price: These people are first-line. Just yesterday, in fact, we had a murder suspect come through one of our border crossings. The customs officers were advised that there was a possibility of this person coming through. They stopped him at the border. They stopped him and turned him back. In this case there was no problem. But if we look at the cases of criminality coming across, and just that case, and immigrants and refugees, the possibilities there—this person could have quite easily come to the border and claimed refugee status, somebody armed, dangerous, who was turned back, who was warned by the American.... They were not able to pick him up. This person is still at large in the area.

I'm wondering why Immigration is not helping out by training these officers. These officers have come to me and have told me they don't get any training from Immigration. They don't know what to look for, what to expect. All they have to do is call an officer—in my case, in Sherbrooke, which is quite a way away. Usually they don't get there in time to do anything. It's the same thing with the RCMP, since there are no RCMP within about half an hour.

There's no money in here anywhere for any of that type of thing.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Actually, I want to make a short statement, and then I'm going to ask my officials to expand, because—

Mr. David Price: I thought they were going to let you answer.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's why I want to answer first.

First of all, it is true that the customs officers act as the first line when you arrive at our port of entry. We are currently developing a memorandum of understanding with Revenue Canada. However, we do train, and the training is ongoing. We probably can do a better job at that. However, the important thing is that we have to examine what the needs are at all our ports of entry, and that's part of not only our work with Revenue Canada but also the border initiative and the border vision in working with the U.S. officials as well, where we share information.

The other point I want to make is that national security is extremely important. When someone comes through we have to be able to share information with the Americans and others to determine whether or not we have a security problem or a security risk. At the present time, when someone makes a refugee claim, there is an initial upfront screening through the FOSS system as well as through the RCMP CPIC system.

The intention of the new legislation and the upfront security screening will be to ensure that we do the CSIS clearance and start that up front when a refugee claim is made. So we want to do all the security screening up front rather than waiting, so that all the national security issues and concerns can be dealt with initially.

But on your concern about customs officers, I'm going to ask Martha to give you a short answer because she's our point person for working with Revenue and the U.S.

Ms. Martha Nixon (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thanks very much, Minister.

Mr. Price, we have been working really closely with Customs. We know we have improvements to make. We've just recently produced a manual that will be used by customs officers. It fits in their pocket. That's one thing.

Secondly, we now have all customs officers having 100% access to the Lookout system, which is our material through FOSS.

Thirdly, the four agencies, U.S. Immigration, U.S. Customs, Canada Immigration, and Customs, have put together a screening review to look at our major airports, the screening processes the U.S. uses and that we use, so that we can figure out who has best practices, what we can learn from one another, and how we can be sure we're consistent. We both have the techniques, the best practices...and that we share those and learn from them.

I'm in weekly contact with Customs. We're working very hard at our regional level to put people together to make sure we are improving what we can do. I think we will have some additional resources through the money we got in the budget to strengthen our capacity, both in training and I think at the port of entry.

Mr. David Price: That's what I was getting at.

Ms. Martha Nixon: That's what we're hoping to be able to do. There is always more we can do, and we want to improve in that area.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: But there are additional resources in this budget to improve all program integrity, security screening, as well as medical screening.

• 1630

The Chair: I was going say we are also trying to improve committee meetings, so we're trying to pilot the background music while the minister is speaking, to see whether or not we can liven up—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I like the Brandenburg Concerto. It's one of my favourites.

The Chair: Yes, so do I.

Anyway, David, it's not your birthday. I'll give you...no?

Mr. David Price: Yes, absolutely.

The Chair: Well, quickly, because I know the music might have distracted you.

Mr. David Price: If we look at the money that was in this last budget, $579 million, but there's $209 million spent.... IRB told us last week that they are going to need more funding because of the increased translation costs, a 23% increase in inventory at the refugee division.... You are going to need about $200 million for the new global case management system.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's over a period of time.

Mr. David Price: Well, even our figures show more than that, but so much for that. For any extra costs of replacing the RCMP that you're going to have to do out west, you can't possibly do it with that amount of money.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm going to take your comments from Hansard directly to the finance minister, because it's always helpful when I have committees....

Mr. David Price: We never asked the finance minister.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: However, I want to be really clear. We received an additional $139 million base increase, which is a very significant increase for this department.

Deputy, do you want to give this committee the magnitude of what that increase means in the overall budget for our department?

Ms. Janice Cochrane (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Minister.

The amount we received in the last budget, if you take off the top of our ongoing budget—and by that I refer to the base budget, not the enhancements for Kosovo boat traffic and so forth—represents essentially a 50% increase in our operating budget. Grants and contributions account for a substantial portion of our budget, but the $139 million a year is a 50% increase in ongoing activities, including program integrity, processing, development of the global case management system, development of the permanent resident card, and all the other things that we've been wanting to do for some time but haven't been able to afford to do.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Now I'm not going to take that statement, but I could take yours.

The Chair: Minister, just as a quick supplemental, what does that translate to in possible or potential FTEs, person-years, just so I can translate that in terms of people service? Is there a number that would correspond with that?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's very difficult to give you FTEs because some of it is the global case management. We've identified 45 additional full-time staff overseas, as well as 81 temporary duty officers to help with the backlog clearance. But this is not just about all full-time new staffing, because there are a number of projects that are underway right now. So it's very difficult to give you that number.

The Chair: Thank you.

Sophia.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you, Joe.

Thank you, Minister, for coming to join us. I'm interested in your statement that you're trying to encourage skilled workers and also trying to attract more investors, the business category. I understand that the new immigration investor program has changed effective April 1, 1999. What is the waiting list or the backlog under the former program? That's number one.

Number two, I'd like to know what kinds of plans you will use to increase the economic benefits to attract business immigrants and skilled workers.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There are a couple of separate categories, and if I could, Mr. Chairman, I will deal with them separately.

You referred to the investor program. At the present time, there are 5,000 applications in process; 4,293 of them are under the old program and the rest are under the new program, divided between the one that is run by the Province of Quebec, which has its own program, and the federal program. The changes that have been made now require a specific net worth of $400,000 to facilitate business establishment in Canada, and I think it's estimated that while there are a number of ongoing and continuing concerns about the program, my department plans to clarify the terms and conditions imposed on entrepreneurs at the time of landing, regarding business establishment and job creation, and that the proposals we have made are consistent with some of the recommendations of the recent auditor's report.

• 1635

The business immigration program, which you also referred to, is part of our ongoing consultations with the provinces and other stakeholders. That's where we're always looking for suggestions on how we can improve the business program. But the largest number of people who come to Canada come under the program of skilled workers or independent applications. That's where I think 80% of all of the business applicants arrive. Family class is the other large one. The programs you've referred to are relatively small programs.

The priority for the department is, in my view, bringing in skilled workers and independent applications. That's where our priority is and where it should be, because that's where we receive the overwhelming majority of the applications, and frankly where I think we have the fewest problems.

The new selection model that is being developed under the legislation will be a challenge because we are moving away from an occupation-based model to more flexible, transferable skills. If you want to hear a little bit more about that, I would ask Joan to take a couple of minutes to explain how that's going to work, because that's an important part of the independent skilled worker program.

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Acting Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you very much, Minister.

As the minister has indicated, we want to move away from a selection system that is based very much on intended occupation, which is not conducive to bringing in the kinds of knowledge workers and skilled people we need in order to enhance our economic development and enhance our ability to be able to remain competitive and be productive for the 21st century.

What we're looking for, based on all of the research we have done on what constitutes successful establishment for an immigrant in this country, is to focus on a basket of skills and attributes. We will focus on attributes such as education, communication skills, work experience, and adaptability. All of the research we have done, and that others have done as well in the academic community, and provinces and others who are engaged in this, indicates that those are the attributes that are the best indicators of success. We think that will give us a more responsive selection system that will allow us to better attract the very skilled people we are looking for.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I know we are competing with other countries. I think we all know that all the industrialized countries want to attract more able skilled workers. Recently I met a number of them. They came in under the independent category. Unfortunately, how you select them is really a very sensitive process, but even with the qualifications, good education, and even with high-tech...it turns out they cannot find jobs in B.C. I want to know the answer. Sometimes superficially they meet all your.... Is it still a point system or whatever is the requirement?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The point you raise is a really good one, and I think that's why we want to move away from occupation, because that raises expectations that people will be able to get a job in a specific occupation. While they may have the education and they may have the skills, they are going to have difficulty because of the issues of qualification and credentialization. The regulation of professions is a provincial issue.

We are developing a website to give people more information about qualification, equivalency, and that kind of information, so before they come to Canada, before they apply, they will know how to get their credentials assessed to see what they will be worth in different provinces.

I've also discussed this with provincial ministers to see what they can do to encourage their regulatory authorities to make equivalency information available, and also information on how you would qualify to practise in not only a profession but in a trade in the different provinces. I think we can better use that information, putting it out on the Internet, linking qualification information to our website so that people will know what their chances are of getting a job in any particular province. What I would hope we'd eventually see also is job availability information attached to our websites, so that people looking to come to Canada will see where the jobs are and have a better opportunity to get a job. We don't require people to have a job offer before they come to Canada, and often they come with expectations that if they are a professional in another country, they're going to be able to practise their profession in Canada. Clearly that's an issue of concern.

• 1640

There was a federal-provincial conference last October in Toronto, hosted jointly by CIC and HRD. It's an issue that I think all provinces are aware of, and frankly I think we all have to do better.

The whole issue of consumer protection and regulation of professions is provincial jurisdiction. If my colleagues from the Bloc were here, they would remind me of that. Therefore, the role for the federal government is one of facilitation and encouragement that that information be made available so that those intending to be immigrants will have the information they need in order to be able to establish more quickly and get a job more quickly in all provinces in Canada.

The Chair: Leon.

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

I have several questions for you, Madam Minister, and I'd like to try to get the first one answered first, which is on immigration numbers. I'd like an answer on that. Your government set a target back in 1992 of 300,000, 1% of the population. You've gotten farther and farther away each year. I'd like to know what year you're going to achieve that goal of 300,000.

The Chair: Is the Reform Party now in favour of 300,000? This is a glorious day.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, I would appreciate it if we could get some answers here.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I can tell the member that the level for this year—the target that was announced—is 200,000 to 225,000.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What about the 300,000? When are you going to achieve that goal?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's actually 1% of population. It's not 300,000.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I understand that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The goal of 1% of population is a long-term goal. It's something we are committed to as a government.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Twenty years?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: What I can tell the member is that we are engaging in a multi-year planning process right now with the provincial and territorial governments to discuss how we can achieve that goal. You see, this federal government doesn't act unilaterally. We recognize that immigration is a shared jurisdiction. We discuss that with the provinces. We're negotiating with the provinces—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, that would be a refreshing turn-around, Madam Minister—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We are negotiating with the provinces—

Mr. Leon Benoit: —but it's not reality.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Are you going to interrupt—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Madam Minister, how did you—

The Chair: If we can get to a second question—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The provincial nominee agreements are a very important vehicle for helping to achieve higher targets, especially in provinces that desperately want immigration.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Madam Minister, how did you come up with the 1% of population target?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Actually, that's a very good question. One of the things I've discovered since my appointment is that it's probably exactly the right target. I've been meeting with researchers right across the country, in fact internationally. I met with researchers when I was in London, at Oxford. I met with researchers in Australia, in Canberra, and I've met with researchers in Washington as well.

What all of the western world who experienced a baby boom is recognizing is that when you have a population that's aging, as we are, and where you have fertility rates and birth rates declining, as we are, immigration is a very important lever in ensuring that you have replacement populations so that you will be able to sustain your pension plans, your health systems, but more importantly—

Mr. Leon Benoit: If I could, Madam Minister, your own officials—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: —you'll be able to have someone buy your house when you're ready to retire.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If I could, Madam Minister, at the very last meeting, when we had your officials here, they said that in fact immigration does not change the demographics of our country. In other words, it doesn't lower the age.... It would do nothing to help deal with that problem of funding social programs. The message you're giving is completely different from that given by one of your top officials.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Given the falling birth rate and the aging of our population, immigration is one of the levers to ensure that we have the replacement population we need so that we'll have people to take the jobs of those who retire, to buy the homes of those who retire, and to ensure that our economy continues to grow and prosper. In fact—

Mr. Leon Benoit: But your own official said that in fact immigration—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, you would probably get a lot farther if you would just tone it down a bit. You're only three feet away from one another. Just take it easy. Calm down. I'm sure we'll get the answers to your good questions.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, if I could get an answer, I wouldn't have to try to interfere.

• 1645

The Chair: She's trying, but you don't have to be a bully.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Oh, Mr. Chair, you know she's not.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

The evidence is clear in fact that the target of 1% of the population is probably not only realistic but on the low end if we were looking at immigration as the only lever in public policy to address these issues. We know there are many countries in the world facing these same kinds of issues. I would refer you to the OECD Trends in International Migration report, which I think you'll find very interesting. It will help to answer your questions.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Madam Minister.

Now, on the selection process, you've said that is still a goal. I would like to know how you're going to somehow re-establish integrity in the system—the Auditor General says it isn't there—and still increase the numbers. What are you going to do specifically to even start moving in the right direction? You've been moving in the wrong direction for the last seven years.

The Chair: Thank you for your last question, Leon.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Let me address that. I welcome the Auditor General's report. He said we need more resources. As I've said, we've had a very significant increase on the base, almost 50%, so $139 million is a very good start.

The Auditor General says we need to improve our criminal screening. We are doing that. We have front-end security screening for all refugee claimants, clarified grounds for detention, fewer appeals for criminals, suspension of claims for those charged with crimes until the court renders a decision, and new inadmissibility provisions for fraud and misrepresentation. Those are contained in Bill C-31, which I'm sure you'll support. As well, we're seeing overseas interdiction, new information technology systems, and fraud-resistant permanent resident cards. So we're doing it when it comes to improving the integrity of the system on the criminality side.

The other thing the Auditor General said we needed to do was to improve medical screening, and we're doing that as well. In the regulation under the new act, we're going to see the excessive demand definition that he requested. It's been a long time coming. We're going to be tabling that with the committee when you're ready to go through clause-by-clause.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Pretty well everything, Madam Minister, is coming in the regulations.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm glad you made that point. The legislation is framework legislation and it is designed so that all of the rights, the programs, and the authorities are in the act, and it ensures the processes so that the obligations are clear.

What we're attempting to do is put in regulation. Throughout the development of the regulations, we'll be consulting broadly with those who have an interest. I've made a commitment to table those regulations with this committee when you begin your clause-by-clause considerations so that you can see the work we have done.

Regulations are an extremely important part of this legislative package. The reason you need to have the regulations is that things are changing very quickly and we need to be able to adapt our program and be flexible and respond to the changing needs of Canadian society.

The Chair: I want to thank you, Minister, specifically with regard to the regulations, because that is very unique.

Just for the clarification of members, when we begin our public consultation on the bill itself during the summer months, there's going to be further consultation on the regulations. We in fact will have the regulations at the same time as we do the clause-by-clause. I think that is a rather unique, creative way of being able to do it. Sometimes I wish other departments would do it. So on that point, I want to thank you.

Our last speaker is John McKay, and then I have a couple of questions and that will be it so that we can all go out and participate in that other important debate in the House.

Mr. John McKay: It's not my birthday, Mr. Chairman, but it could be.

As you know, Madam Minister, the justice committee is just commencing a study on organized crime. Of course, people-smuggling is a rather significant component of organized crime. Thus far what we've heard is lots of talk about conferences and communications and meetings and things of that nature, but it's not at all clear to me what legislative initiatives are appropriate in this area. I was wondering whether you could share with the committee your thinking in that area as to what you see as legislative inadequacies in the area of people-smuggling.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'd like to do that, Mr. Chair, but if I could take a minute, I have some information that I think the committee might be interested in.

• 1650

As you know, on my recent trip to China, one of the things I did was raise the issue of removals. If we're going to deal with the issues of trafficking and people-smuggling, we can do everything we want to prevent and to interdict. We can detain and do rapid processing here, but unless we're able to return foreign nationals, the citizens of other countries, expeditiously, then all of our efforts are wasted.

I've just had word that 90 people who have been in detention on the west coast of British Columbia are on a plane, which is about to lift off and return them to their home in China. We've been working very cooperatively with the Chinese government to facilitate these removals, and I'm pleased to let the committee know that those people, who have completed due process in Canada, are now on their way home.

The Chair: Thank you for that, Minister. I'm sure that Mr. Benoit, if he were here, would also want to thank you on behalf of his party, because we've all been very anxious to expedite that particular process.

To the assistant of Mr. Benoit, give him our best. He just missed out on a nice announcement. Thank you very much.

Minister, we'll continue.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: On the issue of trafficking and people-smuggling, I will be brief. Trafficking in human beings is a relatively new phenomenon. It is international in its scope and it's not a problem that any one country can solve by themselves. That's why there are a number of initiatives going on through the United Nations, the development of a convention and protocols. I can tell you that Canada has taken a lead in the development of those protocols.

Internally, each country is doing what they can in legislation. In Bill C-31, we have enhanced penalties, provision for clarified grounds of detention, and speedier processing. We're working with a number of countries. This is not just China. It's important to know that we're hearing about trafficking from a number of countries around the world. We're working on removal agreements with a number of countries so that we can expedite removals.

There's extensive intelligence sharing internationally with countries that are equally concerned about this. In fact, there was recently a four-country conference in Toronto. You may say that a conference is fine, but in fact it's a working committee. Canada, Australia, Great Britain, and the United States come together, share information, and share best practices and strategies for how to combat not just people-smuggling but trafficking in human beings. We're not just talking about illegal migration or people-smuggling; we are talking about trafficking in human lives.

The Chair: Madam Minister, before I let you go, I also have a couple of questions for you. I have some similar concerns to those of this committee and of most people as to how we're really going to achieve the levels we've set for ourselves as a country, not only the interim levels of 200,000 to 250,000, but hopefully the more aggressive levels. Immigration is positive, immigration is good economics, good social policy, good everything else.

I know the $139 million.... In terms of resources, there's no question in my mind that unless you have some fantastic new technology that you're prepared to unveil here, in order to process the number of applications.... I too, as well as this committee, have been very concerned about how we are going to be able to process so that we in fact can achieve those levels. I don't think it's good enough to say that we've tried any more; I think we need the people. Based on the changes to immigration, in order to meet the needs of communities, to meet the needs of employers and the economy, we need the process.

I don't know how much more money you need or if this is the money you need. I'm not sure you're ever going to get to being able to process 200,000 to 225,000 people without the resources, whether or not you move from what I thought was an enforcement mentality in immigration to a client service mentality, which I hope we are going to receive. I know we want to make sure the back door is closed, but I think in order to process and look at the positive parts of immigration, you're going to have to devote a lot more time and people to processing, abroad or here, those applicants we need for this country. I hope you would want to do that.

I'll share an experience in my own community. Program review over the past four or five years has caused a pretty significant office in London, Ontario—which happens to also be one of those popular destination points for immigrants and refugees—to go from 28 to 30 people down to 8. Those people are expected to be removal officers, immigration officers, and client service officers. They're expected to put their flak jackets on to remove someone and yet sit in the office and deal with immigrant applications. Then they have to close their doors and go by appointment only from noon to 4:30 p.m. That's one example.

• 1655

I don't know what else is going wrong in the country, but it would seem to me that we are very supportive. It's interesting to note that even the Canadian Alliance is now pro-immigration and wants even more people, so you're not going to get any flak from them.

I just want to know how in fact you are determined to help us get these services. Client services are absolutely key in order for us to achieve our levels.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My department has two mandates: one is the facilitation mandate, which is to bring the people here that Canada needs; to facilitate those who are coming as visitors, students, and temporary workers; to bring the immigrants; and to meet our levels each year. I'm confident that with the additional resources we've received, this year we will be able to achieve the target level of between 200,000 and 225,000.

I want you to know that I don't think it's just a matter of more money or more resources. I think it's also looking at finding new ways. It's not just doing things in the same old way. That's why there are a number of pilot projects underway within the department. Actually, I'm quite proud of being known as the queen of pilot projects. I'm hoping I will be able to come to this committee and tell you that some of those pilot projects were not successful, because if we don't try new things and if we're not able to say we tried it but it didn't work so we're going to try something else, then we're not being innovative and creative enough.

I have said that client service is a priority for me. The new legislation will help us, and so will the new global case management system. The new technology we're putting in place will be very effective not only in helping us achieve our target but also in improving the integrity of our system.

The second mandate is the integrity side, the enforcement side. For very good public policy reasons, Mr. Chair, this government chose to protect the enforcement side of this department through the years of program review. That was the right decision. It was the right thing to do. We've now been given the resources to restore the balance in the department to ensure that the dual mandate of the department is met. It's going to take some time. It's not all going to happen overnight. But I believe this department is well positioned to meet the needs of Canadian immigration in the short term and the medium term and will be as well in the longer term.

The Chair: Finally, Minister, I've been rather concerned that, unfortunately, Ontario has failed to sign our agreement for the past two or three years. In not doing so, I think we have missed the boat in a number of ways, not only through the investor immigrant program, but also by essentially dealing with some of the issues certain communities may have and so on. Are you hopeful that Ontario will in fact sign on, as they must if in fact they want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem? I'm just wondering what it's going to take. Perhaps you can shed some light as to where the frustration is. What seems to be happening there?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We're negotiating provincial nominee agreements with every province that has an interest in doing that. That's because I think it's in the provinces' interests as well as in the federal government's interests to work in close partnership and to use the provincial nominee agreements to help achieve the provincial goals. I think probably the best agreement I've seen out there is the Manitoba agreement.

I saw some statements made recently by Minister Palladini that suggested for the first time that Ontario might have an interest in a provincial nominee agreement. Certainly when I spoke to Minister Helen Johns, who has responsibility for citizenship, she was unaware that we even have a provincial nominee program. So I have some concerns. The fact that Ontario is the single largest beneficiary of immigration suggests to me that there are some provinces that want all the benefits but they don't want any of the—

The Chair: In the absence of them signing on, the federal government can in fact discharge those particular duties. You don't need the province, if they'd prefer not to sign on.

• 1700

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We don't need the provinces to sign provincial nominee agreements. We can and do set policy for the country nationally. However, I believe the provincial nominee agreements are an excellent vehicle for the provinces to join in partnership with us to design programs, to test programs, and to try pilots, for example, on expanded family class. I've floated the idea of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to sponsor a relative. I'm discussing that with the Province of Manitoba at the present time.

There's also the notion of last remaining relative as an expansion of family class. Personally I'd like to see the family class expanded. It has been declining in recent years. That's the sort of thing that perhaps this committee would want to take a look at to see what we can do.

But the reality is that we can't do it without the support of the provinces because we need shared jurisdiction when it comes to the setting of levels. We have those discussions, and I'm hopeful that the Province of Ontario will decide to talk to us about a greater role in immigration policy between the federal government and the Province of Ontario.

The Chair: Thank you.

Sophia, just one last point.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you, Joe.

The minister just announced that 90 illegal migrants came, and you were successful in sending them away. I want to congratulate her and all her staff. I know how hard she worked in China. I witnessed all her hard work. This is obviously a big success, because it just follows her goal. If we sent back some unqualified migrants, this will discourage the snakehead activity. That shows our success and also follows her path. We're going to try to resolve the whole issue. So congratulations, good work.

The Chair: Thank you.

On that note, Minister, and to your officials, thank you very much for being here today and for your work in the past and your work in the future.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I look forward to working with the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: This committee is adjourned to the call of the chair.