CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 24, 1999

• 1537

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana, (London North Centre, Lib.)): Colleagues, while we're waiting for the minister to get here, I wonder if we could move to the second part of the agenda, which is the adoption of the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, and get that out of the way if we could.

The clerk is distributing the second report of the subcommittee. Just to refresh your memories, most of you were here for that anyway. We tabled the terms of reference with regard to future business of the committee. We adopted the amended draft terms of reference prepared by the researcher for a study relating to all aspects of the refugee determination system and illegal migrants.

The above study meetings will be as follows. Following the organizations, there will be individuals in attendance. So far, we've confirmed that we have about twelve or fourteen witnesses who will appear between tomorrow and December 9. They include such people as the Solicitor General; the RCMP; the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; the Canadian Council for Refugees; the Shipping Federation of Canada; the Air Transport Association of Canada; the Canadian Bar Association; the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration; and individuals such as Martin Collacott, Bill Bauer, Barbara Jackman, and David Matas. So that deals with the second report.

Could I have a motion to adopt the second report?

An hon. member: I so move.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): May I ask a question, please?

The Chair: Yes, Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, has the order in which these people or the representatives of these organizations are to appear been set?

The Chair: We have a tentative schedule that we will also distribute for you. I think we've incorporated the witnesses you've asked for, as well as those asked for by Mr.—

Mr. Leon Benoit: How early in the process?

The Chair: We hope to be able to get to them next week, as I said. We want to wrap everything up by December 9. Your witnesses are in on December 1.

Are there any further questions? Are there any objections? If not, are we agreed on the second report of the subcommittee?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Minister, welcome to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I'm sure you have some opening statements, but we want to let you know beforehand that the committee has been hard at work over the past number of weeks on an initial study with regard to the refugee determination system and illegal migrants, as I'm sure you know. I want to thank the department for at least two meetings so far, and for some very good background papers that have allowed us to understand fully the issue at hand. To be able to assist and give some advice to you as to where we ought to be going with our refugee determination system, we will continue that work over the course of the next week and a half or two weeks.

• 1540

As you have indicated, I understand there's a new Citizenship Act as of today, and that it will in fact be tabled tomorrow. I think that's not news to anyone. If it is a surprise, I just let it out of the bag, but that's all right.

The Honourable Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I'll leave that line out of my remarks.

The Chair: Of course.

An hon. member: Now we know where the leaks are.

The Chair: This committee obviously will be charged with that. As you know, Minister, this committee did some very hard work on that Citizenship Act, so we welcome your remarks that might ensue.

Finally, Minister, with regard to the performance report that has been tabled, we look forward to your comments.

I should also note that we have met with the refugee board with regard to the refugee determination system. We'll probably be calling them back, but they've been very helpful.

I've spoken enough. I want to welcome you to the committee. We're looking forward to working with you over the next months and years as we collectively move to make sure that the Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act of this country are the best they can be, and the most modern.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much, Chair and members of the committee.

[Translation]

I am very pleased to be here today. It is with much enthusiasm that I begin our work together. I am counting on you for advice and for important recommendations.

[English]

I want to begin by thanking you for this opportunity today. Given the agenda ahead of us, I have a sense that we'll be working together a great deal during this session of Parliament, so I'd like to focus on some of the work ahead as I make my opening remarks.

Before I go much further, let me introduce the team from my department. With me today are Deputy Minister Janice Cochrane; Associate Deputy Michel Dorais; assistant deputies Georges Tsaï, Martha Nixon, Greg Fyffe; and my executive assistant, Dan Costello. I will be calling upon them to answer some questions should you ask anything technical or specific as far as numbers are concerned.

I also want to acknowledge something at this point, since it is the first opportunity I have to be on the record. After almost exactly four months as minister, I just want to say how proud I am and impressed I am with the dedication of the team at CIC—the dedication to Canada and the competence they bring to their department and to their work. I want to thank them publicly, and say that to those who are here as well, offering support as part of this team.

I also want to acknowledge, Mr. Chair, the very important and good work of my parliamentary secretary, Andrew Telegdi, who plays a very important role on this committee. I thank him for his assistance over the last four months.

It does seem longer than four months since my appointment as minister, and I have spent my time listening to Canadians and learning from Canadians about an important and complex portfolio. Citizenship and immigration issues speak to some deeply held values for all of us: values of welcoming and belonging; values of fairness and justice. These are values that have made Canada one of the most respected of nations, and these are values that will guide my approach to the many issues before me and before us. They set a standard that I'm proud to assume on behalf of this government.

I come to this portfolio with a deep respect for the contributions that immigrants and refugees have made and will continue to make to the life of our country. I see it in my riding of Thornhill, and I see it in the communities across Canada. The contributions are economical, social, and cultural, and I see them in those we welcome here as they become new citizens to our country.

Immigrants and refugees built this country. As I said, they will continue to do so in the future. We need a strong flow of immigrants to maintain our place in the world. We need it for population growth, to strengthen our labour force, and to improve our success in the global economy. Immigration will continue to provide a brain gain from which this country will continue to benefit enormously.

How do we ensure an immigration and refugee system that will meet the needs of our country in the new millennium? Let me turn to some of my priorities.

The first priority is to carry through the review of our legislation governing immigration and refugee determination. It's easy to talk about values, but it's harder to hold them when there's considerable pressure and influence exerted in order to reverse or abandon them.

• 1545

With the arrival of four boatloads of people off the coast of British Columbia this summer, some would have us adapt the most draconian measures. They would have us ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, decades of judicial decisions, and some of our most fundamental international commitments. They claim the system is broken. Well, Mr. Chair, as I appear before this committee today, a committee of colleagues, I don't believe it's broken. In fact, it's working. The boats have been intercepted, boarded, and apprehended. The people they've carried to our shores have been detained and have been given fair hearings. The smugglers are not achieving their goals. Theirs has been a losing proposition.

Canadians are a fair and generous people, but we will not be taken advantage of by organized criminals. I'm determined to stop the criminals who seek to profit from trafficking, from trading in human lives. I'm committed to working with other countries that face this same challenge.

I know you're looking at this issue—as you have stated, Mr. Chair—and I'm very glad that you are. I look forward to your recommendations on the way forward for refugee determination, and I hope to see recommendations that will fully meet the legal tests set out by the courts over time, that respect the values of Canadians, and that can be delivered in an efficient and cost-effective way.

The second issue I'd like to mention is immigration levels. I've already announced that we have an overall planning range of between 178,000 and 196,000 for new immigrants for the year 2000, and 22,000 to 29,000 for refugees. Those are landings, Mr. Chair. My department and this government will take all possible measures to ensure that we meet that planning range. I'm committed to reaching our government's long-term goal of annual immigration levels of approximately one percent of our population.

In order to move us from where we are to where we want to be, I will work with provincial and territorial governments, non-governmental organizations, and interested Canadians, as we work toward a multi-year planning process. I'm looking forward to that work because it will allow us to signal a clear direction for the program.

A third issue is our work to replace the current Citizenship Act. As you mentioned, I have indicated my intention to table a bill in the House tomorrow. All members of this committee will get a full briefing on the bill as you begin to study it. I don't want to get ahead of myself on the bill, except to say that it is very much rooted in the values of Canadians, and that it draws on the good work done by this committee and on what we heard and learned with Bill C-63 in the last session.

A fourth and final issue that I want to raise before we go to questions concerns the need for service improvements. Most of you deal with specific immigration cases as part of your constituency work. You know the concerns that exist over issues of client service, and in particular over the time that processing takes, and processing certain kinds of cases in particular.

I'm glad to say my department is making progress in these areas, but we can and will do more. We're looking hard at our systems and our processes. In doing so, we're aware that our efforts are central to maintaining the many values that Canadians hold most dear, but also to maintaining a strong, competitive economy in the 21st century. As the Prime Minister said in his response to the Speech from the Throne, Canada will be the place to be in the 21st century. I've described that expression as music to the ears of a minister of immigration.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I welcome your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

We'll now go to questions. The first round will consist of Mr. Benoit for ten minutes, followed by Mr. Mahoney, and then Mr. Bigras and Mr. Anders.

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

Welcome, Minister and members of the immigration department.

I think the first step toward fixing a problem is admitting there is a problem. In your presentation today, you've made no such admission. That is of great concern to me, because I think Canadians know very clearly the difficulty you had as minister and the difficulty your department had in dealing with the problem of illegal migrants this summer. I also think it's clear from the performance report that you didn't manage to meet the targets you had set for immigration for last year. Knowing these things and not admitting that there is a serious problem doesn't really bode well for fixing the problems.

• 1550

My first line of questioning has to do with the issue of the projections you've made for the next year and questions surrounding the targets you've set. Last year, of course, you fell short of the targets by 25,000 to 55,000 people, depending on how you look at it. You've set out to the media very broadly that you have a target of 300,000 people for the future. You've set a target of 200,000 to 225,000 people for this next year. You've also said in the media and in your presentation that in setting targets, you consult with the provinces. So my first question is, have the provinces agreed to the target you have set out of 300,000 people? Surely you wouldn't express publicly such a target without the agreement of the provinces.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: In fact the provinces have been consulted on the plan for the year 2000, the levels I mentioned in my remarks of between 200,000 and 225,000 people for the coming year. Of the 200,000 to 225,000 people, the breakdown, as I mentioned in my remarks—and I'll be a little bit more general now so that I'm clear—is that up to 200,000 people are expected on the immigration side and up to 25,000 people on the refugee side for landings. Within that there are breakdowns among the different categories, and we'd be very happy to provide the committee with any of those detailed breakdowns.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Madam Minister, on the target of 300,000 people, which you have presented to the media on several occasions, have the provinces agreed to that number? If not, then why are you presenting these as your targets?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: What I would like to do, if I could, is to be very clear so that the member and the whole committee will understand the process and also be clear on exactly what I said. I said our long-term goal, as stated in the 1993 red book commitment, is 1% of the population. However, in order to achieve that goal I'm committing to discussing that and working with the provinces, the territories, non-governmental organizations, and Canadians who are interested in immigration matters, so we can develop a multi-year planning process, so we can achieve that as a long-term objective. But I was very clear that for the year 2000 the levels announcement and the target is between 200,000 and 225,000 people.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Have those been agreed to by all provinces?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In terms of your not meeting the goal for this past year, being short by 25,000 to 55,000 people, you made a statement that was quoted in the media that the past few years of budget cuts have led to a greater emphasis on enforcement than on promoting immigration, but you plan to streamline operations to put in place policies aimed at attracting more immigrants. Could you please explain?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I don't think that was an exact quote either. If I remember correctly, I think what I said was that for very good public policy reasons, during the program review process, which affected and impacted every department across the government, the enforcement mandate of this department was protected to a greater extent than what we refer to as the facilitation or the client service side.

My concern is if we're going to achieve those kinds of levels, we now have to look at the client service side to make sure we are doing things faster, better, smarter. In quite honest response to this committee, that's a challenge.

We're looking at everything we do, because we want to achieve those levels. My department has assured me we're going to be doing everything we can so that we achieve those levels in the coming year.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Then the budget cuts had nothing to do with the problem of meeting the target. It was other problems in your department that kept you from meeting the target.

• 1555

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No, that's not what I said. I want to be very clear. I acknowledge that as a result of program review, the client service side of the department had an impact. The result of that, as well as other factors, such as the complexity from source countries, the lack of infrastructure in some of those countries—

Mr. Leon Benoit: You never answered my question on budget cuts, though.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There are a number of factors. I'd like to say in answer to my critic from the Reform Party that the one thing I've learned in the about four months I've been in this department, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is that the issues are complex. There are no simple, easy answers. There are answers; they just take a few minutes longer. I'd be very happy to share with him some of the figures—

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're misquoted on the budget cuts.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: What I said very clearly was that this department was impacted through program review, as every other department was. One of the results of program review for the department was on the client service side, to a greater extent than on the enforcement side, and I believe that was for very good public policy reasons.

The department has a dual mandate. One is facilitation and bringing of both immigrants and refugees, and the other side is the very important role we play in making sure those who are inadmissible are not permitted to enter Canada, or those who managed to come to Canada who are not admissible are removed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In fact I think it's important to make this clear. You've had, as these overheads would show, an approximate $70 million increase in budget to your department from 1995-96 to 1997-98, in two years. You certainly haven't put $70 million more into enforcement. In fact I think you can safely say you didn't put a penny more into enforcement. So that does not explain why you've missed the targets. I'd like you to explain why you missed those. That's what we're here to talk about today. I've asked you this question three times, and I'd appreciate an answer.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm going to try once more to make sure I can get this so that you understand it. I'll go slowly.

There were a number of reasons. One was a result of program review. The second was a result of other demands. Remember that the levels are for landing.

We had a large demand in the area of temporary workers and student visas. Those are not landings, but those are people we need rapidly in specific service sectors. I can tell you that we've seen numbers increase very dramatically in temporary worker and student visa requests, and that has had an impact on the department.

On the numbers you mentioned, there have been some specific programs that I hope you would support. One has been in the area of war crimes, where we've added significant resources, some $45 million.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Does this impact greatly on meeting your quotas?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: You asked the question specifically to the $70 million, so I'm answering your question as to where we used those resources.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm still looking for an answer as to why you didn't meet your targets.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: One was in the establishment of a war crimes unit.

The second one was as a result of the initiative on Y2K. I'm pleased to report to the committee that CIC is now 100% compliant. When the clock ticks down in just about a month and a half, you won't have to worry about any of the programs or services from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

The last was as a result of collective bargaining. However, I think I've answered your question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Madam Minister, you haven't answered the question.

Could I ask you one short question?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Okay.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Have you really any idea at all why your department didn't meet its targets?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Then why don't you answer the question?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Well, let me try again. I'll try one more time.

The Chair: The minister is trying to answer the question.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There's one other issue I think the committee should be aware of, and that is that the source countries have changed. Sometimes the infrastructure in the source country makes it difficult to get all documentation that is required for immigration to Canada as quickly as we would like. That's what we call case complexity. As a result of where people are coming from and the lack of infrastructure in those countries, it's sometimes taking longer to process cases also. That's had an impact on the levels as well.

So it's a result of program review, of demands in other areas, and of case complexity from source countries. And I can tell you—

Mr. Leon Benoit: With a $70 million budget increase?

The Chair: You'll get another chance.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: —that we are doing everything we can and we are determined to do the best we can to meet the levels as announced on November 1, 1999.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

We'll now go to Steve Mahoney.

• 1600

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thank you.

Just for clarification, the last questioner asked you about the $70 million increase in the budget over 1994-97, I think it was. Did I understand you to say that $45 million of that went to war crimes?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Establishment of a war crimes unit, yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And the balance was collective bargaining?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No, Y2K compliance as well. Those were the three primary areas of investment in this last year.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So none of that had anything to do with the targets?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Because I heard him ask you a budget question and expect a target answer.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's true.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay.

On the issue of the smuggling in B.C., please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand something like 600 migrants came in four boats that we know of. That would compare to some 500 refugees a month who come into Pearson alone, I believe. That's just to put a comparison on it. I'm not downplaying it.

What can we really do vis-à-vis the smugglers? It seems to me that when you arrest the crew, they're not really the kingpins. They're paid to do a job, I suppose. I highly doubt the people behind all of this are on those rusty, leaking boats. What can we do with the Chinese government in terms of negotiations and in terms of trying to get tough, and dealing with the root of the problem?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's a very important question, because in fact this is an international problem. Many of the organized criminal leaders, if you will, are outside of Canada.

I think it's important to know what is going on. Not only have there been a number of initiatives directly with the Chinese government, but there also have been initiatives with other countries and through the United Nations.

Let me start with the United Nations. At the present time, there is a convention on transnational organized crime under development, with protocols for illegal migration and trafficking, particularly in terms of women and children. Those are two subsets.

As well, Canada is participating with the G-8 countries in the development of the UN convention, because those G-8 countries are all dealing with this problem. We're working with like-minded countries. In fact, many have problems that are in fact far more serious than ours.

For example, my understanding is that Australia, just in the last month, has had ten boats arriving with almost 900 people on them.

So Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Britain, and other countries in the G-8 are working with us in the development of the UN convention. We also are working very closely with the Chinese government, and there've been a number of initiatives in that area.

The Prime Minister raised this when he met with the leader of the People's Republic of China. The foreign minister raised this when he met with his counterpart. Last April there was an agreement that had been signed by the two governments. One of the things that happened when Lloyd Axworthy met with his counterpart was that they talked about the implementation of that agreement.

Further, a delegation of parliamentarians, led by the chair of the foreign affairs committee, met with officials of the Chinese government and CIC officials. In fact, Mr. Fyffe was part of a delegation working with the Chinese government. They're also part of the international process in the development of the UN convention. I think we all recognize the seriousness of this issue.

I guess the last point I want to make on that is that the Chinese government is working with us. I was told by our ambassador to China that two boats destined for Canada had been intercepted before they left Chinese waters. My understanding is that at this time the Chinese government in fact has intercepted six boats, four of which they believe were destined for Canada.

• 1605

So I think the diplomatic discussions are working, and are very important, but that doesn't mean this problem is going to be quickly or easily solved. That's why I raise the issue of the problems Australia is facing because of their proximity and for other reasons as well.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do we have any information as to what Australia does with the boats when they arrive? Because I was told they had fifty in the same time period we had four. I don't know if that's true or not.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: In fact, that's true. As I said, in the last month alone I think they've had ten boat arrivals with almost 900 people.

They have signed the Geneva Convention, as have we, and I know they are concerned, as are we, about ensuring that genuine convention refugees are protected. They have a policy that includes detention. In fact, for the very first time, as a response to this, because of the fear of flight, Canada has also been detaining, as you know. In Australia, they detain the boat. However, people do get a full hearing, as they do in countries that have signed the Geneva, most particularly in Canada.

Where this is unique—and this is something we have to consider—is that we've always assumed that people who come to Canada and claim refugee status ultimately want legal status in Canada, landed status and then ultimately citizenship. What's different about this situation is that because people are not showing up for hearings and so forth and going underground, we have been successful in arguing forced detention. I personally don't like—I don't think anyone in Canada does—the idea of detention and having to take away individual liberties. However, we do want our laws respected and we want to make sure that Canadians know that they're not going to be taken advantage of.

I think the other part of it is that the smugglers have an agenda, which is exploitation and trafficking of the people they bring to Canada and to other countries. As a result of detaining people, we are keeping them out of the hands of the smugglers so that the smugglers don't get access to their profits but also don't get the opportunity to exploit those people they have brought here. We hear terrible stories about that exploitation, and I think it's something we are all concerned about.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Some people have suggested that we should invoke the notwithstanding clause and take away the rights that were granted to all refugees, I guess emanating from the Singh decision of the Supreme Court. I wonder what your thoughts are in terms of the Charter of Rights with regard to refugees and whether or not you should use something such as a notwithstanding clause or perhaps even challenge the Singh decision, which was not done at the time, as to whether or not the Charter of Rights should apply.

If you have thoughts about what we should do here, do you have any experience in terms of what countries like Australia or the United States do in this regard, where they don't have a charter, to the best of my knowledge, along the same lines as our Charter of Rights?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: On the last part of your question, Martha Nixon will be providing to the committee an international comparison chart of the experience in different countries. You'll have a chance to look at that.

With regard to the first part of your question, I think most Canadians, although not all, support and believe that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is fundamental to our Canadian society. I personally believe, and the government believes, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should apply to all people in Canada all the time, not to some people some of the time. It is a very slippery slope. If we start taking away rights today, I'm concerned that we might be looking in the mirror when we look at whose rights might be affected tomorrow.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Or the Japanese during the war.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Well, there are some very dark days in our history. We're trying hard to turn the page, but if we don't learn the lessons from the past, then I think we make a very big mistake.

• 1610

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney, you have ten more seconds for a question and an answer.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Actually, Minister, I wanted to ask you about other issues. I'll just throw on the table the issues of family reunification and visas for business travellers, students, and visitors. Those are the problems I see in my constituency. In fact, I have one full-time staff person who does nothing but deal with that. In a place like Mississauga, I'm sure you can understand that.

I wonder if you have any comments with regard to how we can improve that situation, both here and abroad.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's an area that I hope the committee will be studying. With ten seconds to respond....

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That was for the question. You can take all afternoon.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: For me, that is the priority—namely, client service. People are waiting too long. They're waiting too long to come as independent immigrants. Businesses are waiting too long to bring the skilled workers they need. Certainly we are all, in our constituency offices, hearing the frustration of those who have been denied a visitor's visa, or hearing that it's taking too long to get access.

I think you should know that the department has been very open to looking at creative and innovative ideas as to how we can take a new approach to client service. The response has been positive.

Maybe we'll have an opportunity, Mr. Chair, to bring some of those ideas to the committee. I know we're very open to good ideas. If anyone has some suggestions, we'd be very happy to hear them.

But before I leave the issue of international comparison, you did mention that other countries don't have charters of rights and freedoms. I want you to know that every country has their own laws and rules and so forth, but all countries, or most, that have signed the Geneva Convention do offer due process and fair hearing. Often what we read in the newspaper is not an accurate portrayal of what happens in other countries.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Really?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I know you'll find that hard to believe.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm shocked.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The international comparison will give us a good opportunity to have that discussion and take a look, recognizing that there are different cultures and values in different parts of the world and different laws that apply.

The Chair: As I said, Minister, we've already begun that process. Ideas? Lots of them? Oh, believe me, you're going to get lots, especially from this committee.

Bernard Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Thank you, Madam Minister, and thank you as well to the officials for appearing before us.

As you know, Quebec's demo-linguistic situation is a very particular one. Approximately two weeks ago, the Conseil de la langue française du Québec suggested this problem be dealt with in two ways: first of all, with a pro-natalist policy geared to the needs, and secondly with an immigration policy aimed at welcoming the highest possible number of francophone immigrants.

You are also aware that the government of Quebec selects approximately 60% of the immigrants to Quebec. Quebec is on the verge of reaching its immigration target levels. In 1999, 12,000 immigrants spoke French; the target for the year 2002 is 17,000.

Naturally, to reach this objective, you must have the necessary means. Given that I am the new immigration critic, I yesterday took a look at the performance report. Page 26 of the English version gives details on the transfer payments under the Canada-Quebec Accord, for the promotion of the integration of newcomers. I see that the funding for 1998-1999 was of $101 million whereas the expenditures set for 2001-2002 are of $95 million. There is therefore a drop of some $6 million.

I would like to know, first of all, if the estimates for 2001-2002 are still the same and, secondly, if as new minister you plan to continue reducing the grants under the Canada-Quebec Accord for the integration of newcomers.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much. I am sorry, but I do not speak French very well and I would prefer to answer in English.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Of course. That is no problem at all.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much.

• 1615

I don't know whether the committee is fully aware of the Canada-Québec accord. It was negotiated by the previous government. Under the Canada-Québec accord, the Government of Quebec does selection of immigrants and the Government of Canada does admissibility and security. There is a very generous formula for settlement dollars. We do have an expert—my associate deputy, Michel, is an expert on the accord—and I'm going to ask if he would respond to your question, because you raised some specific details.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Dorais (Associate Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): If I am not mistaken, and if such is the case our financial expert will correct me, I believe that the $101 million included the two year catch-up. Therefore, this is not a reduction but a readjustment to $95 million over a two-year period. The $101 million amount included the catch-up for the two years.

The Canada-Quebec Accord has an appendix that sets out in very precise terms the pace of the grant increases according to a whole series of factors.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Very well.

Another obstacle to the entrance of francophone immigrants, whatever their country of origin, is the bottleneck in various foreign offices. An example that comes to mind is the Canadian Embassy in Paris. No matter how clearly Quebec sets its targets for francophone immigration, it is caught up in this traffic jam.

My question is a very simple one. Given that Quebec sets its targets as to the number of French speaking immigrants, how do you see it reaching them if at the same time the foreign offices are not dealing with requests in a timely fashion?

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That is a good question. In fact I am concerned about backlogs in a number of visa posts, and I hope some day we'll move from backlogs to waiting lists. The difference, of course, between whether we have a backlog or waiting list for landing in Canada is whether we are achieving our target levels.

My understanding—and we are looking at ways of improving service in all of our foreign posts—is that Paris has been able to assist the Province of Quebec in achieving its targets over the last few years. We anticipate they will be able to do it this year as well. Where we have problems, we take aggressive measures, and we have in Paris. And my understanding is that some files have been transferred from Paris to other posts in order to be able to process them more quickly.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.

Now we have Mr. Anders for five minutes.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My first question to the minister is whether or not she recognizes that there is a problem with those who are illegally receiving allowances while working in this country.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No, I'm not familiar, specifically, with what.... Could you say that again?

Mr. Rob Anders: Are you aware of a problem with people who are receiving money from the Canadian government while they're working, and therefore should not be receiving money from the government because they have a job?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: If you have specific cases of fraud, not only would I be happy to investigate it, but I'd like to have those facts and figures.

Mr. Rob Anders: That's most excellent, because I'm going to give you examples.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Good.

Mr. Rob Anders: As a result of the people Canada has recently admitted from Kosovo as refugees, one of the members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, Lynn Stephens, put out information with regard to a particular situation where an inn in her riding, The Old Country Inn, was approached by somebody who was working with Kosovo refugees. I'm going to quote from something that Lynn Stephens said herself:

However, during the interview the woman said she would only consider accepting a job offer if the employer would pay her in cash so that she would continue to receive government financial benefits without any reduction in her allowance.

• 1620

We have here documents from her office, a letter, and we also have some forms here that indicate the name of the refugee. I won't mention it right now before the committee, but you can trust that I have her picture, and I have information concerning it. It has gone out, and there have been stories done about this in the press, so the minister should know about these types of things.

The member of the legislative assembly says she thinks that is morally, ethically, and legally wrong. I wonder whether or not you think that is morally, ethically, and legally wrong.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Of course. If somebody is abusing our system, if they are working illegally or behaving in a fraudulent way, that is wrong. But let me put it to you this way. We've welcomed over 7,000 people from Kosovo: 2,000 of those were part of family reunification; 5,000 were people who will decide whether or not they want to stay in Canada or return. About one-third of them have already returned, and we're anticipating that up to another third will return. I'm always concerned whenever there is a story of anyone who is abusing our generosity, but I wouldn't want to paint all of those 7,000 as behaving in a way that was fraudulent or unethical.

If you have individual cases, we will have those investigated and dealt with appropriately. But I think we should be very careful not to send out a message that would taint all of those who Canada appropriately welcomed generously.

Mr. Rob Anders: A lot of what we do here is about choices. It's about priorities and it's about allocation of resources—what we choose to spend things on and how we choose to rectify problems or ignore them.

The second situation I'm going to give you is of a lady by the name of Sandra McMurray. She was somebody who had a proficient knowledge of computer software. She left New Zealand and was here in Canada. She was going to be hired by a major international brokerage firm. Yet despite the fact that she had a job lined up and everything was ready to roll, she was refused entry. So now, instead of that firm hiring her, she is going to be going to Perth, Australia, instead. I have all the information here with regard to the situation she's facing. How can you justify Sandra McMurray's situation, where she is being refused entry into this country, while we have a situation where others are making away with taxpayer dollars and breaking our laws?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Chair, under most circumstances I would start by answering that privacy laws make it impossible for me to answer questions about specific cases. But in this case I can answer, because it's not a case. The person in question never applied. Therefore, she was never refused.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): That's five minutes. Thank you.

Mr. Rob Anders: You missed the best questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I doubt it. I think I'll sleep well without hearing them.

Mr. Limoges.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Chair, I would like to make one further point, and that is that immigration officers have discretion when someone does apply. If they feel that someone is well suited to come to Canada, they can admit that person even if they don't meet the point requirements. Frankly, I was sorry this person didn't apply, and so were some of our officials, I think, when we read the story.

I would suggest that people not only not believe everything they read in the newspaper, but maybe they shouldn't believe all the advice they get from lawyers.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There's been a lot of support on that one.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Could I suggest that the documentation you read from, indicating fraud, be given to the minister and the staff so they can investigate that matter?

In the case of the second item, you already got an answer. The person didn't apply.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, it seemed to me that what he described was somebody who had the intention of creating fraud but had not perpetrated it at the time of that occurrence.

In any case, we have some very noble and ambitious targets, as we've heard from previous questioners, and I'm wondering if you might want to expand on how we intend to meet those short-term and longer-term targets with regard to the brain gain we're looking to for this country.

• 1625

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thanks very much, because client service is a priority, not only for me, but for the department as well, and there are a number of things we are looking at right now.

Because of the fact that Y2K will soon be behind us—and certainly, as I mentioned, the department is compliant—a lot of the energies and resources that went into ensuring we would not have a problem when the year 2000 came around can now be channelled into information management systems, information technology, and other systems that I think will help to improve service.

The department is also working on service standards, and that's been part of our shift in focus to outcomes and results, and then sharing of information as to best practices across the department. Martha is our assistant deputy minister with responsibility in this area, and I thought, if you'd like, she could take a couple of minutes to be a little more specific about some of the client service initiatives that are under way that I believe will make a difference in helping us to achieve those targets and levels.

Martha.

Ms. Martha Nixon (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Thank you very much, Minister.

We have really a kind of two-pronged approach here. One, we have appointed a foreign service officer with a great deal of experience to be a point person on client service. He has been given a special assignment, taken off all his other work, and has pulled together a small working group to look at what the key issues are in terms of quality assurance, how we look at operational processing, and how we can ensure that we're communicating properly with the people we deal with. He is going to come up with some things we can do in the short term, and look at some longer-term issues.

We had a large meeting in Brockville with our overseas managers. We spent two days brainstorming around the place we need to focus on, most particularly in order to improve on our client service ambitions, and on how we can look at this, in terms of the things we know we can do, that just make sense to do, as opposed to the big systemic things, like systems, that we know we need but will take longer.

We have put together right at the moment a plan of action that has been shared with all our overseas managers, and we've given them specific targets in terms of what we expect them to meet, clearing the backlog, and in terms of trying to look at how they process more quickly and more efficiently to meet the levels. So we have, I think, given them very clear goals and objectives.

We are also using what is our normal way of trying to speed up processing, trying to be very strategic about what we call temporary duty resources, putting together special processing teams, so that we go in not just with one person, but with a team approach, and we can do the whole gamut of processing things that are needed. We are spending over $1 million to try to increase our processing efficiency and putting those in the offices where we have the most difficulty.

We also have put together a practitioners group, and our people are meeting on a regular basis with the consultants, the lawyers, and the people who are dealing with our clients to try to get some good ideas from them and work with them in terms of the particular issues we have.

We have a number of pilot projects going on to speed up, for instance, medical processing for students. We are working with CSIS to try to have better connections so we can do security clearances in particular areas like pilots more quickly. And we're trying to make sure we share best practices. We have some offices, for instance, that have been finding that language testing is a very effective way to screen for our good immigrants, and if we use that as a tool, we can often waive interviews and save time in terms of processing.

So wherever we can find good ideas we're trying to plug them in, to share them across offices, and to keep communicating with people in terms of both goals and results and successes. So that's just a little bit of an overview of what we've been trying to do to date.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much, Martha.

There is one other point I thought I would raise for the committee, and this is something I don't think is going to happen in the short term but certainly is under consideration. It's been suggested to me, by a number of different sources, that in Vegreville, in particular, the processing centre is working extremely well. We've had a lot of positive comments from everyone. It was suggested that we actually look at an in-Canada processing centre for overseas applications. That is challenging and it's difficult. It's not something that would happen overnight, but it might be something this committee would like to take a look at when you have some time on your agenda. I think the concept might be a way of improving service for overseas, and it's something we are looking at internally within the department.

• 1630

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you. We'll go to Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you put me back in the conga line too?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Sure.

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

Thank you, Minister, for coming here today, allowing us to hammer away at you—but we'll hammer lightly.

In the last couple of years there have been two different reviews to look at immigration in general and come up with a new Immigration Act. I have two questions on that. First, how much has it cost to date to do those two reviews, and are you planning on embarking on another review?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'll answer the last question first, since I know that answer, and the department will look up the first answer for you, because I don't have it at my fingertips as to what the cost of the review was.

We are committed to a new immigration and refugee protection act. The white paper was circulated last January. It's under active consideration right now, and it's my hope that we'll have the opportunity over the next year to work on that together here at this committee.

My understanding from the department is that at this moment they don't have the answer to your first question on what was the cost. We will get it for you and table it with the committee.

Mr. David Price: There have been two reviews.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We'll get the costs of the two reviews and be happy to share that with you.

Mr. David Price: You haven't answered directly. Are you going to do another review, or...?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by another review. What I'm doing right now—

Mr. David Price: Maybe what I should say is how soon is the act coming?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's a good question. It will be sooner rather than later.

Mr. David Price: That's not a good answer.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Let me try again. I would hope that we would see a new act in the legislative process in the year 2000.

Mr. David Price: Yes, but that's terribly large.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No, heavens, I thought that was a very good answer. Let me put it this way. A new act is a priority for the government. There's a lot of work that has been undertaken. The review process conducted by the former minister I think was excellent. The white paper has been widely distributed. And as a new minister—just four months—I've wanted an opportunity to talk to people about it. It's been a little busy, as you know. There have been a number of issues and things we've been dealing with, but the new act is a priority for the government.

We're working diligently and are hopeful to see an act that.... Let me put it this way: you don't get an opportunity to bring in a major piece of legislation every year. The old act is twenty years old. There's agreement that it needs modernizing. We're approaching the new millennium. We want to make sure that the policies and the legislation are in place. There are a number of things that also have to be considered administratively and in regulation. However, it remains a priority. And my deputy says I'm Caplanizing.

Mr. David Price: I think the thing is that Madame Robillard had said quite publicly that October is the date—she would deliver in October.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm sure she would have.

Mr. David Price: I understand. I perfectly understand that you have to review because it's a whole new portfolio now. You've been there four months now. I can understand even another couple of months, but I would hate to see it go very far into the year 2000. Are we hopefully talking at least spring? Can you at least give us that?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I really don't want to give you a specific date at this time. What I'd like to do is tell you that it's a priority, that I'm working on it. I hope we'll have the opportunity to have it before committee as soon as possible.

• 1635

Mr. David Price: It's because many of the problems we're dealing with here should be answered in that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm aware of this, and that's why it's a priority. However, I want to let you know that there's a lot we're looking at as well on the regulatory side and on the administrative side, and there are a number of partners we have to consult with and work with. This is an important piece of legislation. The policies that deal with both immigration and refugee protection are very important to not only this department but to the Government of Canada. I can only tell you that it is a priority for me personally, it's a priority for the department, and it's a priority for the government. As soon as I'm ready we'll have it tabled in the House of Commons.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thanks very much.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: But I'm glad to hear that you think it's important, because I agree it is.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Benoit.

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

I think I've figured out that we're not going to get any substantial answers as to how you're going to change things to make them work better. What is clear, though, is that Canadians in reality are spending more and getting less in this department. They're spending more this year than they were two years ago. They're spending more this year than they were six years ago when this government took power.

The fact that they're getting less is demonstrated by the Auditor General in what he said in his report, and in other reports. It's demonstrated by I think the handling this summer of those people who came illegally by boat, and the handling over the past six years of those who came illegally by plane and to our borders. It think it's been well demonstrated by not being able to meet the targets in the very people we're targeting most for immigration, those who who will very quickly add to our economy and our society. The failure in that regard I think is crystal clear. And it's been demonstrated by calls to my office as a member of Parliament, to the offices of every single member of Parliament here, with people complaining that their family is being split, held apart by a department that's broken, where it takes two to three years or more to reunite a husband with a wife or a parent with their children. I think that's completely unacceptable. Clearly, there's a problem.

I want to put a very direct situation to the minister of two individuals, and I'd like her to choose which she would have stay in our country. As she is the Minister of Immigration, I think it is only fair to see how she responds to this type of thing.

Candidate A's name is José Jimenez. Occupation: former prostitute. Criminal background: he was convicted of at least three offences, making him ineligible for entry into Canada, and which gained him deportation from the United States; furthermore, he was convicted of assault with a weapon in Canada and ordered deported. Health status: he's HIV positive. Employment status: he's on welfare. And in terms of his overall disposition, I think you can safely say he's not someone you'd like to meet in a back alley.

The other person is a person from my constituency. This really hurts, but I'll ask the minister to make this choice. This person, Hans Heiniger, from Switzerland, has been in Canada two years; he has qualifications as a machinist and additional skills in spray welding, mechanical engineering, and millwrighting, and he can operate a water jet cutting machine. This might not mean much to the minister, but it means a lot to Swisco Machining, which hired him in the last two years. This person's health status is good; he's healthy. His employment status is he has worked with Swissco Machining in St. Paul and been involved in training Canadians in a variety of specialized skills for two years and he's indicated he's even interested in investing money in this business. His overall disposition, I think you'd have to say, is excellent, a really nice fellow.

I'd like to ask the minister which of these two people she would choose to stay in our country.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm not going to accuse my critic from the Reform Party of grandstanding.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I appreciate that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I won't rule you out of order if you do.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm going to answer his question seriously.

Candidate A is inadmissible to Canada. Even if he gets refugee status, he is still inadmissible to Canada. Anyone who has a criminal record.... I want to make this clear. People with criminal records, people who have committed serious crimes outside of Canada, are inadmissible to Canada. And a foreign national who has committed a serious crime in Canada is ineligible to stay in Canada and is removed as quickly as possible.

• 1640

I also want to make the following statement. I have no sympathy for those who commit crimes outside Canada and want to come here, and I have no sympathy whatever for foreign nationals who commit serious crimes in Canada. It is the policy and the priority of this department to remove those who are criminally inadmissible to Canada as quickly as possible.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Which one would you choose to stay in our country?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That is the number one priority. I think the answer is clear and obvious that the first person is ineligible to stay in Canada, and therefore would be and should be removed as quickly as possible.

On the second, we have an immigration selection procedure, and I would encourage anyone who would like to come to Canada and meets the immigration criteria to apply. Even if they don't meet the criteria 100%, immigration officers have discretion. So if they believe that person can come and integrate and contribute to Canadian society, they can grant landed status on the basis of the information they receive from a person making an application.

I would repeat that in order to be admissible to Canada, if you have a criminal record of serious criminal offences, you are ineligible. There is also a medical admissibility requirement before you are eligible to come to Canada, even if you meet all of our tough standards for coming here.

Mr. Leon Benoit: After having said all of that, Madam Minister, I would like to say that Hans Heiniger has been denied staying in this country—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Benoit—

Mr. Leon Benoit: —and José Jiminez is in fact being allowed to stay in this country.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): You are out of order. I know you don't care, but try to live by some rules and decorum.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like an answer to that question.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): She doesn't have to answer that question. It's out of order, as you are out of order.

We'll go to Mr. McKay.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Chair, before we leave that, I want to point out, because there are people who might be reading these proceedings, there is judicial leave for appeal to the Federal Court for anyone who is denied a visa. They can go to the Federal Court to ensure they have received fair and due process in Canada. Many people avail themselves of that.

I want to make one other point.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We've gone to your department.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Benoit, for goodness sakes.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The critic made two comments in his opening remarks that I would like to verify for the committee. I feel it's important that we all have accurate information.

On the issue of family reunification, it's the policy of the Government of Canada and of CIC to see that families are reunited as quickly as possible. Of families who apply to be reunited, 80% of the cases are processed within 11 months. The statement he made is inaccurate. I want him to know that for 80% of the cases of family reunification, applications are processed and people are landed within 11 months.

There's one other point he made that I'd like to clarify. It is not illegal for anyone to arrive at our ports of entry by whatever means—boat, plane, bus, taxi, truck, or on foot. It is not illegal for them to claim refugee status. That is the right they're afforded, because we're a signatory of the Geneva Convention.

The term “illegal” applies if they have left their country illegally, not to the way they have arrived in Canada. They are only illegal in Canada after we have determined they have no status; that is, after they have had due process under the refugee determination procedure, or if they are determined to be inadmissible to Canada and are here without status.

I would ask members to be very careful about the terminology “illegal immigrants”. That applies mostly to the status of people who have left their countries illegally. Anyone who arrives at our borders can legally ask for asylum and our protection. As a signatory of the Geneva Convention, we have guaranteed them a fair hearing, so we can determine whether or not they meet the test of convention refugee, and whether or not we should offer them our protection.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

Mr. McKay, do you have any overheads?

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I left my soapbox behind, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mine is over there under the chair.

Mr. John McKay: I know you carry it wherever you go.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): That's right.

Mr. John McKay: I'm sorry, all I have is a substantive question. I apologize.

• 1645

On page 19 of your performance report, with respect to investor immigrants, if you look at the three-year pattern in investor immigrants, it appears that Quebec has slightly increased its share of investor immigrants up to around 2,000. Meanwhile, the rest of Canada, as it's so quaintly known, has declined by about the same level.

The irony is that Quebec picks up at least half the money in the investor program, while picking up only about 15% of the immigrants and refugees. It appears on the face of it that something is clearly wrong.

The writer of the report says the decline can be attributed to uncertainty about changes in the investor program and unstable economic conditions, and goes on to talk about the economic downturn in Asia. I respectfully suggest that's not true. It can't be true on the numbers, simply because Quebec's numbers stayed stable and in fact increased slightly, while the numbers for the rest of the country clearly declined. So the decline must be more attributable to the program or the interaction of the program between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

I'm interested in knowing how you intend to address that issue, because it is an unsustainable situation.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There are a number of specific programs within the independent and business classes of immigrants who come to the country. The investor program is one that has undergone a number of changes.

I will ask Greg Fyffe, the assistant deputy minister in the policy area, to first trace the history of the investor program. Some changes were made quite recently. I know a number of concerns have been raised over the years about the investor program, and it might be helpful to the committee to have a detailed response.

Mr. Greg Fyffe (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): A number of problems were identified early on with the investor program, including the fact that what happened in the rest of Canada was out of balance with what was happening in Quebec. In particular, there was a lot of fraud and difficulty around the various investor funds. For a prolonged period of about two years, the department was engaged in negotiations with the provinces to try to work out a new program. Quebec has always been happy with theirs—

Mr. John McKay: I'll bet.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: —partly because they have attracted a disproportionate amount of the funds.

A new program has just been established, where the federal government takes the money on behalf of the provinces and then transmits it to them. They get it for a period of five years interest-free. There are now no funds per se. The money is paid to the federal government for the provinces.

Part of the change is to make it clear that the people who are investing in Quebec must be destined for Quebec. They must have CSQs for Quebec. We're in the early stages now of getting ready to promote this program. That promotion activity will be undertaken soon.

Mr. John McKay: So that is the way you will address it.

Explain it to me as if I were a Hong Kong investor. Before, my lawyer was advising me to put my money into Quebec because that gave the safest and best return. Now what will my lawyer's advice be?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: It depends on what the investor wants to do. We hope to be able to promote the program for the rest of the provinces as an attractive investment. I think the advantage for the current investor program is that the investor will not have the benefit of the interest, but there'll be no loss of the funds for other fees, which can happen with the Quebec fund. So the investor has a good chance of holding most of that money, whereas a lot of money is paid out in fees, and so on, in the Quebec program. I think the program for the rest of the country will have a fairly substantial selling point there.

Mr. John McKay: So the rest of the country will offer no interest, while Quebec offers interest.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: No, the money will be held by those provinces without paying interest to the investor. So the investor will get their money back after five years. They'll get the same amount they put into it.

Mr. John McKay: You'll get your capital back but no interest.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: That's right.

Mr. John McKay: How does that compare to Quebec?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: A lot of money goes into fees and so on for the Quebec program, so there is a chance that the investor will come away with less money.

Mr. John McKay: It would be less than the capital they put in.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Yes.

• 1650

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I am not going to deal with the Canada-Quebec Agreement. I want to state that at the outset. I would like to get back to a case the minister knows well. I do not want to draw attention to a specific file, but rather to a practice of the department. I will take as an example the case of those two Moroccans who asked for landed immigrant status and who were denied because of one of the criteria in Immigration Canada's point system. They were denied the possibility of settling in Saint-Boniface, in Manitoba, on the grounds of insufficient skills, because their English language skills were insufficient. This is what they were told by the immigration officer who interviewed them.

On November 15, you committed, firstly, to review this case and, secondly, to take measures if the facts were true. I am not asking you today to discuss this specific case, but to tell us if, in your view, this is a common practice in your department and if you have taken measures to prevent this situation from re-occurring.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much; I appreciate the question.

It is important for members to know that assessment of English and French as a requirement for entering Canada in treated equally. That's the policy of the department; that's the policy of the government.

When a question is raised from individual cases, people rightly have the opportunity to ask the Federal Court to review, or in fact, as in the case you've raised, to bring it to my attention. I will not deal with individual cases, for reasons of privacy, but it is my understanding that the practice in the department is to treat both language assessments equally.

Often, when a subjective analysis is made, the location of where the individual is planning to go in the country and concerns about possible secondary migration and the intent of the individual may have an influence on the immigration officer's decision. As I said, I won't comment on this case individually, except to say the department, all the officials, and all the immigration officers not only are aware but in practice treat a language examination in English and French equally, as they should.

That's a practice. I'm not saying it's perfect. Where an issue or a problem is identified on a case-by-case basis, there are remedies for ensuring the policy is carried out in practice.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I looked at your most recent figures, for 1998, on skilled workers broken down by language proficiency. I noticed that 74.17% of landed immigrants were proficient in the English language, that 10.11% of landed immigrants had no knowledge of either English or French, that 9.8% of landed immigrants knew both English and French and that only 5% of landed immigrants to Canada know only the French language.

There is something wrong here. I know that the immigration officer has discretionary power, but do you not agree that, in view of these figures, it would be advisable for you to issue immediately a directive to your officials to ensure that such a situation does not happen again?

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: First, again I won't comment on specific cases. I am confident that all officials in the department are aware of the policy, which says both languages are assessed equally.

It's the goal of the government to bring people who speak one or the other of the two languages to this country as immigrants. We are looking at standardized testing for English and French. It's a goal, as we increase our immigration levels, to encourage people who speak both of our official languages or one of our official languages, whether that language is English or French, to come to Canada if they meet our immigration criteria.

• 1655

From time to time, there may be an anecdote or an individual case that requires looking into, simply because we live in an imperfect world. Sometimes, for reasons, a situation occurs where a judgment is made, and when you look at it again, you say you would have made a different decision. But as a matter of policy, it is the policy of this department and it is the policy of the government that when it comes to assessment of language requirements, assessment of English and French, the language requirements are treated equally. People are not penalized because they don't speak both languages; people are not penalized because they speak one language and not the other.

I've been very clear. The government has been very clear. When it comes to an opportunity to restate that, on any occasion, I'll be happy to do that.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I will just remind the minister that we accepted in Canada close to 10% of immigrants who had no knowledge of either English or French, while we accepted only 5.8% speaking only French.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Okay, I think that point was made.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: But there is one important point. One of the bits of research I found interesting as I was reviewing showed that the ability to successfully integrate into Canadian life is made easier if there is knowledge of one of the two official languages. If people don't speak either of the languages, it takes them a little more time to integrate fully into our society, and they face greater challenges.

But I would repeat that when it comes to our two official languages, for the assessment for purposes of immigration, facility in either one of those languages is acceptable and they're treated equally.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My colleague, Mr. Benoit, ran out of time with his questions, but I'd just like to point out the example of that male HIV-positive prostitute, José Jiminez. He was convicted three times in the United States, convicted once here in Canada of assault, and had his deportation suspended. So now Canadian taxpayers are picking up the tab for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of his treatment, and paying welfare on top of it. I just wanted to add that for the record.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: For the record, Mr. Chair, at least let's complete that with the fact that it was the Federal Court that stayed that deportation order. It was not the policy of this government.

Mr. Rob Anders: Well, one can try to dodge responsibility and accountability, but nonetheless the buck stops somewhere.

The question I'd like to follow up with, Mr. Chairman, is this. Does the minister know Canadians are processing and paying for refugee hearings for those in Canadian prisons right now?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Could you clarify? I know there are people in detention facilities at the present time, as a matter of policy, because we are concerned about flight.

There are three reasons for the ability to detain individuals, and some of those individuals have the right to make and may have made refugee claims and are proceeding through the process. Certainly that's the case on the west coast right now, where about 490 people are being detained for the concern. We're making arguments before the adjudicators to maintain that detention, because we are concerned that if they are free in Canadian society, they will not show up for their hearings.

So the answer would be yes, there are people in detention who are going through the refugee determination procedure at this very time.

Mr. Rob Anders: As a matter of fact, Madam Minister, it's actually worse than what you paint. I'm not talking about people who are in detention. I'm talking about people who have been convicted of criminal offences under the Criminal Code here in Canada and are serving time in our penitentiaries, and they are being processed with refugee hearings.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I would repeat that anyone who is found to be a convention refugee is still inadmissible to Canada if they have committed a serious crime in Canada or in another country. If they are a foreign national in Canada and we discover through our security reviews that they have committed a serious crime outside Canada, they are ineligible. Even if they are found to be convention refugees in Canada, they are removed, as a priority, as quickly as possible.

• 1700

Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Minister, you've said that eventually somewhere down the process these people will be refused. You say that, but we're paying for and processing these people in our penitentiaries, as we speak. Now, you said earlier that those with criminal records and offences should be dismissed. I consider that to be a contradiction of what you said earlier today. I'd like to know why we're continuing to pay for these things.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I guess the best way I could answer that is that it's not just a question of due process. If someone commits a crime in Canada and they're convicted and their sentence includes jail time, they serve their time in a Canadian jail and upon the completion of their jail term they are removed as quickly as possible. That's the policy of both the justice system and.... I would suggest that in most jurisdictions, if you commit a crime you serve your time before you're thrown out of the country.

Mr. Rob Anders: My follow-up question is on a different subject. John Baird, a member of the provincial Parliament here in Ontario, representing the riding of Nepean, put forward that the Province of Ontario is paying significant amounts of money with regard to the costs that are associated with failed sponsorships. Why should a province like Ontario have to pay millions upon millions of dollars for the failings of the federal government with regard to failed sponsorships? How can the federal government and the minister justify passing these costs on to the taxpayers of Ontario?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: First, I'd like to say that I take sponsorship very seriously. As I have said before, there are those who would look at sponsorship breakdown and then there are others who would look at the facts. The fact is that in Toronto the success of the sponsorship program, of people who live up to their obligations, is that 86% of all sponsors in the Toronto area live up to their sponsorship obligations. And the average across the whole country is that 90% of people live up to their sponsorship obligations: there's 90% compliance across the country.

I would say to the member as well that we are working not only with the Province of Ontario, but with other provinces. In particular, British Columbia is one where we've had some success in improving the rate of compliance. We share information. The Province of Ontario, as far as I know, has not, at this point, requested any particular enforcement actions. There's a pilot project going on in Peel, which is producing very good results. As I said, I take sponsorship obligations very seriously.

I'd also point out that in the transfer to the Province of Ontario in particular, since that's the one you've raised, all new immigrants, all new arrivals, those with refugee status as well as those who are refugee claimants, are now included in the per capita funding formula, not only for the Province of Ontario but for all provinces across the country, in the transfer payments, the annual transfer formula.

What I think is already a very good rate, 86% in Toronto and 90% compliance across the country.... As I said in the House in response to a similar question from my critic, when I want to high school, if I got an 86 or a 90, I thought that was doing pretty good. It's not perfect, and there's lots of room for improvement, but we're happy to work with the provinces to improve that. To the best of my knowledge, we haven't had any requests for improvement.

• 1705

There's one other point I'd like to make, and that is that the province of Ontario is an enormous beneficiary of the wealth and prosperity of immigration in this country. More than half of the immigrants who arrive in Canada come to the province of Ontario. If you visit the greater Toronto area—I'm from Thornhill—and if you visit our province, you can visibly see the enormous economic activity, the wealth and prosperity that immigration has brought.

So I would say to the member opposite that he should talk to his friend and colleague, Minister Baird, and remind him that the bottom line is that Ontario is a net beneficiary from immigration to this country. While there are some problems, we're happy to work with them to increase the compliance rate for sponsorship. But overall, Ontario reaps enormous benefits from immigration to Canada.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I can assure you that if I got an 86 or 90, I'd be accused of cheating—and I probably would have been.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Minister, one of the little tragedies that works itself out many times in my riding, and I think in the constituency offices of every MP, including yourself, is those people who try to bring in relatives on a visa to visit who are denied entry because they cannot prove they have sufficient ties at home that would prevent them from attempting to stay in Canada.

The tragedies are manifold: there are families that can't unite, there are elderly parents, there are daughters, there are all kinds of people. The very, very tragic situations that you see are the very ones that are refused. They are refused, as I understand it, on the grounds of the Singh decision, on the assumption that if they decide to stay, they will have to be granted due process, and due process would cost a lot of money if we multiply that many times.

If the Supreme Court in the Singh decision had ruled that where a person enters this country and insists on staying illegally—that is, breaks the contract between the minister and the person who is expressed by a visa—where they willfully break this contract, if the Supreme Court had ruled that that was grounds for sending them back summarily, without due process, would that be something you would be prepared to support?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Of course that's a hypothetical question, and I don't answer hypothetical questions.

Certainly the issue of visitor visas is one I hear and as an MP I receive representations from constituents as well. I thought you might be interested to know that in 1998 there were 560,000 visitor visas granted to people who wanted to come to Canada as visitors. And you know how many countries we have that don't require visitor visas before people come.

Mr. John Bryden: Madam Minister—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Just let me finish. There's one other point I wanted to give you. That is, the United Kingdom is looking at the potential for bonds being used to guarantee when visitor visas are requested and there are concerns about a return. So I think there are a number of issues. This one in the United Kingdom is a pilot project. We're watching it very carefully to see what the impact would be.

The whole issue of visitor visas and the ability of people to come for family functions and so forth is something I understand and appreciate. I know that people want to be able to come to share celebrations.

The rate.... I've asked my officials to give you a country-by-country—

Mr. John Bryden: Madam Minister, I don't want to interject, but I have such limited time to ask my questions.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Okay, sorry.

Mr. John Bryden: I would like to just finish off. I don't want to take you into hypothetical ground, so I'll ask you a very precise question. Has your department ever questioned whether Singh should apply to people other than convention refugees who were arguing they had a right to enter, as opposed to people who very clearly have no right of entry? Has the department ever questioned the Singh decision in that context?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The Singh decision was very clear. It is ten years old. It said that anyone who arrives in Canada can make a refugee claim. That's been the result of the Singh decision, and there are ten years of jurisprudence following that decision. That's the situation as it stands right now, as far as I know.

• 1710

Mr. John Bryden: That's precisely the point I'm trying to make, Madam Minister: in the case of somebody who fails to honour their visa, they're not making a refugee claim; they're doing something illegal—they're breaking their contract. As far as I can see, Singh doesn't deal with this whatsoever.

I'll ask you the ultimate question. Would you be prepared to entertain a reference to the Supreme Court clarifying Singh in the case of people who deliberately violate their visa and stay in the country, or in the case of people who, as we discussed before, have deliberately and willfully failed to disclose their identity, with the intent to deceive Canada, or come in with false papers with the intent to deceive Canada? Would you consider a reference to the Supreme Court to clarify Singh on that issue?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'd have to think about it.

Mr. John Bryden: That's fine. That's fair. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): That's five minutes anyway, so it is nice.

Mr. Price.

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

I'll ask you a question I've already asked in committee, but I'd like to hear your feelings on it. Back in 1988 the act was changed to bring in the safe third countries. Since they came in, as far as I know we haven't had one of these countries yet listed, and there doesn't seem to have been a lot of negotiation toward it. Yet others countries are starting to band together and look at that type of situation. We heard just recently that in Finland there was a meeting of European countries. Maybe you could talk a little about that. Do you plan to continue with this in the new act that's coming through? Is there any thought of dropping it, since we're not using it, or are we going to look forward to it? Why did we not have anybody, at least an observer, at the Finland meeting?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: On the issue of the safe third country, for anyone who is reading the transcript, as I understand the way that would work, there would be a requirement for someone who wanted to claim refugee status to claim it in the first country as a signatory of the Geneva Convention where they could apply.

There were discussions that went on with the United States on this over quite a period of time, and in fact it was the United States that decided not to proceed with this issue.

There are approximately as many people who arrive in Canada and then go to the United States to make their claim as there are people who arrive in the United States and then come to Canada to make their claim. So it's really a two-way street. It's the sort of issue on which we would want to have discussions with other countries bilaterally.

We've also committed under the Geneva Convention that we would never remove anyone to an unsafe situation.

I guess the whole issue of the safe third country, which is included in the existing legislation, is one we'll want to discuss as part of legislative review. I'm not sure from what I've heard about it that it's everything it's cracked up to be, frankly.

Mr. David Price: I think a lot of people don't understand the way it works. Just to give you an example, somebody coming, for instance, from India into the States and then into Canada, if we had a safe third country agreement with India and with the States they could be sent directly back to India. They don't have to go back to the States. There seems to be a misunderstanding there. That's why some people shy away from it. I think it would be an interesting way to go, which could help our situation.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Actually I'd like Greg, if he would, who is more expert on the theory behind the whole notion of safe third country, to give you a little bit of information on that.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Mr. Chairman, if we did have a safe third country arrangement with the United States, it would mean that anybody who came from another country to claim refugee status would have to claim refugee status in the United States, rather than come through the United States to Canada. It wouldn't imply, for example, if they'd come from India, that they would be sent back to India, because that would refoule someone who is making a refugee claim against that country.

We did get fairly down the road with the United States, and they said no after a lot of negotiations. It may come back on the table again. We haven't yet with any European country, although we have a lot of discussions on various cooperative arrangements with them.

• 1715

Mr. David Price: Ms. Nixon referred to the time delays with the RCMP. The minister says the partnership has been enhanced with the RCMP and CSIS, and that will supposedly cut down time. But really we're talking in many cases two to three years for business applications of the review, and there seems to be a problem with the cooperation between the RCMP and CSIS.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Of course, on issues that relate to the RCMP and CSIS, that's the Solicitor General. We do rely on CSIS for security reviews. Most are done quickly. I've met with CSIS and they've told me about their process and procedures, and we're looking at ways to appropriately exchange data electronically with CSIS.

I have to tell you that where CSIS has a concern—I think most Canadians would want to know that we are properly checking to make sure that people we admit to this country don't pose a security risk. Sometimes that's the reason for the delay in applications. That's why I use the figure of 80% of the family class applications that are here within 11 months. When you look at some of the other classes where there are security risks...I think all Canadians would expect that we would exercise due diligence in making sure people were not admitted.

One of the things we've said very clearly is that Canada will not be a safe haven for those who have committed war crimes. We know there have been people who have gotten into our country. The challenge now is to remove them as quickly as possible.

So we want to do our best to make sure we keep out those people who would not make us proud to welcome them here in Canada.

My understanding is that the RCMP will be here tomorrow and you'll have the opportunity to talk to them about their relationship with CSIS and any issues you have that relate to the RCMP.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Benoit, you have five minutes.

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

Madam Minister, I just want to talk a bit about the refugee system. There's a reported acceptance rate on those claiming refugee status in Canada of 44%. That's the reported rate, but the facts are that 24,000 people claim refugee status in Canada each year, and only about 5,000 are known to have left the country. So the rest, we would assume, are in Canada. At least there's no knowledge by anyone in the department or anyone else that they've left the country. That's a 79% effective acceptance rate.

Putting that another way, just so it's crystal clear, 11,000 of those 24,000 who apply are accepted—roughly—and 13,000 are not accepted, and yet only 5,000 of those are known to have left—your officials pointed this out last week.

You said any time you could get 86% in running the department you would be happy. You get less than 40% in terms of removing people who haven't been accepted—people who haven't been accepted by your system. Less than 40% of those are known to have left.

Madam Minister, I'd just like you to comment on that and comment on whether you see that as a department that's working just fine.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The point I'd like to make is that in the removal stream, the priority for removal, as I said, is those who are criminals. Convicted criminals are the first ones we put our energy into removing. The second priority is failed refugee claimants.

There has been an increase. About 62% of removals in 1998 were failed refugee claimants.

However, when you talk about acceptance rates, I think there's something else you should know, and that is that at the IRB, as a result of their decision-making, it is true that about 44% of those who make refugee claims to Canada are accepted as convention refugees. Following that refugee determination procedure, as many of you know, there is what is called the PDRCC, which is an opportunity for people who are not found to be convention refugees, who can show they are at risk, to apply to stay in Canada because they are at risk. As well, there are those who are granted H and C, humanitarian and compassionate consideration. They're permitted to stay. And then, because we are a signator to the Geneva Convention, we don't remove to countries where people will be at risk. So there are some people who are permitted to stay even though they are under a deportation order because we won't remove them—

• 1720

Mr. Leon Benoit: But the fact is, Madam Minister, that doesn't change the stats at all, because that carries over from year to year, roughly the same. The fact is we have an effective acceptance rate in Canada of 79% compared to other countries, which are just a small fraction of that. Madam Minister, 13,000 were rejected last year and only 5,000 are known to have left. That's less than 40%, not even a pass, I'm sure, by your own measure, Madam Minister.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I just wanted to point out to the honourable member that in fact the removals have been increasing and that last year the number was 8,450 who were actually removed from Canada. So we're making progress. We're not perfect—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Only 5,000 of those were for refugee claims.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: What I said to the member is in total, those who were removed from Canada, 8,450, were criminals. Convicted criminals were the number one priority, and I think he would agree that that is the right priority. The second is people who are failed refugee claimants. I would also tell him that we have some who have abandoned their claims, who have gone underground, who we suspect have left Canada.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You suspect, but you have no knowledge of that. Madam Minister, the numbers I've given are in fact accurate.

I want to ask you directly now. You made a comment that you think your department is working just fine. This is a very serious problem when out of the 13,000 you have 8,000...they've been rejected and you just don't know where they are. Do you, Madam Minister, not consider that a serious problem in your department?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: What I've said to the honourable member is that our priority for removals is, first, convicted criminals—I think that's the right priority—and the second priority for the department is those who are failed refugee claimants.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.

Mr. Telegdi.

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

I think one of the things the previous question really didn't take into account is the fact that we know we have some people who come to this country in transit and they end up in New York. That's one of the things we had with the boats, and that's why we are keeping them in custody. Mr. Benoit knows that's the case because he has said that often enough himself. Clearly, there are people who abandon their claims, not just the ones we remove. So that statistic should be put into your dissertation.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Where do they register?

Mr. Leon Benoit: If you keep them detained you know where they are.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Madam Minister, we're entering the new millennium. For six years running, ending at this millennium, Canada has been judged as the best country in the world in which to live, and certainly that success is the product of the people of this country. This country has been built on immigration, and I daresay we have done a very good job of it overall. Certainly no system made by man—or woman—is perfect, but I think we have a good story to tell.

I am glad that the dynamics are the way they are today, because it certainly points out that there are some folks who would put out wrong information and certainly not tell the whole story. I think Canadians for the most part know the whole story, but I think it would be helpful if we remind them of that story and who we represent as a nation. I would hope that in your deliberations you might consider putting part of the budget toward telling that story. For the most part we're a welcoming nation, but we don't like misinformation spread about particular groups. It's hurtful for those groups, and it doesn't promote good citizenship across this land.

• 1725

All I have to do is look at the House of Commons since I've been here. We have only 300 members, but numerous people have been charged and convicted of criminal offences. So there's no perfection, even among members of Parliament.

The question I would like to put to you is would your department consider working on getting the story out? I think people have a right to be proud of their heritage and of how this country was built.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I don't think most people know that in the House of Commons today there are at least 45 MPs who were not born in Canada.

One of the things I've been hearing as people tell me their individual stories and which I've been reminding people of is that with the exception of some of our aboriginal people, I would say that everyone in Canada has an immigrant or refugee somewhere on their family tree. It's only a matter of seniority.

There are many wonderful stories to tell about how immigrants and refugees came here and were enormously successful in helping to build our story. I'd agree that we need to be much more proactive about telling the story and about giving the people of Canada as much information as possible about how important immigration is.

I joke around and say that my generation isn't having any more babies. Our birth rate is falling. It certainly isn't keeping pace with what we need. We have a large country. We're aging, and if we're going to remain prosperous and see our economy grow, we need to bring the people here with the skills and talents to help us ensure for the next generation the prosperity our generation has enjoyed.

When I met with some immigration officers at Pearson Airport and asked them what their number one priority would be, they said public awareness—tell people what we do; help to tell our story.

I've often said I believe in the theory of continuous improvement. We don't live in an error-free world. We live in a world where we tend to focus on the things we don't do so well. What I'd like us to do is to focus on the things we don't do so well so that we can learn from it and do it better and really try to make a difference in the future.

There are a few statistics I'd like to share with you just before I leave, if I could have a couple of minutes. In 1998, 174,000 immigrants were granted permanent resident status in Canada. We anticipate that for 1999 it will be over 180,000. We never hear most of those stories. Imagine how long we'd have to be here if we put every one of those good news stories up on the screen. Think of how long this committee would have to sit in order to listen to every one of those 180,000 stories.

Of the 174,000, over 75,000 were economic immigrants who came to build our country. I told you about the 560,000 visitor visas. There were 91,000 student authorizations for students who wanted to come to Canada to learn and to improve themselves, to improve our country and our reputation internationally, and to bring their dollars, because they pay for that education. It's a huge economic benefit for us.

As well, there were 173,000 temporary employment authorizations, people coming here to work and to bring their skills and talents to Canada on a temporary basis. After being here and seeing how great Canada is—and you're right that for six years in a row the United Nations has said we have the best country in the world, so we have a good story to tell—many of those people who come on temporary work authorizations want to stay in Canada.

I think one of the challenges for this committee, as we go through the legislative review, is to help us look at each one of our programs and determine how we can make it more responsive to those who want to come and who we need to bring to this country in order to secure our future in the 21st century.

That's some of the good news. We have a good story to tell.

The opposition does a very good job on those few stories that point out where we can improve, and that's important. I'm not saying it isn't. We do have to identify areas where we can improve. I thank them for doing that, because it helps to keep us on our toes. I wish they'd be nicer in the way they frame their questions, but that's okay.

• 1730

Mr. Leon Benoit: You misunderstood.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms Elinor Caplan: But, as I said, there's a very important story as well as a good story. The important story is that this is a land of immigrants and refugees. We have to remember who we are and where we came from in order to make sure we know where we're going.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Minister, I want to thank you for coming. I also wish to tell the opposition members in particular that I worked with you for five years in opposition, so I know what tough and mean can be.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You would.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you for coming.

I personally would be interested in the results of your thoughtful deliberations on the question posed by Mr. Bryden with regard to reviewing the Singh decision, if at some point you are willing to share those thoughts with the committee. It is ten years old. I in fact referenced it in my earlier questions to you. I think it's something that members of this committee on all sides should ask that we look at. I don't know the answer either, but I think we should look at it.

I want to thank you for coming and for your forthrightness, as usual, and your honesty in answering the questions. I also want to thank your staff as well for being here.

This committee is adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow in Room 308, West Block.