CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 21, 1997

• 1535

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)): I'm calling the meeting to order. This is our first official meeting and we still have not yet established our routine motions, so if the guests won't mind, we'll quickly go through the routine motions in order to become legitimately established with rules and a framework in which to operate.

Would everyone please take a look at their routine motions? The first one we have on the paper is that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its work, at the discretion of the chair. Could we have a mover for that?

An hon. member: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: I would like to introduce you to the person who has been instrumental in providing us with extremely diligent, ambitious, fantastic guidance in the past, and that's Margaret Young. Thank you very much, Margaret.

Now, meetings in the absence of a quorum. What we're referring to in this section is a reduced quorum. It's not the full quorum. We do have Standing Orders regulations that state that a full quorum of the committee will be half plus one, and this is established. But this is a reduced quorum, and when we have a reduced quorum we can normally carry on with the business providing that we don't have any significant motions to pass and so forth, but carry on with the discussion or briefings or whatever. This reduced quorum reads: “That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings and to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least”—whatever the number is—“members are present, including”—whatever the number”—“member(s) of the opposition.”

We have been discussing that in advance with the guidance of the clerk. He's strongly recommending that we state that provided that at least five members are present for a reduced quorum and that at least one member of the opposition has to be present, otherwise we can't continue.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Although it is interesting that the presence of five members is required, I would propose that the presence of two members of the opposition be ensured. Since there are four opposition parties, I think that just one member is not a lot. I believe that it is a question of sensitivity, and I would therefore propose that at least two of the five members come from the opposition side.

[English]

The Chairman: Could we get some kind of response from other members of the opposition on how they feel regarding the statements Mr. Ménard made?

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): I would support that, I think. We still would have three government members, two opposition. There would still be a majority of government members.

The Chairman: It appears that the opposition are all in favour of that.

Members on the government side, is there any response or reaction to the suggestion that has been made? That would be five members who would provide us with a reduced quorum, which would include two members of the opposition.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: On opening statements and questioning witnesses, we really have two models here. One of the models I had presented to you, which you had not received in advance, is the one that is before you. I should give you a rationale for it, simply because there are people who will be sitting on the committee.... When the one person in the party takes over, in the past we used to allocate ten minutes. That person could talk for ten minutes, or because of the responses of the witnesses, which would be included in that ten-minute block, it's very frequent that the other member does not get a chance to raise a question. This could happen time and time again.

As a result, members of committees who never get a chance to speak feel that they are absolutely ineffective and have really nothing to contribute to the effectiveness of the committee. So in all fairness—because I would like everyone in the committee to be an integral part, a meaningful part, of the committee—I'm strongly recommending this alteration to the original plan, and it is that each member present gets five minutes to question and discuss with any witnesses or whatever. That way everyone gets a turn.

• 1540

I know that the opposition might be thinking about how there will be nine members on the Liberal side. I can guarantee you right now that rarely will we ever have nine members on the Liberal side to speak five minutes each. It just won't work out that way, simply because of the commitments. Some of these people are sitting on two committees and it will be very difficult to get a full membership here at any given session, unless of course we have a very important vote. And that could happen.

It could be that we might have three witnesses, we might have four witnesses, and in the second round we may not have enough time to give five minutes to every questioner. At the discretion of the chair, I may have to break it down and say that because of the time factor involved and because we have x number of people here to question, I'm going to allocate three minutes or four minutes, depending upon the time that is left for the whole session.

So what I'm saying is that it will be fair for each member of the committee to be treated equally and everyone gets a chance to contribute and express his concerns or whatever. That is what I'm suggesting. I don't know how you would react to it.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It is true that there are ground rules which have to be clarified at the outset; therefore, a first round of five minutes and possibly a second round of two or three minutes. It is important that we have a guarantee, not in writing but firm nevertheless that you will be flexible as Chairman. We have to be sure that if questions of particular interest to us are raised, then no member who wants to talk about them should be deprived of their right to do so, because the benefit of sitting on a committee is that you have the opportunity to discuss issues with witnesses.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: In any event, I have full confidence in you.

[English]

The Chairman: Very good. Thank you very much.

And I'm going to ask you to be sure to assume the responsibility that you would not hesitate to tell me, Mr. Ménard, if I am not fair. All right? That'll be your responsibility.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You can count on me. There's no doubt about that.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I am generalizing for your colleagues as a whole.

[English]

The Chairman: All right. Fine. That's true.

Is there any other comment regarding this proposal? We could experiment with it for a short time, and if you find that it's not satisfactory we could always, with another motion, revert back to the original old customary model.

Can we have a motion accepting it? Anyone?

Mr. Réal Ménard: How many minutes to—

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard. Yes, it's five minutes for the opening.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear the first part. How much is the witness going to be given, how many minutes? Did we discuss that? That was part of the same motion—

The Chairman: For the witnesses?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes.

The Chairman: I was just talking about the participants, the questioners. Normally, in the past, we have given the witnesses, depending upon how many witnesses we have...we become very flexible there. If we're going to have only, let's say, the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, we'll give her possibly more than ten minutes. She might want twenty minutes, she might want half an hour. And I think we have to be flexible here, depending upon how many witnesses we're going to have within a two-hour period before the committee.

Yes, Madam Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I sincerely believe that it is up to you to decide on the number of minutes to be given, and to ensure that there is enough time left to enable everyone to ask his or her questions. At present, it is impossible to give a specific number. With your sound judgement, you will determine the time available.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your indication of confidence in the chair. I assure you that it's exactly what I intend to do, depending upon the number of witnesses we have before us.

Yes, Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Being new to all of this, I have a question about perhaps the rotation of the questioning afterwards. If we're allocated the same time each time, would the opposition have the opportunity to lead off with the questions, as is the regular routine?

• 1545

The Chairman: That's how we normally proceed. We start with the opposition. You're the first. If you have your three partners here, then you can decide among yourselves that you're not going to take five, five, five—that you'd like maybe only two of you to take seven and a half minutes or that one is going to take ten minutes and the other five minutes. That's the way it will operate.

It will all depend upon you, and the same thing for the two members from the Bloc party. If one wants to take ten minutes and they agree.... It will be up to your party. It will be up to you people to decide how you're going to break that down.

As far as the chair is concerned, it will be five minutes, five minutes, five minutes. So there is a fifteen-minute block for the Reform Party, then ten minutes, and so forth. Okay?

Have I clarified that? We are not going to put any minutes for the opening statement. The chair will have to make that decision at the beginning of each and every session. We'll come back to that as soon as we deal with our witnesses today. Let me get this finished first.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Witnesses' expenses. Are there any questions related to witnesses' expenses? This is elementary. A motion to accept?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I so move, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Transcript of in camera meetings. There's one copy of the transcript. That's elementary.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Let's go on to the steering committee: that the chair and the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and a representative of each of the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party, and the Progressive Conservative Party do compose a subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I have a question, Mr. Chair. Isn't this a bit of overkill? You've got a chair, two vice-chairs, a parliamentary secretary and a representative of each of three parties. It seems to me to be a lot of overlap. Why don't you just have meetings of the committee as a whole and be done with it? This is supposed to be a steering committee, a smaller committee, and I would think that it's appropriate simply to get one representative from each of the parties, and if there's an overlap with the chairs, then use that overlap up as a representative of the party. After all, it is only a steering committee.

The Chairman: Do you mind if I make a response to your statement?

Mr. John McKay: Sure.

The Chairman: In the past, the same kind of concern and issue has been raised as you have raised just now, and the argument has always been that we should stick to this model. This is what most committees will do. In fact, all of them are doing it.

Mr. John McKay: I don't wish to be argumentative, but it seems to me as if it's a bit of a new broom. It's a new day and there are sixteen members as opposed to twelve, and there are five parties as opposed to three or two or whatever's been in the past. Lord knows, what parliamentarians don't need are extra committee meetings, which are, by and large, quite useless.

My suggestion would be that you look at ways of shrinking the size of the steering committees, rather than expanding them.

Mr. Grant McNally: I would support that too. I know that in the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee, we had the same debate and went with the smaller steering committee. So I think a precedent has been set already, and we would support that.

The Chairman: Any further comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We could perhaps remove the parliamentary secretary. I'm sure that Mr. McNally would not want to deprive any of the parties, and certainly not the one to which he belongs, of representation on the committee. I'm not sure that the practice was in the past that parliamentary secretaries be present.

Normally, the committee should be independent from the Minister. Parliamentary secretaries, even the most independently minded, are generally the extension of the minister. It seems to me that if we have to cut somewhere—Mr. Chairman, you are a bit like my partner in that you don't listen to me very much—, it should be at the parliamentary secretary level, since his or her presence may not be required given that the committee should be independent.

• 1550

[English]

The Chairman: Might I make a comment regarding that, just a short note in the discussion? Mr. Ménard's observation is based on the precedent that has already been set in the aboriginal and northern affairs committee and the finance committee. Both committees have the same composition as has been advocated in this motion, minus the parliamentary secretary, based on the very same argument that has been presented. So two other committees have already taken out the parliamentary secretary.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Grant McNally: In that committee, I think we went with the chair, the two vice-chairs, one Bloc member, one NDP and one Conservative, bringing the steering committee down to six. We would be agreeable to having our one representative being the vice-chair. The government would have two representatives, and all the others parties would be represented as well. It might be a more workable number.

The Chairman: So what we're talking about is the chair, the two vice-chairs and one member from the NDP, the PC and the BQ forming the subcommittee on procedure and agenda, or steering committee. Are you all in favour of that?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Thanks for the suggestion. That makes it less onerous for the staff and for everybody concerned.

The next order is the order in council appointment. Is there any question pertaining to this resolution?

Mr. John McKay: Mr. Chairman, being new to this exercise in Byzantine politics, I don't know what it means. If you could tell me what it means, I would be happy to express an opinion on it.

The Chairman: What normally happens in a situation like this is that the information is simply passed on to your office regarding the candidate who has been approved and has been accepted to sit on one of our committees—and I'm talking about a government appointment here in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Every member has the right, after reading these documents, to call the successful candidate before the committee for further questioning or discussion or whatever. It doesn't always happen, but it has happened in the past.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval-West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to follow up on something you said: some committees receive only the names of individuals, the organization and the length of the term. It's also very important to receive an individual's curriculum vitae, as this tells us whether the experience of the person concerned is relevant to the position to which he or she has been appointed.

I consider this to be an important item of information, and it explains why we may ask individuals to appear before the committee if we are not satisfied.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, very good. Thank you very much for the information.

Do I have a mover?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I so move.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: You've all had a chance to read about the working luncheon. Could we have a mover?

An hon. member: I so move.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: I have to get a bit of a clarification here regarding the three witnesses who are appearing before the committee. Can the chair of the committee get some guidance as to the length of your presentation, and whether all three are going to participate or whether there's only one participating?

Mr. Gerry Campbell (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will give the presentation. With your indulgence, it's about 45 minutes long. I can go into more or less detail, depending on your view on that.

Mr. Tsaï, who is ADM, partnerships, will respond if there are questions in French, and I'll respond to questions in English. It is set up to be given in both languages.

Mr. Sheppit is director general of case management, and is here in case specific questions come up pertaining to his area of jurisdiction.

• 1555

The Chairman: I think we'll have time for at least one round of questions from each member of the committee, five minutes each. So without wasting any more time, let it roll.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, we're very grateful to get the chance to brief the committee at such an early stage in your deliberations. We have already provided you with two handouts. One is a booklet of questions called “You Asked About...”, which will help, I think. This booklet will be updated later in the year by the department. The other one is a booklet entitled “How the System Works”. This was originally developed to brief a new minister following the election. It is very comprehensive.

We have cut down the amount of presentation we'll actually give today, but the process charts you'll see on the screen are in the booklet, so you'll be able to look at them at your leisure in more detail, because they are very complicated.

I would suggest you hold questions until the end of the presentation, because it is quite lengthy and detailed.

The essential task of our department is to facilitate and control access to Canadian territory and citizenship. This briefing is designed to provide a practical overview of how the department's main systems and procedures function. It addresses the questions of what we do and how we do it.

First of all, who are we? Citizenship and Immigration Canada is comprised of 4,000 employees based in Ottawa across three domestic regions and in approximately 70 embassies and consulates overseas. According to the 1996-97 main estimates, our budget was $615 million and estimated revenues were $334 million.

For the purpose of clarity, this briefing breaks our operations down between overseas and domestic processes and between immigrants who may eventually become citizens and visitors. These client groups and locations form the four-part structure of this presentation.

Each year we are responsible for processing over 1 million visa applications, both visitor and immigrant, abroad; for screening 110 million travellers who enter Canada, and that number includes 40 million foreign national visitors; for giving permanent resident status to 225,000 new immigrants; and for granting citizenship to 200,000 persons.

In the presentation we've tried to simplify what we admit are some very complex programs and legislation by developing graphic representations of the processes. You see them of course on the overheads. The areas of discussion will be highlighted as the presentation progresses. The diagrams and processes are outlined, as I explained, in more detail in the booklet we've distributed.

Please bear in mind that the diagrams and explanations, while providing an idea of how the programs would work in most cases, do not address every possible scenario. Generally, approval activities are represented by green arrows and refusal activities are denoted by red arrows. Some diagrams also contain yellow lines, which signify cautionary steps or points at which several options may be explored.

I'd like to start by discussing the overseas immigrant application process. The department has more than 70 points of service overseas, staffed by approximately 200 rotational Canadian-based visa officers and 1,000 locally engaged staff. The size of our international offices fluctuates from year to year and ranges from one person in a small satellite post to as many as 15 Canadian-based officers in larger posts such as New Delhi, Hong Kong, or Manila. In addition to immigrant and visitor processing, Canadian officers perform other key functions such as reporting and liaison, interdiction of improperly documented passengers before they board flights to Canada, and assessments of medical examination results.

To start with the first quadrant of the presentation on overseas immigration processing, in 1996 overseas offices handled more than 125,000 immigrant cases, issuing almost 200,000 visas, comprising 85% of the total number of landings in Canada. The remaining 15% of landings were for persons processed from within Canada.

Visas are issued by our overseas offices. Applicants must then travel to a Canadian port of entry—that is, an airport, a border crossing, or a seaport—where they are landed upon arrival, that is, granted permanent resident status in Canada.

• 1600

You'll hear departmental officials constantly use the term “landing”. It is a term that dates back to the days of steamship travel, when people landed, but it refers to the granting of permanent residence status on arrival in Canada.

In 1996 more than 225,000 immigrants became permanent residents. Between 1945 and 1990 there were only three occasions when Canada received more than 200,000 immigrants in a single year: in 1957, following the Hungarian uprising; in 1968, following the Prague Spring; and in 1976, following the exodus from Southeast Asia.

As you can see from the graph, the 1996 figures reflect a continuing trend over recent years where Canada has witnessed the highest sustained level of immigration since the Second World War.

More than half of this movement is made up of economic immigrants, who are selected for their potential contribution to the Canadian economy. The family class, the cornerstone of our program, represented 30% of all landings in 1996. This is due to the fact that this category is demand-driven by potential sponsors in Canada. There are no limits to the number of persons who may be sponsored under the family class each year.

Over half of all immigrants now come from the Asian region. The top five source countries now are Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China, India, Taiwan, and the Philippines.

Three broad immigration categories are processed overseas: the family class, economic immigrants, and convention refugees.

The family class is the mechanism for achieving one of the primary objectives of the Immigration Act: to facilitate the reunion of citizens in permanent residence with their immediate relatives from abroad, primarily spouses, minor children, and parents. Canadian residents file a sponsorship for their relatives through a centralized case processing centre in Mississauga, Ontario. Once approved, the sponsorship is forwarded electronically to the overseas mission, where the immigration application will be processed. Sponsors of refused family class cases may appeal the decision to the Immigration and Refugee Board, or the IRB.

Economic immigrants include skilled workers; entrepreneurs, who must set up a business employing at least one Canadian; investors; self-employed persons, who could be farmers, performers, artists, or athletes; and provincial nominees, or persons recommended by a province, though not technically sponsored by the province. All of these categories are selected for their potential economic contribution to Canada.

The third category of immigrants processed overseas are convention refugees. Canada is a signatory of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and has incorporated the convention's definition of a refugee into the Immigration Act. The convention defines a refugee as a person who is outside of his or her country of origin and who cannot return for fear of persecution based on race, religion, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Persons meeting this definition who pass medical, criminality, and security screening and who have good prospects for resettlement in Canada may become permanent residents.

In 1997 the target for government-assisted refugees is 7,300. Private groups in Canada may also sponsor refugees. In both cases refugees are provided with settlement assistance for a period of one year after arrival in Canada.

One important point to note is that resettling refugees from abroad in Canada is an expression of Canada's humanitarian tradition and a contribution to international burden-sharing. It is not actually an obligation under international law.

Regardless of immigration category, certain requirements must be met by all applicants for permanent residence: fees, statutory requirements, and selection criteria.

First, all applicants except refugees must pay a cost-recovery fee. This fee is not refundable if the application is refused. Current fees are $500 for an adult and $100 per child. In addition, every successful applicant over the age of 19, including refugees, must pay a right of landing fee of $975 prior to visa issuance. Government loans are available to cover this fee and are almost always approved for refugees.

The second element common to all applications is statutory requirements, including a medical examination as well as security and criminality checks, which must be successfully completed for applicants and, where applicable, their dependants. The medical exam applies to all applicants. It is required to ensure there is no threat to public health or excessive demand on health care and social services. It is conducted by designated local medical practitioners overseas who have been selected and trained and are monitored by Canada-based medical officers. The results are assessed by Canada-based medical officers, who in most instances are overseas.

• 1605

Criminality and security checks are conducted by Canadian officers in co-operation with the RCMP, CSIS and foreign police authorities.

In addition to these two common elements, all immigrants must meet the specific selection criteria for their category. Family class applicants must prove their relationship as spouse, fiancé, dependant, child, parent, etc., to their sponsor. Economic applicants must meet the requirements of a selection point system based upon a number of factors, including their profession, their level of education and their linguistic skills. Refugee applicants must meet the convention refugee definition and have reasonable resettlement potential.

Moving on to the immigration application process itself, our diagram outlines the general processing of immigration applicants overseas. As you will note, the diagram is quite complicated, but it represents only the basic elements of the process common to most applications.

For categories of persons who must be sponsored before applying for immigration, the sponsor in Canada must sign an undertaking of assistance agreeing to provide for the essential needs of the applicant for ten years in the case of family members and for one year in the case of privately sponsored refugees. The purpose of this undertaking is to ensure that the applicant will not require social assistance after arrival in Canada. Sponsors must show that they meet minimum income requirements, and family class sponsors must pay the applicants' fees. In recognition of the primacy of the nuclear family, sponsors of spouses and minor children are normally exempt from the requirement to meet minimum income levels.

The sponsorship is processed by the central processing centre in Mississauga, which informs the appropriate overseas office electronically once the sponsorship has been approved.

Applications for all categories must be sent to the overseas visa office. Upon receipt, the visa office reviews the application to ensure that all necessary information and documentation have been provided. The application is then assessed to ensure that the person meets the selection criteria for the category in which he or she is applying.

If it is not clear from the documentation provided that the applicant meets the selection criteria, the applicant may be interviewed. Once it has been established that the applicant meets the selection criteria, medical, criminal and security checks are conducted to verify that the person is not inadmissible to Canada.

Once all statutory and selection requirements have been met, an immigrant visa is issued at the visa office. Actual landing as a permanent resident takes place on arrival at the Canadian port of entry where CIC staff complete their record of landing.

Sponsors of refused family class cases may appeal the decision to the appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. All other refused categories may apply to the Federal Court for judicial review of the decision.

This, then, gives you a snapshot of the overseas immigrant application process.

Applicants destined to the province of Quebec are processed somewhat differently from those destined to other provinces. Under the Constitution, immigration is an area of shared jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments.

While CIC ultimately controls the admissibility of all persons applying for permanent residence in Canada—that is, the administration of statutory requirements such as medical exams and criminality screening—a comprehensive agreement, the Canada-Quebec accord, provides Quebec with control over the selection of economic immigrants destined to that province. Consent of Quebec is also required prior to the issuance of a visa to any other category of immigrant, foreign student or temporary worker destined to that province.

Other less extensive agreements are in place or under negotiation with other provinces. In 1996 Quebec accepted 13% of all immigrants who entered Canada. Sponsors of Quebec-destined family class applicants must have their ability to support their relatives evaluated by the province, although immediate family members, spouses and dependent children are normally exempted from these requirements.

• 1610

The second component of our overseas operations is comprised of visitor processing. Visitors include tourists, students, and temporary workers. The burden of proof rests with visitors to satisfy the visa officer that they will leave Canada following their visits. Otherwise they will be presumed to be intending immigrants.

Visitors seek temporary entry to Canada as tourists to visit family, for business reasons, to study or to take up temporary employment. Nationals of approximately 60 countries representing 99% of all travellers to Canada are exempt from the visitor visa requirement. Citizens of all other countries require visas.

We impose a visitor visa requirement when a country's nationals demonstrate a propensity to work or study illegally in Canada, or perhaps use their access to make large numbers of refugee claims.

In 1996, CIC missions overseas received more than 700,000 visitor visa applications, with an approval rate of over 90%. The determination as to whether or not a person is a genuine visitor is largely a judgment call on the part of the visa officer. Employment, assets, and family links in the home country are among the factors that officers review.

As with economic immigrants, all categories of visitors may file requests with the Federal Court for judicial review of refusals. A refusal does not preclude a new application.

Medical examinations are required if a visitor plans to remain in Canada for more than six months and has recently resided in an area of high incidence for communicable disease, such as tuberculosis.

Those seeking to study or work in Canada on a temporary basis also require authorization from the department to do so. A student must meet the definition of a visitor, submit a letter of acceptance from an academic institution in Canada, and provide proof of adequate funds for his or her stay in Canada. In 1996, 90% of all student applications were approved and CIC issued more than 41,000 student authorizations overseas. At any given time there are roughly 80,000 foreign students studying in Canada under such authorizations.

With student applications, 50% are processed in under 10 working days and 90% are processed in less that 30 days, which is a difficult feat to accomplish. Of all student applications, 40% are received in a six-week window from June to August each year, which coincides also with our peak visitor visa processing period and the rotation of staff abroad.

Canada allows foreign workers to enter on a temporary basis to meet labour market needs. Market needs cover a broad range from seasonal agricultural workers to highly skilled professional and corporate managers. Some categories of workers will require approval in the form of job validations issued by Human Resources Development Canada offices. Validation is granted when there would be no adverse impact on Canadian employment opportunities. In 1996, 73% of employment authorizations were issued under a validation exemption such as NAFTA or other reciprocal employment opportunities for Canadians. In 1996 the department issued 169,000 employment authorizations.

As you can see from the chart, visitors, students and workers are assessed in a very similar fashion. All may be subject to interviews. Some may require medical examinations, depending on their places of previous residence, their proposed length of stay and their intended vocations in Canada. Some may also be subject to criminal and security screening. A refused case may also apply with leave to the Federal Court for a judicial review of the refusal.

The third component of this presentation deals with processing visitors from within Canada. CIC works in close partnerships with customs officers of the Department of Revenue at ports of entry, airports, U.S. border crossings and ports to screen 110 million travellers who cross our border annually. Of that number, about 41 million are foreign visitors.

All travellers are initially seen by customs officers at the primary inspection line. They refer any complex or suspect cases to immigration officers for assessment. This is commonly referred to as secondary examination. Of all travellers to Canada, 95% see only a customs officer.

• 1615

Travellers may be referred to immigration by customs for enforcement issues such as suspected criminality; insufficient funds or use of fraudulent travel documents; the requirement for immigration documentation such as student or employment authorizations; or new immigrants who require landing; or persons requiring additional examination when it is suspected they are not genuine visitors to Canada; or because they have made a refugee claim.

At secondary examination, a traveller may be found inadmissible to Canada. In this case, a report is written by the examining officer and the traveller is referred to a senior immigration officer, or SIO, who may do one of five things: grant admission to Canada; allow the traveller to depart voluntarily; issue an exclusion order that bars entry to Canada for a 12-month period; direct the traveller to an immigration inquiry with an adjudicator; and/or order the traveller's detention.

An immigration inquiry will result in the traveller being allowed to enter Canada, or ordered removed. Unless the traveller is granted admission or departs voluntarily, he or she enters the enforcement stream of operations, which I will go over in more detail shortly.

Visitors are normally allowed to remain in Canada for six months, but may apply to extend their status from within Canada. The first stage in this process is to obtain an application kit. To do so, applicants contact one of the department's centralized call centres in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. The call centres then ensure that the appropriate kit is forwarded through an arrangement with Canada Post, which prints and mails application kits on the department's behalf. The call centres also handle public inquiries related to all citizenship and immigration services.

Completed applications are mailed to the case processing centre in Vegreville, Alberta. If Vegreville is able to fully assess the application, it will process it to completion within 25 days, including mailing time. Vegreville is able to finalize 95% of all cases by mail. The remainder are referred to the Canadian Immigration Centre nearest to the applicant for a more detailed assessment, usually including an interview. These cases are then finalized by the local immigration centre, referred to as a CIC.

In addition to visitor visa extensions, Vegreville also processes applications for permanent residence within Canada. This process is the fourth component of our operations. Although the Immigration Act stipulates that intending immigrants must apply for permanent residence from outside of Canada, it also provides the flexibility to process applications from within Canada under certain circumstances. Last year, 15% of all immigrants were processed from within Canada.

Who is able to apply within the country? There are three groups: persons in Canada recognized by the Immigration and Refugee Board as convention refugees; those who have completed two years of employment in Canada under the live-in caregiver program; and third, individuals who have compelling humanitarian and compassionate grounds to warrant processing from within Canada.

Before I go into detail concerning the process for inland applications, let me first outline each of the three groups. First, refugees. Any person in Canada or at a port of entry may seek refugee status. A senior immigration officer must make an assessment of an individual's eligibility to have his or her claim heard by the IRB. Last year, 99% of all claimants were found eligible for referral to the IRB. A person may be ineligible to have their claim referred to the board if they have been involved in espionage, terrorism, serious criminality, or have been a member of a regime designated by the minister to have been engaged in systematic or gross human rights abuses.

The IRB applies the convention refugee definition contained in the act to all claims that it hears. The refugee division of the IRB is a quasi-judicial tribunal whose hearings are designed to be informal and non-adversarial. Claimants have the right to representation. Persons whose claims are rejected by the IRB must leave Canada. However, applicants may appeal refusals with leave to the Federal Court.

Those whose claims are approved by the IRB file an application for permanent residence from within Canada. Failed claimants may apply for a review, referred to as the post-determination refugee claimants in Canada class, which is intended to protect persons who fail to meet the convention refugee definition, but who may still face a serious threat to their life or safety if returned to their home country. Last year, about 5% of these risk-review applications were approved. Those whose risk-review application is denied may apply for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

There are also cases where persons found to be a refugee by the IRB are unable to satisfactorily establish their identity, thereby making them ineligible for landing.

• 1620

About two-thirds of refugee claimants who arrive in Canada do not have any identity documents when they appear at the port of entry. Since 1997, refugees who have not been landed solely for this reason, for lack of identity documents, may apply for permanent residence five years after the convention refugee determination. This class is currently limited to nationals of Somalia and Afghanistan, two countries with no functioning central government.

To provide an idea of comparative levels of international refugee acceptance rates, in 1996 Australia and France approved approximately 15% of refugee claimants, the United States approved about 20%, and Canada approved about 44% of all refugee claims referred to the IRB, including abandoned and withdrawn claims.

As I indicated earlier, convention refugee is one of three categories of persons who may apply for permanent residence within Canada.

The second is comprised of those meeting the requirements of the live-in caregiver program. To be eligible to proceed with an application, a live-in caregiver must have completed two years of employment in Canada with temporary worker status. Caregivers must have the equivalent of a Canadian high school education, related experience or training, and abilities in either English or French. Ninety-one percent of live-in caregivers are women, and 72% at present come from the Philippines.

The third group eligible to apply for permanent residence in Canada are persons who are requesting to remain on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The vast majority of these cases are spouses of Canadian citizens or permanent residents. In 1996, 88% of these applications were accepted.

As noted earlier, applicants for permanent residence applying from within the country apply through the case processing centre in Vegreville, Alberta. CPC Vegreville routinely finalizes 75% of all inland applications. Complex cases are referred to inland offices for further examination.

The applicant and any overseas dependants must undergo and meet the statutory criminality and security requirements. All but refugees applying from within Canada and their dependants must pass the medical examination. Refugees need not pass, but must still be medically examined, to determine whether or not they are suffering from any condition requiring surveillance. CPC Vegreville, or the local immigration centre, requests overseas missions to conduct medical, criminality and security checks of dependants where applicable.

Once all statutory requirements are met by all family members, a record of landing is issued by Vegreville, or the local office, and the applicant is granted permanent residence from within the country.

Overseas dependants of refugees are issued their visas by the mission abroad. Dependants of all other inland applicants must be sponsored by the applicant under the normal provisions of the family class. Refused applicants may appeal with leave to the Federal Court.

Once a person has been landed in Canada, he or she is deemed to be a permanent resident of Canada. What does this mean?

Permanent residents, like citizens, are protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They enjoy all of the rights and privileges of citizens, with the exception of the right to vote, to hold public office, or to apply for a passport. Unlike a citizen, however, a permanent resident may be removed from Canada should he or she commit a serious crime. Permanent residents may also lose their right to enter and remain in Canada if they remain outside of the country for an extended period of time. A permanent resident may apply for a returning resident permit to facilitate return to Canada following a prolonged absence.

CIC provides funding for settlement programs and services that help newcomers become fully participating members of Canadian society. These programs are delivered at the community level, by provincial and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, and non-profit and educational institutions. These programs provide such services as orientation counselling, official language training and job search assistance.

Settlement funding comprises more than half of the department's annual budget of $615 million. It was about $319 million in the 1996-97 main estimates budget.

Quebec is responsible for administering and delivering settlement programs under the Canada-Quebec accord. We are currently negotiating the transfer of administration and delivery to the other provinces under a settlement renewal initiative.

• 1625

To turn now to enforcement, there are five main enforcement aspects to the program. They are investigation, detention, inquiry, appeals, and removals. This is probably the most difficult and complex sphere of all CIC's activities. High-profile cases often involve deportations, security certificates, and legal challenges of refusals. The department has over 550 enforcement officers across the country who deal with immigration violations and violators.

To start with investigation, persons may be reported for investigations for numerous reasons similar to those for which they would be found inadmissible at a port of entry: criminal convictions, inability or unwillingness to support themselves or their dependents, suspected terrorism, or if they have worked, studied, or remained illegal in Canada without authorization. Suspected violators may be directed to an inquiry should sufficient evidence be gathered. CIC works closely with police organizations and may issue immigration warrants to arrest those who fail to comply with immigration proceedings.

Next, detention. Suspected violators may be detained if investigators deem them to pose a danger to the public or if they are not likely to appear for immigration proceedings. The department has three minimum security detention centres, located in Laval, Mississauga, and Vancouver. Those who are detained are advised of their right to counsel and must be seen by an adjudicator within 48 hours. Should further detention be warranted, the case is reviewed after 1 week and every 30 days thereafter.

The third enforcement activity is inquiry. In straightforward cases a senior immigration officer may either issue a removal order or allow the violator to remain. In complex cases he or she may direct the violator to an inquiry. Like a refugee determination hearing, the inquiry is quasi-judicial and conducted by an adjudicator of the adjudication division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. However, unlike in regular court proceedings, strict rules of evidence do not apply. The person concerned may be represented by counsel. The department's case is presented by an immigration officer.

The adjudicator may allow the individual concerned to remain or, alternatively, may issue a removal order. Removal orders may take one of three forms. A departure notice requires that a person leave within 30 days but does not prohibit their return. If they do not comply, the departure notice automatically becomes a deportation order. An exclusion order bars return for 12 months, unless written consent of the minister is obtained within that period. A deportation order is a permanent bar to readmission without written consent of the minister.

Appeals are the fourth element of enforcement. Permanent residents, convention refugees, and visitor visa holders who are subject to a removal order issued by an adjudicator have the right of appeal to the appeal division of the IRB. The minister may also appeal the decision of an adjudicator. Once an appeal is filed there is an automatic stay of any removal order.

Finally, removals. Current policy gives priority to the removal of criminals, failed refugee claimants, and detainees. Most violators depart of their own accord, unescorted. However, in some instances some deportees require immigration and possibly RCMP escorts.

It is important to note that we cannot deport anyone unless another country is willing to receive them. In 1996 almost 6,000 people were removed from Canada, one-third of them criminals. As you can see, in recent years we have been removing successively more serious criminals from Canada.

The enforcement stream is the most detailed and high-profile activity of the department's immigration program. I think the chart reflects that.

The second major component of the department's mandate deals with the conferring of Canadian citizenship. A few key facts. Canada does not prohibit dual citizenship, like some other countries. Citizenship is not lost by residing abroad. Citizenship is conferred on all children born in Canada, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Children born to Canadians outside the country have a claim to citizenship and may apply for it through their nearest Canadian consular office. To become a citizen an applicant must be 18 years of age, be a legal permanent resident and have resided in Canada for three of the previous four years, be able to communicate in English or French, and have knowledge of Canada, including civic rights and responsibilities.

Permanent residents are not eligible to apply if they are under a deportation order; in prison, on parole, or on probation; are charged with or convicted of an indictable offence; are deemed by the minister to pose a threat to the security of Canada; or if they have demonstrated a propensity for habitual minor criminality.

• 1630

Citizenship requests are filed through our centralized citizenship case processing centre in Sydney, Nova Scotia. Applicants obtain the required forms from one of our call centres, and forward a completed application and fees to Sydney, where criminal security and immigration checks are conducted. Knowledge and language testing is conducted on Sydney's behalf by one of 28 local offices across the country, or by a citizenship judge. Judges make the final decision as to whether or not to grant citizenship.

Once a positive decision has been rendered by a judge, a grant of citizenship is prepared in Sydney, the applicant receives his or her citizenship certificate, and takes the citizenship oath at one of more than 2,000 presentation ceremonies held each year across the country. Lists of new citizens are then forwarded to local members of Parliament.

In 1996, CIC issued approximately 200,000 grants of Canadian citizenship, drawing to a close the immigration and citizenship process for these new Canadians.

In closing, I appreciate that this amount of information appears a bit overwhelming. The briefing is meant simply to provide you with an overview of our operations across Canada and around the world. It is a complex program that must balance competing priorities for the resources at our disposal.

On the screen now is a composite of the eight primary process charts that you've seen in the presentation and which, again, are in the handbook we've provided to you. If you have questions, Mr. Chairman, we'd be happy to try to answer them. Please bear in mind, however, that it's very hard for one of us—or even three of us—to answer all questions related to the department. We don't carry a brief on policy issues that may come up in future hearings of the standing committee.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I see tremendous progress has been made in your department in terms of the professional delivery that you have given us today. That was absolutely super.

We will now start with our questioning. We'll start from the side of the opposition. Mr. McNally, you have five minutes.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you for your presentation. There is certainly a lot to go through, but I noted a few things here.

I know you mentioned a target of about 7,300 convention refugees as a target number. I'm wondering how many actual refugees came to Canada in, say, 1996. We probably don't have the numbers updated for 1997 yet, seeing as the year is not over.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: I have to distinguish the two elements of the department's refugee program. One is the overseas resettlement program, which is not part of our convention obligation; it's part of our humanitarian tradition. That's what the target of 7,300 refers to. Over and above that, we also process several thousand privately sponsored refugees per year.

Inland, that's where our convention obligations kick in. Last year, I believe we received somewhere around 27,000 inland refugee claims. The department has no alternative but to refer those claims to the Immigration and Refugee Board—I believe you'll be briefed by them on Thursday of this week, Mr. Chairman—other than the 1% who are found to be ineligible under very precise exemptions to the convention definition of “refugee”, which would include terrorists or very serious criminals.

There are two distinct elements. One is the inland program, which is demand driven—people arrive here and we refer the claims to the board and the board hears them and makes decisions. The other is the optional program, which we run overseas as part of our overseas immigration activities.

Mr. Grant McNally: So an inland claim would be somebody perhaps coming in on a visitor's visa and then applying for refugee status or for citizenship.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: Hopefully not, but yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: Would a large percentage of the 27,000 be in that category?

Mr. Gerry Campbell: It would be hard for me to break out how they actually got here. I would hope the minority would have arrived here on visitor visas, because they've been screened abroad. But as I said in the presentation, 99% of visitors who come into the country do so on a visa-free status.

• 1635

Another large part of the problem we have with persons coming forward to claim refugee status concerns those who come on improper documentation. They travelled on forged visas or passports with substitute photos. We co-operate very closely with airlines at major transit points overseas, such as those at the airports at Frankfurt, London, Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Singapore. Still, roughly two-thirds of refugee claimants who arrive here show up at the examining officer's desk at the port of entry with no documents at all. These items disappeared somewhere en route.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. It does seem that it's hard to remove somebody in that sort of category of criminality, which you mentioned, once they're here. There have been a lot of high-profile cases in the last little while with that particular area.

I'm wondering about specifics. As a committee, we want to work together to see what kinds of things we can perhaps propose to address those kinds of concerns. I'm getting questions in my constituency about these kinds of concerns. A lot of them are happening out in B.C., where I'm from. A lot of people are concerned. Perception often becomes reality, and perhaps a number of high-profile cases draw attention to it, but there are certainly some things that need to be worked on.

I know it's a very difficult thing, because you're not directly responsible for the law, and you have to implement what's on the table. I'm wondering if there are any suggestions coming forward for how that might be addressed. I'll try to boil down my question. It seems that the timeframe is quite lengthy, once someone is here, for the appeal process and the deportation orders. Perhaps that's up to five years. Is there any way of shortening that or fixing that area?

Mr. Gerry Campbell: Certainly the department is very seized with the difficulty of removing people found to be inadmissible after they arrive here. I won't try to hide in any respect the difficulty of that challenge. It's much harder to remove somebody once they're here than it is to try to prevent their arrival from overseas.

As you know from some of these celebrated cases, we don't always succeed in doing that. But given that we process a little more than a million visa applications a year, my personal view is that we don't do too bad a job on that. For us, a tremendous emphasis is placed on trying to screen out inadmissible persons before they get here, because we know that once they get here, they've got full access to our courts, and they can certainly delay proceedings for a long period of time.

The Chairman: Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Thank you very much.

This is a presentation that looks very good when one sits here and looks at it. You have all these so-called checks and balances, so-called systems, and all those things here, but when I'm out in my riding, this is actually a big conflict. If this system is working so well, why do I as a member of Parliament have tons and tons of immigration cases coming along in which something is going wrong? Somebody is applying and has been let in as a refugee. Somebody's parents have not been let in. Somebody's mother has been having problems. Yet this presentation shows me that everything is kind of like a jigsaw puzzle: it fits in well. Well, in reality, it doesn't fit. In my six months as a new member of Parliament, I've found out it doesn't fit. That's one concern over here.

Consider some of the cases I have seen that have come along regarding the overseas immigration officers. It seems to me that they are now indulging in refusals based on culture. They're going into individuals' cultures and saying that their cultures do not allow this to happen, so his application is refused and what not. Well, we all know cultures change. Where are these so-called immigration officers learning this so-called culture to make these decisions?

• 1640

I am a new member, so I cannot comment on when this right-of-landing fee came in. Perhaps you can shed some light on this right-of-landing fee and the criteria, where this money is going and the reason behind its implementation.

These are some of the questions and concerns I bring to the table today.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: Thank you.

A few comments. Of course, the presentation wasn't intended to suggest that we're doing everything perfectly. It was really to give you a briefing on how things are structured to work, how they're supposed to work.

I guess the best way, perhaps, to answer your concerns is that the department is constantly trying to do a balancing act between, on the one hand, providing as high a level of client service as we can, bearing in mind that we're dealing with a million visa applications abroad in over 70 countries, and on the other hand, having adequate screening procedures in place so that inadmissible persons—criminals, terrorists and others—don't slip through the net.

It's a tough business. Any time we say no, someone is going to be unhappy. That, I'm sure, results in a lot of the representations you receive.

Bill Sheppit runs an entire branch that reviews case decisions. When somebody writes in and objects to a decision, his branch reviews it to make sure it's consistent with the law.

In terms of the cultural aspect, that's an even tougher question to answer. We have more than 200 highly trained visa foreign service officers stationed abroad who adjudicate visa applications according to the Immigration Act and regulations. We have roughly 3,000 lawyers and consultants looking over our shoulder at any given time, quite prepared to challenge any one of our decisions, hundreds if not thousands of which are referred back into the courts each year.

If one of our officers overseas has been procedurally unfair, they won't survive long. It will be challenged and the courts will take us up on it. So I'd never suggest for a minute, when we're dealing with this kind of volume, that we have a perfect track record, but I do think it's not a bad track record given the volume and the complexity of the work.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I will try to ask my four questions quickly.

First, I would like to say that my political party and I myself believe that immigration is an asset to society. It is important to make that clear.

Obviously, we are looking forward to reading the Trempe Report since we know that it will be an important factor in subsequent events. Although Mr. Campbell informs us that one million visas are issued, that there is a strategy concerning volume and, as we can appreciate, it is complex, the fact remains that as a member for a Montreal riding whose assistant certainly devotes 60% of his time to immigration issues, I feel that the system is not efficient and also that the legislation is very much a matter of discretion.

It is not the case that refusal of a visa or a refusal to allow someone to enter Canada is always followed by a review or legal proceedings. I myself will be very careful in looking at the legislation which the Minister announced so as to ensure that it is far less discretionary. It does not make any sense to allow a visa officer, using criteria which are not very well known, to have the final word on whether someone can enter Canada. Although we have to trust people's judgement, there is a discretionary dimension to the legislation you administer which seems to me unacceptable. That is my first question, and I would be pleased to discuss those points with you.

I have here figures given to me by the Quebec government. The problem concerning political refugees is not really one of definition, since Canada accepts an international definition, but rather the time taken before things are processed. There seems to be a trend here. The number of claims the Board fails to process is increasing. I was told that as of December 31, 1996, there was a backlog of 16,000 claims; the figure was 13,000 in 1995; at present it is 7000. The way these claims are dealt with seriously discredits the process.

• 1645

I have been told horror stories. I was told, for example, that people from Great Britain had been admitted as political refugees. There is a problem in the way things are dealt with, and I hope that very significant changes will be made to remedy the situation soon.

Third, I would like to get a guarantee from you, obviously not a political guarantee since that is not your responsibility; other people will look after that. I have been told that the Minister, whom I know to be a very open person, issued guidelines. Can you guarantee to me that in cases of sponsoring, when a claim is made by same sex spouses, then, as is the case in Quebec, no one will be discriminated against or have an application refused on those grounds? I know that this may not be the kind of question the Reform Party might have put to you, but I feel quite comfortable in asking you it.

Fourth, I would like you to talk to us about reforms implemented to the Investor Immigrant Program in the case of people investing in securities, since you did not address this in your presentation. As you know the Quebec government has made representations on this point.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest something for those members who so desire. Over the next few months, there will be a very important item in the news, namely war criminals. When I talk about war criminals, I want to make it clear that I am not talking just about Nazi war criminals, but also about war criminals who may have committed atrocities in other countries where there have been cases of genocide. I know that there is a new service of which the Minister was very proud, and it may be helpful for the members concerned about this issue to go and meet the officials at work so as to better appreciate how the service operates, given the importance that this issue will assume.

I will ask my last question because I can feel that the Chairman is starting to lose patience a little. Given the situation in Algeria, why is it so difficult for someone from that country to come to Canada? I know that you will tell me that we are afraid the person concerned will not return to Algeria. Should this committee, and also officials in the Department, look more closely at the situation in Algeria? I hope that the possibility of focusing on these issues is not ruled out.

You appreciate my synthesis. You know that it is one of my strong points. I look forward to hearing your answers.

Mr. George Tsaï (Assistant Deputy Minister, Partnerships, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Chairman, I did my best to follow the member's questions; I identified five, but perhaps that will cover all of his questions.

These are very interesting questions. The first one dealt with the discretion of our overseas officers. It is true that under current legislation, the majority of the decisions are made on the basis of this discretionary power, which can obviously sometimes be a drawback, but which in other circumstances, can help the applicant or lead to solutions that do a better job of taking into account certain aspects of a person's situation, as opposed to very specific criteria that would be applied automatically and that would say, according to a chart, it is okay for you, but not for you. We do not have that kind of system.

The member was accurate in saying that work is currently under way. The Trempe Group is reviewing the current legislation and will report by the end of the year.

As regards the processing of Quebec claimants, most of the cases are before the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB. The committee will undoubtedly have the opportunity to meet with officials from that organization when they appear before you. I will leave that question for them to answer.

A guarantee, directives and sponsorship. Yes, there is a directive that deals with these issues as far as processing for an application is concerned. These decisions are made on an individual, case by case basis.

Your third question, according to my list, dealt with same sex spouses. We use humanitarian grounds to determine whether, in a specific case, a same sex spouse will be accepted.

• 1650

Regarding immigrants who are investors, this is obviously a topic that has received a lot of attention lately, because it is a part of our program. These investors, while they are few in number, do represent substantial investments, and therefore there must be a high level of cooperation between the federal government and the provinces. We are currently holding discussions with the provinces, including Quebec, with a view to developing a program that will allow us to maintain the desired advantages while ensuring that it does not lead to abuse like the abuse we are currently experiencing. Several matters regarding this program are before the courts.

You made a suggestion regarding war criminals, and we would be happy to have the opportunity to provide you with information in that area.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll do that separately.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Finally, regarding Algeria, the situation is obviously difficult. There are Algerians who come to Canada and apply for refugee status. But there are also Algerians who apply to visit our country and it is true that there have been some difficult cases. In fact, before issuing a tourist visa, we try to examine certain criteria, such as whether the visitor will really go home after his visit, if the visitor has strong links to this country or if he has a stable job. That perhaps explains in part what you're hearing in your work.

[English]

The Chairman: I will stop you right there. Members of the committee have noticed what has happened. Mr. Ménard has taken nearly his five minutes with his preambles and his seven questions. I have allowed an extension beyond the five minutes simply because some of the questions were very critical and I felt the new members on the committee should receive some type of response from our witnesses and go through a learning process here. But in all fairness, I am asking each member of the committee to consider, please, if you have six, seven, eight, nine questions, picking your top priorities. What is it you really want answered, in light of the kind of presentation and information presented today? Keep that in mind, please.

Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): I'm going to try for two questions in my five minutes. First, to go back to the question raised about the right of landing fee, which perhaps you overlooked answering, what does that money get used for? What does it represent?

Secondly, on the detention aspect of your work, what rights do detainees have? You mentioned they have the right to counsel and they are seen by an adjudicator, but I have had concerns presented to me by groups that criticize the nature of the detention facilities and also allege that many people are being held in these facilities for undue periods of time without having their cases heard.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: Yes, certainly.

The right of landing fee was introduced as a contribution to the settlement funding provided to immigrants who arrive here. Bear in mind the department spends over $300 million in settlement or integration funding right now. I do not have the exact proportion here, but the landing fee would represent a relatively limited fraction of the total cost per immigrant.

• 1655

About detainees, first of all, the department detains fairly strategically. The two principal criteria under the law are whether they may constitute a danger to the public or whether they would not appear for some aspect of immigration proceedings. Detention costs a lot of money. Detention is used quite sparingly and with restraint, I think, by the domestic regions across the country.

When somebody is detained, they have a right of review by an adjudicator, and the adjudicators report through the adjudication division of the immigration and refugee board. They're not departmental employees. So they get effectively a neutral hearing where the departmental official has to justify the reasons for the detention. If the adjudicator does not agree, the adjudicator can organize, sometimes to the chagrin of the department and even of the minister, the release of an individual that our officials feel should not be released into the public.

After the first review of 48 hours, there is a second review mandatory within one week. Thereafter the person must be reviewed every 30 days.

So there are a lot of restraints on detention. It is used with great caution by the department. At the same time, if we don't detain somebody who turns out to be a danger to the public, that is not in our interest, or in the Canadian public's interest. So it is, again, not an easy decision, and a lot of restraints are placed on this mechanism.

Mr. Gordon Earle: May I have one follow-up?

After a 30-day review, if the case has not been resolved, what happens then?

Mr. Gerry Campbell: They continue to have to be reviewed every 30 days.

Mr. Gordon Earle: How long can a person be kept on these 30-day reviews? That's the concern that's been presented to me, that there are people who have been held literally for years—in essence in jail, you might say—without having been convicted of any crime under Canadian law.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: I don't have precise figures on whatever we might define as long-term detainees.

You're certainly correct: there are instances where difficult cases are detained for a year or two, whether they are perhaps a danger to the public or the department is certain they will not appear for removal in most instances. Some of these are very tough cases where we are not able to secure travel documents from the country of nationality.

The dilemma the department is placed in is that if we release someone who is considered to be a high-risk individual and they go out into the public and kill a police officer or a citizen, we're accountable for that. So it is a real dilemma for the department in the cases where it is difficult to come to a conclusion quickly.

The only reason I can think of off the top of my head for those extended delays would be difficulty in obtaining a travel document despite the best efforts of the department, or extended legal manoeuvring by the counsel of the detainee.

The Chairman: I think Bill Sheppit has something to add.

You have one minute.

Mr. Bill Sheppit (Director General, Case Management, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Perhaps I could just add that the departmental definition of a long-term detainee is anybody who has been detained for more than 30 days.

I'm aware personally of two cases where there's been detention of more than a year, and in both cases they're security cases where there are terrorist convictions overseas.

The majority of long-term detainees are danger-to-the-public cases, where inevitably somebody who is at risk not to appear would be released by an adjudicator before it got into the type of timeframe you're talking about.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Saint-Jacques.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): I will be very brief, because this is a short question that has already been asked.

You have tried to improve your selection process to avoid allowing criminals to enter the country and to avoid having to deport them. I am convinced that you are doing a good job, but have you contacted other countries to see if they have found solutions to improving their selection programs? That way, you could maintain one of the best of systems.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Indeed, our department puts a lot of energy into international cooperation, because we know full well that migration movement problems cannot be resolved by one country alone.

• 1700

A high degree of international cooperation is absolutely essential. This can be achieved bilaterally with very specific countries, or multilaterally amongst international bodies. Moreover, I could mention certain groups associated with the European Union and the cooperation that exists with European Union countries. Last week there was a meeting of the Budapest group, which is represented by all the countries in Western Europe, all the countries in Central Europe and most of the countries in Eastern Europe. This is a group that tries to control the flow of migration by encouraging member countries to adopt stiffer legislation on the trafficking in human beings and also to establish more efficient controls, particularly for transit countries.

I could also mention groups with a narrower mandate. Last week, we had a meeting of a group with representatives from a certain number of countries with relatively developed immigration programs as well as representatives from the airline companies. This partnership between the airline companies and immigration departments from various countries enables us to come up with more practical solutions and to improve, as you were saying, the way we deal with these irregular migratory flows.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I am a member from metropolitan Toronto and naturally have no end of immigration issues in my office. As I've said to others, I'm heartily sick of being an apologist for Immigration Canada on the ground.

The issue that's causing me the greatest amount of grief right now is the definition process involved in the refugee claimant process. As I understand your facts, about 27,000 refugee claimants are inland claimants. Is that basically it? Then 7,000 are government-sponsored—that is, recruited—immigrants. So we're talking in the order of 34,000 to 35,000 people. The 27,000 are a wonderful source of—how shall we say it?—moral conflict for us all.

However, it seems to me that we have hoisted ourselves on our own petard with respect to the immigration appeal board's definition of what constitutes a refugee. We're expanding that definition from what would simply be a common sense view of refugee determination as set out in the act and expanded that definition to victims of systemic discrimination.

So we have a huge irony here. First of all, we are a country that accepts more than twice the number of refugee claimants of any other country. I understand Germany and England are in the order of 9%; France and Australia, in the order of 15%; the U.S., in the order of 20%; and we're at 44%. Then we have an appeal process after a negative determination, which I imagine brings us up closer to 50%; then we have humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which brings us up over 50%; and then we have the no-identity folks, which probably brings us up closer to 60%.

Are my numbers correct? Am I going up from 44% to 60%? How does that interplay if I'm a refugee consultant or a refugee lawyer and I have to generate a pool of clients, so I have these videos that kind of get distributed around eastern Europe and other places among people who are victims of systemic discrimination, and I develop my pool, and I can say I can virtually guarantee you a 50% chance of being accepted as a refugee claimant, so don't bother applying under the immigration category as an economic person or a family reunification, come to Canada?

To my mind that is an abuse of the system. It's an abuse of our generosity, and it's an area we need to look at as a committee.

I'd be interested in your observations as to whether my numbers are correct. Am I getting closer to a real percentage here as to the acceptance?

• 1705

The second question I have is with respect to the timeframe. As I understood your comment, it was that something in the order of about 60,000 refugee claimants are out there floating around. If we're taking in about 30,000 a year, that means about a two-year process for the refugee claimants. Am I close to or remotely warm on any of those numbers?

Mr. Gerry Campbell: I'm not sure. I'd probably need a calculator to figure that out. We had roughly 27,000 refugee claimants last year, and the board's acceptance rate is roughly 44%. I'm sure the board can clarify this with much more precision later this week.

When you move up from 44% to 60%, I think that frankly you're a little bit onto shaky ground.

Mr. John McKay: Not that shaky.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: If 56% are not accepted, and if only 5% are accepted on the risk review, and a much smaller proportion, I believe, on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, you—

The Chairman: The refugee board representatives are going to be here Thursday afternoon, and while this is a very interesting question with a lot of parts to it, I think a lot of that information could be obtained from the people from the refugee board.

Do you mind, Mr. McKay?

Mr. John McKay: I'm terribly crushed.

The Chairman: Oh.

Mr. John McKay: I'm just absolutely deflated. I don't know whether I can cope with it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John McKay: If it's more appropriate to have the question answered Thursday afternoon, I'm certainly open to that idea.

The issue for my constituents, however, is that there's not a really meaningful distinction between refugees and immigrants. My issue goes to the abuse of the system that's occurring and to the gradual erosion of Canadian support for the immigration system.

The Chairman: I think Mr. Campbell can tip off the witnesses who will be appearing on Thursday afternoon to make sure they are more or less prepared to deal with figures and abuses in the system.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: Finally, Mr. Chairman, I might add one comment if you don't mind.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: I know this is a serious issue.

Regardless of what the level of the acceptance rate is of a given country, we're not alone in this. Virtually every developed country in western Europe, and Canada, the United States and Australia are all grappling with a similar problem: on the one hand, how to give protection to legitimate refugees, and on the other, how to weed out and remove persons who aren't legitimate. Regardless of the acceptance rate, probably all of us get a failing grade in terms of being able to stop abuse and remove people who aren't found to be convention refugees.

When you examine the statistics of all countries, not just ours—and I'm sure the committee will do so at some point—and when you get down to the actual removal rate of the persons who are successfully removed from the country, then your mathematics start to make sense. You get down to very small percentages. With a high proportion of people destroying or not arriving with identity documents and with difficulties in getting travel documents issued by a number of foreign governments, it is a tremendous challenge to remove somebody even when all legal avenues of appeal have been exhausted.

The Chairman: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I want to thank you for your very succinct presentation. I am a lawyer by training. In almost twenty years of practice, I stayed away from immigration on purpose.

However, having said that, I think it's very important, if I may add this for the chairman as well, for everybody to get copies of the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act, and not just copies of the regular acts, but of the annotated acts. I think a lot of the questions raised here today will be answered in the cases there. It's incumbent upon us to do our research as well before we're in a position to change the act. That's my proposition.

Again, I echo some of the things my colleagues have said. I know I didn't run for politics to make sure that I have a constituency office staff of volunteers and part-time and full-time workers who do nothing but immigration.

It was echoed too, if you remember, when we had a briefing from Diane Allard in Toronto at the beginning of the summer. Our files are full of these cases, especially in my riding of Parkdale—High Park, which is perhaps one of the most culturally diverse ridings in Canada. I don't think it's an MP's job. I don't think it's part of our job as MPs to use our limited budgets to hire staff to do work for the immigration department, with all due respect.

Yes, it's policy, but what's happening is that with the limited budgets we have, we have to be there. We get 60 to 80 calls a day from immigration. I think that's a reality across Canada.

• 1710

There are a couple of things from your presentation. You said there has been an agreement made with Quebec on the resettlement money. I understand there's an agreement in place with Ontario as well and $36.5 million was transferred to Ontario for resettlement purposes. Is that correct? It just happened this year.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: I understand the money's been transferred but there isn't an agreement at this stage. It's still under negotiation.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: One of my concerns was that when I spoke to a settlement agency, the Portuguese inter-agency group in the riding, it felt the guidelines being given by the Ontario government were quite different from the federal government's guidelines and the two didn't mesh. That's just one thing. If we are negotiating those kinds of agreements, should they be conditional, should they match what the federal government has set as conditions?

Yes, visitors visas are discretionary, and one of the things that was raised in the summer was whether we can look at the policy of implementing sponsorships for those visitors visas—post bonds, significant bonds, surety bonds that could actually be cashed in should people stay. I know the answer to that would be that people will come and it doesn't matter what you post, but it's something you can attach and seize immediately. Make it real. That may be one way to get people who are coming for a wedding.... I know the tests that are involved in that, but maybe as a committee we could look at whether it is workable or not.

There was an issue a few months ago in B.C. with respect to the use of immigration consultants. Maybe this is not the proper question here. I can't remember if it was at the board level or for immigration purposes. I've also seen a lot of abuse by immigration consultants in Ontario—people who are not lawyers, who are not practising law, and the money that's.... I don't know if that's an issue we should look at as well.

Those are just my comments. Thank you for that presentation, because it sure condenses that act substantially.

The Chairman: Very good. We'll go on now to Ms. Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you for your presentation. I found it very useful and I have just three short questions.

Regarding the deportation of criminals, there seem to be a lot of problems, especially recently in B.C., where there are several cases. They really create a lot of resentment from our voters. I know you have difficulty, but sometimes over a year you still somehow can't deal...and the tragedy happens.

The second thing is about family reunification. It seems to take a long time. There have been a lot of complaints that it can take several years, for whatever reason. The three problem areas are New Delhi, Taiwan, and China.

I have a third question. There seems to be a lot of concern about how you process people from Taiwan. There's such a big influx of visitors from Taiwan. Also, we need tourist dollars. It seems to be quite a problem because of the scandal of immigration consultants that occurred in B.C. There seem to be some rumours that the immigration department is just cut off for a while.

I want you to clarify those three questions. Thank you.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: On deportation of criminals, I can really only say we share your concern. We have a lot of difficulties with certain countries in getting them to issue travel documents promptly, not just in 48 hours but in years, in some instances. The department gives very high priority to this area. Believe me, departmental officials more than share the frustration of your constituents on that score.

Family reunification is a priority for the department, particularly for spouses and dependent children. Average processing timeframes have been brought down over the past few years and are well under a year in most locations now.

• 1715

There are always exceptions to that, one of which is Beijing, where we're confronted with an exponentially rising visitor workload, the growth of independent immigrant applications in Beijing, a space problem in the embassy, and no additional resources to throw at the problem, as we would have enjoyed a few years before. That is a real challenge.

In New Delhi, processing times are pretty good compared to where they have been in prior years, but it is a priority. We do our best. We constantly track processing timeframes, and where we see the delays are growing, we try to figure out ways to resolve them.

On Taiwan, there are two issues you may have been referring to. Our office in Taipei, the Canadian Tourism and Trade Office—what's the correct title?

A witness: Canadian Trade Office Taiwan.

Mr. Gerry Campbell: Canadian Trade Office Taiwan is issuing well over 100,000 visitor visas a year now. They do so quite efficiently. It's a challenge.

But the rumours you're referring to relate to fraud we have encountered in the immigrant investor program, with persons coming from Taiwan in particular. When we discovered the extent of the misrepresentation or fraud involved, we did tighten up considerably on applications from Taiwanese investor applicants, which were made not only in Taiwan but in other posts in Asia and in the United States. We did so for a very good reason, but that does not apply in any way to Taiwanese visitors. The acceptance rate is extremely high and the procedures are pretty easy.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: First of all, I would like to tell you just how much I appreciated your presentation. I believe that I have already met with several of you in a prior life.

Perhaps you know that I was a commissioner at the Immigration and Refugee Board and, before that, president of the Conseil des communautés culturelles du Québec. Consequently, I have a very special interest in asking you some questions.

My first question pertains to sponsoring as it is perceived and implemented by the Government of Canada and as it is perceived and implemented by the Government of Quebec. I know that the government of Quebec has certain responsibilities with respect to the sponsoring of the immediate family, and I am discovering here that the Canadian government has this responsibility as well. I would like to know how these two things are done and by whom.

My second question concerns the Immigration Refugee Board. I know that another witness is going to be coming to talk to us about this, but one of the major frustrations that I have experienced, and I am speaking to you not only on behalf of my staff but also on behalf of the other members, arises from the fact that, despite the fact that the members of the Board have turned down applications from certain claimants, we were often finding these former claimants in Canada five or ten years later walking cheerfully around the streets of Montreal.

Many of us have had such an experience. What then is the link with the decision made by the Board? I know that there is a department that looks after risk assessment and that accepts people on humanitarian grounds. Nevertheless, something is not right here and I would like to hear what you have to say about this.

My third question concerns Algeria. One of the problems that we were facing is that people could not get out of Algeria. I know that this is not you bailiwick, but people were telling us that they were unable to obtain a Canadian visa because they could not confirm that they would not be remaining in Canada because they had family in Algeria.

Given the political situation in Algeria, it is clearly obvious that these people, even though they were applying for a tourist visa, wanted to settle here, or at least wanted to be accepted as refugees. I am wondering why we couldn't establish a special directive for cases such as Algeria where we are fully aware of the fact that a civil war is being waged right now. However, we don't want to see this reality and we shut the door in their faces because we can't be sure about whether or not they will return to their country.

• 1720

This being said, I would like to say that I really appreciated the work done by your Department, the presentation that you made here today and the expertise of your officials. On many occasions I have had the pleasure of working with you and I hope to be able to continue to do so. Thank you.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Thank you very much. One is always happy to hear positive comments about one's work, particularly coming from someone who is very familiar with the entire process and who has seen it operating up close.

As for the member's questions, and particularly the link with sponsoring, it must be said that the government of Quebec also deals with sponsoring in the family context, with relatives and parents, but Canada obviously gets involved in sponsoring as well when the status of permanent resident is obtained in Canada.

There is indeed cooperation and the technical and practical aspects of implementing the law are discussed at a joint committee established under the 1991 Canada-Quebec agreement.

As for the frustrations that you have at times felt with respect to certain decisions you made as members of the Board, this goes back to a comment made earlier by Mr. Campbell; namely, that unfavourable decisions can be made, as is the case with many European countries, but at times the distance between a negative decision and the removal is not always easy to bridge.

We gave an approximate figure of 6,000 removals in 1996, and we are hoping that we will improve this number in 1997, namely, 7,000 removals. It's not that we necessarily want to send people back, but we absolutely do want to succeed in sending back those who should be.

In certain cases, you may come across people who may have been turned down by the Board and who you will see on the street because they tried different avenues, then perhaps we have had problems sending them back to their countries because of travel documents or for other reasons.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Tsaï.

Many of the questions that you have been referring to will be answered on Thursday afternoon. They're extremely important, and I would appreciate it if you would reintroduce them on Thursday. All right?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Sure.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Thank you very much for the presentations and for answering our questions. It was quite a learning process this afternoon. I'm sure that even though we have spent all this time with you, we'll have many questions to ask you in the months ahead.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.