CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 27, 1997

• 1539

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)): We'll call the meeting to order. Thank you very much for appearing.

Today we have a group of dignitaries with us. But before we deal with the dignitaries, I would like to have one motion passed. That is Mr. Ménard's motion that during the session the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration invite the department officials in charge of the modern war crimes section.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Now I would like to proceed with the presentation from our visiting group.

You may proceed, Mr. Tsaï.

• 1540

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Tsaï (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are very pleased to appear before the committee. This is probably the fourth time in a very short space of time, but I think that to date we have been able to establish good co- operation with the committee, and we trust that our answers will help you better understand the program.

[English]

We don't have an opening statement, Mr. Chair, because we are sure the members of the committee have questions to ask, and we'll do our best to answer them.

We'll work as a team. I have with me Mr. Greg Fyffe, assistant deputy minister, policy and program development; Mr. Bill Sheppit, acting assistant deputy minister, operations; and Mr. Jerry Robbins, director general, finance and administration.

We have a few other colleagues to really help us answer your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, I didn't hear all of that, because I was discussing something with my researcher here, a critical problem we are trying to solve and deal with, and....

A voice: They're ready for questions, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Okay. We'll start with Mr. Reynolds. Now, remember, you have five minutes each, five minutes allocated to each member present. All right? It's not five minutes or ten minutes to any specific political party; it's five minutes per person in attendance at each session.

Okay, Mr. Reynolds.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with a specific point immediately. I don't know what this time distribution is based on, and I hope it can be clarified immediately. When we voted on that point, I thought we agreed that it would be 10 minutes for each party and that if I or my colleague, for example, wanted to share the 10 minutes between us, that was for our party members to decide amongst ourselves. I really don't see how the Chair can rule that it is five minutes per member.

I would therefore ask you to show your characteristic flexibility as Chairman, which makes you so likeable. We should remember that it is 10 minutes for each party, and I would like it to be clearly established that each party can decide who will speak, without the Chair being involved in such a decision. Furthermore, you almost interrupted me earlier. I'm grateful that you did not do so.

[English]

The Chairman: No, it was something we all decided in our very first session. It would be five minutes per person in attendance. I gave you a rationale for that decision, and the committee accepted it, that each person here should have the opportunity to speak.

If they don't want to speak, that's fine. They have to make that decision themselves. Then we go only to those people who wish to speak, and give each one five minutes.

If we have only one or two members, for instance, appearing in the Liberal Party, and we have eight people there, does that mean automatically that we give them forty minutes? No.

You're thinking of 10 minutes. My concern is that people too often come to meetings, and they sit and sit meeting after meeting. They never have an opportunity to speak, because one person or two people will monopolize maybe the ten-minute or fifteen-minute slot, because there is no definite commitment regarding time allocation from committee to committee. We find a great variation throughout all the committees in the House of Commons, and in the way they operate.

So I was thinking in terms of making each person feel that they have a significant part to play in the development of concepts and whatever we're working on, as well as to gather information, instead of just sitting and doing nothing.

So as a result we all agreed to a five-minute term for each individual present. If you don't want to speak, you don't have to; we simply go to the next person who wishes to speak. That is what we decided.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Could I suggest a compromise that might make some sense if each person is allocated five minutes. If, for example, I'm allocated five minutes and Ms. Minna is allocated five minutes, if I want to give my five minutes to her I would be allowed to do so.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's right.

[English]

It's called opting out.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right. Rather than passing on the five minutes, I would simply say, Mr. Chair, I would like to pass my five minutes over to my colleague. I think that would then resolve the problem, and allow people to speak longer.

The Chairman: Do you wish to put that in the form of a motion—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sure.

The Chairman: —because we have another motion—

An hon. member: We agree.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

• 1545

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I might even give my five minutes to Mr. Reynolds, if he's nice to me.

The Chairman: We have a motion that has been presented—

An hon. member: And seconded.

The Chairman: —and seconded. The motion is now open for discussion.

Yes, Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): I don't have any real problem with that. I wonder what you do as far as the parties go.

You have 9 members on the Liberal side, so they have 45 minutes. Can one member say, well, I'm taking the whole 45? Can you say, our party has 3, so we get 15, you have 2 so you get 10, the other parties have 5 minutes each? It gets back to what we proposed at the start, that it should be allocated based on the size of the parties in the House.

So I don't have any real problem with the motion as long as I understand that this what you're saying. If my party has 3 members on the committee, I could take 15 minutes all to myself if I wanted to.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that with the motion we just voted on, and with the flexibility you can exercise as chair, we go directly to the content of the meeting, and we'll play it by ear.

If there is a problem we'll address it, but I don't suspect there will be any.

Mr. John Reynolds: Yes, I would suggest that we do this sort of—

The Chairman: Well, I think we're going to have to deal with that problem before we go too far in this whole process.

Mr. John Reynolds: We can have a steering committee meeting tomorrow, if you need it.

The Chairman: We have a motion on the floor, and it has been seconded.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Agreed for today.

Mr. Réal Ménard: For today and forever.

The Chairman: Yes, and tomorrow.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: All right. The motion has been accepted by those present at the committee meeting today.

Mr. Reynolds, go ahead.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to try to get some clarification on the numbers of refugees who may or may not be in the country. There was a report by a Mr. Gordon a few weeks ago that was basically on war criminals, but he talked about 38,000 people now in the process.

Yet if I look at the material we got the other day, it shows about 27,000 total claims pending, as of June 30 of this year. I'd like to know how accurate those figures can be, if we know exactly how many refugees are sitting in Canada today who have not been processed.

I'm also wondering if you can tell us at the same time how many of those refugees have been either charged or convicted of any crimes.

I also would ask if you have any programs operating in consultation with the police departments in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver—others maybe, but those are the three major cities.

I received a fax from the Vancouver Police Department today. It was anonymous, but I've now sent it back to their sergeant-in-chief to try to find out who sent it to us and what it's all about. It showed that in one day, November 20 of this year, there were 32 arrests of people who, they indicate to us, could be refugees in this country. Some were for very minor crimes such as intoxication in a public place, but others were for trafficking in narcotics, possession of a weapon, controlled substance abuse, fraud over $5,000, fraud under $5,000, violations of probation orders, breach of recognisance, assault; it goes on and on.

I have checked with the police department since then, and I've found that it's not an unusual number on a daily basis. That's just in the city of Vancouver.

So I'm wondering what kind of controls we have within the department. It seems to me that we have a lot of questions on the Order Paper, and we've asked questions: how many people are in Canada, how many per year are we planning to have come in? But how many are in that system who are not through it yet, and how do we keep track of which ones are involved in criminal activity?

If we get more time later, we can get into what we do about it.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chair, with respect to the first part of the question asked by the member, I'm going to invite Mr. Craig Goodes from the refugees branch to answer that part of the question. Then maybe Mr. Sheppit could address the other parts of the question.

A witness: Or Mr. Grant may have some knowledge here.

Mr. Craig Goodes (Director, Asylum, Refugee Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): I must admit that it's not entirely clear to me where the figure of 38,000 would come from either. I've been hearing it in recent weeks.

My best guess is that someone has taken a snapshot in time of the cases before the Immigration and Refugee Board. This number has been added to the cases of persons who, having been refused by the refugee board, are still in Canada based on risk reviews being conducted by the department or perhaps judicial review before the Federal Court. In many cases, people will access both those avenues.

• 1550

For example, at about the mid-point of 1996 there were about 30,400 cases before the board, and just over 8,000 cases in those post-claim processes. So that tends to be a pretty good fit with the 38,000.

Now, both those numbers have diminished since then. The IRB reports that as of June 30, 1997, they had an inventory of 27,100. That is the figure you quoted, sir. The cases pending at risk review within the department were about 7,700.

So perhaps—certainly in the latter case—that is not a dramatic decrease in the number of cases, but I think it is certainly a trend in the right direction. That's about as close as I can come to answering your question on where that 38,000 figure would come from.

Mr. John Reynolds: So it's somewhere in the 34,000 to 35,000 figure.

Mr. Craig Goodes: If you want to combine those two figures as people who are working their way through the claims system either before the board or as failed claimants—

Mr. John Reynolds: I believe so.

Mr. Craig Goodes: —using some other mechanism but remaining in the country to do it, yes.

Mr. John Reynolds: Okay.

Mr. Brian Grant (Director, Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): There were a number of questions in there, and if I miss it, I'm sure you'll come back and clarify.

First, so that the committee understands, if somebody is a refugee claimant and is convicted of a serious crime in Canada, then we can take steps to find that person ineligible to proceed with their refugee claim. That can occur after the refugee claim is under way. We can stop it, bring the person back, and make a determination on whether the hearing should proceed. If not, we can take steps to remove that person.

If the person has been found to be a refugee and commits a crime, then there are provisions in the Immigration Act that...if the crime is serious enough, the person can be removed from Canada, even though they are a convention refugee.

In terms of the work we do with police forces across the country, we work quite closely with police forces at several levels, with the RCMP obviously but also with the municipal police forces in a number of centres.

In Toronto, where there is the largest volume, we have a task force that has been running for the last couple of years. That task force has a permanent membership of twelve RCMP officers and six immigration officers who deal exclusively with criminal cases.

In Vancouver, the case you cited, we have an immigration officer who has been seconded to the police department to assist on immigration cases.

In Montreal we don't have a formal secondment or task force, but we do work very closely with the Montreal police as well.

The last part I heard was, are we aware of these cases as they come up, or how many are there? What would happen on the case, if somebody were charged under the Criminal Code and convicted under the Criminal Code, is that a report would be written under the Immigration Act, and the person would be taken to an inquiry. At that point we would be aware that the person...and then we would initiate enforcement action if it were warranted.

I don't have the numbers now, but that is how we would track the numbers. We would have to go in and look at the reports written and try to match that against the refugee statistics.

Mr. John Reynolds: Is anybody doing that? Is anybody keeping track to know how many of these people might be convicted of a crime, or do you keep track of even the people who are charged?

I mean, some of these people.... One fellow has seven or eight charges over a period of time.

Mr. Brian Grant: Well, we would keep track of it on a case-by-case basis. So we would watch the charges. If they add up, then you go for a removal order if it's appropriate.

In terms of tracking to see how many there are over a year, I'm not aware of a study, but I would have to check the individual regions, maybe following in their regions.

Mr. John Reynolds: Okay.

Mr. Brian Grant: But our reaction to it is that each case is serious. If there is one case or there are 100 cases, they're all serious. So we take the action that's appropriate, and that the act allows us, to initiate enforcement action.

• 1555

Mr. John Reynolds: How many outstanding deportation orders for criminal activities are there right now in the department, and how many there are for other types of activities?

Mr. Brian Grant: I'm not sure if I have that number. Before the end of the session, I'll try to get—

Mr. John Reynolds: I can understand why you wouldn't have them right off the bat, but if there are figures, we would like to know the numbers, too.

Mr. Brian Grant: I'll rifle through papers here, and if I find it, I'll give it to you.

The Chairman: Is there any one on the government side with a question?

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on the issue of refugees and the claims that are coming in. We've had complaints in my community that an awful lot of the time people will arrive on our shores without documentation of any kind, without identification. There are allegations that they've been flushed down the toilet in the aircraft, or whatever. Have you any suggestion as to what we can do to eliminate this problem of people arriving here without any papers whatsoever?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chair, this topic was very briefly discussed at our last session, and Mr. Brian Grant, who is still sitting at his place, could answer the question.

Mr. Brian Grant: I won't go over what I said to the question two weeks ago. I sort of told you some of the stuff we've done. I'll give you some of the results that are interesting.

Just to review, what we do is work on interdiction abroad to try to prevent the people from getting on the plane with improper documents. And that means working, particularly with our partners in the airlines, to train airline staff to look at these documents.

We also provide support for the airline staff when they're doing the document checks. We will give an opinion on the quality of the document if we're at the airport, because we have officers posted abroad. Ultimately, though, the decision has to be made by the airline, because they have the authority to make this decision.

We will also have the assistance of other countries that are grappling with this issue as well. So we share a common problem, and a problem that moves through Europe will often move to North America. So we're dealing with the same problem, and often the same person. So it's in all our interests to intercept this smuggling at any point along the route.

Canada was a leader in this in terms of a strategy for combating it, the strategy I've just outlined of posting people abroad, and starting to work with airlines. We have been successful enough that other countries are now copying us, the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, to name just three, but several other European countries are following our lead, and posting people abroad.

But also we've been successful enough that we have moved the problem—not entirely, but we've started to move the problem—away from the airports. In 1991, for instance, we saw that our interception rate of people who were improperly documented was about 30%. It now stands at about 54%. During that period as well, the number of people who arrived at Canadian airports dropped from in excess of 8,000 to around 4,000.

Now, what this has done is fairly complex. It's a bit like a hydraulic system: if you stop it at one place, the water has to go somewhere else.

So what we have seen is that while we have reduced the attractiveness of flying into Canadian airports, although not eliminated it—I'm not sure we ever can—we've seen an increase at the same time in people arriving at our land border. So coming through the United States is the way we've diverted them. Now, with the United States going out and posting officers abroad—the minister spoke two weeks ago about her trip to Washington, and the strategy to work more co-operatively with the United States—then we start to plug that, and we start to deal with any movement to North America by air.

We'll see something happen as a consequence of that, and you just keeping chasing after the problem. The numbers we see indicate that we are having an effect, but we haven't eliminated the problem.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I wonder if, rather than percentages, you would be able to provide actual numbers, if not today, then at some future time.

• 1600

I appreciate the fact that you did give an extensive answer at the meeting last time, but the reason I raise it again is that it simply won't go away, whether it's reality or perception. If we're having success, I think it's important that we get that message out; and that we in the community, when we deal with our local councils or we deal with our constituents, have information that says we recognize this as a legitimate problem, but we are leading the way in correcting it. I'd like to have some of the specific numbers that, forgive me, may be in all of these numbers that I have in front of me, but I haven't found them.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chair, we would be very pleased to provide the information to the member through the committee.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to address three issues with you.

Your department was restructured, leading to the establishment of a pilot project for the Quebec region. This pilot project is known in French as "l'Organisation agissante", or implementing agency. It is said to have led to violations in the way certain basic principles of the Public Service Employment Act were applied. On November 4 last, the Public Service Commission handed down a decision recognizing that there had in fact been violations, particularly as regards posting of positions and failure to distribute information on competitions.

Therefore, I would like you to update us on the situation and tell us how, in your view, that could have occurred. I would also ask you to reassure the committee, particularly members from Quebec although I know that this concern is certainly shared by other colleagues, with respect to possible measures that could be taken to rectify this situation for the hundred or so employees concerned. That is my first question. I will come back later to the two others.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: I will try to answer the question. The Quebec region, like other units in the department, did go through a restructuring process. That was necessary, not only to implement program review and also to carry out necessary cuts, but also to introduce more modern management procedures within our units.

The decision, which was made public, does not call into question the principle of the changes which we sought to implement, but the appeal committee identified during this process certain procedures which were perhaps not consistent with certain rules, specifically the merit principle.

So we began discussions with the regional office of the Public Service Commission, the arms-length agency responsible for supervising application of the merit principle, and we will determine the measures to be implemented to deal with this problem. This problem is of concern to us because it obviously affects the morale of employees in an office which in fact is very, very efficient and very productive.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I come now to two other short questions. Your Assistant Deputy Minister, Ms. Cochrane—

Mr. Georges Tsaï: She is the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Oh, excuse me! Please give her our regards.

Ms. Cochrane mandated a certain Mr. Anderson. She wrote to the employees who had complained, informing them that Mr. Anderson, who is now retired, would meet with them and explain the context in which those events took place. I have in fact received representations to the effect that despite the directives given since the judgment, nothing had yet been done. I would ask you whether it is possible to move quickly on the meetings which were supposed to take place.

I will now return to the point of war criminals. In a confidential report, which however is less and less confidential since I have a copy of it, a certain Mr. Randy Gordon from your Case Management Branch revealed that there were 270 war criminals.

• 1605

In fact, when you say war criminals, this refers to people against whom the Board has undertaken deportation measures pursuant to subparagraph 19(1)(f)(iii)(A). We have quite a precise idea of the number of people who might be deported under that provision. This leads me to ask you two questions.

In your view, what are the procedures most often used? The Minister, with her well-known eloquence, said last week that there were several ways of getting into Canada. It is not easy to talk about war criminals. It would appear that when you go to court you do win your cases. In 90 per cent of deportation cases initiated by your department, you win.

It seems to indicate that if war criminals were identified earlier in the process, it would be very easy to stop it. I would therefore ask you to explain the detection process to us.

I will now ask my final question. Under the Act, you have the power to identify a certain number of regimes designated by various ministers, pursuant to subsection 19(1.1) of the Immigration Act, as having committed war crimes. If the information I have is up to date, you have currently identified five: Afghanistan, Haiti since 1971, the Serba-Bosnian government, and the governments in Somalia and Iraq.

I wonder why the list is not longer since there are other countries around the world whose leaders have committed not only human rights violations but also war crimes. Those are my two questions.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Thank you. As regards the first question concerning Mr. Richard Anderson, who was the former Director General for the Montreal region and has now been retired for almost a year, I know that he worked for our deputy minister on management structure, but I am not aware of any steps he took in the context of the implementing agency, at least since the report of the appeal committee was published. I don't know if one of my colleagues here can direct me on this or provide further information, unless you can specify the circumstances.

Mr. Réal Ménard: When another member has the floor, I will go and get the letter from the deputy minister.

Mr. George Tsaï: Thank you. I would appreciate that very much. As regards war criminals, I will give the floor to my colleague Bill Sheppit who deals specifically with this issue, but you are asking what are the most frequently used channels. Obviously, this is a problem of international scope. Given the number of conflicts at the present time, in difficult and often dreadful conditions, there is an increased risk of war criminals arriving in Canada and other developed countries.

Given the conflicts in such countries as the former Yugoslavia and Ethiopia, we obviously must show greater vigilance. Here, as in many other immigration-related areas, prevention is far better than corrective measures. But prevention obviously implies access to information enabling us to detect presumed war criminals very quickly.

This obviously requires such measures as the establishment of lists, the exchange of information with international organizations, international tribunals, etc.

I will stop there and give the floor to Mr. Sheppit.

[English]

Mr. Bill Sheppit (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Georges.

The number you have referred to in the report, the 270, are interventions before the CRDD. Those are people who are in Canada claiming refugee status, and they are one of the main focuses of that particular report.

With regard to regimes that sponsor crimes against humanity, I'm sure you'll appreciate the fact that while there may be human rights abuses, not all of them are as a result of government action. We've identified those five regimes, and we are actively discussing the designation of other regimes, both internally and with Foreign Affairs. It is extremely difficult to get to a situation in which we can make the link between government action and the occurrence of crimes against humanity or war crimes, but we are working on at least a couple of others.

• 1610

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Take the case of the Deschenes Commission, for example. Obviously, I realize that that Commission dealt more with Nazi criminals. The Minister clearly explained that there was a difference between Nazi criminals and contemporary criminals.

You are proposing a number of things. But I would like you to explain to us the extradition mechanisms in the context of current powers. At the time of the Deschenes Commission, one of the proposals was to amend section 36 of the Extradition Act so as to have it applied before and not only after the coming into force of certain extradition treaties. In that regard, what would you suggest to the committee as regards extradition reciprocity procedures so as to impact on the process or simplify things?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: The question raised by the member is really one for the Department of Justice, which is responsible for this particular piece of legislation. We would not want to confuse the issue.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Nor would I. So we will act as if I hadn't asked the question. I will take a minute to ask one other question.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I came in a little late. I apologize for that, but I'm just wondering about the thrust of this. Could I direct myself to the estimates, or are we on some other plane that I'm not—

The Chairman: This whole area is wide open.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you.

Maybe I could direct the officials to pages 13, 14 and 15 of the estimates, part III. I'm looking at the last statement on page 15:

Although total revenues are expected to remain relatively stable over the next three years, gross revenues as a share of program expenditures should increase and you give the increase.

And the final statement says:

This proportional change is consistent with the approach of shifting program costs from the general taxpayer to the direct beneficiaries.

Could I have an explanation on this? I'm trying to fit this back into your net cost of program by business line, and I'm trying to put it together. I seem not to understand what is being said here.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chairman, what has happened in the recent past, of course, is an increase in the revenues that our department and other departments are generating in terms of the programs they are delivering. In our case, we have reached the point where approximately 50% of the costs associated with the delivery of the program generate or create revenue.

In terms of the policy itself, that was a policy established by government, shifting the cost of this particular program more and more to the beneficiaries and to the users. We have reached a level where there is a balance, but this will still increase for a while in the future.

Ms. Jean Augustine: What are some of those costs? Are we talking about landing fee costs for application or whatever?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: There are two categories, really. There are cost recovery fees both for the citizenship and the immigration activities, and there are also right-of-landing fees and right-of-citizenship fees. The cost recovery fees are a partial reimbursement for the cost incurred to deliver some specific services. The fees for either right of landing or right of citizenship are for entitlements for the benefits that accrue to members of the public when they either acquire status of permanent resident or they acquire their citizenship.

• 1615

Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Chairman, when we talk about in-Canada service and international service, are we talking about our offices overseas, those under international service?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: The international service we have identified here, the business lines that do generate revenues—this is on page 15. The international service is our network of offices abroad, yes.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Does that go for maintaining offices? In other words, if you pay for a visa, does that go towards the maintenance...? How does that work?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: The revenue generated by our programs goes to the consolidated revenue fund. We get all our funds through the normal appropriations process—through Parliament and through your committee.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Could I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Just for my own gratification, what is the difference between a government-sponsored refugee and a privately sponsored refugee? Is there a major difference?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: The government-sponsored refugee is a refugee who is going to be selected by our department abroad and who is going to be supported in his or her establishment in Canada. The privately sponsored refugee will be supported by private sponsors, groups of individuals, or organized groups.

Ms. Jean Augustine: There is no government support to a privately sponsored refugee?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: I would like to have Mr. Craig Goodes answer your specific question, if you don't mind.

Ms. Jean Augustine: In terms of dollars, when we talk about a government-sponsored refugee and a privately sponsored refugee, is there a difference in cost?

Mr. Craig Goodes: As Mr. Tsaï said, the adjustment assistance program of the department is reserved for government-assisted refugees, and we would meet their basic living needs for their first 12 months in Canada.

The private sponsorship program is an opportunity to increase the number of people we resettle through the efforts of NGOs and private citizens and church groups, etc. There is no direct access to the adjustment assistance program for those people. There are some benefits that would come out to a privately sponsored refugee—for example, language training. But there is certainly a sharp distinction in terms of adjustment assistance, and the privately sponsored refugee would not receive any.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Does anyone else on this side have a question? Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): We have been hearing a lot of concern around what's commonly referred to as the head tax, but which I guess officially is the right-of-landing fee. Do you have any studies within your department showing the impact of this fee on the number of applications being made for family and permanent residency, and also any statistics that would compare that with the impact on the economic group of immigrants?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Yes. We have examined the situation and the impact of the introduction of the right-of-landing fee and the patterns of candidates—people making an application to become permanent residents.

We have not seen any negative impact on the numbers. This is the first thing we observed. The second observation in terms of the source countries was that there was no significant impact there, either. Nor was there a reduction from countries that are maybe less developed than other countries. Our overall conclusion is that as of today, after the introduction of the right-of-landing fee, we have not seen any changes in the established patterns in terms of our immigrants.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Okay. Apart from the numbers, have you come up with any conclusions around the actual problems this fee presents for people? The kinds of concerns that have been expressed to us have been concerns in terms of a person applying who perhaps leaves two or three family members off the application because he or she can't afford the money needed to bring them here. So stress and strain results when individuals have to borrow money from the government to pay this fee. Or they attempt to borrow from people within their community, and shame, embarrassment and difficulties go along with that, particularly depending upon the beliefs about borrowing in different cultures.

• 1620

We have had examples cited to us of people who have even considered suicide because of the stress presented due to the large amount of money it is going to cost them to settle here in Canada. It does everything but present an open immigration policy and a welcome to this country.

Have you done any kind of impact on the social and psychological effects of this fee upon the people who are coming to settle here?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chairman, the member referred to the loans, and it is true that we have a loan program to help applicants pay the right-of-landing fee. Another change has been introduced very recently. When we introduced the right-of-landing fee, it had to be paid at the beginning of the process. As of a few months ago the right-of-landing fee can be paid at any time during the process. It can be paid at the end of the process, which adds an element of flexibility.

I am not personally aware of cases that involved possible suicides. This is something that would of course worry us. But at the very global macro level, I think it would be fair to say that the introduction of the right-of-landing fee didn't have the kind of negative repercussions that had been identified by some people when it was introduced.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I'll move to another subject, that of detention statistics. Do you have any statistics regarding the percentage of refugees being detained because of crimes compared to those who are being detained on the basis that they may not show up for a hearing?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chair, I'm not sure we have this information with us. If anybody does, it would be Mr. Brian Grant, but his body language indicates to me that he doesn't have the information. I think it would be very difficult to retrieve that type of information.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Okay.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Oh, maybe Mr. Grant has—

The Chairman: Maybe he has something to say.

Mr. Brian Grant: The majority of people we detain are criminals. Serious criminals are detained in jails. We detain some in our holding centres as well. We will get that number for you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Does anyone on the government side have a question? Madam Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): I am from B.C., where there are a number of cases regarding criminals. I don't know if my colleagues asked about them or not. For instance, Mr. Lai was refused in the regular process. Then he reapplied in L.A. and he just went through. He obviously has a very lengthy criminal record. I'll just use this one example, although there are many others. Are there locations, offices, where you don't have an immigration officer to check them? Or what is the problem? They tend to pass easily. That's one question I want you to answer.

Second, I understand that spousal student refusal rates are very high, both in China and in Taiwan. I wonder if there is a cultural difficulty. I understand that there's a great deal of talk about arranged marriages or that they are being looked at as not being proper marriages, etc. I also understand cases are being reopened and appealed, and that you do pass many cases, actually quite a large number of cases. I just wonder what the discrepancy is or what the cause is for some of the misunderstanding.

• 1625

I understand this process is usually very lengthy and takes a year and a half to two years. So if you have another process that takes a year and a half for the appeal board, that means almost three or four years. I think this causes a great deal of hardship for people.

Last week I was in Vancouver. Seven people from a big organization came to see me. They were all board members from the Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society and they presented a long list of concerns.

From what I understand, there's no office in Taiwan and you process a lot of visitors' visas. All the business applications have to go outside of Taiwan, and that could be anywhere—I guess Singapore or Los Angeles. That costs a great deal and again slows down the process.

This has been repeated many times to me as an MP and I'm very concerned. Would you think about how to remedy this? You're going to hear about this over and over again, and I understand you have a quite large number of visitors from Taiwan. They pay the government a good fee, and I think there are about 140,000 visitors. So each one pays the fee.

I would like to know what the income is from just the visitors alone. That should be sufficient for you to pay some of the expenses, have more immigration officers and open a special office for that.

The Chairman: Can we get some answers to some of these problems?

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

On the last question asked by the member, I think our colleague at the last meeting, Gerry Campbell, the ADM of operations, provided some background information on the situation in Taiwan. But we can revisit that part and maybe Mr. LeBane could address this question later.

For the first part of your questions with respect to criminals and whether or not we have in our offices abroad the right people to process the cases, my general answer would be yes. At least we would like to believe we have the right people, but it's a very complex process and at times we can have some situations that are not totally under our control. But I'll let Mr. Bill Sheppit deal with this issue of criminals and maybe also the second part of your question on spousal refusal, unless he would like to refer it to somebody else.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I think it's important to realize first that despite allegations and media commentary that somebody may have a lengthy criminal record, it isn't always necessarily the case.

In all of our full service visa posts abroad where we do immigrant processing, a criminal record check is part of the processing. As I believe the minister mentioned on a trip to Vancouver, sometimes errors happen. That's a normal part of human nature when we're dealing with the number of applications we get.

Sometimes all the checks aren't necessarily done, the person making the decision isn't as careful as we would otherwise wish, or a referral isn't made to another office. There are no end of opportunities for mishaps. We just hope to minimize them, and when they do happen we investigate them to see what happened and why and take remedial action as and when it's warranted.

I wasn't entirely sure, on your second question, whether you were referring to student processing or spousal processing.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I was referring to both. I understand the refusal rate is high on both.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: My understanding, certainly out of Taiwan, is that the refusal rate for students is virtually non-existent. It's very low. For China, I believe the acceptance rate for visitor applicants, including students, is in the area of 91%.

There are undoubtedly areas and private schools that would like it to be higher. There are a number of educational institutes that essentially are interested in selling places, regardless of the qualifications of their students. In cases like that, when we believe that the student either isn't qualified because he or she doesn't speak sufficient English or French to study the course, or is not a bona fide student and doesn't plan to return, we will refuse the application. But as I say, the overall acceptance rate for visitors from the mainland is about 91%, I believe.

• 1630

On spousal processing, again I think we need to differentiate between China and Taiwan. I spent five years in Hong Kong as operations manager of the visa office there. At that time, we had responsibility for processing immigrant applications from Taiwan, and very few spousal cases were ever refused.

In China it was a different situation, again because of different circumstances. The push factors for people to leave China and not return were sufficiently greater than they were in Taiwan. They would often resort to various means to get out of China, including marriages of convenience, providing false documents, or claiming children as part of the family when in fact they didn't exist. There's no end of reasons, so the refusal rate was higher. I'm not sure what it is now, but there's no doubt that it was higher than Taiwan.

Ms. Sophia Leung: What was the refusal rate?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I can't recall what it was. It seems to me it was in the vicinity of 10% to 15%. I don't know if Jeff has anything more recent, but it was in that vicinity.

Sponsors do have the right to appeal sponsorship refusals to the Immigration Appeal Board, and as with any tribunal, they review decisions. They have the right to review a decision on legal grounds, and also on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The fact that the board may overturn a decision doesn't necessarily mean the decision is wrong, because they can revisit the application. Somebody might have been refused on medical grounds a year and a half ago, but by the time it gets to the appeal board, that medical situation has improved because the individual has undergone treatment. The board has the authority to overturn that decision and send it back. There could also be a change in circumstances—a sponsor wasn't working when an application was refused, but is now. So as I say, the fact that the board overturns the decision doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad decision.

We regularly monitor the decisions from the board—again, that's in a macro sense—to see if there are any particular areas in which our officers are deficient, if there are any areas in which we're making mistakes in law that need to be clarified or reviewed, either on a policy basis or just in terms of operational instructions to the field.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Madam St-Jacques.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): First, I must apologize for arriving late and missing your presentation.

I have only one question on the performance report in your document. I read that in 1996-97, 21% of the hearings of the Convention Refugee Determination Division were dealt with by one single Board member. This contributed significantly to improving productivity, and I would like to know whether it might be possible to amend the legislation to have only one single Board member dealing with such applications.

[English]

Mr. Greg Fyffe (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Yes, that is a possibility. We would anticipate that a number of recommendations will come forward concerning the immigration refugee process in the legislative review process, and we would look at suggestions like that at that time. I don't think we would want to proceed in isolation on any particular aspect of it without seeing the global suggestions for change that may be made.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Is there anything from this side?

An hon. member: I think there was an answer from—

An hon. member: There's no answer. It's supposed to be—

The Chairman: I have already given you ten minutes now. Do we want to take somebody else's five minutes to continue?

An hon. member: The official is trying to speak.

The Chairman: Yes, I do know that. The official can come back and can take part of somebody else's time allotment.

• 1635

Mr. Jeff LeBane (Director General, International Region, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): We do have an immigration program in Taiwan. We've had one for approximately eight years in recognition of the growing importance in terms of tourist student ties and immigration ties.

Last year we processed there approximately 140,000 visitors to come to Canada. Their process is something we take pride in. They're processed expeditiously. Those 140,000 visitors coming to Canada were processed in a two-day work timeframe. We work very closely with the Canadian educational centre there as well in support of our student program.

We have a very modest family class program in Taiwan as well. We have increased the resources of the program in Taiwan to the degree possible within our available resource space.

Business applicants and independent skilled worker applicants are processed through Singapore. Many choose to apply in Singapore. They can wait for area trips to come, and be interviewed in Taiwan. Many others choose to apply elsewhere in the world, like London and Buffalo.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney, do you have anything else to add in your allotment of time? Would you like to direct a question to anyone?

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Not at this time, thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chair, I'll just follow up on the questions from my colleague Sophia Leung about Mr. Lai, the triad gang leader.

We know the reports have been done in the L.A. office, and we accept all of that. I can understand your comments about press reports about criminal activity that aren't proven, but to say he's not a criminal is like saying Al Capone wasn't a criminal until they got him on income tax evasion.

Has your department issued a deportation order for him and his family as of this date, and if not, why not?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Mr. Reynolds, my reference was to the member's categorization of Mr. Lai as someone who had a lengthy criminal record. I wasn't disputing the fact that there are allegations that he is a triad leader. As for the exact circumstances of his case, I don't believe it would appropriate to discuss the case because of the privacy legislation.

Mr. John Reynolds: Can you explain that to me? We have an individual who has gotten into Canada illegally, your own report says. Something happened; something went wrong with the system. He's now here. I think the Canadian public has a right to know if the government has made a decision. Is he going to leave this country? Is he going to be allowed to stay here?

I don't really believe that's a privacy issue. Canadians have a right to know when they have somebody of this category. I think my colleague would agree that in Vancouver it's a big issue. The people want to know. When are we going to have a decision that this man and his family be removed from this country because of his past activities?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Again, sir, I can only repeat that if the allegations are proven, then, yes, we would take whatever action is appropriate under the Immigration Act. When that time happens we'll be happy to inform not only members of the committee but also the public.

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): On a point of clarification, far be it from me to try to help Mr. Sheppit out, but I don't think anybody is trying to avoid your question, Mr. Reynolds. Maybe we should be briefed on what the privacy law says. The advice of the lawyers for the government, which they give to the department and to the minister and me, is that there's only so far you can go in a case.

So it's not a matter of one trying to evade, it's just that one can't get into it. But some day maybe we ought to have a briefing on what the Privacy Act basically entails, because it does create a problem.

Mr. John Reynolds: I understand. I'm not trying to embarrass anybody or embarrass the government. We're on opposite sides politically, but we both know when we go home to British Columbia, the average Canadian person, whether they're in Toronto or Vancouver, does not understand. We have a person...we don't have to prove it. I understand your own reports. When he applied to come through Hong Kong, they said, no, he wasn't eligible because of the recommendations of the other side. There was criminal activity involved.

• 1640

That man is here and his family is here, and I think the Canadian public has a right to know. I don't mind if we have to hold a private, confidential meeting and I'm told something that the public can't know. At least I can say there's a reason why. The reason I don't think it's good enough to be in the privacy legislation—

The Chairman: I think we could follow through with the suggestion and recommendation that has been given by Madam Minna here. We can become more knowledgeable in terms of the parameters in which we can operate as members of the committee in our quest for information of that nature. I think that's an excellent idea. Yes, do you have another question, Mr. Reynolds? Go ahead.

Mr. John Reynolds: Yes I do. This may come out of the Privacy Act too, but it's on a little different side.

There's a Mr. Myong Hun Ri, who lives right now here in Ottawa. He's a North Korean basketball player who stands at 7 feet 9 inches. There are reports in the media that the United States has asked us not to grant him refugee status because there are basketball teams in the United States who would rather have him playing for their teams than on one of our teams here in Canada. I would like to know if there's any truth to that accusation. There have been requests made from the other side that we should not grant this person refugee status. If there hasn't been such a request, why is there a delay in granting him refugee status?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chairman, as a general comment, I would again reiterate the fact that we don't feel at ease discussing specific cases while they are still active. I would prefer, if I'm allowed, not to invite my colleagues to give any specific information. Once cases are concluded, then we can have this discussion very freely.

The Chairman: All right, thank you very much. Can we bounce to this other side? Is there anyone from the government side?

Mr. John Reynolds: One more question.

The Chairman: Go right ahead, take that one question.

Mr. John Reynolds: As for investor programs, I'm just wondering where we stand right now. I understand we have a program with the Province of Quebec, but we don't have agreements now with any other provinces. If not, why not? When do you expect that you might be able to get some agreement from the other provinces for the program you're trying to sell them?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: There is currently an interim program in operation. There was a program published with the regulations available that the provinces, I think it's fair to say, were not attracted to.

The provinces themselves have proposed a different program with a different distribution of the money. This is excluding Quebec. That proposal is under consideration by the government. I couldn't promise an immediate decision, but I think there will be a decision in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: To Mr. Reynolds, the Raptors need more help than the Grizzlies, so we'll have to talk—

Mr. John Reynolds: You're being very neutral in asking the question.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steve Mahoney: As for the question I would have and the information I've been given, let me preface it by saying that the calls I get in my constituency office range from people saying that we have to stop all of the immigration to other people wondering why they can't get a visitor's visa or bring someone in for a period of two or three weeks, or whatever it is. I'm told that visitor's visas from Southeast Asia actually are rejected at a rate in the neighbourhood of 70%. With visitor's visas, I'm talking about those who come for a short stay and return home.

Would you have any indication if that figure is anywhere near accurate? If not, what figure would be accurate?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chairman, maybe one of my colleagues can comment or provide an answer. I don't know whether Mr. Jeff LeBane or Bill could comment.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: Just while we're looking to see if we have any more detailed information, I'd be very surprised if a refusal rate anywhere is in that order.

Generally, we look at where there is no problem of abuse, people overstaying, or misrepresentation. Whenever possible, we try to waive visas. Certainly in Southeast Asia there are a number of countries where people do not require a visa to come as a visitor. I'm thinking of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia. When the minister was here last time, she mentioned the pilot project we have in Vancouver for people transiting without visas, including Taiwan and Thailand, I believe.

As I said, where there isn't a problem, to the extent possible, we try to do away with the visa requirement.

I see that Mr. LeBane may have more detailed information now, but I'm not sure.

• 1645

Mr. Jeff LeBane: I have statistics that I can share with you for the year 1996 on our top ten processing areas.

Taiwanese applicants had a 99% acceptance rate. Indian citizens were issued 51,000 visas, with an acceptance rate of 86%. Chinese nationals were issued 39,900 visas issued, and the acceptance rate was 90%. The acceptance rate for Filipinos was 90%, with 25,000 visas issued. Thai nationals were issued 23,900 visas, with a 97% acceptance rate.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The ones who are turned down must all go to my office.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

An hon. member: Or mine.

The Chairman: Let me get a point of clarification here. When you're giving us that information from the various branches, and you're giving us global figures that are more or less averages or medians, I'm wondering if there's really some significant difference between and among the various centres. Could that maybe indicate to us that some centres have a much higher rate of refusal than another centre? It's quite possible one centre might be 99%, while another centre might be 65%. I don't know if that's possible. I'm just throwing that out for clarification purposes.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Our criteria in terms of evaluating applications is universal. Wherever they serve in the world, our officers are dealing with the same criteria, and we would expect that each applicant is viewed on that basis.

The numbers I provided, and the percentages on acceptances, are based on nationality. Those are global figures, they're not tied to one post.

The Chairman: I see that, yes.

Okay, we'll jump to this side, and we'll hear from Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Please allow me to table the letter to which I referred earlier, from the Deputy Minister Ms. Cochrane. Should I give it to the witness or hand it to the clerk so that everyone can appreciate what we're talking about? However, I don't want to enter into a discussion with you about it. I would like to ask you three questions.

First, if such a thing exists in the department, would it be possible to obtain an annotated version of the Act? I would like all of us to have a copy of the Immigration Act with short explanatory notes alongside. The briefing you gave us on the general operations of the department was very interesting, but as the Act will have to be reviewed after the holidays, it would be helpful, Mr. Chairman, if we could have an annotated version immediately. Do you understand what I mean? I would like us to have a copy of the Act with a small description of each section.

I would also like to ask you—

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, could you let him answer that one question, and then we'll take the second question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, this is not a question but a comment.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: I would just tell the member that we will certainly find something to help him.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, very good.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: There is a program for refugees about which I have heard a lot of good things. It's referred to as "3/9". I believe this program allows the Canadian government to look after refugees for three months, particularly refugees from the former Bosnia, after which another organization takes care of them for nine months. This explains why it is referred to as the "3/9" program. I've heard a lot of good things about this program, and I would like you to give us more details. I'm also told that the program could be maintained because, if my information is accurate, the United Nations wants it to continue.

I will ask my three questions now, so I don't have to come back. Then, I'll tell you about something that happened to me.

• 1650

Last week, I flew to Vancouver. In the plane, I was sitting next to the Jazz Festival marketing president. I'm not exactly shy by nature, I talk to everybody, and we found ourselves talking about the Department of Immigration.

This gentleman told me he was having serious problems because the new directive had doubled the fee that cultural troupes had to pay for a work permit to come perform in Canada. The fees were doubled overnight, without any warning to anyone. Many cultural organizations—I think this would apply to Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver—had not provided for that increased cost in their budget. This was not done very openly.

Could you tell us something about this, and try to find some way to solve the problem? Obviously, cultural organizations— particularly smaller ones—could easily face $15,000 to $20,000 in extra costs. That is my second question.

My third and last question—we have to be reasonable, after all—is on the two-tier fee structure. I think you know we won't be able to get out of it, and we will have to find a solution. Could you tell the committee what resources you need to assume your portion of responsibility within the Canada-Quebec agreement?

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. We'll give them a chance to answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chairman, I will refer the first and second question to my colleagues. I would just like to say that the "3/9" refugee program has proved to be an excellent partnership between the department and the private sector. We are very proud of the program's results, and Mr. Craig Goodes can tell you a bit more about it in a moment.

As for the two-tier fee structure, there was an exchange on this when—

Mr. Réal Ménard: A very lively exchange.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Lively, but completely in accordance with both treaties. You had asked what costs the department had to absorb in order to justify what we do not refer to as "two-tier fees", but alternative fees, where two levels of government play an active role in immigration. First, however, the question of eligibility has to be dealt with: pursuant to the Act, we are still responsible for security, health, and criminal record checks.

You know there are some expenses that cannot be avoided. We have missions abroad, and we also need resources on site when people decide to go to Quebec or to another province.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could you give us any figures?

[English]

The Chairman: Would you let them answer, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I beg your pardon?

[English]

The Chairman: You had your opportunity to give a preamble.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Tsaï: No, I cannot give you those figures down to the last cent. But it's a perfectly legitimate question. All I can say is that we genuinely have considerable expenses, even though some selection-related activities are dealt with by Quebec.

And there is another aspect to it as well: we still have to receive applications and do the preliminary processing in places where Quebec is not represented. The Minister made it clear when she appeared before the committee that she was quite prepared to discuss the issue, but in the context of a review of the Canada- Quebec agreement on immigration.

I will now refer your first question—the one on the "3/9" program—to Mr. Craig Goodes. After that, someone else may be able to deal with your second question.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Did you see a copy of my letter?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: No, I did not.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Didn't you get a copy from the clerk? Mr. Chairman, I have tabled a letter and I would like Mr. Tsaï to see a copy of it. Are you planning to have it distributed?

• 1655

[English]

The Chairman: Is someone going to add more information pertaining to one of the questions that Mr. Ménard asked?

Mr. Craig Goodes: I was going to speak to the initial question about the 3/9 initiative.

The Chairman: Would you do so, please?

Mr. Craig Goodes: Certainly.

The Chairman: I would like to announce to everyone that we will terminate this process at 5.15 p.m., because we do have something on the agenda that's going to take quite a bit of our time; we have a problem to solve. Or perhaps we can finish sooner than that. I would appreciate it.

Let's go ahead. Keep your answers as concise as possible, please.

Mr. Craig Goodes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. With respect to the 3/9 initiative, as you pointed out, Monsieur Ménard, this was an initiative in 1995 with the full support of the UNHCR, a partnership, as Monsieur Tsaï pointed out, between the government and the NGO community. In fact, it was as a result of a direct appeal of the UNHCR on behalf of 5,000 Bosnians who needed to be moved out of the area into Croatia at the time, and they needed the response of the international resettlement community to move those people.

In Canada's traditional response to a UNHCR appeal, we usually come in at around 10% in terms of resettling the number of people that the UNHCR might identify in such an appeal. But we approached the NGO community in the summer of 1995 and said that with the money we had available to do that, perhaps we could do better than 10%, perhaps we could take more than 500 of those 5,000 people, and ultimately we did. We took about 625 to 650, I believe, by the time the program was over.

The NGO community was very interested in participating because of the strong humanitarian needs that were identified for this group, but at the same time they were somewhat reluctant partners because they felt very strongly about the commitments of government support to resettlement that are identified in the government-assisted program we spoke of earlier this afternoon.

The 3/9 or, as it's become known, “blended” initiative was seen as a blurring of the lines between government assistance and private sponsorship. As long as we're committing to a certain target every year and committing as the funder of that target, they're quite comfortable. But when they see us blurring the lines, they're somewhat concerned that we might start offloading more of the demands of resettlement onto them than they're already taking through private sponsorship.

So even at the time that they joined with us because of the strong humanitarian need, they did say to us that they would do it that one time, but they said that if it was going to become part of the permanent landscape of resettlement, they wanted to negotiate the terms. They said to us that we shouldn't take their participation in this kind of blended process for granted unless they had more to say about how it's set up.

In fact, both sides have invested a great deal of time since then in negotiating the terms of a blended initiative that would be a more permanent part of the landscape rather than this sort of one-off response to that UNHCR appeal. In fact there was more discussion of it last week in Toronto at the semi-annual general meeting of the Canadian Council for Refugees. I'm sorry, I can't speak to that because I wasn't there, and I don't have a report on the meeting. But together with the NGO community, we are actively pursuing making this a more permanent arrangement.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: And work permits?

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Ménard, that's it. Your time is up.

We have time for one more question on the government side.

Mr. Saada, just one question, please.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'll keep my question for the time when we meet with the people in charge of the war crimes. I hope we are going to see them soon.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We have time for one more question on this side.

Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question about human rights abuses. I asked the minister last time when we met here about President Suharto being unable to come to Canada. The response was, quite briefly, that he had not been convicted of any human rights crimes in his country. I asked her afterwards who would be in a position to convict him of his crimes, and she admitted that my question was a pretty good one.

I find it hard to understand how a person can be admitted to Canada when it's very clear that the regime of which that person is the head has committed atrocities against fellow human beings, while on the other side of the coin, we have someone about to be deported who has not committed or been convicted of any crime in Canada. It's simply because of some allegation that he may be associated with a militant group back home.

• 1700

What kind of criteria do you have to create equity in those kinds of situations?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I think to some extent you're dealing with apples and oranges, because in the case of somebody who is being deported, there would have been an inquiry and there would have been evidence submitted. The vast majority of such cases are then appealed to the Federal Court and there's open, publicly available evidence that attests to their inadmissibility, regardless of the reasons for the inadmissibility, whether it's because of criminality, improper documentation or whatever the circumstances are.

In the case of President Suharto, to some extent the comments of Minister Axworthy in the House still apply. Not only has he not been convicted, he hasn't been charged of abuses against human rights. Certainly he would argue he's not guilty of any abuses, which is not particularly here nor there. We would need some sort of objective third-party evidence and then, I can only assume, international judgment of some sort against him.

Mr. Gordon Earle: What is the process on that and how does it go through the department in terms of the person applying to come?

Mr. Bill Sheppit: In that case he would have applied for a diplomatic visa at the mission presumably in Jakarta as a result of the invitation by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: You mentioned the legislative review process, and I assume you expect to report some time in the new year. I wonder if it might be reasonable to ask the minister to ask that committee to come before this committee. We could probably even do it in camera if its members don't want to talk about what they've been hearing.

You have a bunch of people sitting here who are obviously interested in this topic and what might be recommended in the changes in legislation. We obviously hear about a lot of things that are happening out there, and rather than having to wait until they make a formal report, you make changes in legislation and we bring up a lot of ideas, it may be a very worthwhile process if the three people on that commission could come here, tell us what they've heard, what they're thinking about, listen to some of our input and have us ask them some questions.

The Chairman: Ms. Minna.

Ms. Maria Minna: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to what Mr. Reynolds is saying. The report from the task force isn't the report this committee will take to public hearings. The minister will do some consultation, the department will do some consultation, the MPs will read it, and you may want to consult with your constituents, have a meeting with the group and ask them how they came to the conclusion as an in camera thing, because it's very preliminary and worth while.

After all of this I think the minister will actually table something, which we will then also have public hearings on. It will be a while before you actually get to a place where the government can't move, so I think that's fair.

The Chairman: I'd like to add, Mr. Reynolds, that the steering committee, composed of both sides, will have to sit down and clearly establish what strategies we're going to adopt or support in dealing with that report.

Mr. John Reynolds: Good. I have a final question.

The Chairman: Okay, go ahead.

Mr. John Reynolds: On entry of refugees into Canada, somewhere in the report it gave the number—I forget exactly what it is—coming in from the United States, but obviously from a safe haven. I'm wondering why we allow people to apply for refugee status coming in from the United States. They're already in a safe haven. There are Canadian offices all over the United States from which they can apply. They're obviously not in any political risk of death or any other harm. I just wonder if you can give us an answer. It's a question I get from a lot of my constituents. I know a very large number is coming in through the U.S.

Mr. Craig Goodes: At this point we do not return anyone to any country from which he or she has transited on the way to Canada. This committee reported in the spring of 1996 on some of its considerations on the bilateral agreement that we have been discussing with the Americans for a good long time now with respect to responsibility sharing for refugee claimants. The government responded in September.

• 1705

In April 1996, we and the Americans agreed formally to withdraw from the negotiating table for a period of time in order to allow the rather intense legislative debate that was then going on in the U.S. to run its course. That has in fact happened, and the U.S. legislation has now been passed.

The problem that our American colleagues present to us now in terms of their concerns about returning to the negotiating table is, quite frankly, their worry about their capacity to pursue this kind of agreement while they're implementing some pretty serious legislative change. We've indicated to them a certain degree of sympathy and understanding with regard to that, although I don't think our sympathy on that score is limitless.

It is certainly an important element of Canadian asylum policy to pursue responsibility-sharing agreements so that people who want protection and need protection take advantage of the first reasonable opportunity to acquire it. In that regard, we think it is important to pursue the discussion with the Americans. That point has been made to them, certainly most recently by the minister when she was in Washington earlier this month.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

To the assistant deputy ministers, I'd like to thank not only you but your entire support staff that you brought along here to make sure you continue in a positive way and to catch you in case you make any mistakes. I thank all of you on behalf of the committee.

I would like to point out that this is probably not going be the last time we will meet in this session. We probably will have many more meetings together, not only in this coming year but in the years ahead.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Thank you.

The Chairman: Members of the committee, I'm asking you to remain, because we have a very important concern that has to be dealt with today.

The Chairman: We've had a great deal of difficulty, not only in this committee but in a great number of the standing committees of the House of Commons, in terms of allocating both space and time for the various members because of duplication. Many people are sitting on two committees, and they can't be in two places at one time; however, the whips have decided that we only have one official time allotment. That's on Tuesdays from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. We thought we would be meeting on Thursdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., but we have also bounced in the afternoon from 3.30 to 5.30 on Tuesdays as well as on Thursdays.

No matter which time slot we look at, we have problems. What we have to do here today is go through a process to clean out those blocks of time that aren't good for most of us. Let's take a look at some of the options. The first option I'll present is related to finding different blocks of time on different days.

One choice is Monday. For many of the people I've talked to already from both sides of the House, Monday is not one that's going to please many. In fact, the vast majority say no.

An hon. member: I'm in Vancouver on Mondays—for the winter anyway.

The Chairman: I know, especially with your two other members, and with catching planes and making connections and so forth, it's difficult to get here in time. For other people Monday is out completely, so don't even think in terms of Monday, all right?

We now jump to the end of the week.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I was going to suggest Monday.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I was going to, too.

The Chairman: Now we look at the other day, and it's at the other end of the week—Friday. We now have another day that, for most of the people I talked to, also got this response: “Forget it, Stan. Just because you catch a plane in the afternoon doesn't mean we're going to stay here in the morning.”

• 1710

All right, so Fridays and Mondays are out. All we have left is Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. We can relieve the pressure on the whips' offices and the scheduling officers by having Wednesdays from 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. Just take a look at that time. Is there anyone here now who cannot meet on Wednesdays from 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m.? Can we grab that block of time and use it?

Ms. Jean Augustine: Have you any other schedule? I'm on foreign affairs and I don't know that schedule. We've been really juggling.

The Chairman: I know, but I'm dealing with ours. No matter which one I look at, it doesn't make any difference, because all the other committees are meeting on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Some are bouncing all over, some are even having meetings at night. So all I'm concerned about is when we could meet.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Chairman, the point I'm making is that I could commit and say yes, but then I might find myself in the same situation, not knowing.

The Chairman: Once the committee here makes a decision as to what days we're going to meet, then each individual here will have to take a look at those decisions that were made by the majority of the people at the committee and decide whether they're going to stay at this committee or go to another committee, talk to their whip for a change and so forth. We have to get some definite structure to this committee because we have a hell of a lot of work to do.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, I move we meet on Wednesdays, from 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m, every week.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Bingo.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Wednesday afternoon, definitely. So we have a block of time there.

Now let's take a look at Thursday. We could take a look at two blocks of time on Thursday. One is in the morning and one is in the afternoon from 3.30 to 5.30. How many here would prefer the morning slot, from 9 o'clock to 11 o'clock?

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I have another committee meeting on Thursday morning.

[English]

The Chairman: She has another committee at that time.

On this side here, how many said 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.? Just two.

There's another slot I did not mention, which was mentioned by the whip, and that is from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Thursday. How many here are—

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: On Thursday morning, I will be available between 9:00 and 10:30 a.m.

[English]

The Chairman: That's okay. Even if we go beyond 10.30 a.m., it's all right if you leave a little bit early, sure.

So let's get that vote again, for mornings from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.

An hon. member: We also have some people missing.

The Chairman: Yes. I'll double-check with them.

For Thursdays from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., counting myself, I see eight.

Now we have Thursday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., and maybe we should look at the budget and have lunch brought in. I will give you lunch. That's very close. That looks much better. So we have eleven people there.

For Thursday afternoons, 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m.—don't put your hands up. In all fairness, just in case they tell us to forget it, that there isn't a room anywhere on the Hill, let's take a look at Tuesday morning from 9 o'clock to 11 o'clock. This is an alternative in case we can't—

Mr. John Reynolds: This is the only committee I have, so I can go to any one you want to do.

The Chairman: No, only three hands up.

• 1715

On Tuesdays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., are you free? Okay. Then on Tuesday afternoons from 3.30 to 5.30, are you free?

Here are the results: Wednesday afternoons from 3.30 to 5.30, and Thursday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Those are the two that the vast majority of people can attend. I've talked to other people on both sides, and they'll have no trouble with that. It looks as though the vast majority of people will be able to attend on those two days.

Could we have a motion: all in favour for Wednesday afternoons and Thursdays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Since there is no other business, Mr. Ménard, we have a letter from you that we'll circulate. Thank you very much for the information.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Does that include lunch?

The Chairman: We're going to have to discuss it and see whether there's money in the budget.

This meeting is adjourned.