CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 26, 1999

• 1522

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): I would like to call the meeting of our committee to order, pursuant to the order of reference dated March 1, 1999, as follows: the main estimates for the fiscal year 1999-2000, votes 1, 5, 10, and 15 under Citizenship and Immigration's report on plans and priorities. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are also resuming consideration of the performance report of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration ended March 31, 1998. I shall call votes, 1, 5, and 10 under Citizenship and Immigration as this vote relates to the department.

In front of us is the Minister of Immigration, the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, and her deputy minister and members of her staff.

Madam Minister, we certainly welcome you and your staff to our committee. You may begin with your opening remarks, if you would like.

[Translation]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm very pleased to meet again with the Standing Committee in the context of the review of my Department's Report on Plans and Priorities for the new fiscal year. I know that you and the committee members have many questions to ask today, Mr. Chairman. I will therefore keep my remarks brief.

I would like to start by thanking each and everyone of you for your work on Bill C-63. The revision of the Citizenship Act is one of the government's priorities. As the long hours you spent listening to witnesses and studying the clauses show, you clearly gave this issue all the attention it deserves. I am pleased that you have approved the main features of this bill. I must also acknowledge that you made some changes that will help make some clauses clearer or deal with some concerns. At the dawn of the new millennium, Canadians can be proud to finally have a piece of legislation that clearly states the genuine meaning of Canadian citizenship.

• 1525

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word about the review of the immigration and refugee protection legislation. Since I made our proposals public on January 6 of this year, we have held very wide-ranging consultations. We took careful note of the views expressed by the provincial and territorial governments, and I myself met with my provincial counterparts. We also noted the views expressed by the public and by the various groups and our partners who are very interested in these issues.

I must tell you that most groups welcome the directions set out in the legislation. People agree that we not only want to but must make changes to the Immigration Act and its related rules. They also agree that we should continue to respect the underlying principles of the current Act, which has served Canada so well in the past.

Clearly, the Immigration Act has a significant impact on some people's lives. We therefore intend to take the time required to do the drafting and to ensure that each clause and subclause is truly justified. The work is proceeding, and I am confident that I will be able to table a bill by the end of the year.

[English]

I would now like to take the opportunity to speak about the refugees from Kosovo.

If anyone wants proof of the humanitarian tradition of this country and the capacity of the Canadian population to help people in need, they have only to look at Canada's response to the Kosovo crisis. Once the scale and significance of Kosovo refugee movement became clear, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees asked Canada and other countries for support. Once again, we responded to High Commissioner Ogata's call. Canada agreed to welcome 5,000 Kosovo refugees. This evening the final flight carrying the refugees to Canada will arrive in Trenton.

The staff of my department have made sure that the initial identification and reception of the refugees is well organized. We are working closely with experienced non-governmental organizations to make that process a smooth one. May I take this opportunity to particularly thank the Canadian Red Cross for its key role. I also want to thank the provinces for their involvement and their cooperation, and the hundreds of volunteers who help us in the military bases.

However, that is only the beginning. We are now organizing the move of these people from military bases into Canadian communities. That is where the generosity of Canadians becomes even more vital. We have already seen that generosity in the form of goods and money for the refugees. The next step is for local communities to develop groups to sponsor Kosovo refugees so that they can resume a more normal life while they are in Canada.

I understand that as we speak more than 400 sponsors have been identified across the country. I have communicated this call to action to Canadians and to members of Parliament. I know our colleagues in the provincial and territorial governments support this. These other levels of government have already helped us to designate cities and towns that can receive these people.

I know the 61 non-governmental organizations that have experience in refugee resettlement are also doing their part to find sponsors. Together we are looking for groups in the communities who can provide the support and orientation that the Kosovars need to adjust to life in Canada. They would help these people find places to live, access to services, as well as simple support and friendship. In essence we are looking for groups of Canadians to bring practical support to men, women, and children who have just undergone the most intense upheaval any of us can imagine. We are asking Canadians to do what they have done so well in the past, and they are rising to this challenge again.

• 1530

With that, I would be pleased to answer your questions about those issues or any other issues related to my department.

Today I'm accompanied by my staff at the department: my deputy minister, Mrs. Cochrane;

[Translation]

Michel Dorais, Associate Deputy Minister; Mr. Tsaï, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services; Mr. Greg Fyffe, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy; and Ms. Martha Nixon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations. We are available to answer your questions.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister.

To start, I would like to yield the floor to Mr. Benoit, from the opposition.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Madame Minister, ladies and gentlemen.

My first questions have to do with the refugees from Kosovo. I think it's pretty clear that Canadians are all in favour of having and offering refuge to the men, women, and children from Kosovo. Many have opened their homes and many others have expressed their desire to do so. So I think it's pretty clear that they are welcome in this country.

My first question, though, has to do with the security checks done to ensure that refugees who are coming to Canada are in fact legitimate refugees who truly need Canada's help. Could the minister briefly explain what the security process is in accepting refugees, these refugees in particular?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: On the Kosovar refugees, first of all, I think it is clear that we are answering a call from the high commissioner of the United Nations. This is their first responsibility, to refer to us the people in the camps over there. But we have immigration officers on the ground over there, in the camps in Albania and Macedonia.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How many?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We have seven officers in Macedonia and three in Albania. We have medical staff over there also, medical doctors to do some checking.

As you remember, in the beginning we were working only on the family reunification program, and afterwards we had an appeal from the UNHCR. What we do over there is, I would say, a minimum security check and medical check of these people. But we all know when they arrive in our country they are on military bases and they are seen by the immigration officer, and we are in contact with the security agencies here in this country to make sure we don't have any problem with these people.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What types of checks are done?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Having said that, let me point out that the vast majority of them, as you've seen, I'm sure, are women with kids and with grandparents. So we have fewer security concerns than expected.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You have fewer security concerns with women than you do with men?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: When we look at the situation over there and what happened, when we see a woman with five or six kids and the husband is not there any more, and we can imagine that perhaps he was executed or he escaped or something happened to him, I must say we have less concern, yes, but that doesn't say we don't do any security checks.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I could understand why you would be more willing to offer help to a woman with children, but I need some more explanation as to why you think the security risk would be any less for a woman with children as compared to a man with children.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'm speaking about the reality. Right now we don't have young men who have arrived with five kids; we have women who have arrived with five, six, or seven kids, and with the grandparents. The dad is not there any more. This is the reality we are facing right now.

• 1535

Having said that, it is clear that we are doing security checks on everyone, but I'm telling you that we have less concern when we see old people, senior people, coming to this country, and women with kids.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Precisely what security checks do you do? For example, do you fingerprint routinely? Do you take photographs routinely of every refugee who is coming over so that if you have to contact them later, you'll have something to identify well? Are fingerprints being taken of all refugees coming? Are photos being taken? What other security checks are being taken?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We are doing the security checks that we do for all temporary entrants into this country. We know that these people are coming to Canada, as they said, on a temporary basis. We all know that we've answered a humanitarian crisis here. So I think we have to be careful and prudent.

We know internationally also, I must say, in contact with other countries, what kind of people could be a security problem to Canada. So we have a certain profile of these people. As you know, this is not our first experience, so we are very careful. But I must say that our first objective here is to give humanitarian help to these people—

Mr. Leon Benoit: But isn't it important—

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The first reaction is not to think right away about security. It is to help human beings who are in danger.

Having said that, we have that in mind also, to make sure we won't have any problem with these people. I must say, since their arrival and the security checks that were made, it's clear that we don't see any.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What types of security checks? I'd like some specifics as to what's being done.

If down the road someone who has come over commits a crime, will we have fingerprints on file? Will we have photos on file to at least identify people?

You've said these people are coming on a temporary basis. But they're not staying in the camps; they will be out in the community, which I think is completely appropriate, but it is important, then, under those conditions, that proper security checks are done to protect against those few who would use the camps and would use the situation to come over, for example, to take part in organized crime or to raise money for terrorist groups, that type of thing.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It is clear that with these concerns in mind, we go on a selective basis here. We will do all these checks, the fingerprints, the photos, and we will check with CSIS and our police force and internationally too, if we have a suspicion that somebody could be linked with criminal activities, but it hasn't happened yet.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But without proper records, which, of course, in a situation like this you can't have, how would you know? How would you determine that this is a person on whom we should do a security check?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think we have a certain profile of the people who do criminal activities internationally and in the terrorist groups and in the organized crime groups. We have experience not only with that part of the world but with other parts of the world, and from that experience I think we can identify some people about whom we have some concern, and from that, on a selective basis, we will do further security checks on these people.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're relying on the people coming over already having a record with some security group around the world indicating that they are a problem. That's what you're relying on when determining on whom you will do a thorough security check.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think we have to have a certain confidence in the good intelligence service that we have in this country too.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But the Americans have only accepted, as of last week, 1,500 refugees out of the 20,000 they intend to bring in, and yet we've accepted the full 5,000. The reason the Americans haven't accepted more is that they can't keep up with proper security checks. Why is that the Americans are being so much more cautious in protecting their citizens than you and your department are in protecting our citizens?

• 1540

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, I recognize that the Reform Party critic here, instead of being proud of the fact that Canada has fulfilled its commitment to receive 5,000 Kosovar refugees, unlike other countries, which I would say Ms. Ogata, the high commissioner, is very concerned about because they didn't fulfil their commitment... Instead of being proud of that, that Canada has succeeded, the Reform Party critic will say that this is because of security concerns.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'm sorry to say that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, there the minister goes again, attacking the messenger, instead of dealing with the security issue.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'm sorry to have to say—

Mr. Leon Benoit: We've had the director of CSIS, we've had the former top-level CSIS investigator, we've had the U.S. Senate committee on security, even the former Solicitor General from the minister's own government, who said in fact that they're extremely concerned about organized crime and terrorist groups coming into Canada. We're seen as easy targets, so why wouldn't the minister be concerned too?

The Chair: Madam Minister, would you complete your answer and we will go to the next speaker after that.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I want to remind the members of the committee, Mr. Chair, that the question asked was not, generally speaking, about organized crime, international organized crime, which is going around the world and about which we are very concerned in Canada. The question was linked with the Kosovar refugees. That's a little bit different here. The perspective is a little bit different, and the link was made by the fact that we have fulfilled our commitment of 5,000, compared to the United States, who didn't fulfil their commitment.

I'm proud of my country, which has fulfilled its commitment to receive 5,000 refugees. What I'm telling you is that we go on a selective basis here to make a security check, and we have good intelligence in this country. We have security agencies in this country. We have CSIS, we have police who help us, and we are doing our job. Having said that, I hope we don't think that all these people are criminals. These people are human beings who need help.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Of course not.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister.

Mr. Ménard, you have the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Good afternoon and welcome.

The interpreter said 500,000 refugees, but I think the figure is 5,000.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It is 5,000; excuse me.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, because you're going to give the Reformers a start.

I would like to ask you a group of four questions. I would like you to eliminate the confusion about the landing fees that refugees may or may not have to pay. Your office was kind enough to organize a briefing session for me. Of course, we will be taking people from the camps, and I understand that at the moment, no landing fees are being charged. Tell us what you expect will happen.

I would also request unanimous consent to table a document that I would like to have validated, perhaps in writing, in the next few weeks. This document was made public by the Canadian Council for Refugees and gives a breakdown of the revenues received by the federal government from landing fees. I would like to know what exactly is going on here. I don't want to ask you questions about all the figures; I think it would be simpler if you were to reply in writing and tell us how much the government gets from these fees, how many people have paid them, and so on. I would appreciate it if you could clarify this matter.

Second, can you give me an update on international adoption and your discussions with the provinces, particularly as regards the new responsibilities to be assumed? Actually, they are not new responsibilities, but provinces do not normally assume them. Well, you know what I am talking about: the medical examination and all that. So it would be most interesting to have a report on this.

Third, could you explain the following situation? Although this is a marginal phenomenon, there are more and more people stowing away on boats and arriving at harbours in British Columbia or in Montreal. I would like a clear explanation of Immigration Canada's responsibility in cases such as that. In addition, what does International Maritime Law have to say on this?

I would ask you to answer these first three questions, and I will ask some others later.

We could get some photocopies of this document for committee members.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The first question, Mr. Chairman, was about landing fees. The issue of landing fees does not even apply in the case of the Kosovars, since they arrived here with refugee status, on a temporary basis, as most of them are still saying. We will see what happens over time.

• 1545

You asked when the landing fee applies. In the current system, it applies once the individual has been determined to be a refugee and decides to apply to become a permanent resident or a landed immigrant, as some people say. This is when the person must pay a landing fee—when they decide to become permanent residents of this country and eventually, three years later, citizens. So the fee is payable once the person decides to become a permanent resident.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You're referring to the $975?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, the $975, for which there is a loan system in place. The loan system largely benefits individuals with refugee status.

Let us go back now to the Kosovars. These people are at the first stage. They are refugees. They are not applying to become permanent residents.

Mr. Réal Ménard: So you have cleared up the confusion: these 5,000 people will not have to pay the landing fee.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: These people are temporary refugees here, as they say themselves. If they decide some day to stay in Canada permanently and therefore to apply to become permanent residents, then the issue of the landing fee will come into play. It is very clear. That will be true not only of refugees from Kosovo, but also of all other individuals with refugee status who ask to stay in Canada.

Let us take the example of people who arrived at a port of entry, went to the Immigration Board and were given refugee status—they are therefore protected by Canada. Once they decide to apply to become permanent residents, they will have to pay a landing fee. If they cannot pay this fee, they will have access to a loan system.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That clarifies the confusion, but, ultimately, individuals who decide to become permanent residents, even if they came here with a hastily prepared entry permit, under the conditions you describe, will have to face this situation.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: If they decide to become permanent residents.

Mr. Réal Ménard: For our information, I would ask you to validate the figures that have been put forward. I don't think there is any need to talk about them more at this time.

What can you tell us about international adoption?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I can say that there has recently been a meeting with the provinces to try to ease their concerns about international adoption. I would remind you that they had two concerns: they wanted assurance that the child would receive a medical assessment, and second, that a home study of the adoptive parents would be done.

That applies for both the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act. I understood, Mr. Chairman, that that is why your committee passed an amendment that refers to the best interest of the child. This amendment will enable the government to introduce regulations requiring a medical examination and a home study.

As regards the Citizenship Act, it is very clear that for the government there's no question of refusing children on the basis of their medical situation. The objective of the medical examination is to inform adoptive parents of the child's state of health before finalizing the adoption.

Mr. Réal Ménard: The dispute about which the two Quebec government ministers wrote you dealt with the financial obligations related to the medical examination. I think the association of adoptive parents, like all committee members, would like the best process possible, but the question is who will pay the costs.

Can you confirm anything for us given the current state of negotiations with the provinces?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, we intend to continue doing exactly what we are doing at the moment.

Mr. Réal Ménard: In other words, paying.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We are going to continue to do what we are doing at the moment, but at the end of the process, rather than giving the adopted child immigrant status, we are going to give the child citizenship directly.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That is clear.

• 1550

You are a progressive woman, from the left wing of the Liberal Party, so why is it that in your Citizenship Bill, you did not define "spouse"? I remember how radiant your voice was at your press conference in January, when you said you were prepared to define "spouse" in the Immigration Act. You know how appreciative I was that you were including same-sex spouses. You were more timid in the case of citizenship, and I'm sure you will tell us why.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Am I to understand that the third question is being dropped, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You're adding another question?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Come, come, we are not going to start hiding things from each other.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, no. I was just asking, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I will have three other questions on the next round.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The intention was very clear in the case of both the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act. It was mentioned as part of the direction immigration should take that we wanted to ensure that Canadians would be able to sponsor not only same-sex partners, but also common law spouses, which is not allowed under the current Immigration Act. Let us be clear: we are simply recognizing reality.

The intention was exactly the same in the case of the Citizenship Act.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But you did not define—

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: However, I must say, and I am sure you have noticed this, that this would apply in many fewer cases under the Citizenship Act, because citizenship is granted on an individual basis. Citizenship is given to individuals, regardless of their marital or other situation. The only place in the Citizenship Act where there is a reference to "spouse", is in reference to an individual accompanying his or her spouse, who is a Canadian. This Canadian goes abroad with the Armed Forces or is an employee of the Canadian government. We exempt the accompanying spouse from the residency requirement, the physical presence requirement. That is the only place where there is a reference to "spouse" in the Citizenship Act. That is the most important point, because citizenship is granted on an individual basis. The Immigration Act is much broader, but the intention is the same.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I understand the distinction. That reassures me.

I also asked you a question about international maritime law and Immigration Canada's responsibility in the case of the Romanians who were found dead in a port, for example. If you cannot give us any details about individual cases, can you tell us what the responsibility of Immigration Canada is in cases such as that?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will ask my Director of Law Enforcement, Ms. Elizabeth Tromp, to provide you with details about our legal responsibility in such cases.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Please proceed.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp (Director General, Enforcement, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Under the Immigration Act we have established an administrative fee system with transportation companies, and we have entered into a memorandum of understanding with them. That includes shipping companies. A situation such as occurred with the Romanians is very tragic, but we do not have a responsibility in that regard. However, the shipping companies have an obligation and a responsibility. Anyone who brings to Canada passengers who are improperly documented or inadmissible will have fees assessed against them and are responsible for the removal of those individuals. Where there is an infraction of the law, it would be a matter for law enforcement authorities to deal with.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Davies, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you, Chairperson.

I do have a couple of questions. First of all, with regard to the Kosovar refugees, the feedback I've received in my own community is that people are very happy Canada is bringing in some of these refugees. People are very concerned about their health and welfare and what trauma they've gone through.

But I think it also raises really serious questions about the head tax, as it's referred to. I know we've raised this with you and with the government. The response from your government has been that the refugees are here under a minister's permit, so it's not an issue, and that they may not be staying. But the fact is that for refugees in general who come to Canada, whether from Kosovo or other parts of the world that are in conflict, and who have been traumatized, to have to go through this dreaded head tax if they do choose to stay here is...

• 1555

Just from my riding of Vancouver East, where there's a very high level of refugees who choose to stay in the community, as well as new immigrants, people hate the head tax. Depending on where you come from and what your resources are, for many people that tax is very exorbitant.

I have never really understood what the aim of the government was in bringing this in in 1995. It has been condemned by the UN Commissioner for Refugees and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It seems to be something that has been soundly and roundly defeated by organizations that monitor the well-being and the rights of refugees. Yet the government still has this policy in place. So I'd really like to hear from you, one, what the government is going to do in terms of the refugees who have come from Kosovo and who choose to stay in Canada, and, two, whether the government is reconsidering this head tax and considering that maybe it should just be abolished. It's not fair, and it is discriminatory. We can't be raising that much money from it. Why should refugees be a revenue source?

The Chair: Madam Minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if we were to speak about the landing fee and not the head tax. There is no head tax in this country right now. I think nobody is proud of what happened in the past in this country when we had a head tax based on ethnicity. So we don't have that any more in this country. But we do have a landing fee for everyone who decides to establish himself on a permanent basis in this country. It is clear that we have a landing fee.

We can look at the issue linked with the Kosovar refugees or by itself. If we link it with the Kosovar refugees, I have more problems discussing that, because I think the purpose in bringing these people here was really to protect them from the situation they were in, and that's what we are doing. So we are fulfilling our duty. These people are safe. They are in Canada right now, and they are surrounded by a lot of Canadians who, as you mentioned about your own community, are proving again that they are very generous people. So they are protected. They are refugees.

As I said, if these people decide to become permanent residents of this country, that's another issue, and that issue brings, I would say, a different perspective, because it's not linked with the Kosovars. It's linked with all the people who decide to become permanent residents of this country.

So I'm ready to discuss the landing fee from a global perspective and not only linked with the Kosovars, because I think for them it is clear they are being protected.

If we want to discuss the landing fee, I think we can discuss the landing fee itself, why it is applied to immigrants, and why it is applied to everyone without any discrimination, if I can say so. It is applied to economic immigrants, the family members category, and refugees. It is applied to everything.

I think, Mr. Chairman, this is an issue we will have to look at in the context of the revision of the legislation as a whole. That's why we replied to the leader of the NDP in the House that it was not linked with the Kosovars.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister.

Ms. Augustine, you have the floor for 10 minutes.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's always good to see you, Madam Minister, before this committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have four small questions, so maybe you would permit me to put the questions on the table.

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Jean Augustine: First of all, I want to ask about the immigration consultants and why we seem not to have a comprehensive strategy or any kind of change that would deal with what we said last year we would do in this present year. As someone who deals a good deal with constituents, I know that this—depending on how you look at it—could be an irritant or it could be a facilitator. But I think this is an issue of concern and I'd like you to address it.

• 1600

Secondly, in regard to the issue of world population, the fact that this October we'll be looking at world population reaching six billion...in the strategy here on page 31, you spoke about a sustainable development strategy. I wondered whether you're looking at the growing world population or the issue of migration. I was a bit unclear as to what exactly was being stressed in your sustainable development strategy. Maybe a few words could clarify how that linkage is made, or if there is a linkage between migration, sustainable development, and our numbers.

And lastly is the issue of Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone cries out for a humanitarian response. There is a linkage with Rwanda and Sierra Leone and humanitarian assistance, including safety in Canada, as we're providing the Kosovars. I know there are a lot of individuals who are very concerned about our response to the conflicts in Africa, to humanitarian disasters in Africa, and what we see in the present Kosovo situation.

I'd like to leave those three questions with the minister.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I must say the first question is about the immigration consultants. I know that members of the committee are a bit impatient to see that problem solved. I must say the minister also is impatient to solve that problem. I admit that the progress on that file is too slow, because at the same time it is also a complex issue. I do recognize that.

But let me tell you that we are still really determined to bring a solution to that question. We've met with the different associations of consultants that we have in this country. We have three different associations in this country, and we are working with them to have a self-regulatory body that could play a role in having some specific norms. The most important thing here, from my point of view, is that if a citizen feels he was abused or he was not satisfied with services, he has a body to complain to about it. So we are working right now—

Ms. Jean Augustine: Right now it's the MP's office.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: MPs are for everything.

So right now we are working with the consultants' association on that, but at the same time we are speaking also with the provinces. As you know, in our system it is the provinces who are responsible for the regulation of professions in this country. So we are working with the provinces and the association of consultants, and I hope we'll be able to bring some solution to that.

I don't know if my director, Joan Atkinson, wants to add something. Do you?

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Director General, Selection Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Thank you very much, minister.

There's very little I can add to what the minister has already stated, except to indicate that while we're working with the consultant organizations, as the minister has indicated, in the meantime we have issued guidelines to all of our staff in dealing with third-party representatives, lawyers and consultants included. We're taking measures to try to ensure we have a way of identifying those very few consultants who may seek to abuse the system.

In the context of legislative review, as indicated in the public document, we're taking the opportunity of legislative review to provide us with tools to strengthen measures against unscrupulous third-party representatives or consultants who may seek to submit fraudulent documentation or to misrepresent. We're also looking at that in the context of new inadmissibility clauses within the legislative reform, as indicated in the public document.

So there are a variety of actions on a number of fronts that we're taking in this very important area.

• 1605

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, for the second question about sustainable development, my assistant deputy minister, Greg Fyffe, will answer that.

The Chair: Mr. Fyffe.

Mr. Greg Fyffe (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Mr. Chairman, the department tabled a sustainable development strategy in December 1997, and we feel that overall the economic and social objectives of our programs are compatible with the overall social and economic objectives of the government on sustainable development.

In the area of the environment, in so far as it pertains to the environment, there is a limited amount we can do; however, we are doing a number of things. First of all, we make sure that newcomers are aware of the environmental priorities of Canada when they arrive, and they receive booklets and educational material as part of the citizenship program. Secondly, the department itself has many of the programs that other departments have for the management of waste and encouragement of a sustainable development attitude among employees. Third, when we enter into discussions with provinces, increasingly we're bringing in wider issues when we talk about immigration levels to give provinces, if they wish, an opportunity to bring forward broader social and economic issues in the context of the overall immigration program.

In so far as sustainable development has a wider ambit, with other countries and environmental degradation and so on, that really falls more under CIDA than it does under us, but it's part of the government's overall approach.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: For the last question, Mr. Chairman, about Sierra Leone, Gerry Vankessel, the director general, refugee branch, will give the answer.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Mr. Gerry Vankessel (Director General, Refugee Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to Sierra Leone and other countries in difficulty in Africa, and from which refugees and family members can come, our position or our response at the present time is twofold. With those people who are refugees, we deal with the UNHCR, requesting from them referrals that they make to us for our review, and then for processing to Canada.

Secondly, with respect to those people who are sponsored, that follows the normal sponsorship process, of which we are slowly getting an increase in number. We are dealing, at the present time, with some members of the Sierra Leonean community in Canada who have indicated to us that they're concerned about the situation there.

Several of the problems we face, Mr. Chairman, are the difficulties with respect to infrastructure, the real difficulty in finding the people where they are in order to help them, from our embassy, from our office in Accra in Ghana. We are making visits to the area and to the Congo as well.

A final comment would be that we are looking, at the present time, to expand our refugee resettlement program relatively significantly, I would say, in Africa, particularly as the Bosnian program slows down and decreases in numbers. We are discussing, internally as well as externally, increased activities in Africa and increased resettlement out of Africa.

The Chair: Are you done?

Ms. Leung, and then Grant McNally.

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

It's very nice to see the minister here. I just have three little questions.

First, I understand there is a new immigrant investor program that came into effect in April 1999, and I want to know what the key differences are between the Quebec program and the national one. That's the first.

The second is that I know you have a very good settlement program for newcomers, and the federal government has been giving grants to the provinces of B.C., Manitoba, and Quebec. I notice Quebec's grant is sizeably higher than B.C.'s, but B.C. is receiving a lot more immigrants compared to Quebec. I'd like to know the rationale.

Third, concerning spousal reunion and visitors' applications, there have been many complaints from the west—not just B.C., but from many other provinces from the west. Visitors' visas have been turned down very easily. Also, regarding spousal reunions, I wonder what kind of standard you can use to say whether this is a true marriage or not, because many constituents come to me, and much suffering has been generated.

• 1610

So I'm a little bit concerned about whether our government has standards, a formula or a strategy, to measure what is a false marriage, what is a true marriage. I understand sometimes it just depends on the love letters and telephone calls; that sometimes it's not standard, not good enough.

Minister, this is the complaint I have heard. It's been said that there are not enough long distance phone calls, but long distance phone calls are costly sometimes from one country to another.

I wonder if you can enlighten me on these three questions. Thank you.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, in terms of the investor program, we have a new program since April 1, 1999, as you know. Of course, this is a program for the nine provinces and the two territories because Quebec has its own program. Quebec has its own program because we have a special agreement with Quebec on immigration matters, the Canada-Quebec accord, which gives to Quebec the selection power of its independent immigrants. Independent immigrants include skilled workers, entrepreneurs, and investors. This means that Quebec could have its own criteria for the investor program.

According to the agreement we have with Quebec, there's also an obligation to harmonize our criteria, and I must say that with the new program there's an agreement with Quebec, so it means the amount of money we're required to invest is the same. The program is quite different, because for the rest of the country, as you know, there will now be only one fund, one federal fund, that will be distributed to the provinces according to a formula. For Quebec this is different, but I must say that a requirement for the investor is the same—the amount of money. It's $400,000. Also the net worth is the same; it is $800,000. So it's exactly the same.

There's a little bit of a difference here, because Quebec is responsible for its own selection of immigrants, including investors. That means the Government of Quebec has offices abroad, has immigration officers abroad, who take, I must say, a more aggressive approach to try to attract immigrants to Quebec. In the other provinces it was clear that the provinces didn't want to have the responsibility in selection; they wanted to be involved in other matters, and that's why I have a very comprehensive agreement with B.C. But they are not involved in selection abroad.

Having said that, we work with the other provinces to have a new system that will be, I think, competitive with the one in Quebec, but this is a matter of choice for the investors who decide to come to our country. And the new federal program will have a marketing strategy. This is clear.

So that's the major difference between the two.

The second question is about the settlement services. Of course, it's not the first time I've had a question about the difference of money given to Quebec and the other provinces, this time to help to integrate immigrants. When we speak about settlement services, it's to help integrate immigrants into our community.

Again, I want to refer to the Canada-Quebec accord, which was signed in 1991 by the Mulroney government. In that accord there's an annex where all the financial requirements of the accord are written, and there's a minimum we have to give to the Province of Quebec each year regardless of the number of immigrants they receive. This is part of the accord. That accord is like a legal contract, and that contract cannot be changed without mutual consent. This is the reality.

So I respect the contract we have in place, which was signed by the former government. But at the same time, what we have done is we've worked very hard to increase the budget of settlement. Remember, two years ago we increased the budget for settlement by $65 million in this country. That's why, because of that increase, the B.C. government decided to sign an agreement with us and decided to become responsible for settlement services.

• 1615

So, for me, when they decided to sign an agreement it was proof that they were at a certain point also satisfied with the amount of money they were assuming from the federal government. That's the whole story, Mr. Chairman.

Finally, on your last question, which was especially about spouses but also how we determine if it's a marriage of convenience or not, we must say, Mr. Chairman, that, first of all, it's quite different from one country to the other. Each country has its own culture, its own way to do things, and weddings are part of the culture of a country. I think you know that in some countries of the world they still have arranged weddings. In some other countries of the world, it is not the case. So each country has a specific way, and my officers, who are on the ground, are aware of the culture of the country where we are and they ask for proof that it's a real marriage. So it could be different from one country to the other, and it could also be different after the person is interviewed.

I must say that sometimes when we have a person here in Canada who asks to sponsor a wife or a husband, that person is interviewed and answers some questions. At the other end, the spouse, who is in the country of origin of that person, has an interview and answers some questions, and sometimes we have contradictions in the answers, so we have to clarify that. When we have contradictions in the answers I think we have to clarify that, because unfortunately there are some cases where we find afterwards that it was a marriage of convenience. Remember, we discovered a racket around that in Canada involving students who were given money to marry foreign people just to get their landed immigrant status in this country. It happened some years ago.

So I think we have to be careful but at the same time flexible. Having said that, I think at the end of it, with all the proof an officer has in front of him, he also has to make a judgment call. But the person keeps the right to appeal that decision. She has an appeal right to the appeal board of the Immigration and Refugee Board. So I think we have all the safeguards here to be sure that we're not mistaken.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister.

Mr. McNally has the floor.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): I have more questions today. I'd like to briefly do a back and forth here, rather than give you all the questions at once. I promise you I won't ask you about love letters.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, whom you made reference to, also conducted a survey and found that no other country imposes the type of right-of-landing fees or head tax, as it was referred to my NDP colleague, as Canada does. Would you agree with that, that Canada is the only country that applies such fees?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'm checking, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Grant McNally: It's a pretty straightforward question. Maybe we'll go to the second question while we're waiting.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, my people will look at it.

Mr. Grant McNally: Sure.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: But let me tell you that when we compare the different fees of countries, sometimes we have problems in matching; they're not exactly the same kinds of fees.

Mr. Grant McNally: Let's leave that one for now, because time is so precious here.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: They are checking it, but I think it's difficult to—

Mr. Grant McNally: Let me ask you about this right-of-landing fee here in Canada, because we do know about that.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes. Let's speak about our situation.

Mr. Grant McNally: Certainly, we do know about that, and we do know what other people have said about it. We know that the Liberal Party of Canada has asked for a re-examination of the entry fee of $975, with a view to its reduction or abolishment. That was a resolution it adopted in October 1996. We know that the Canadian Council for Refugees calls it a head tax in their documentation. I know you don't like that term, but that's what a lot of people call it, and I'm going to use that too. They call the right-of-landing fees discriminatory, exclusionary, and racist because of the vast variance in country and individual income around the world.

• 1620

You talked about flexibility. I'm wondering, first of all, why there appears to be no flexibility on removing that head tax.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you why I do not agree with the term “head tax”. It's because when I speak with some people from the Chinese community in this country, they feel offended. Do you know why? It's a black page of our history. So it's not fair. And when these people don't feel well when we use that term, I do understand that. That's why I'm saying we're better to use “landing fee” here, not to offend anybody.

Second, I'm very happy to see that my colleague from the Reform Party reads the resolutions of my political party. I'm sure he will find some very good ideas for his own party.

I think we have to be very clear here, Mr. Chairman. We are speaking about a person—you're speaking about refugees, I understand—who receives the protection of Canada. That person is in Canada, receives the protection of Canada, and is a refugee.

We could have all kinds of situations. We can have a refugee who was selected abroad in the camps, who was in a very bad situation, who came to Canada as a refugee, decided to become a permanent resident and has to pay the lending fee—let me finish—

Mr. Grant McNally: We know the process; we're just wondering about the fee.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I want to say that we have never refused a person in this country because that person was not able to pay that lending fee. Let's be clear that this is a reality.

Second, let's also say we have these people who come to our country at the port of entry to look for the protection of Canada—the asylum-seeker. You're the first to say they stay too long in our country. Yet these people could stay in our country for one or two years before knowing the answer.

During that time, these people have a working permit. Let's be practical here; I'm not speaking only about principle. Some of these people are working; they have revenue. When they are recognized as refugees and they decide to become permanent residents, here come the landing fees. This is the reality we have. This is the policy we have.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm saying we will revise that policy from the perspective of the revision of the legislation.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm going to get the rest of my questions on the table. I think that process would work better for me, so I get my questions out there.

First of all, how many people apply for the loan aspect for the head tax? How many people get it? What were the revenues for refugees who then applied for permanent residence in the years 1997 and, if you have totals, 1998? Maybe those aren't in yet, but there may be preliminary figures. What would be the totals for those?

You have talked about revision to the head tax twice. I'm wondering when that will happen. You said it will be coming up in the proposed legislation.

I'd like you to first of all focus on those other three questions, if you could.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I don't have the specific numbers, but I can ask my people to give you exactly the numbers. My assistant deputy minister has the numbers.

Let me tell you that the vast majority of people who apply for loans are refugee people, of course, and that's understandable. The vast majority of these people reimburse their loans.

Mr. Grant McNally: Do you have figures as to how many would apply and how many get it?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, we will give you these answers. The average revenue of these landing fees for refugees is around $15 million a year.

Mr. Grant McNally: One last question. What would you say to—

• 1625

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Do you want to have the answer for the other question?

Mr. Grant McNally: Oh sorry, yes.

Mr. Georges Tsaï (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair. We don't have the numbers for 1998-99, but the numbers for 1997-98...total revenue generated by the right-of-landing fees was $119.7 million, and as the minister said, refugees contributed to the tune of $15.6 million, which represents 12.5%.

In terms of the numbers, total refugee numbers are approximately 25,000 to 29,000 people. But not all permanent residents pay the right-of-landing fee. It's only paid by people who are 19 and older.

With respect to how many of them take advantage of the loan option in terms of refugees, 20% of the in-Canada refugees use the loan option, and 90% of all the applications for loans are accepted.

Mr. Grant McNally: One last question, and this has to do with the administration fee. I know there's the $975 head tax or right-of-landing fee and also the $500, which is non-refundable upon application. Is there any consideration, Madam Minister, in the new legislation to remove that as well? If you add up the $975 and the $500, that adds up to almost $1,500.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, the policy of recovery of costs is not put in question under the revision of the legislation. I think it is clear that there's a recovery cost for the services received by the people.

The Chair: Before I call on Mr. Mahoney, I do not know if you have said it, Madam Minister, but the chair would like to convey to the committee that when the landing fee was first announced and we made representation to the minister, there was a group in Manitoba from all ethnic groups that signed a petition, including one member from the NDP provincial caucus in Manitoba, accepting the fee because of the reality of the day. Now they would like us to change the timing of payment. This is public record. It has been tabled in the House of Commons.

I am very grateful for the minister for in fact changing the policy. The timing of payment for the landing fee may be made at the time of application, during the processing of the application, and at the time of the issuance of the visa. I thought I should share that with committee members, for information.

Mr. Mahoney.

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

Minister, I'd like to pursue the issue of the sponsorship, and not necessarily by a spouse, but by a fiancée. Take a case study where there's a young man who has a handicap and therefore is unable to work and earn very much money. He has a fiancée whom he wants to bring to the country, but he doesn't qualify financially to be a sponsor. She has a sister who lives in this country and is married, and the combined family income of the sister and her husband would certainly qualify financially, but because this individual is—I'm sure your staff will know the answer to this; it's not a trick question. I reserve those for those people over there, Minister, not for you.

Let me finish the question and then maybe we'll get an answer. So the sister is over 19, she's married, and financially she would qualify to sponsor. But because she's over 19 we're being told that she does not qualify to sponsor, because once a sibling exceeds the age of 19, they're not qualified as direct family, for some strange reason. That's the term I'm being told.

So I guess I'm curious, in sponsorship, why the sister would be turned down as an able sponsor when she's willing to sponsor this individual. I understand turning down the financial situation of the young man. I'm further informed that if the sponsorship works and that individual is allowed to come here, if they don't get married within six months then she has to leave as part of the rules. Maybe somebody could clarify this rule on sponsorship for me.

• 1630

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, perhaps I will ask one of my directors to get on that situation because this is for a fiancée and not a spouse.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: For a spouse, as you know, there's no financial requirement.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I understand. It's for a fiancée. But in fairness, it's also for a sibling, because if the fiancée doesn't qualify, the sibling is being ruled out because that individual is not considered direct family.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I will ask Madam Joan Atkinson...

Ms. Joan Atkinson: If I understand correctly, the issue here is, who has the right to sponsor? In the fiancée case it has to be the fiancée in Canada who files the sponsorship, because we have to remember that a sponsorship is an undertaking on the part of the individual who is going to be responsible for the sponsored immigrant they're bringing to Canada.

You can't have another family member, like a sibling, sign that undertaking because it must be the fiancée who signs that undertaking to provide for the care and support of the immigrant. So in the situation, if I understand your question correctly, the sibling of the fiancée in Canada cannot sign that sponsorship because it must be the fiancée themselves who sign the sponsorship, and in the case of fiancées there is the financial requirement that must be met as opposed to the sponsorship of spouses, as the minister indicated.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is the issue here that the taxpayer not wind up saddled with the financial responsibility for this person, that there indeed be a sponsor in the middle who will ensure that housing and basic needs are met for this individual? Is that really the issue?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, the issue is the obligation on the part of the sponsor.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Sponsorship is a serious commitment, and when a sponsor signs an undertaking of assistance they are committing to providing for all the needs of that sponsored immigrant for the period of that sponsorship, which as you know now for all family class cases is 10 years. The sponsorship is the commitment on the part of that Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada to provide for that sponsored family member without the need for that sponsored family member to rely on social assistance.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, it may be that I'll have to take this up...my staff have been dealing with this particular issue. But I find it rather bizarre that we would have a sponsorship program in place that is designed to ensure that the sponsor is capable of living up to that requirement, and just because it's a sibling she can't step into the breach to ensure that this person is indeed properly sponsored, comes over here, marries this young man, and because this young man has a handicap, the spouse-to-be, the fiancée, would provide support for him, for goodness' sakes. So it strikes me that the sponsorship rules are somewhat rigid in that particular case.

I really didn't want to take the time of this committee to deal with a constituent problem, and I'll follow that up. It occurred to me that the rules of sponsorship are indeed somewhat rigid.

We hear a lot of mixed messages. I was reading in one of the papers on the airplane that with regard to the Kosovar refugees we're in desperate need of sponsors, and I wonder if there's some explanation. I'm led to understand that the majority of the refugees who have come here do intend to go home. That may change. It's clearly their right, once they're on Canadian soil, to claim refugee status and apply for permanent status. Why are we looking for sponsors for Kosovar refugees who intend to go back to their home should that option ever present itself to them?

The Chair: Madam minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I think it's a very good question, and I think it has proven that there is a certain confusion here about why we say sponsorship. We've used the same word that we usually use for permanent government sponsorship or permanent private sponsorship. When you speak about sponsorship, people here in Canada think, first of all, this is on a permanent basis, and, second, when we have private sponsorship in this country in the regular system, the sponsor himself has to commit some financial help.

• 1635

That's the kind of sponsorship we have in our regular program. That's perhaps why right now there is a certain confusion, because what we've asked...as you know, yes, it is true the vast majority still want to go back to Kosovo. I don't know what will happen a few months from now, but this is still the case. But we decided the best thing for them was to live in communities and not on military bases for months, with kids. These people have to go to communities.

They do not know anything about Canada. They have a language barrier, as you know. So we spoke a lot with our NGO community in this country, who are used to helping refugees, and the NGO community told us that the best way to help them integrate in this community was to have some sponsors in the community. In French, I think we can use

[Translation]

the word "twinning" rather than the word "sponsorship".

[English]

I think it's better to use...I don't know what the term is in English. It's not to sponsor financially and on a permanent basis; it's to accompany a person, to be there for her, to help her find a place in the community, to find a house, to explain the services, how the kids can go to school, to give some support, some friendship. That's why I think we have a certain confusion right now among Canadians, and I think we will have to clarify that message.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister.

[Translation]

Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to ask you a few questions today, Minister.

My first question is about the administrative agreements between the provinces and the Government of Canada, including the one between Quebec and the Canadian government. I know that British Columbia and Manitoba have recently signed new agreements under which the department gives the provinces responsibility for delivering certain services and for administering educational programs.

Might some other provinces sign agreements of this type involving the same type of relationship between the provincial government and the Canadian government? If not, are there some fundamental problems preventing this?

My second question is about a situation we were both familiar with when we were in the Quebec government. When I was there, the Ministry of Cultural Communities and Immigration offered immigrants a service that evaluated their credentials. I think a provincial department is still certifying immigrants' diplomas from their country of origin or from countries in which they worked and also the skills they acquired in other countries compared to those they may have acquired here in Canada or Quebec.

To my great surprise, I discovered that Quebec was the only province offering this type of service. As minister, could you suggest to the provincial governments, particularly the governments of British Columbia and Manitoba, that they offer such a service to immigrants arriving in these provinces, given that I and a number of my colleagues think that this is an extremely important service for immigrants? Thank you.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, the first question was about the agreements we signed with the various provinces. Since I have had the privilege of being in this position, Mr. Chairman, we have signed an agreement with British Columbia and Manitoba. We had previously signed agreements with Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and, as you know, Quebec. Each of the agreements is different.

• 1640

As you know, the federal government shares its jurisdiction in the area of immigration with the provinces. We held discussions with each province regarding their interest and desire in becoming involved in immigration.

I would like to tell you about an important difference. The agreement we signed with British Columbia also covers a pilot project regarding the selection of entrepreneurs that the settlement services of the province has taken over completely. New Brunswick, on the other hand, decided to sign a very very limited agreement that deals solely with the special category known as provincial nominees, under which a province could identify its own selection criteria for a certain number of independent immigrants.

For two or three years, we have made a great deal of progress in co-operating with the various provinces involved in immigration. Only two provinces—Manitoba and British Columbia—signed the agreement on settlement services, and we transferred to them not only the necessary funding, but also our staff that handled these settlement services.

At the present time, the other provinces don't seem to have any manifest will to take this responsibility from the Canadian government. So I'm still waiting for a request, but we're open to any potential agreement with any one of the territories or provinces.

The second question, Mr. Chairman, is very, very important because it has to do with the whole dimension of recognizing foreign diplomas and qualifications for anyone arriving here. Once again, it's a very complex matter because that falls under provincial jurisdiction. Sometimes you have different evaluation systems or those systems only exist in an embryonic state, in some provinces. Quebec, on the other hand, has a very well-structured system.

I must say that over the last year, we've made a lot of progress with the provinces in that area. We're just about to conclude an agreement with the provinces with a view to implementing an evaluation mechanism that would be used at the national level. I don't have to tell you how useful that would be, not only so that we can recognize the diplomas and qualifications of immigrants, but also that, like any other citizen, they also can have the benefit of the right to mobility in this country. We're working very closely with the provinces. I don't know if Ms. Atkinson has anything she'd like to add.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

With regard to recognition of credentials, as the minister has indicated, we are working very closely with the provinces because recognition of credentials and licensing of trades and professions is a provincial area of responsibility. But it's very important for us that we make some progress in this area in order to remove barriers to the extent that we can for newcomers.

We are also working at the federal level with Human Resources Development Canada, who have a direct interest in this dossier as well, with regard not only to newcomers but removing barriers for mobility between provinces and recognition of credentials for Canadians moving between provinces.

In the first instance, our first objective is to ensure that we have better information available to intending immigrants. It's important that an intending immigrant, before they make the decision to apply, understand very clearly what are the barriers they may face and what are the processes they may have to go through in order to get their credentials recognized.

We are working with professional associations and the provinces and NGO groups as well to ensure that we have better information in the hands of prospective immigrants before they make their choices.

Second, as the minister has indicated, we're working toward the development of a network of provincial credential assessment services. The decision has been taken with the provinces that we may not be able to design a national credential assessment service because of the provincial interest and jurisdiction in this area, but we'll have a network of credential services that will share information between them.

• 1645

Thirdly, we are working toward a national symposium on the issue of credential recognition in Canada. We are hoping to be able to co-host or co-sponsor, with the provinces and the department of human resources in Canada, a national symposium on this very important issue in the fall, so we may begin the process of engaging not just the provinces but the professional associations themselves, in identifying solutions.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, you have the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you. I have three brief questions.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I think I will have to go back to one question at a time.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, you shouldn't be directive like that. That always disturbs me a bit. I'll try to stay within the limits you've set out, but I'd like to put three brief questions which the Minister will most probably like.

Maybe she could tell us what happened with the Ethiopian circus matter? Foreign Affairs had given a grant in the context of their program on cultural initiatives, but I was told a lot of those people didn't manage to get an entry visa.

Secondly, could you tell us anything about the fact that in the matter of subsidies given to Quebec for establishment purposes, we've gone from 101 million dollars in 1998-99 to 95 million dollars? What's the explanation? Is it for all the people going to Quebec? How should we be taking this?

[English]

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: My director, Bill Sheppit, will answer the first question.

Mr. Bill Sheppit (Director General, Case Management Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): I can't divulge the exact details of any application overseas because of privacy legislation, but in this case, the visa office was not satisfied that the people who were seeking entry to Canada met the requirements of the Immigration Act and regulations, and therefore had to refuse the application.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You know there's a problem because Foreign Affairs announced it on the Internet; what we have here is a decision made by a department being cancelled by another. I'd like this to be looked at because it seems to me it's a bit of an embarrassment. It's a circus and we all need humour in our lives, Madam Minister. It would do us no harm to take a little trip to the circus.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, when I need that kind of diversion, I go to the House of Commons everyday.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are you talking about me?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The second question concerned the amount allotted for establishment services in Quebec. I don't know if you're aware of the financial indexation clause in the framework of the Canada-Quebec agreement. There are different factors that have to be taken into account when attributing the amount to Quebec. One of these factors is the number of non-francophone people arriving in Quebec each year. If, in a given year, Quebec gets a percentage of non-francophones higher than the preceding year, it is entitled to an indexed amount.

It's very complicated. I can give you the financial formula. What you see in the figures, broadly speaking, is that we had to pay for the two previous years. That's why the amount reached 101 million dollars and went back down to 95.7 million dollars, which is the basic amount.

Mr. Réal Ménard: And for the circus?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'll have a look at that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Unfortunately, I must leave. I apologize.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Have a nice trip back to Montreal.

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no, I'm going—

[English]

The Chair: Are you done with your questions, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Will you allow me another one?

[English]

The Chair: You still have one minute.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I still have some time left?

[English]

The Chair: One minute.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, you should have told me you were ready to be so generous.

[English]

The Chair: I like him.

Make it short.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: On page 7 of the document, it says that CIC accepted to play a leadership role in setting up a protocol for the organized passage of illegal migrants which would be part of the USA agreement on transnational organized crime. You know my interest in that matter although my perspective is, I believe, different from that of other parties in this House. Could you tell me what your department's contribution is?

[English]

The Chair: Madam Minister.

• 1650

[Translation]

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, it's a very important question for the Government of Canada and all Canadians. This deals with the problem of trafficking in human beings and this is happening more and more on a global scale. At this point, at the United Nations, we're preparing a protocol on organized crime in general but there are three sub-protocols and one of them has to do with illegal migrants and the other one more particularly with women and children.

It is clear that this question is of great interest to us. We're part of the groups and we're present at international meetings trying to write up this protocol because the solution must absolutely be international. We're contributing to its wording. We're in contact with other countries and we hope that we will have a protocol by the end of this year.

Would the deputy minister like to add a word?

Ms. Janice Cochrane (Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Yes, thank you.

[English]

The G-8 countries have decided to develop common language for this international protocol, as a way to try to form a block to attack this difficult problem of migrant smuggling. Canada has agreed to take the lead for the G-8 countries in advancing citizenship.

[Translation]

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Réal Ménard: —

Ms. Janice Cochrane: It's a common approach.

[English]

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has been asked to take the leadership role on behalf of the Government of Canada in developing language for the G-8 countries to put forward to the United Nations.

The Chair: Ms. Davies, you have the floor.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you. I'd like to ask about the process for application and also visitor permits. We deal with a lot of cases in our riding of Vancouver East, and the thing I hear over and over again is just the amount of discretion that's involved.

Because we deal with a number of different offices—and maybe other members have had similar experiences—one gets a sense that there are some offices that are very good to deal with. You get information when you ask for it. When something's being held up or if a visitor permit has been turned down, sometimes they'll give you a reason. Other offices are really very difficult to deal with. I get lots of concerns and complaints about the amount of discretion that's involved. I've written to you and your department many times on this.

How does your department assess whether or not there are biases within the system, in terms of the way individual offices operate or the way a particular office as a whole operates? Do you actually go back and talk to people who have gone through the system and been successful, as well as people who didn't make it?

What kinds of checks and balances do we have to ensure that discretion isn't being used in a way that actually displays a lot of bias? We get complaints about that, and I know there's a huge amount of concern in the community about it. It's one of the issues that's come up through the white paper, the discussion paper.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I will ask my director, Jeff LeBane, to answer that question more specifically. But let me point out at the beginning that I understand the concern of the member of Parliament who is asking the question right now.

All the people who come to our riding office have problems with the system. They or a family member may have been refused as a visitor. When we look very closely at the refusal rate according to the different countries of origin, as a whole, we accept between 80% and 85% of the applicants who come to Canada as visitors. Of course these people don't come to our riding offices. We get the 15% who are refused.

So why was he refused? I think the general line is it is clear that the person has to prove to the officer he is a bona fide visitor. It is true, when we speak about the discretion of the agent, the agent has the sole authority to decide whether he is a bona fide visitor or not. Now the question is, how do we do the checks and balances to be sure that in different offices around the world we don't have any specific problem? My director of the international region will answer that.

• 1655

Mr. Jeff LeBane (Director General, International Region, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): As the minister has said, the great majority of people who apply to come to Canada as visitors get their visas issued. Anywhere from 85% to 90% of all persons who apply abroad for visitor's visas are issued visas. Last year we issued 600,000 visitor's visas globally.

But when an immigration officer abroad looks at somebody, the act is written in such a way that the presumption of the act is that everyone who is applying is seeking permanent status to Canada. So the visitor must prove he wants to come only on a temporary basis.

Ms. Libby Davies: I know all that. The question is, how do you ensure that discretion isn't reinforcing someone's bias to actually turn people down?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: We do it in two ways. We get individual case requests. We have a section of the department that will review an individual case when you ask for it. Secondly, we have what we call quality of service concerns, where you may think an officer has acted in an inappropriate manner and there is a bias. If we get those types of concerns, we go back to the office to provide an explanation. We also do audits of the program. We send out staff to look at how the program is being serviced. We work with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade on audits as well.

The Chair: Monsieur Benoit.

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

Earlier, Madam Minister, you expressed great concern for the refugees from Kosovo. I have no doubt that is a sincere concern. I think that concern is certainly felt by myself and Canadians generally.

With that in mind, why were some Kosovo refugees brought first to Trenton, Ontario, and then moved to Kingston, Ontario, and then transported by buses to Quebec? This seems like a situation that isn't really offering the kind of stability these refugees desperately need, when they've been taken first from the camps neighbouring their homeland and then brought to our country.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Dorais will answer that.

Mr. Michel Dorais (Associate Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Thank you. The system we've used to manage 5,000 refugees in the three weeks is to have landing pods. Trenton and Greenwood are two bases where we landed the refugees. They went through immediate medical testing and then were moved into sustainment sites. Trenton is the landing pod and Kingston is a sustainment site. In sustainment sites, where they are moved about 24 hours later, they have rooms and can settle on a more permanent basis. Nobody has been moved yet to Quebec from Kingston, but eventually, as the program develops, they'll be moved out of the sustainment sites into the communities.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So this will happen on a regular basis as the process carries on?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, our plan is to keep the people on military bases from four to six weeks. Afterwards they will be integrated into different communities in the country. I hope Vancouver will receive some people too.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We have reports of refugees being forced to move three times. That sounds like an awfully unstable environment to put people into when they're coming here under such tough circumstances.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I know that looking at it from outside you can react in that way, but I was on these bases and met with the people. In the first 24 hours after they arrived they were so tired they needed to rest—that's all. They needed to have food and a place to stay. They were so appreciative of the way they were welcomed into our country that within 24 hours, when we told them they were going to another base, we didn't have any negative reactions.

• 1700

I visited them on the second base. In the second base, of course, they have more space, they are organized, the kids can play, and they have toys for the kids. I think now there is no problem.

The next step is to move into the community. That will be very hard, I think, for some of them, and we have to be careful here because of the language barrier also. I think it will be very helpful if we can move many families together in a certain area so that they can speak together and not be isolated. We're very careful about that. That's why we are working with the NGO community, to ensure that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Thank you, Madam Minister.

You've indicated you expect that most of the refugees from Kosovo are here on a temporary basis. I would like you to give your estimate as to what percentage will in fact return and what percentage will stay. You must have thought about this. Your department must have thought about this. I'd like your best guess at that.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I really do not know, Mr. Chairman, because our approach is to respect the will of these people. Let me tell you what I found out in meeting with them. These people have a very strong sense of belonging to their territory, especially the senior people, I must say. They want to go back to their land. That's what I found out.

Now, how long it will take for these people to go back in a peaceful way, I do not know. What will be the evolution of the will of these people if they stay a few months in our country, I do not know. So what we've decided is to respect their will. But I must say I was quite impressed by their sense of belonging to their country, and I think as Canadians we can understand that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Madam Minister.

My next question has to do with the business line under “Managing Access to Canada”, and you have the objectives stated there. You also have the context that these numbers are to be taken in—listed there. Under objectives, you say:

The objectives of the business line, Managing Access to Canada, are to preserve the integrity of Canada's citizenship, immigration and refugee programs, and to protect the safety, security and well-being of Canadians.

Under the context, you say:

Canada is a prime destination for both legal and illegal migrants. Although Canadians support managed immigration that reflects Canada's needs and values, abuse of the openness and generosity of Canadian society cannot be tolerated.

So with that consideration, Madam Minister, I'm a little concerned that you would be surprised that I would ask questions about the security of Canadians and whether the proper process is being followed, because it's a problem you've recognized in part III of the estimates.

My question is, on this business line, you have a forecast for 1998-99 of $107.5 million. That's reduced steadily until 2001-2001 to $94 million. What this budget line is for is to provide the up-front resources that are needed to ensure security. That has to be the wise place to focus spending, to ensure security, and yet you're reducing the budget over those three years from $107 million to $94 million. I would like you to respond to that, Madam Minister, and just explain this reduction.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Monsieur Tsai.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the reduction in the planned spending, the reduction is explained by the fact that very recently the department received additional funding for a three-year period to deal with war crimes. But this funding is ad hoc for three years, and this is why it is reduced in the third year.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So the extra money, you're saying—

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Benoit, you have exceeded two minutes, and I'm afraid I have to give chances to the others, too, if you don't mind.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

The Chair: Ms. Augustine, and then Mr. Telegdi.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Ms. Augustine, I'm sorry.

Ms. Jean Augustine: You want Mr. Telegdi?

The Chair: I owe the parliamentary secretary an apology.

Ms. Jean Augustine: No, he said he's going to have the last word.

The Chair: Oh, okay.

Ms. Jean Augustine: So we agreed to that.

The Chair: As long as there is consensus.

• 1705

Ms. Jean Augustine: I read your message in section I, and there is just one strange idea or sentence that I want you to...if you could expand on that a bit. You say:

As we enter the 21st century it is our intention to develop with our American counterparts a common vision for managing admission to our respective territories.

When we see the way we've managed the refugees from Kosovo, in terms of the way the Americans are managing it and the way we manage it, why would it be our intention to develop strategies to manage in the same way as they are? It just seems like a strange...

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think you have to look again at the reality that every year we have millions of people who cross the border on both sides, to the United States or to Canada. The crossing of the border is phenomenal and increasing every day. I think we have to work more together to try to facilitate that crossing of the border. The vast majority of people are honest people, but at the same time we have to fight together also about the illegal people who could come to both countries.

Usually it's not a problem that we have with Americans who come to Canada or Canadians who go to the United States. But some illegal trafficker can use both territories for some activity, and that's why I think in the future we have to share a common vision of the border.

Look at the border we have with the United States. That's huge, and it's a utopia to think we will have 150% control of that border if we don't work together. So I think this is why two years ago, when I met with Mrs. Janet Reno,

[Translation]

the US attorney general

[English]

we decided to work more closely on that vision for the future of the border.

Since that time, we have working groups working very hard with the Americans. My assistant deputy minister is in charge of that, Martha Nixon. We have three different working groups to be able to facilitate that border crossing.

You're seeing some problems for Canadians right now to go into the States lately, as you know, because of their new legislation. I think we have to work more with them. It's not only the mobility of products going around the world, it's the mobility of persons more and more, and it's increasing every year. It's in that sense that we want to work with the United States.

Ms. Jean Augustine: So it's not the sense in which I somehow read that.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have one other small question.

We talk about maintaining immigration levels and we also say we would maintain them on the basis of our ability to absorb and settle immigrants. What is that ability? Are we looking at employment numbers? What are we looking at in terms of a definition of ability to absorb and settle?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: This is a very good question because it's one thing to try to attract immigrants to this country; it's another thing to help them to integrate into our country. The term “to absorb and integrate” these people is to help them to integrate into our communities—into the labour market also, but into the communities, and I think we have a very specific challenge in this country. Why? Because...and that's important, because when the members speak about the levels of immigration, I think it's a problem if we speak about levels and we don't speak about distribution of immigrants in this country.

• 1710

As you know, 90% of our new people every year go to four provinces—B.C., Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. The vast majority of them go to three cities—Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal. So of course there's pressure on the urban social institutions of these three cities to absorb and to integrate these people. I'm thinking about the social pressure on housing; I'm thinking about the social pressure on educational systems.

We have to take that into account when we fix levels. If not, we can have problems in some cities, because integration doesn't only work one way. It's not only the effort of the newcomer to integrate into the new society; it's also the role of Canadians to adapt to the newcomer. It's both ways.

As you know, in this country some provinces—and Mr. Chairman, your own province—would like to have more immigrants—in Manitoba, in Saskatchewan, in New Brunswick. But the reality is that the vast majority are going to three cities, or to four provinces. So we have to look at that dimension.

Having said that, when I look at the level we are targeting, we want to have that level in our country. I think it's 0.7% of our population. Compared to other immigrant countries, it's a good number of people, and I think we can absorb them very easily if we have the services to help them.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before I yield the floor to Mr. Telegdi, Madam Minister, may I just pursue one short question on the same issue. Since the absorption capacity may be related to a particular region or province, where an agreement exists, in terms of federal-provincial, when a given province requests to increase their number, on whatever basis, how would your department look at that particular request?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We're very happy, Mr. Chairman...I'm sure you're thinking about Manitoba, your own province. We've signed an agreement with Manitoba that there's a provincial category nominee, that now the province is able to select its own people to answer to some labour market needs in Manitoba. So we hope with that agreement we will be able to increase the number in Manitoba.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Madam Minister.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Minister, I read through the debates in the House of Commons back in 1956 and 1957, seeing that I came here as a refugee, so I certainly have a great deal of interest in this whole issue. I can tell you, having studied Canadian immigration and citizenship over the years, Canada has always had, in comparison to other countries, a very good record. There are things we certainly would have done much differently if we were doing them today. But I can say we probably have one of the most generous and enviable records amongst the nations. And I think Canadians feel very good about what is taking place right now.

I am somewhat bothered when somebody tries to talk about a head tax because it trivializes a situation in our history that we now recognize was wrong. But in the context of the time, it wasn't outstanding in terms of the situation at that time, compared to other countries. To refer to the right-of-landing fee as being discriminatory in terms of certain groups...that is really not the case, seeing that the head tax was clearly meant to keep people out. Nobody can say that about the right-of-landing fee.

When I look at the budget lines in this book, the fact of the matter is we're still spending close to $0.5 billion in the department. There is some offsetting of costs to it, and that's done by the Canadian taxpayers. I think probably on a per capita basis, compared to other countries, we would do very well.

• 1715

Just to underscore the issue, Minister, because at one point somebody said we were using the Kosovar refugees for revenue enhancement, could you tell this committee how much we are spending on the 5,000 Kosovar refugees?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think if our expectations are right and these people stay in our country for around six months, we've calculated that it will be a cost of $20,000 for each individual. That means $100 million to help these people in the first year they will be in our country. That includes all the transportation, coming back and returning, and all the services they are receiving in our country—the financial support, but all the other services they are receiving. I'm thinking about the medical services, the psychological support, some specialized services for some people who are at risk, psychologically speaking. It's $100 million.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, I think it really goes to show the point, the ridiculous nature of calling the Kosovar refugees a revenue enhancement. We don't know, but if they are going to land, the right-of-landing fee is just a minuscule part, and to suggest we're going to spend $20,000 so that somehow, at the end of the day, we can realize $1,000 is really playing games with the issue, and we should not as parliamentarians be engaging in it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

Madam Minister, did I hear you correctly that the amount you have allocated for the Kosovar refugees does include their return trip should they wish?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Madam Minister.

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to ask you a question as a follow-up to a question I asked you in the House today, and that has to do with this individual who was convicted of dealing heroin. He was convicted and sentenced to eight years. We asked you about that last year and you said you were thinking about other measures. Here's a direct quote:

We have other tools in the [legislation to prevent individuals from going to the refugee board]. I am thinking about the certificate for danger of the public.

It was anticipated that you would do that, thus stopping this refugee process for this individual.

I'm going to ask you why you changed your mind on that, and I'm going to ask you how that decision is going to impact on the situation we've raised in Vancouver, in the lower mainland area, having to do with people from Central America who have been claiming refugee status and dealing drugs on the streets of Vancouver. If we have an individual who has been convicted, sentenced to eight years, and you're not willing to intervene in that case, what are you going to do... I would assume you're not going to do anything with those individuals who are abusing the system in Vancouver, which has been well documented, if you're not going to do anything with a heroin dealer who's been sentenced to eight years in prison. Am I accurate in assuming that?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, it's a very good question if we discuss it on principle. Let me caution you that we cannot go into detail on that person. But I think that we can discuss on principle what we can do with drug dealers or drug traffickers who are convicted. Let's speak more generally and not about that specific case.

I will caution every member of the family and my officials not to speak about it, because there's a Privacy Act in this country and I don't want any complaints about it.

Let's speak generally and answer the specific question, when we have a drug trafficker convicted, what can we do according to the legislation we have and the tools in the legislation? I would prefer to use that approach. I was saying in the House today that in the Immigration Act, right now in immigration legislation, we have all the tools necessary to act on a case like this. To be more specific, if you want me to go into which article of the law applies and why, and if it doesn't work which other article of the law we will use, I can go into those details today, and perhaps it could be useful. I will ask Bill Sheppit to go into more detail on a general approach.

• 1720

The Chair: Yes, but make it as concise as possible.

Mr. William Sheppit: That could be difficult, Mr. Chair.

I think it's important to realize that when people are convicted of a criminal offence, to a large extent it depends on the sentence they've received, and certainly this is one of the areas that's been problematic for the department in dealing with the drug dealers in Vancouver, for example, where there's a larger view held by at least some members of society in Vancouver, in British Columbia, that drug dealing is more a societal problem than a criminal problem. So in a number of cases we have people who are dealing drugs who are convicted of one, two, ten, fifteen days of imprisonment.

There is a possibility and there is the opportunity for the minister to declare somebody a danger to the public, but obviously part of the element of looking at that is the severity of the offence. If the court deems, in view of all the evidence that has been presented to it, that somebody warrants a two-day sentence, then it becomes more difficult for the minister to determine that they're a danger to the public. Obviously those sentences vary depending on the individual circumstances, and—

Mr. Grant McNally: Certainly, but if an individual has been convicted to an eight-year sentence and the minister is not going to issue a danger to the public on that individual, why in the world would somebody be issued a danger to the public for just trafficking cocaine on the streets of Vancouver?

Mr. William Sheppit: As the minister cautioned, without wanting to get into the details of the individual case—

Mr. Grant McNally: She was mentioning principles, and this is—

Mr. William Sheppit: No, no, but looking at principles you also have the principles of the role of the judiciary, what a court has ordered in a specific case, how that limits what the department's options are, and when we can take various action. In some cases the court may order redetermination of somebody's eligibility by the refugee board, which then limits when and where we can intervene. But there's certainly every intention to take advantage of all the opportunities we have to reduce people's appeal rights and to remove dangerous criminals.

Mr. Grant McNally: I thought the minister was going to get into the specifics of what those tools were, and I would like that answer perhaps later, if you could look for an answer for that, because I would like to know what they are, and the parts of the legislation that specifically apply to this.

The last thing was on an earlier question, the very first one I asked, when you had a little huddle about other countries and the right-of-landing fees or fees that were imposed in other countries and how that applies here. That was my very first question on the first round.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I will ask the deputy minister to answer that question.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Mr. Chair, on the question of other countries' practises with respect to privilege fees, we have to be careful that sometimes what we call a privilege fee may be characterized as something else in another country. We have to look at the fee structures they have and what they're actually charging for. We are doing that analysis now, and when the information is available we'll undertake to provide it to the committee.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Benoit, you had one question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. First, I'd just like some clarification from you, Madam Minister. In answering a question from Mr. Telegdi, you said the cost for each refugee coming from Kosovo would be $20,000. You indicated that would be for an anticipated six-month stay and then later for a year. I just want to know what length of stay you're anticipating a cost of $20,000.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It's one year, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's for one year.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Something that's been done at committee...I think the precedent has been set that when the researcher has compiled questions and then background information, such as she has for the minister here today, the minister would answer those questions in a written form. I would request, Mr. Chair, that that be done in this case, specifically for the questions from the researcher's document dealing with questions 3 and 4 on page 2, question 2 on page 4, question C.1 on page 4, and question 1 on page 5.

• 1725

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, the briefing notes by the research staff are for us and for our guidance. Whether we would like to pose a question or not is the in the judgment of every committee member. So unless—

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, I'm just asking for the minister to respond later in a written format. I understand that's been done in the past.

The Chair: To the questions that you are posing?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, to the questions that I indicated from the research document.

The Chair: I would suggest then that you convey those questions later on to the clerk, in the interests of time. We will send it to the—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I've done that; they're on record now.

The Chair: Yes, but the clerk will give it to the minister later on. We cannot assume that the minister knows the questions without looking at the questions.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, no, later in a written format.

The Chair: Understood. Thank you for that.

Just before I end the meeting, Madam Minister, the chair would like to pose two questions, if I may, with the indulgence of the committee, and I will adjourn the meeting thereafter.

They relate to the quality assurance program and this reporting structure. To ensure the quality assurance program, there will be changes to the reporting structure in the department. The question is, what exactly is meant by a reporting structure, and how is it being implemented, particularly because it is one of the thoughts in the department, apparently in the estimates, to ensure that the quality assurance program will be implemented, particularly with respect to the potential new citizenship act we may have?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I will ask the deputy minister to answer that.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The quality assurance program that is in place right now is intended to give us an opportunity to check the quality of decision-making with respect to the mail-in citizenship process. It is a quarterly check, a random sample that's done on the basis of checking documents, and also calling people in for interviews to verify whether the information upon which decisions were based was accurate and whether the right decisions were made.

We now have four such reports, and I'm pleased to say that the reports have been very good. They've indicated that we have no issues with which we have to deal in terms of the quality processes we have in place throughout the decision-making process.

I'm not entirely sure what the chairman is referring to in terms of the reporting structure. It may be that the citizenship centre in Sydney now reports through the assistant deputy minister operations. Until last year we did not have an assistant deputy minister of operations directly in the line of responsibility. I expect that that's probably what that is.

The Chair: Perhaps in your subsequent report to the committee on this particular question...that relates to page 20 on the subject matter of quality assurance, but I think we can amplify that later on.

The last point I would like to pose to the minister is that the committee last June issued a report in terms of immigration detention and removal. In that report...in looking at tools that may be used to scan documents at a port en route to Canada, what technology is being evaluated by the department, and are we ready for a pilot project soon?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we looked at your report at that time, and the proposal from your committee about using scanning technology we consider to be a very good proposal. We have done some analysis of it. We've met with some companies who specialize in it. I think we will need to have a very good cost-benefit analysis of that technology. We've decided to go with a pilot project. I hope we will be able to do it soon.

Greg Fyffe will give more explanation.

The Chair: Mr. Fyffe.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: The stage we're at now, Mr. Chairman, is that there's been a preliminary test of the technology just to see how it operates in a working environment. The next stage is to devise a pilot in which we can work it with an origin and a destination to see how it actually works in controlling fraudulent documents.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

• 1730

On behalf of the committee, Madam Minister and your staff, we thank you very much for your appearance.

The committee is adjourned until Thursday, May 27, at 9 o'clock.