CIMM Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, May 26, 2003

1005

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.))

Honourable Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

1010

1015

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Denis Coderre

1020

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Michel Dorais (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Hon. Denis Coderre

The Chair

1025

Hon. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Hon. Denis Coderre

1030

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)

Hon. Denis Coderre

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1035

Hon. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

1040

Hon. Denis Coderre

1045

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Hon. Denis Coderre

1050

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Hon. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Hon. Denis Coderre

1055

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.)

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Hon. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Hon. Denis Coderre

1100

The Chair

Hon. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Hon. Denis Coderre

1105

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1110

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Michel Dorais

1115

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Michel Dorais

1120

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Daniel Jean (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

1125

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Lyse Ricard (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Lyse Ricard

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Lyse Ricard

1130

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Lyse Ricard

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Lyse Ricard

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Lyse Ricard

1135

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Lyse Ricard

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Lyse Ricard

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Lyse Ricard

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

1140

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Jean

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

1145

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

1150

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 061

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, May 26, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

À (1005)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. It's our pleasure today to invite the minister.

Minister, welcome. I understand we have you till two o'clock this afternoon. It's nice to see you in such trim and great shape. I notice that the immigration department must keep you really running well, because when you used to be the sports minister, I wouldn't be able to say the same thing. I'm impressed.

Today, pursuant to Standing Order 81.(4), we will deal with the consideration of the main estimates for 2003-04. We have votes 1, 5, and 10. And pursuant to Standing Order 81.(7), we will consider the report on plans and priorities under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

I understand, Minister, we have you for about an hour and your administration will be staying for the remainder of the two-hour period.

We welcome you back to this committee and look forward to your opening statement as well as to some questions from the committee with regard to estimates. Thank you.

Honourable Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It feels like my monthly meeting. I'm very pleased to be here. As you know, it's not only a pleasure, but you have also made several very useful recommendations over the last year and they have helped shape my thinking on many key issues.

Soon you will be starting the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-18 on citizenship. I'm confident that with your help this important legislation will soon move to the Senate and get passed in a timely manner.

[Translation]

Canada's Immigration program required constant attention to address both the changing needs of Canadians and an increasingly dynamic international migration environment. The program is dynamic, responsive and moving with the times. And you know me, I like to see action. That is why I would like to briefly talk about some of our accomplishments, but above all share with you my thoughts about future directions and priorities.

[English]

What have we done to date? Well, we have achieved a lot already.

First, for the fourth year in a row, CIC is on its way to meet the immigration target levels.

Secondly, we have been developing strong and productive partnerships with provincial and territorial governments. I was pleased last week, as a matter of fact, that we were ready to sign another agreement with the B.C. government. Now even the Ontario government is willing to put immigration as a priority. So we're doing well.

Thirdly, we have put in place numerous border security measures and we are implementing the 30-point smart border accord in close partnership with the United States. I will talk about a future Canada-U.S. conference on immigration. I've been meeting with several of the governors at the border and my provincial counterparts, and I will be pleased to expand on that, if you have any questions.

Fourthly, we have renewed our outdated legislative framework with the adoption of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, and we are now pursuing the same objective with the proposed citizenship legislation. We are also able to announce that in future days I will be starting the implementation process vis-à-vis the immigration consultants. We are looking ahead to the future regulations, and this is just another proof of what we've accomplished since the beginning.

[Translation]

Newcomers will make up the bulk of our net population growth and labour force over the coming years. Statistics Canada data make that point very clearly. IRPA gives us the tools to attract the immigrants who will best be able to contribute to Canada's economy and successfully establish, while it also makes things more difficult for those who attempt to abuse our system.

[English]

We still have a lot to do. We need to unlock the potential of immigrants earlier. We need to make sure that the benefits of immigration are shared more widely across the country. We need to continue ensuring the security of North America.

[Translation]

Canada should no longer wait 15 years for newcomers to reach their full potential as citizens of this country. We need to help them hit the ground running. That's one reason the government is committed to reducing barriers to economic success and integration by working closely with HRDC, the provinces, territories, local communities and various other stakeholders on issues such as foreign credential recognition.

I want to do everything that I can to unlock the true potential of each newcomer.

À (1010)

[English]

I would like to talk about one of my key priorities, regionalization. When I became Minister of Citizenship and Immigration last year this issue was raised again and again in my initial meetings with government and municipal leaders. Given the present reality of Canada's demographics and immigrant settlement patterns, it becomes clear that the challenge over the coming years will be to attract and retain the skilled immigrants needed for every region and city in Canada to succeed.

Last year I reached out to my provincial and territorial colleagues and encouraged provinces to play a more active role in immigration through provincial nominee programs, for example. This committee, as a matter of fact, recently recommended that we should step up these efforts, and we intend to do so.

[Translation]

Now, I want to better engage cities, municipalities and NGOs over the coming months so that they too play a much larger role in helping attract and retain the immigrants they need to flourish in the future. As several members of Parliament have suggested, we need to work together to ensure the right conditions exist in each community to both attract and retain each newcomer we bring to Canada.

[English]

I have spoken today about Canada's openness and about ensuring that the benefits of our openness to newcomers reach across the entire country. We must balance openness with vigilance.

[Translation]

Canada's approach in this regard is based on our Multiple Borders Strategy. Deputy Minister Michel Dorais appeared before this committee a couple of weeks ago and talked about it. This strategy is based on one very practical reality: it is much easier—and less costly—to deal with illegal immigrants or potential security threats by preventing them from getting here in the first place.

[English]

And you have heard about how my department has acted on many fronts already, by removing visa exemptions and expanding the network of migration integrity specialists abroad, for example.

The Auditor General has recently indicated that we need to do better with inland enforcement. Not only do we agree, but we are refining our tools.

[Translation]

We are improving our technology to track these cases and our means to conduct enforcement activities through arrest warrants or charter flight removals for our higher risk cases.

[English]

We know that everything is not perfect. There is still much work to do.

I want, at this point, to make one thing perfectly clear. I am committed to prevent individuals from entering Canada who present a danger to the safety of Canadians. There are no half measures being considered when it comes to security matters.

We're fully prepared, for example, to explore the options for biometrics. Our memorandum of understanding with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will allow us to reinforce both the primary and the secondary inspection lines at the border points.

[Translation]

Measures to help expedite the enforcement of removal orders are also under development, as we continue to step up our cooperation with other federal agencies, provincial and municipal governments and police forces.

And we will continue our work on joint border enforcement activities under the Canada-US Smart Border Declaration.

[English]

As we move ahead, and we are definitely moving ahead, I hope we can continue to rely on your input in the constructive way this committee has exercised in the past. We want to make the most of what immigrants can offer to Canada. We are committed to ensuring every region benefits from immigration. We are continuing to strengthen our system and policy tools. We are fully committed to protecting the safety and security of Canadians.

[Translation]

In a nutshell, our mission is now, and will always be, to reflect Canadian values while serving the very practical needs of Canadians by moving ahead with the times. And this mission is not likely to change.

So, Mr. Chairman, this balance between openness and vigilance is our priority. I know that you have a number of questions, probably on very specific subjects. I am ready to answer them.

Thank you very much.

À (1015)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

As you know, Minister, in the next number of days this committee will also be giving you, I think, a very worthwhile report on settlement. As you know, when we travelled the country and talked about provincial nominee agreements, we also wanted to do some work on the settlement programs. I'm sure we might have some questions, but I think we'll be tabling the report, which I think you will find creative and open and exciting also, in terms of achieving, a new word, “regionalism”, or ensuring that benefits of immigration accrue to all parts of our country, small and large.

With that, we thank you very much and we'll move to questions.

Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Minister. It's always a pleasure to have you here. And as you know, I'm always extremely kind to you, but I do have some serious questions. I hope you can help us.

First of all, of course, the latest development in your portfolio is the refusal of the appeal that was filed from the court case that found in February that you had misled this department and failed to properly process applications made under the former Immigration Act.

The question I have specifically is with respect to the costs that are going to be incurred as a result of this appeal being refused. I understand that already 78 court cases have been brought forward to have the department process certain applications under the old rules. I also understand that additional cases are coming in thick and fast. So I refer you to page 39 of the estimates for 2003-2004, in which the planned spending for 2003-2004 is $54.6 million. Some $25.8 million of that is for translation services and other money for funding the court services.

I wonder if you can tell me and the committee whether this spending on legal support is now going to have to be increased substantially because of these applications that are coming in due to the fact that the decision of the Federal Court made it clear that there was a duty on the part of the department to process these applications. Several thousand—in fact, there are really between 80,000 and 120,000 applications—should have been processed under the old rules but were not, and now these people are suing to have their cases properly processed.

Could you tell the committee what's happening there, please?

Hon. Denis Coderre: First of all, what the judge said is that he doesn't perceive that we should have appeals, because on the 102 interviews they were already done.

If I can go back to what Judge Kelen said in the past, he always said that we have the capacity to regulate, and he agreed with the fact that the government put up new regulations with IRPA. So it's not a matter of what should I do with the other cases; it's about his refusing the appeal on the 102, because he said we already made the interviews.

Now, what should I do with the rest?

[Translation]

So the question we should be asking is the following. Is there a relationship between the cases that are pending and the fund? Will that increase the amount in the fund? That is what you are asking. For the time being, according to what I have been told, there will be no need to increase the fund. In any case, when we came here, we were told on numerous occasions that there would be no problem instituting new regulations and that we had given people all of the leeway that they might need, by giving them not only extra time but also the possibility of applying for a refund. So I think that everything was done properly at the time. At this point, I see no need to increase the fund to provide for future cases.

À (1020)

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: With respect, Minister, the court found differently. It did not find the process correct, and it found the department did not act correctly in failing to process the applications that fell under the old act, under the old criteria. And with respect, Minister, with court cases coming in, that's going to cost money. It's going to cost money that presumably was not anticipated by the department. Seventy-eight appeals have already been filed. These appeals cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, and more appeals are coming in thick and fast as a result of Friday's court decision.

So how is it possible to tell the committee that there will not be additional costs incurred because of this refusal of appeal of the minister's case?

Hon. Denis Coderre: First of all, as I said, we disagree with the court, but again we can agree to disagree, you and me, because at that time Judge Kelen was pretty clear that the government has the right and the capacity to apply its own regulations and new regulations. I think we will analyse that case by case.

We don't feel right now that we should add more money. On the technical aspect, maybe I can ask my deputy minister to address that question based on the estimates, but as I said, based on the principle, I don't see that we should necessarily add for now funds, because we believe we were right in what we were doing since the beginning.

Mr. Michel Dorais (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): The only thing I can add is the department has a fund to deal with litigation. This is part of the litigation plan, and as the cases unfold we will reassign the priorities internally to deal with the cases. But we have the money now to assign a litigator to the case.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Even with this unprecedented or unanticipated level of litigation?

Mr. Michel Dorais: Denis, maybe I could ask the representative from the justice department to complete this, because the justice department is defending us, or is taking the case to court. But we have the necessary funds for that.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I have one final question on this, Minister. Are you saying that you do not intend to process these 80,000 to 120,000 people under the old rules, where they originally applied, even though the court decision says that you have a duty to do that?

Hon. Denis Coderre: If I'm correct, the case was based on 102, it was not based on the rest. They said that the reason why we're not appealing is because they've already been interviewed. So it's based on the 102.

What are we going to do in the future? I said clearly several times here, Diane, that I believe we have the right; to govern is to choose. And because we give that extra nine months... As a matter of fact, when we started we gave first six months, and I gave an extra three months afterwards, and because of this and the fact that we gave the possibility to get a refund plus the extra five points—you have to realize that the people who were from the old system won't need 75 to pass, they will need 70 points—I believe we've shown some flexibility and common sense. The judge himself, Judge Kelen, if I remember correctly, said that we have the right to put forward our own regulations. So what we've done was totally correct.

We disagree with the numbers. We spoke about that several times. I feel that what we've shown you before the committee several times is that we've acted properly. I believe that for now we will go on in the way I said we should have gone since the beginning. So if we choose to implement a new system, and if we have the right to proceed with new regulations, we should proceed as is. I felt that with what we've announced since the beginning we've shown flexibility and common sense. As a matter of fact, there was a possibility of 60,000 cases where we could have a refund. Only 413 asked for it, but we gave the possibility to do so.

The Chair: Minister, I wonder if I could follow up, because I think this is a very important question.

I know the deputy minister was going to provide this committee with some current backlog information. I think Diane and the committee, as you know, with regard to IRPA spent an awful lot of time dealing with the backlog because we wanted to make sure we could process them.

I want to get something clear. I know you've indicated that while the appeal was not successful in the Dragan case, there's the fact, as you've just indicated, that the 102 therefore were dealt with because the administration dealt with the applications before the appeal could be heard. As a supplementary to what Diane is asking, we know that we—

À (1025)

Hon. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chair, the court ordered us to proceed with those 102 cases.

The Chair: My point is, ask two lawyers a question and you get five answers. My point is that we'd like to know where this is going in terms of the rest of the cases, because we understand and we hear that there are a lot of lawyers out there representing a whole bunch of people who in fact applied under the old system and who are now being told to do judicial review. In fact, there might even be a class action suit and the dollars could spiral out of control.

I think what this committee would like to hear and understand is how we think we can proceed on the basis of the backlog without spending an awful lot of taxpayers' money with regard to litigation. We understand that the department and you have the right to change regulations, and I think the judge has indicated that, but I think the administration also has a fiduciary responsibility to process those applications as quickly and as promptly and as efficiently as possible.

I think this committee has been very interested in making sure—and certain assurances were given to this committee about this—that in fact the process would work as expeditiously as possible and that additional resources would have been put in place to deal with the backlog. So I'm wondering if you or the deputy minister would care to enlighten us a little bit more about where we go forward with that backlog that still exists.

[Translation]

Hon. Denis Coderre: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that you have asked one of the most important questions. The role of my department is to ensure that all our options remain open. I agree with what you have said, to the effect that they could all avail themselves of the justice system, fairness, and the most effective way to ensure that we can deal with the greatest possible number of cases.

That is why we have discussed this off and on from the very outset and why we have been extremely accessible. We want to make sure that common sense will prevail.

I might say that the fact that we have been flexible, and that we have granted extra time... We could just as well have said, and would have been justified in doing so, that the regulations would come into effect after June 28. We extended the deadline because we felt it was important to convey those messages and to give ourselves enough leeway, enough wiggle room, because we are not only dealing with statistics, but with individuals.

Secondly, the fact that we are allowing people to ask for a refund shows that we are being extremely flexible. Moreover, the fact that these people will only require 70 points, rather than 75, was, according to many people, a gesture which once again showed how generous we are.

I believe that the government—and this is where I totally disagree with some of the points raised by Judge Kelen—is entitled to make decisions, to choose, to define the type of immigration that is required. We did not agree with the figures, but the judge was very clear about the possibility of setting in place regulations that would allow us to chose our own destiny, as a country, in terms of immigration.

Therefore, in order to do that, Mr. Chairman, he ordered us to examine these 102 cases. What do we do with the rest of them? We will continue to do what we are doing, because I believe that not only have we shown some flexibility, but we are on firm legal ground. Therefore, I see no reason to have two systems. That would mean that in some countries, for four or five years, there would be two systems, the old one and the new one. I really don't think that leads to a very efficient type of administration. So we will continue to do what we have been doing.

À (1030)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Good morning, everyone. I would like to make a brief comment that is related to Diane's question and to what the chairman said.

You know, Mr. Minister, that some of us around this table are unhappy with the implementation of the new act as it applies to those who had requested permanent resident status under the former act. I am one of those who feel that we could operate two systems efficiently at the same time.

Moreover, I agree that the government's position is legal, but I do have some reservations about its legitimacy. I think that legality is one thing, but legal does not necessarily mean legitimate, and I cannot help but think that we are being unfair to those who had applied under the previous act. Having said that, I will move on to something else. As you can see, I mean what I say; it was brief.

I have a number of questions, but I would like to deal with your opening statement. You said it was necessary to regionalize, something with which I wholeheartedly agree because I am convinced that integration is so much easier when people feel that they are welcomed into a human-scale environment. I think that a big city must appear rather intimidating to a newly arrived immigrant. So I am in agreement.

I have a question for you. When you say in your brief, “[...] I want to better engage cities, municipalities [...]”, I forgot the NGOs, “[...] so that they too play a much larger role [...]” ... you know that the jurisdictional issue, particularly in Quebec, means that the municipalities are not exactly mushrooms. So how do you intend to take direct action? I would like to know. I know full well what the previous government would have said. As to the new government, I think it is just as devoted to Quebec as the old one was. I would like to know if, in the case of Quebec, the “engaging” will apply to Quebec.

Hon. Denis Coderre: Thank you for the question. Of course, my dear Madeleine, you are well aware of the respect that I have for jurisdictions.

I believe it is clear that we must have better... When we speak about engaging, that must also apply to communications. On Friday of this week, I was with his worship Mayor L'Allier. As you know, with the Canada-Quebec Accord, the City of Quebec attracts the second largest number for the region, and I believe that communications are in order.

Having said that, we have undertaken, during the first federal-provincial conference, to ensure that the provinces will be consulted first. But it is important to keep the lines of communication open, because, at the end of the day, these people will be settling in the municipalities or the communities. So, it all comes down to education, involvement, so that we can establish a partnership at all levels. But in no way do we intend to disregard the jurisdictions.

As early as next weekend I will be meeting with the new minister, Michelle Courchesne. We have been discussing this type of communication and we are both in agreement. I was with Minister Abbott, in British Columbia, and with Minister Oberg, in Alberta. We want the municipalities to be involved as long as everyone is on side. But we must not forget that this will require funding, tools, a reality that we cannot ignore. If we truly wish to regionalize, we must ensure that it can be done. That was our intention. When we talk about “engaging”, we mean in terms of communications, and not in terms of jurisdictions.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That makes me feel better. That's what I need on a Monday morning to help me face the rest of the week. I have a number of other questions; I am sure that our chairman will let me ask one.

We went to Washington a few weeks ago and it was obvious that the American government intends to require biometric data at the border beginning in the fall of 2004, which is not all that far off. I would like to know if, in the case of the maple leaf card for permanent residents, for example, you have already informed the cardholders of what lies ahead. If one wishes to travel to the United States, I imagine it will take some time to obtain the necessary papers. Even though I am not managerially inclined, personally, I can see that it could not be done overnight. So I would like to know what you have decided or what you intend to do about the permanent residency card. The same would apply to passports.

I would like to hear what you have to say on that.

À (1035)

Hon. Denis Coderre: You know that my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for passports, but we discuss the issue from time to time.

I would like to first thank the committee for its initiative. I had requested a debate on issues relating to identity and biometrics because I had seen it coming. We can say that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has been proactive when it comes to biometrics and identification.

I was in Seattle last week. We also discussed matters relating to our border. It is clear that the United States will require biometric data, something that you have already realized. It is essential that we have a full debate on this in order to define our own Canadian identity in terms of managing our borders and related issues. This is something that Canada and the United States must deal with, but it is also something that is being debated in Europe, as has been pointed out by the Foreign Affairs Minister of Portugal, and in Great Britain.

I have always said that I agreed with the use of biometric data, as long as it was done for the purposes of identification and not in order to access databanks. These biometric data may possibly be included on a permanent resident card, and I think we should examine how this would apply to all citizens, because Canadians are great travellers.

This debate is already public; the media are discussing it. Will we need some type of communications strategy for our permanent residents? I think so. I think we have reached that point. I think we must find some way to communicate effectively with all of those who live here, whether they are citizens or permanent residents. What will happen if I travel to the United States in 2004? Will a passport be enough? I have noted that there is a debate about a standard drivers' licence taking place at this time between the state governors and the U.S. federal authorities. The question of biometric data has been raised. There is, of course, a matter of jurisdiction, because the individual states are responsible for issuing drivers' licences. So things are very lively.

Communications remain our prime concern, and you have the mandate to discuss matters relating to the whole issue of strategy and identity. We must also work with the Privacy Commissioner because we want to protect individual privacy and avoid being intrusive.

I have one last thing to say. As early as this fall, Mr. Chairman, there will be a national forum held in Ottawa, to bring together experts as well as those who are involved or who will become involved in matters relating to biometrics and identity. I believe that your work will be fundamental in helping us to examine this further, because the time has come to address these issues, and to act. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Sarkis, then Andrew.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We welcome the minister again with his departmental staff. It's becoming a monthly occurrence. We want to continue this cooperation with the department and with the minister.

I'm going to try to be nicer than my colleague Diane, which is not very difficult, relatively speaking. I have a couple of comments to make and then a question.

You mentioned in your comments that Ontario is prepared to go into having an agreement like other provinces very soon. I'm hopeful that this is not a ploy by the premier and he's serious and we get something going between the federal government and the Ontario government. Can you give us any sense, Minister, on the timing? That's my first question.

Secondly, Mr. Minister, we mentioned a few times in the past that we'd like to hit the target of 1% of our total population. So far we have failed to do that. Also, you mentioned a few times here, and the business community has also mentioned, that there will be a shortage of skilled workers for the next few years by the million.

The question is, what can you or the department do to reach that 1% target, and what can we as members at this committee, or parliamentarians, do to reach that total? Because I think a few years down the road it's going to be a very critical problem for us when we have a shortage and we don't have the people to fill that shortage of skilled workers in Canada.

Thank you.

À (1040)

Hon. Denis Coderre: Thank you very much.

First of all, with regard to Ontario, for several months, even more than a year, I sat with the minister who is my counterpart in immigration, Carl DeFaria, and we spoke about an Ontario strategy.

The thing that bothers me is the way the premier is using that right now maybe on an electoral platform and about taking power. It has nothing to do with taking power; it's about sharing.

Even when we're working with the Quebec model, it's about sharing and it's about a validation process to identify the needs. Even at the end of the process, regarding medical tests, security checks, or even to accept that individual as a permanent resident, it's about sharing. Everybody will have to do their part.

I'm always willing to find a better way for a policy that will answer the needs of the regions.

When I was in Alberta with Dr. Oberg, we signed the first provincial nominee program in regard to that. We really focused on the needs of Alberta. We can do the same with Ontario, but before running, they need to learn how to walk. So they will have to find a way, first of all, to address some of the issues that they already have vis-à-vis their own jurisdiction.

When we're talking about skilled workers—and I'm addressing your second question at the same time—we need the recognition of foreign credentials. The only way to do so is to have an agreement with the regulatory bodies, the provincial regulatory bodies that issue the permits. We can proceed and process the cases and focus on the inventory of needs, but the bottom line is we have to make sure these individuals will be able to work in their own fields. To do so, we need to make sure that the Ontario government will have agreements with specific professional bodies that issue those permits, saying we will manage that single window from point A to point Z.

Secondly, regarding security, not only are we improving, but we have the right target. You can say we will take care of the illegal...things like that—which for me is totally irrelevant. What they should do is sign the agreement we've been ready on from the beginning, to get the Guelph detention centre. We were ready to do so, and at the last minute one of his provincial colleagues said we shouldn't have it, when the community itself and the union and the municipal councillors I met with were all in agreement.

So it's a step-by-step approach. They need to have a provincial nominee program. Those are the steps.

Manitoba did it. They started with 200provincial nominees, and we will be able to announce in the very short term a major agreement with the Manitoba government. As a matter of fact, right now they've signed for 1,500 a year, and we should go even further than that. So it's a step-by-step approach.

I'm totally in favour of having an Ontario strategy, but don't play politics with it. Don't play with it in a partisan way, because it's a non-partisan issue. It's about the needs of Ontarians.

As I said, the plan I proposed, the five-year plan, was to issue temporary work permits. Now he wants to take it. I guess it's a good idea if he thinks it's okay, but there are ways. We have to sit together and build that plan. I'm not saying we're taking; it's about sharing.

On the 1%, the only way to proceed is to have more money, so it's a matter of priority that we need more money. Just for integration and settlement, it costs $3,000 a year per individual, so we have to do something about that. Now we have money for 225,000 persons at a minimum—between 225,000 and 245,000. To do so, we need more money.

We've said since the beginning that in the next five years we'll need one million skilled workers. The only way to do so is to raise the levels. We want to make sure there's a balanced approach with rural Canada and the three major cities—Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver—but other places also, because they are desperately in need.

I visited rural Quebec for the last two days of last week, and they need it everywhere. They need the doctors, the nurses, the engineers, and even the industries are coming to us—the diamond cutters in Yellowknife. We are striking a deal right now to make sure we'll address that issue.

À (1045)

So this is clearly a centrepiece of any governmental policy. If we're talking about priorities, priority number one is about having more people in our country because of the aging population, because of the shortage of skilled workers. The only way to do so is with more resources.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Andrew.

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

Welcome, Minister.

Continuing in a non-partisan fashion, let me get back to Canadian values. It seems to me that when we dealt with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a fundamental mistake was made. That mistake was to give the department the right to set the regulations. I think this committee gave up a very important power that it should have had, which was to have political input at the front end of a decision when the regulations were set, and not give it to the bureaucrats to do a fait accompli.

Of course, now we're in the mess where we have tens of thousands of folks who haven't been dealt with. We have court cases going all over the place. I understand, Minister, you believe you have good grounds for an appeal. I dare say, your bureaucrats believe they have grounds for appeal. Before this thing is resolved, if things go on the way they do, we'll have a new minister and the bureaucrats will be the same.

What bothers me is that we talk about—

The Chair: Do you have a question for the minister?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Yes, I do have a question for the minister, if you will allow me, Mr. Chair. I listen to your preambles.

It seems that with the kind of society we have, if you set the rules for people to apply, it would have been relatively simple to process the people who applied under one set of rules through that process, and then go on with the new set for new applications.

I would like to have the department tell us how much it's going to cost, because I think the cost is going to be substantial; and once we have a new minister, who in the bureaucracy is going to be responsible for something that will have been a very expensive proposition?

Hon. Denis Coderre: With respect, Andrew, I would say that for the first time ever, regulations went through a committee, a standing committee. It's easy to attack the bureaucrats all the time, but if my memory is correct, the regulations we put forward were here and we discussed several of them, and then we accepted and applied them.

I could have gone to the Governor in Council and said it's my power to do so, but we've done it together. You're in the same boat, brother, so be careful on that issue.

Secondly, I'm the one who put forward those amendments and the enforcement, to put in force those regulations, the five points to give extra months, the flexibility that we've shown. I confess, that was me. I believe that's common sense, because what would happen if it took five years for some cases because of some political context in some countries and we changed governments in between and scrapped all the regulations? Are we going to say that for those we will treat that...

Every time you're in government, you're making decisions. That's what accountability is all about. In showing that flexibility, even putting forward the refund, as I've said, I think we've done what we had to do. So it's not a political thing. It's the principle of saying we gave a chance.

Why, out of the 60,000, did only 413 people say they wanted to get that refund? It means they agree. Do you know what? Even with the new rules, there are some people who won't pass under the old ones and will pass under the new ones.

As a matter of fact, of the 102 persons, one of them said okay, go with the old rules. He didn't pass. If he would have applied with the new rules, he would have passed.

So let's be careful with the wording, Andrew. But I'm really pleased, because that's under section 5 in the IRPA, and I think that should be the way all the time when we go through a regulation process. With your expertise around this table, it was good policy-making, and I believe it's the best way to go. But at the end of the day, I'm going to decide, because that's my job, to make decisions.

À (1050)

The Chair: Thank you.

Diane, and then Yvon.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Minister, you told us this morning something that I think we all wanted to hear. You said, “I am committed to prevent individuals from entering Canada who present a danger to the safety of Canadians. There are no half measures being considered when it comes to security matters.”

However, Mr. Minister, I have in my hand a letter from the department dated Friday, May 23, which admits that over 97% of people coming into Canada just walked right in. Fewer than 3% are actually referred back to Immigration Canada for secondary examination. So how can the minister tell Canadians he's taking no half measures to prevent people who might be a danger to us from entering Canada, when over 97% just walked right in?

Hon. Denis Coderre: That is the reason I think we should have a debate—

The Chair: Please make the answers a little shorter, Minister, because I know your time is limited. Or you could add the time to your one-hour--

Hon. Denis Coderre: I will come back next month.

That is a very important question. It brings us to the issue of the primary inspection line and the secondary inspection line. There are some people who believe we should have only one line, but in your question you are referring to the people who go through customs.

When I said we don't want to have half measures, it is because we've now signed the memorandum of understanding between customs and ourselves that will be very helpful at that level. We have some other measures—like the certificate of security—that we're putting together.

Our policy and our strategy is to make sure we also prevent people from getting in. That's why we have a unique model, which is now the envy of the world, called immigration control officers. We've prevented 45,000 cases in the last six years.

Should we do more? We've done more after 9/11. We've put forward measures to do so. I think biometrics, the smart border, and the way we are working with different agencies will provide us with better results.

There is a debate right now about whether we should have only one inspection line instead of two, have everybody go through only one. Canada is the only country where you go first to customs and then to immigration. The other country was Australia, which has now put both together. These have merged in a lot of places. But as you know, government machinery is the Prime Minister's prerogative, so that is why we have at least signed that memorandum, which has been overdue for the last two years. That's one of the concrete measures we put in place to address those kinds of issues.

À (1055)

The Chair: I think, Minister, you'll find in one of our reports that we suggested exactly the same thing, that customs and immigration work closely together--in fact, probably as a single line.

Yvon, and then Mr. Pacetti.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): By the way, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly the issue I wanted the minister to address. I asked the question of the Auditor General not too long ago, and she said that I should ask it of the people in charge, the politicians.

Her report says that there is a lack of fluidity in the exchange of information between the two groups of public servants, that there are training problems and a lack of consistency in the training. Immigration officials work at 44 of our 272 points of entry. So there still is a certain amount of disparity. Some customs officials turn down applications which immigration officials, when they review them, feel should not have been turned down, for obvious reasons. There are specific cases of this happening. So, people receive unfair treatment because customs officials lack the information to do their jobs or because they did not grasp the significance of information they received. The people who are turned down get a bad impression of Canada. But their cases are settled as soon as they are reviewed by your officials. Could we not create a uniform group of officials with specialized roles in order to prevent people being needlessly turned down and to ensure that applications are assessed correctly the first time around?

Hon. Denis Coderre: This is an issue which has many people worried. We have reached an agreement with Customs Canada, which we originally wanted to sign two years ago. The agreement also deals with the whole issue of training, inspection, the quality of service and the price of boardings. We basically would like to have a consistent inspection policy. When you go through the airports at Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle, you know that there is always a first inspection of passenger documents before they board the plane. When passengers come off the plane, a disembarkation team does another passport inspection. Under this new agreement, there will be greater consistency at the policy level. It will solve a certain number of problems.

Some people think that customs and immigration should fall under the same department. Some people think that some people should have been admitted and others not, but immigration officials have better tools at their disposal. On the one hand, immigration officials only man 44 of the 272 points of entry. The other points only have Customs Canada officials. I think that this agreement will solve the problem by providing the necessary tools to Customs officials. The time has come to have a debate on the issue. We are closely studying what is being done in Australia, in Great Britain and even in the United States. For those countries, consistency means more than simply signing an administrative agreement. It also means making structural changes. So, is it possible? It will be up to the Prime Minister or to the future prime minister to decide.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, do you think we could get a copy of that?

Hon. Denis Coderre: Absolutely. No problem.

[English]

The Chair: Massimo.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Quickly.

[Translation]

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Good morning, Minister. I have two quick questions for you. The first deals with the identity card. We are working hard on the issue and I would like to know whether there is a deadline.

[English]

Which way are you leaning toward?

[Translation]

Which way are you leaning?

[English]

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: My second question is on the budget. I thought we were talking about the estimates, so I just want to know...

It looks to me like the budget for the citizenship and immigration department has increased by 11% for the department and 9% for the refugee board. Is that going to be enough money to reduce the backlog, to bring in the skilled workers, to increase the nomination programs?

The Chair: Finally a question on estimates. Thank you very much, Massimo.

[Translation]

Hon. Denis Coderre: —[Editor's Note: Inaudible]—

[English]

Hon. Denis Coderre: That's a good question. There are two things. I'm not going to tell you what I think about the ID card until I have the report. I know we should take a closer look at the way we should use biometrics and things like that, but I truly want to wait for your report.

I have a good feeling about how things should go and will look at what's going on all over the country.

When you have 101 countries that have some identity documents or ID cards, when you have international bodies with civil aviation that are already looking for international standards and taking a look at biometrics...

Biometrics are a way to recognize. That doesn't necessarily mean you're getting into private lives. It's about protecting identity.

We had the same kind of debate on whether we should have a picture on the driver's licence. I really believe also, with what has happened in the United States, for 2004 and what's going on throughout Europe the timing of that report will be very, very important.

On your second question, it's never enough. I would say this, though: Resources are not just a matter of money, but a matter of management. It's a matter of partnership. I truly believe that since we have more and more partners in the process—communities, municipalities, provincial governments, and territories that are truly willing to do their share and participate in the process because they have seen the importance of immigration as a catalyst, as a means of regional development, as a way to prevent all the people getting out of the regions, where you can apply immigration and develop rural Canada—I think we will need more resources because of that. We'll never have enough money.

Á (1100)

The Chair: We're obviously saving all the tough questions for when you leave. I'm happy that your administration... I know we have some more.

Before you go, Minister, I like what you had to say in your opening statements about unleashing the immigrant potential in Canada as well as making sure that people can essentially integrate as quickly as possible and therefore achieve that potential.

Firstly, because we are studying the settlement issue and we want to be given the benefit of your input on this, if I look at your estimates with regard to settlement programs, and this is what we heard across the country, immigration levels are going up but the settlement money is not.

In fact, in the supplementaries that we're going to approve today, I think there's a difference of $16,000 between last year and this year. Yet even though we're not achieving the numbers we'd like to, as Sarkis has indicated... I agree with what you said, but the proof is not in the pudding in terms of the resources that are required by the provinces and our partners in making sure that when immigrants come here, in fact they can move along the continuum of integration.

So I wonder if you could tell me how we're going to achieve your objective if the money isn't there.

Hon. Denis Coderre: The issue is, and we have to be very straightforward on this, the money that we have right now would be sufficient only for 225,000. Of course, because of that partnership with other colleagues, we have to be very careful, because if we're raising the levels, that will have some consequences in the field from a municipal perspective through to a provincial perspective.

I was very clear at the last federal-provincial-territorial conference that we will have the levels of the money we have. It means 225,000, or lower.

The Chair: We'll follow up with your administration.

I have a second question as it relates to our role with the United States.

Minister, you indicated in the fall that you intended to meet with governors. You will know that this committee did some fine work when we were in Washington and we met some of our counterparts. In fact, we agreed to and are working on a model of binational meetings with our counterparts on immigration and border security for the purpose of discussing common issues to both our countries. I think that concept is going over really well.

I'm wondering whether or not you can enlighten us a little more on the kinds of discussions you think you'll be having with the governors and/or the administration with the United States as relates to biometrics, border security. It is a fact that the profiling has been a really big concern to Canadians, especially as those who are yet to be citizens are now being profiled, fingerprinted, and continue to be so. As well, the deportation of Canadian citizens, not back to Canada but to the country of their origin, is really problematic. I'm wondering whether you intend to deal with those issues with the administration, as we intend to do with our counterparts in Congress.

Hon. Denis Coderre: Totally, because I think with the implementation of the safe third country agreement, with the fact of the entry-exit program, with the biometrics issue, we have a great relationship between Ottawa and Washington when we're negotiating, but at the same time, we need to look at what the consequences will be on the field. To do so, that's why I already met with Governor Locke and Governor Pataki.

What I'm looking for probably is to have two different kinds of conferences, one in western Canada and western U.S.A., and one in eastern Canada and eastern U.S.A. It's like the model with the Great Lakes or in Lake Champlain. They already have bodies of decision-makers and they are meeting once a year. I'm not saying that we should have once-a-year meetings, but at least we need one day in the United States and one day in Canada.

I'm looking forward to working with you because I believe that it's those issues. Now we're having debate among ourselves, but we need to find a way also to pass the messages. I believe that the communication strategy will be key on the field, also. So it's to talk with the decision-makers, and we want to make sure we will work at the local level.

When I went to Washington state I went through the city of Blaine. They have some issues there, and it's day to day. How will the day-to-day apply with the kinds of decisions we're taking abroad? As a matter of fact, this is an issue also for Surrey, and that's why we need to do the same thing for Lacolle.

Á (1105)

[Translation]

It's no different at Lacolle, New York State, Vermont and elsewhere.

So, there are consequences, and I think that we must address the issue from a North American point of view. In my opinion, it's the only way to proceed, that is, through communication, in order to create relationships between representatives, other elected officials or between other levels of officials. I think there are common interests which could lead to concrete solutions in the future.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, once again, on behalf of the committee, for attending with regard to the main estimates, and we look forward to continuing the discussion with Mr. Dorais and his officials.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Thank you.

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Already? What luck! I had asked a question of the minister, but...

[English]

The Chair: Michel, did you have something to say?

Mr. Michel Dorais: Mr. Chairman, I have a complementive answer to Madam Ablonczy's question at the beginning.

I was reminded that when IRPA was approved, the Department of Justice received a certain amount of money for increased litigation, which was expected. It is expected of any major legislation, and that is the money that will be used for this litigation. We'll provide the committee with the exact number. I don't have it with me, unfortunately.

The Chair: Sure. Thank you.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I wanted to ask Mr. Coderre a question about the strategy with regard to the American requirements.

He told me that there would be a communications campaign. But I presume that you are much farther along than that. I want to know how much money will have to be invested in such an initiative, because an effective communications campaign is expensive and it also has to be implemented.

For instance, if a permanent resident wants to include biometric data in his or her card, how much will that cost? I am sure you have thought about this. Otherwise, it would be discouraging.

Mr. Michel Dorais: I would not want to discourage the member!

As I mentioned at our last meeting, the decision to include biometric data, or not to include it, on permanent resident cards has not been taken yet. At this stage, we are studying the feasibility of such a project and what biometric data could be included. Our American counterparts are not as advanced as we are with regard to basic research.

So, it is definitely premature to talk about a communications policy because we don't even know what we want to communicate, or whether we will have to communicate anything at all. We are not working on a communications plan at this time.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The Americans seemed pretty serious about their fall 2004 deadline. Whether you like it or not, the fall of 2004 is not very far away, right? So, I'm just wondering whether they will put up a wall. But I trust you, the wall will come down.

I'd like to ask you an important question. The law has been in effect for nearly a year now and the refugee appeal section still is not up and running. This worries me because a year is also not a very long time, and the refugee appeal section is an important element of the new legislation. You may tell me that it is up to the minister to decide, except that, in the House, the minister has repeatedly said that he is thinking of several approaches.

Could one of these approaches consist in eliminating the appeal section per se? If so, why? Would it be for financial reasons or because of pressure from neighbouring countries?

Á (1110)

Mr. Michel Dorais: The minister announced recently that the government would renew the mechanism for determining refugee status and the entire refugee situation in Canada. In the same breath, he said that it would be premature to enact that section of the legislation.

It is the Prime Minister's prerogative to determine, in the place and time of his choosing, whether an appeal board is necessary or not. However, the minister recommended that the section in question not be enacted yet, because of the huge backlog at the Immigration and Refugee Board. He thought that if the provision in question were enacted at this time, it would simply slow down the board's work.

So, the minister announced that he would delay the proclamation until the review was completed.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The rule of law prevails in Canada, and the right to appeal is enshrined somewhere, it is one of our fundamental rights. If we deny refugee claimants the right to appeal, it would go against many of our collective values. I have a big problem with that. I think a person has the right to appeal a decision and to do so under a rules-based system. It's all very well to say that you are thinking about the issue, that you are studying and assessing it, but the question is, for how long? How long will this take? That's my question.

Mr. Michel Dorais: I do not want to debate the relevancy of...

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, no, of course not.

Mr. Michel Dorais: I just want to make an important clarification. As it now stands, refugee claimants have the right to appeal. The issue is how often they can appeal a decision. I could ask the officials from the Department of Justice to explain, if the committee so wishes, the various legal avenues which refugee claimants can turn to under the current system, aside from the review commission.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Massimo, and then Diane.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I asked this the last time when we were talking about the supplementary estimates.

Is there a breakdown at all on how much it costs us to bring in an immigrant in terms of region? I know we had discussed that perhaps we were going to make something available because we were talking about increasing the nomination programs and

[Translation]

The places which would take in immigrants.

[English]

So when we're saying we want to bring in more immigrants, skilled workers, at least we want to know how much it's going to cost us. I don't know if it's possible to get that type of information.

Mr. Michel Dorais: I hesitated and I danced the last time you asked that question for a very obvious reason.

We know that the planned spending for maximizing benefits is about $120 million for the department, but the question is, how much is it to bring in an immigrant? And that's why I'm having difficulty. When you try to build an average, it's a very dangerous road to go down, because the costs vary tremendously. There are areas of the world where there's a very low fraud rate, for example, so the cost is very different in an area where there's a 50% fraud rate.

Bringing in a skilled worker, depending on the category, may vary. If the language issue is part of the problem, it's obvious that dealing with immigrants who already possess one of the two languages is much easier than... living in an environment where neither of the two languages in Canada is used. And when we have to do the checks and everything...

So it's very dangerous to come with an average number, but the total cost, I think, if I'm not mistaken, and I stand to be corrected by my colleagues, is about $120 million for maximizing benefits. We brought in 229,000 refugees and immigrants last year, but that included family reunification and others. So it's very dangerous to advance numbers on a unitary basis.

Á (1115)

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Even if we generalize into tables, like ranges and so on...?

Mr. Michel Dorais: I am reminded that this number excludes the integration of the immigrants, which comes after the immigrant is in, and that is about $391 million in total.

The Chair: Perhaps I could follow up, because I'm having a hard time understanding this. I know that finance people are made up of bean counters. Therefore, if we truly believe that immigration is necessary for the country and in fact is an economic value to the country, I'm wondering why we're putting the price on people's heads.

Let me give you an example.

The question was, and the minister answered, the only reason why we couldn't attract more than 225,000 people was that we needed more money. Well, I'd like to understand that equation, which means, then, that if we want to attract more, we have to give somebody more money, obviously your department, so that you can process a lot more people.

On the other part of the equation, and I'll use this in terms of settlement, I am told, of course, you'll have $397 million, and in terms of settlement we have 225,000 people. It works out to be about $1,700 a person, even though each individual is a little different.

So I'm trying to understand, and the committee would like to understand, because all of our proposals and all of our recommendations have talked about more immigration, more settlement. Surely, though, at the end of the day, whether or not you invest in an immigrant, a skilled worker to come to this country, it's not a cost any more. In fact, it's going to be a great investment in value to the country. On the settlement side, as well, if we invest in their integration, they're going to reach their potential, as the minister said, and in fact they're going to pay an awful lot of taxes to the government and to the finance bean counters, who would probably say “Well, Michel, how many more dollars do you need in your department in order to attract 50,000 more people?”

I'd like to understand how this complicated equation, this calculus works here.

Mr. Michel Dorais: It's not a complicated equation in a sense. We have a target of 225,000 people right now. We know, and the minister has announced, that to increase this number we would need to invest an additional amount of money in integration. We get that especially from the fact that over the last decades new immigrants have had a harder time than the decade before to integrate in our society.

My reluctance to answer, Mr. Chair—I hope I can express it and I apologize for it—is that I could probably come out and say we need x number of thousands of dollars per immigrant, additional immigrants over 225,000, but the actual decision is a lot more complex than that.

The decision on increasing the level is a combination of new money and policy decisions that may come from reallocating funds within the department. Those are obviously made by the minister at the political level. This is why I find it very difficult today to tell the committee that with x million dollars more, we could get x number of immigrants. There are various options on this, and when the minister asks me for my advice I will provide him with a set of options, but the decision is ultimately very political.

The Chair: The minister—and I must apologize, I never heard what the minister said this morning—mentioned a number, a dollar amount per immigrant that it would take in order to attract people. I didn't catch the number, and nobody else seems to understand it, but he mentioned a number per person. I didn't get it, but I'd like to do the calculation, if I could. I'm sure we have more questions.

Massimo.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I'm not asking for a specific, exact amount. I know it's not exact science, but at least a range where we can say this type, with this skill level, even if it's a table where we can break it down into say ten different types of skilled workers, ten different areas of the world where these immigrants come from. There has to be some kind of number, even if it's a range of numbers. The $120 million has to be broken up somehow, I have to believe.

Mr. Michel Dorais: It can be broken up. You can make all kinds of calculations. The only thing I'm hesitating about is giving the committee a number that would be my own calculation, and not necessarily the one that is chosen by the government. The government has a number of options: reallocating money internally, asking for new money, changing processing. For example, it is obvious that a skilled worker in a family reunification case does not cost the same amount of money. Integration in Toronto and integration in a small town does not cost the same amount of money.

Á (1120)

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I understand that, but it's just because we're making recommendations based on what? Sometimes we recommend that we should put more money towards nomination or skilled workers or... I guess that's the way I view it.

Mr. Michel Dorais: I can tell the committee we can put on the table all the numbers and the actual number of immigrants we brought in in various categories and from that you can deduct the actual cost, but that doesn't necessarily.... As to options for the future, for increasing levels, there are quite a number of options the committee may wish to consider at some point.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: What was the number the minister gave?

The Chair: We're all trying to figure that one out.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Well, it must have come from the department.

Mr. Michel Dorais: No, it hasn't. I haven't heard the number. It's not 17,000 or 3,000, I can tell you that. I don't think we have a number.

It would be silly to give a number by immigrant. You can take the budget of the department, divide it by 229,000, but that doesn't give you any kind of valid information to make policy decisions for the future. It's just an average.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I wonder, Mr. Chair, if the department would undertake to get that number to us, because...

The Chair: We get the blues tomorrow; we'll figure it out. I thought the rest of you were paying attention.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Presumably the number came from the department. Surely somebody here must know. We have the experts here. Let's find out.

The Chair: Maybe somebody out there will tell us the number before 12 o'clock.

Diane, go ahead.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: In the estimates, page 12, the department mentions that the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board, implemented streamlined processes to respond to an unprecedented increase in refugee protection claims. I have heard talk among some of the resource people I consult with from time to time that there's a discussion about disbanding the IRB. Is that true?

Mr. Michel Dorais: I've never heard about that option. There are options being looked at, as the minister announced, on the whole refugee determination system, but the option of disbanding was not put forward, not to my knowledge.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: One would hope that it would come to your attention, if it were being talked about.

I want to clarify something that came up in my discussion with you on Wednesday, May 14, and this was with respect to the Deputy Prime Minister's information to the House that 72% of refugee claimants come from the United States.

In reply to me, Daniel mentioned that this is the number for ports of entry, not the number of claimants inland, but surely we have no way of knowing for sure where inland claimants really do come from. They might all come from the United States, for all we know. The fact that they apply inland is an indication that we don't know their point of origin. I'm just wondering how I can rely on that information when the origin of inland claimants is so iffy.

Mr. Michel Dorais: I'll ask Mr. Jean to complete the answer.

Mr. Daniel Jean (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): As we discussed that day, it's easy to tell you in accurate actual terms what the percentage of claimants at port of entry is from the United States—it's 72%—because they come, they claim, and we've seen them arrive from the United States. There is no debate on this.

When you talk about inland claims, then what we do is we interview them and then try to get as much information as we can. We know that a substantial number of them do come from the United States, but we have no way to verify that. I cannot tell you in any accurate way that they certainly come from the United States. When we say 72%, these are the claims that are presented at land port of entries.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes, that's my point exactly. We don't know, so we can't say it wasn't 72%. It might actually be higher for all we know.

I refer to page 11 of the estimates. There's an interesting paragraph there. It says:

To respond to pressures generated by the September 11 events, and to prepare for the implementation of the new act, the Department modified its organizational operations structure, and created and staffed new positions based on the need for new functions and an increased demand on existing functions.

This has just an incredible lack of specificity. I'd like to know what specific modifications were made to the organizational structure, which positions were created and staffed due to the increased security needs, and what specific human resources decisions have been implemented to deal with that backlog on the front-line immigration staff and strain on the outlying immigration staff. Can you be more specific about that?

Á (1125)

Mr. Michel Dorais: Yes, we can. I will ask my ADM Operations to give you the exact figure.

The immediate reaction after September 11 was that we had to reinforce our border, so we started working in that direction and then very quickly came to the realization that we had to go with a 9,000-kilometre southern border and all the other borders of the airports. We had to go at it in a more intelligent way. Pardon the pun, but we created an intelligence directorate within CIC that would guide where we would invest the enforcement money rather than try to reinforce everything everywhere.

As my colleague from revenue pointed out to me one day, 100 new persons put at the border seven days a week, three shifts a day, amount to fewer than 20 people actually being present at the border. We really had to be very careful about how the money we had was being spent. This is why we now have an intelligence directorate that was created with part of the money to guide us in our intervention. But I can give you the exact reinforcement at the front line.

Lyse, veux-tu donner ces chiffres?

Ms. Lyse Ricard (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): At the front line, we have had probably around 100 people at the front line for front-end security screening and reinforcement—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Is that overseas or in Canada or both?

Ms. Lyse Ricard: In Canada, the front line in Canada.

We have also reinforced overseas our whole network of migration integrity specialists, who are now at 86.

Mr. Michel Dorais: I think the philosophy behind it, as the minister pointed out, is that it's much cheaper to try to prevent someone from reaching the border than to try to stop the person at the border. This is why we made an investment in our migration and integration specialists and our intelligence function, which allows us to focus the effort. The U.S. did the same thing.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: My point exactly in the Zundel case, but I won't go there with you.

Also, in your performance report, on page 34, you talk about the new CIC intelligence branch, which your colleague has just raised with us. I'd like to know what relationship this new intelligence branch has with CSIS, and specifically whether there are CSIS personnel with the CIC intelligence branch, and whether the CIC intelligence branch has personnel in CSIS, so that there are good links.

As you know, in other countries—specifically the U.S., but also others—these intelligence branches tend to be silos. Fierce turf protection battles take place, and really the general populace is not a whole lot better off, because information is being collected but not necessarily shared.

What assurance can you give the committee that this new intelligence agency is in fact giving a value-added to our whole security system?

Mr. Michel Dorais: I'll ask the ADM Operations, who's in charge of that intelligence function, to add to it.

Our relationship with CSIS is very close. In fact, if I recall correctly, we worked with them on something like 60,000 files over the last year. We have a very intense and close relationship with them.

The intelligence branch was created for that very purpose, to relate with law enforcement agencies and with the intelligence agencies in order to target our action. Specifically, I don't know if there are employees of CSIS working in that branch or not.

Ms. Lyse Ricard: We try to have exchanges like that, with people on assignment to CIC from the different—

Á (1130)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You try to, but is that happening?

Ms. Lyse Ricard: Yes. I would have to verify specifically right now, but since September 11 we have had people on secondment both ways, not only with CSIS, but with other organizations as well, such as the RCMP and the CSE. We have daily contact and a working relationship with all of our intelligence partners, not only with CSIS, here in Ottawa and in the field.

The Chair: We're still waiting, by the way, for that number. I know that the politicians may or may not have been listening to what the minister said. The administration may or may not have been listening to what that number was. I'm just wondering if anybody in the media has... They could call 996-4916 to let the committee know what number the minister mentioned. It would help us to deal with this particular issue. Again, the number to call is 996-4916. Call us at the committee room. We would appreciate that information.

Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I'm not sure the minister—

The Chair: And cast your vote at the same time.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: —answered the question. The question was asked, but no answer was given. The minister didn't answer that question.

The Chair: Your question?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: No. I'm saying the minister didn't answer the question on the figure—the one you were trying to search for.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: When I look at the table on page 5, you see “maintaining Canada's humanitarian tradition”, and you start off with $136.5 million. Then I see it for the planned spending for 2004-05, and that really undergoes a drastic drop of something like....

Mr. Michel Dorais: Which documents?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I'm looking at the wrong estimate report here.

The Chair: While you think about that one for a moment, do you have another question, or do you want to just look at that again for a minute, Andrew?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I could ask the question, because it...

The Chair: I don't want to force you to.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: “Maintaining Canada's humanitarian tradition,” what is your planned spending for 2004-05?

Mr. Michel Dorais: We'll provide them, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: That's in the future. How about the ones in the present, 2004-05?

I know you want to know where the department is going with this, and it's a good question, Andrew, but I'm just wondering whether or not it could be within the existing fiscal term.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: For the existing fiscal, the number I have is $100 million. The spending for 2001-02 is $136.5 million. That's a fairly big drop, more than 30%.

Mr. Michel Dorais: Mr. Chairman, the numbers I have for 2002-03 were $94.7 million, and for 2003-04, $96.8 million. But I don't know if we're talking about the same things.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: No, if I can just help him out, it's because he's looking at the main estimates. For 2001-02 there was $136.5 million forecast spending and then it dropped to $111.2 million for 2002-03. And then 2003-04 is $100 million. It's a declining amount. I'm here for the numbers.

Mr. Michel Dorais: I'm not sure. Is the question why is it going down?

Ms. Lyse Ricard: Why is it going down from 2002-03 and to 2005? Is that your question?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: We're “maintaining our humanitarian tradition” and we're going into a steep decline.

Ms. Lyse Ricard: Okay. The reason is that in 2002-03 you have a peak for the interim federal health program, the health program we have for refugees, which is higher than other years. The only reason for that is this program is based on volume that is increased on a need basis. We are not necessarily given increases by the government on an ongoing basis. And the other reason is there has been some use. You'll also see in this year, 2003-04, money that we carry forward from one year to another, but in fact based on the activities, the funding is stable.

And as I said, with respect to the interim federal health program, which is the health expenditures for refugees and refugee claimants, we increased that funding based on the volume. We often have increases that last a year and then we go back and it's increased again.

Á (1135)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Now, the year before that it was even higher. Would that be reflecting the Kosovo refugees?

Ms. Lyse Ricard: The 2001-02?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Yes, 2001-02, that's right. I have $136 million for the forecast spending.

Ms. Lyse Ricard: Yes, that was the last years of Kosovo, which we don't have any more on the books.

Mr. Michel Dorais: It's important to note here that the number of refugee claimants went from 45,000 to 32,000. That of course is a proportional reduction in the claims over the interim federal health program.

Ms. Lyse Ricard: And the other reason for high numbers in 2001 would have been the marine arrivals in B.C. who claimed refugee status and took us a few years to go through.

The Chair: Michel, with regard to the total costs of the maple leaf card, I'm not sure what the supplementary estimates or the estimates say is the total cost of that particular program. Can you break it down as to how much it's costing us per card to do it? I know we have the best card in the world, and I know other countries want to take a look at it. We've in fact viewed the facility where it's produced, and we're very impressed with the safeguards there. But I think your estimates show that x number of dollars had been spent to date. I'm just wondering whether or not that covers off all the cards that need to be issued. As you know, now people who are in Canada can start to apply for a maple leaf card, as opposed to the ones who were given those maple leaf cards before. I'm just wondering what the total cost of that program is going to be.

It wouldn't be a bad idea, since we have to look at a national ID card to see whether or not there's any correlation between production of a card and its purpose and what might be expected.

Mr. Michel Dorais: We'll provide the committee with a total breakdown. I'm reading in the text I have here that $17.3million was spent in 2001 and 2002, and $48.6million was allocated for 2003 and 2004, and $36.2 million in 2003 and 2004. But if my information is right and if I recall the cost, the actual net cost of the card, if you deduct the revenues from it, it's only the initial cost--$17 million. But we'll provide the committee with the exact breakdown.

The Chair: Just to follow up on something that Madeleine asked, I know it has the capacity to take a biometric identifier, if and when one makes the decision to include a biometric identifier in that card--forget about the passport for now. Would that mean all those people who were issued cards would be reissued another one, or in fact is it presently capable of taking the biometrics we already have? I want to understand and know.

Mr. Michel Dorais: Yes, it is. In fact, the optical strip on the card can take a lot of information, including multiple biometrics. But it's important for the committee to understand that including biometrics, the preliminary information we have is that the cost is not necessarily in putting the biometrics on the card but collecting it, where you have to see the individual.

The Chair: On settlement, I want to get back to this, if I could. People who are accepted to come into this country pay $500 to get their application processed and then $975 for a landing fee, per person. If you were to assume that 225,000 people come in, and you take away the refugees, and so on and so forth, the bulk of these people are paying for all of their own settlement. On the net cost, we're paying $396.5 million, but of that, people are paying for their own settlement costs.

I'd like to know, therefore, about that difference in correlation, because this committee is of the view that settlement costs are an investment, and in fact the more we can ensure that people on an individual basis can get the language training they want, or pre-orientation, or some information about Canada...

I think you'll be impressed with the report once we get it finished. I'm just trying to understand, though, if in fact we believe it to be an investment, then by the looks of it, three-quarters of this money is actually coming from the immigrants themselves. So what really is Canada's contribution, about $100 million maybe?

In some cases, where we have an agreement with the provinces—that is, B.C., and so on—they're expected to throw in some money also.

So I'm trying to understand the minister's statement, which is very, very much in favour of making sure each immigrant can achieve their maximum potential. Well, I'm not sure they can do that if in fact we're not prepared to invest more money. I'm still concerned that the numbers are going up but the settlement money is staying the same, recognizing that most immigrants pay for their own settlement.

Á (1140)

Mr. Michel Dorais: On the revenue-generating, it's important to make a distinction. The $500 is a cost-recovery fee; therefore it recuperates part of the actual processing cost incurred in the department, not the integration cost.

The landing fee, the $975, is not recuperated by the department but goes to the consolidated revenue fund. So we have a total envelope of revenue for the department that ranges, depending on the year, from as high as a half billion dollars one year, and $433 million last year, which was the total revenue collected by the department out of a budget of about $1 billion.

The Chair: I think you're getting shortchanged big time, and it has been the view of this committee in I don't know how many reports we've made that we believe the immigration and citizenship department is not getting the money, not only if we're supposed to process more applications much more swiftly and get people settled, and make sure our borders are secure, and so on. Somebody ought to be making the case to the finance department that you need a heck of a lot more money, especially if in fact you want to attract more immigrants, as we as a committee and as a country want to do.

On settlement, we were told there's a national survey being undertaken by your department with the NGOs and the settlement people as to a national model for settlement. I wonder whether that national model might give some indication as to how much it's costing us per immigrant in terms of settlement programs.

Mr. Daniel Jean: I think you're referring to the initiative known as the contribution accountability framework. What we're trying to do there is to measure what we spend in the settlement programs across the country, on what kinds of clients we spend it, and we're trying to have data to be able to measure the effectiveness of it, the outcome.

There is a settlement allocation model that exists, and we constantly examine that with our partners in terms of looking and making sure the money we have, the pie as it is, is allocated in the best and most equitable way. But I think what you're referring to is the accountability framework for settlement programs, and indeed we're trying to build this to better inform our decisions.

The Chair: With regard to the model, Daniel, can you send us information on that program, just so we can understand whether it's working right or not?

Sarkis.

Mr. Michel Dorais: I would like to make a comment, because you talked about budget. One of the cases we've been making, and we're in discussions about it now with the central agencies, is that what's really difficult for the department is to deal with variations of volumes. When we have, for example, in Beijing an 800% increase in the number of student applications within a period of three years, it is very hard for the department to adjust. This is quite often more of an obstacle for us than the actual total amount of money, the fact that we have to adapt and react very quickly to situations that are sometimes difficult to manage.

Á (1145)

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I was going to follow this topic for questioning, but I have to leave. I'll come right to the point. You state here the budget for the government is $180.7 billion, of which $37.6 billion is service charges, which leaves us with $143.1 billion overall government budget. You mentioned revenue for the department with landing fees and everything last year was approximately $433 million. That $433 million includes $143 million revenue?

Mr. Michel Dorais: I think it has to be, because the number you've quoted was from consolidated revenue, and all our collected money goes to the consolidated revenue. So I assume it's counted.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can you give me the total budget of the department?

Mr. Michel Dorais: It is $1.029 billion.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: So actually the budget coming from the Government of Canada to your department is $1.02 billion less $433 million?

Mr. Michel Dorais: Correct.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Which is, say, $600 million.

Now let's take another department that doesn't have the revenue coming in--say, the defence department. The budget is say $2 billion. They get net from the government budget $2 billion.

This department gets $600 million, but they are charged as though we're talking $1.2 billion. Do you find that logical here? Are you being shortchanged? How do you explain this discrepancy? Something is wrong somewhere.

Mr. Michel Dorais: These are the rules by which we function: all money goes to the consolidated revenue, and when we make a case for a budget item of some sort to the central agencies, it's for the entire budget of the department, not the budget of the department minus the revenue. We do not administer our own revenue like agencies would do.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: The landing fee was put in place in 1996 or 1997?

Mr. Michel Dorais: It was 1995.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Since then what kind of increase has your department received in your budget?

Mr. Michel Dorais: We received very substantial increases—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Take away the $433 million.

Mr. Michel Dorais: I can't make all those calculations, but I think, if I'm not mistaken, four years ago the department had a total budget of around $650 million, and we're now over $1 billion. So there was a very substantial increase—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Does $630 million include the landing fees?

Mr. Michel Dorais: No, I'm not including—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: There you go.

Mr. Michel Dorais: You have to deduct them, I suppose, from the amount. But then the last three years or four years we received nearly $400 million in increased budget.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: If one day the government decides to take away the normal landing fees and people come to the country as it used to be, you're going to have a big problem. The department has—

Mr. Michel Dorais: No, the budgets to the department are allocated in a separate process. If there was at one point a decision of the government to change the revenue structure, it would not affect the budget of the department. It would affect the overall revenue to the government, but not to the department.

The Chair: That's very interesting.

Are you suggesting, Michel, that we can cut the landing fees, which some of us would like to do, and it wouldn't affect the number of immigrants who would come into this country?

We'll have that discussion tomorrow.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Something is not clicking here.

Mr. Michel Dorais: What I'm saying is the department has a target revenue: we are supposed to bring in some revenues every year, but the decision on the revenue is a separate decision from the actual expenditure or budget of the department. They're two different decisions.

The Chair: All right, colleagues. No other questions? I'm going to move to the votes on the main estimates.

Shall vote 1 carry, less voted in interim supply? Can I have a motion to that effect?

Á (1150)

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I so move.

The Chair: Sarkis, thank you very much.

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Department

Vote 1—Citizenship and Immigration—Operating expenditures..........$586,778,000

^ç	(Vote 1 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall vote 5, less the amount voted in interim supply, carry?

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I so move.

The Chair: Moved by Massimo.

Objections?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

The Chair: Madeleine's objecting.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I'm objecting.

The Chair: And so is Diane.

Vote 5—Grants and contributions..........$388,298,000

^ç	(Vote 5 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall vote 10 carry, less that voted in interim supply?

Those opposed? Same.

Vote 10—Program expenditures.........$120,219,000

^ç	(Vote 10 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall I report votes 1, 5, and 10 to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I shall today at three o'clock regardless.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you, Michel and company.

I would remind you that tomorrow we're going to be doing Bill C-18, a briefing with the department, especially as it relates to security issues and so on.

I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Joe and Marlene, for your attendance.

The meeting is adjourned.