CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

¹

1535

The Chair (Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.))

Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

¹

1540

The Chair

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC)

Hon. Judy Sgro

Mr. Art Hanger

¹

1545

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

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Michel Dorais

Hon. Judy Sgro

Mr. Art Hanger

The Chair

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, CPC)

Hon. Judy Sgro

¹

1550

Mr. Grant McNally

Hon. Judy Sgro

Mr. Grant McNally

The Chair

Mr. Grant McNally

The Chair

Mr. Grant McNally

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Hon. Judy Sgro

¹

1555

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

Hon. Judy Sgro

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

Hon. Judy Sgro

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

º

1600

The Chair

Hon. Judy Sgro

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

Hon. Judy Sgro

º

1605

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Hon. Judy Sgro

The Chair

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

º

1610

The Chair

Hon. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.)

Hon. Judy Sgro

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

º

1615

Hon. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Hon. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)

Hon. Judy Sgro

º

1620

Hon. Jerry Pickard

Hon. Judy Sgro

Hon. Jerry Pickard

The Chair

Hon. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Grant McNally

Hon. Judy Sgro

Mr. Daniel Jean

º

1625

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Daniel Jean

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Grant McNally

Hon. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

Hon. Judy Sgro

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

Hon. Judy Sgro

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

º

1630

Hon. Judy Sgro

Ms. Raymonde Folco

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Hon. Judy Sgro

º

1635

The Chair

Hon. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Grant McNally

The Chair

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Daniel Jean

Mr. Grant McNally

º

1640

Mr. Daniel Jean

Mr. Grant McNally

Ms. Diane Vincent (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Grant McNally

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

Mr. Michel Dorais

º

1645

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Daniel Jean

º

1650

Ms. Raymonde Folco

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Michel Dorais

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

º

1655

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

The Chair

Hon. Andrew Telegdi

»

1700

The Chair

Hon. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Hon. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Hon. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Hon. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

Hon. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Michel Dorais

»

1705

The Chair

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Michel Dorais

Mr. Grant McNally

The Chair

Mr. Michel Dorais

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 004

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)): Welcome, everybody. I especially want to welcome the minister, the Honourable Judy Sgro. This is, I understand, your first TV appearance with this committee, and I hope you appreciate that it is my first one as the chair of this committee.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), main estimates 2004-05, votes 1, 5, and 10 in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, were referred to the committee on Tuesday, February 24, 2004.

    Madam Minister, I understand you have 15 minutes to make a presentation, and I will ask you to introduce the guests. We can follow up with discussion afterwards.

    Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm really pleased to be with you here today.

    With me are Deputy Minister Michel Dorais and ADMs Daniel Jean, Diane Vincent, and John McWhinnie.

    This committee will play an especially important part in helping to chart a new course for Canada's immigration and refugee program. So I'm very happy to have had this invitation to speak with you about this year's main estimates.

    I'd also like to take this opportunity to briefly talk to you about where things stand on the transfer of resources to the new Canadian Border Services Agency and our major reforms to the appointment process at the IRB. I also want to highlight some things we need to improve towards getting the results from immigration that Canadians need and want. I'll then be very happy to answer your questions.

    The main estimates for 2004 and 2005 include $1.009 billion in operating expenditures, as well as grants and contributions. These funds will allow the department to maximize the benefits of international migration, maintain our humanitarian tradition, and promote the integration of newcomers.

    The 2004-05 main estimates show a net decrease of $20.1 million compared with our previous fiscal year. This is primarily due to the successful completion of the initiative to introduce a new smart-technology permanent resident card to replace the old IMM 1000 paper document, as well as a re-profiling of funds related to the global case management system. The final delivery date for this new system remains in 2005.

    These main estimates do not reflect resource changes related to the transfer of responsibilities to the Canadian Border Services Agency. These changes will be reflected in revised main estimates. The CBSA is now fully functional, and we're in negotiations on transferring resources. We expect to have memorandums of understanding in place where there is shared accountability.

    Our new mandate and creation of the CBSA, of course, represent just one aspect of our resolve to change the way the government does business. We're moving aggressively forward to ensure that transparency, openness, and integrity become the new hallmarks of every nook and cranny in every department or agency. In this regard, I've now swept away the old appointment system at the IRB and replaced it with a system where hiring decisions are based solely on merit. From now on only merit, skill, and competence will be considered for the 219 Immigration and Refugee Board positions. Résumés for these jobs will not be routed through ministers' offices, they will be routed directly to the chair of the IRB.

    These reforms represent real change and a new approach, and I can assure you this is only the beginning. More comprehensive changes to the refugee determination process will allow us to continue building a system capable of quickly and efficiently helping those who need our protection and of strengthening Canada's humanitarian and compassionate traditions, both at home and overseas. This again is something you will see us pursue very aggressively.

    What's my vision as a new minister? Today I see my role as that of a facilitator, of ensuring that we bring as many stakeholders to the table as possible, and of ensuring that the decision-making process is as open, inclusive, and representative as possible. We need to engage all our partners in an honest and open debate about our opportunities and the challenges ahead as we share our vision. We need to find a way to include all ideas, their views, and their concerns as early as possible in the decision-making process, and we need to create the spaces and opportunities to do that. This is one reason I've spent a fair amount of time meeting with our provincial and territorial partners, municipal leaders, and other immigration stakeholders across Canada. It's also why this committee's work will be so important.

    To succeed, I think there are three things we need to acknowledge, three areas we need to address together.

    First, it is evident that many newcomers to Canada are not doing as well as they should. Statistics Canada tells us that even though employment earnings for newcomers are rising more rapidly than in the 1990s, average earnings today remain lower and more immigrants remain in poverty. We need to find out the factors contributing to this and to address them in a deliberate and coordinated way.

    Second, we have to acknowledge that many communities outside the Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver communities are not doing as well as they should from immigration. So we have to find ways to spread the benefits of immigration more evenly across Canada.

    Finally, I think we need to recognize that systems based on inventory management and a national selection grid may not deliver what we want in the time we want and to the places in Canada demanding more newcomers. So we've taken a few steps forward. But there's still much work to do.

    There is reason for optimism. Yesterday's budget provided an additional $15 million annually to help us build partnerships to deliver higher levels of language training. This will help about 20,000 newcomers annually get into the labour force more quickly. It will mean a better beginning for newcomers and a larger benefit to Canada.

    Most importantly, I need to hear from all of you. I can't succeed without your input. Together, I'm confident that we can continue to build an immigration program that delivers the benefits and results all Canadians need and expect.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

¹  (1540)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

    We have about 50 minutes for questions, and since we don't have a great deal of time allocated, we're going to give 12 minutes to each party. We'll start with the Conservatives, then the Bloc, Liberals, and NDP.

    Mr. Hanger.

    Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Madam Minister, it's good to hear your comments on where you want to take immigration. We can look forward to some more detail, I hope.

    I'm going to start by asking you a question in reference to something you haven't mentioned in your presentation here, the issue of visitors' visas. It's probably the most contentious of all the issues most members in this House who have large visible minority or ethnic populations encounter. A great deal of time is spent by the members trying to sort out concerns that those who have arrived earlier express about having family come over to visit.

    The concern for the department is that many visitors who do come end up staying. It becomes so political. It puts the members in a difficult position, because they may want to encourage those in their constituencies to seek to have their friends and relatives come over, and they go through the application. Then, of course, they're very much let down by the fact that the applicant decides they're going to stay in the country, and there's very little opportunity for removal, it appears. That's the biggest concern, it seems, on the part of the immigration department.

    I'm wondering how you would like to address that, given that it does affect so many offices, not only here politically, but with the resources the immigration officers have to track down those who decide to stay even after they've been granted a visitor's visa, with the commitment of the family that this person is going to return.

    Hon. Judy Sgro: Thank you very much for the question.

    The new Canadian Border Services Agency is now responsible for the removals. I think, with the opportunity to focus specifically on those areas, we'll probably deal with them more quickly than previously. Clearly, with the issue of visas, asking the members to put in their own letter of support and recommendation backing the visa is helpful, but we issue thousands of visas from various areas every day. There's constant demand on the resources to do that, for the officers to feel confident in the decisions they make. There are 700,000 visas issued every year, so it's a lot of visas, and it continues to be a challenge to meet all the demands.

    Mr. Art Hanger: I can understand that the issue becomes quite significant. I look at what has transpired in enforcement within the immigration department on the resources required. There hasn't been really that much of a bump upward to deal with this issue and other enforcement issues. That is the situation for this country not only within our nation, but for our overseas offices as well.

    I can relate to you a scenario that I believe has to be addressed by the department when it comes to the issuing, again, of visitors' visas and the breakdown, if you will, by those who have been sitting in these offices and have sole signing authority on visitors' visas. Even amongst the immigrant community, it's well known that these people can be bought off. To me, that's a pretty serious allegation if in fact it does exist. But there are ways of approaching the person or people who are responsible for signing those visas that lead to very specific people coming into the country because they were targeted right from the very beginning.

    Again, I would be anxious to know what your department is going to do to address concerns like that. Do you have that on your radar screen, as far as cleaning up some of the overseas offices is concerned?

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Michel Dorais (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Chair, if I may, I would strongly say that none of our officers abroad are being bought or are involved in any scheme. If there are examples or any information related to that, the department will take immediate action.

    We are taking action in about 20 to 25 cases per year abroad and in Canada. Every single complaint is pursued aggressively, and if there's a need to involve the police, we do it immediately.

    Mr. Art Hanger: I get two messages from your comments there. One is that you're saying that nobody is being bought off, and the other comment is that you handle about 25 cases dealing with that type of thing. Which is it? Is there a concern there by the department to deal with matters of this nature? Do they even see it as a problem?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: There is a concern of the department to take every case seriously. I'm talking 20 to 25 cases out of over a million transactions.

    Mr. Art Hanger: Sir, I will offer you this. As a conversation apart from this meeting here, I will direct your attention to a specific process that is engaged in by individuals, not in this country, but involving the Canadian immigration department, that deals exactly with what I'm asking you and talking to you about today. I would be more than pleased to direct your attention to that.

    Mr. Michel Dorais: Okay.

    Hon. Judy Sgro: To the honourable member, any allegations of this sort are taken very seriously, certainly, by the department, but I'm sure it's very important to all of us. Any information that you could give us to any of that activity we would appreciate.

    Mr. Art Hanger: I shall do that.

    The Chair: Mr. McNally.

    Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, CPC): Thank you, Madam Minister, for coming today.

    I'd like to follow up on the charges that were laid recently, which I know you're well aware of. Mr. Bourbonnais, who is a former IRB adjudicator, faces 98 counts. I think there are 278 criminal counts altogether now facing individuals who were involved in what's been called a very well-structured criminal organization having to do with the department.

    I know these are alarming concerns for all of us. First of all, could you give us an update on that?

    Secondly, you mentioned the process changing for appointments, where you're changing that process and that applications will go through the chair of the IRB. But won't the decisions still come back to you ultimately?

    First of all, I'm assuming the IRB chair will still be a Governor in Council appointment, decided on by cabinet. Obviously, you'll have input into that decision. At the end of the day, when the resumés come back, will you not have the final say on who the appointees are going to be?

    Hon. Judy Sgro: What we have recommended is a five-step process. There will be an advisory group as part of it, and there will be a screening process that people will have to go through. There's been a special skill set put together, which people will have to pass. But as they move forward on that system, the selection of people who are going to be on the IRB will be completely merit based. The chair will have the ability to appoint both those who sit on the advisory board and those who sit on the screening system. So those appointments are not going to be done by me, as to who sits on the advisory board or the screening board.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Grant McNally: Are you saying then that appointees to the IRB will no longer be rubber stamped, that final approval will go through a Governor in Council appointment, or that you won't have input into that?

    Hon. Judy Sgro: In the future, the chair of the IRB will come before the standing committee and be reviewed on whatever the recommendation, but it will be publicly advertised and competed for as a job. He will appoint the people to both the screening board and the advisory board and come to the minister with final recommendations, or a final group of names. I will review those with him. I will have a group of 10 and make the recommendations from that group of 10.

    At the end of the day, I believe that as ministers we're accountable. The chair is a Governor in Council appointment, but if I'm going to be held accountable, I will ultimately have to make the decision. I'll be making the decision on people who have gone through a very lengthy independent screening process and an advisory committee that will be totally independent of the minister.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Okay, so in essence--

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. McNally.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Am I out of time?

    The Chair: Yes, your time is up.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Okay, thank you.

    The Chair: Your colleague took much more than half the time, sorry.

    Mr. Rocheleau, from the Bloc. Thank you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good morning, Minister. I have two questions for you, one of which pertains to the Immigration and Refugee Board. You stated that the rules respecting appointments to the board are about to be change. I would like to know why you've decided to change these rules. I would also like to know how things were done in the past, what are the biggest changes that will be made and how they will improve the appointment process. Will the most recent appointments by your department be upheld? I believe some board members were appointed in recent months. What will happen to these appointees? Will they be appointed for the long term, or will their status be affected by these changes? That's my first question.

    My second question relates to your notes and your comment that you see your role as that of a facilitator who ensures “that the decision making process is as open, inclusive and representative as possible”. I believe there's a word missing, namely “expeditious”, particularly when you consider how sponsorship applications are processed. We're told that at one time, the department processed sponsorship applications within 12 to 18 months, whereas today, it is still processing applications filed in 2001. We're looking at a 36-month time line for processing applications.

    To what do you attribute this lengthy delay? Is it not a fact that your department is grappling with a serious shortage of manpower and resources to adequately deal with the situation?

[English]

    Hon. Judy Sgro: Thank you very much.

    The skill set that's going to be used for testing all of the people who are currently on the board and future appointees is an enhanced skill set. When I say that, I mean someone who is bringing the skills to the table, who has a level of compassion and an understanding of the countries where the individuals are fleeing from, and has the ability to make quick, compassionate, and efficient determinations.

    We've had cases where you have people waiting for that decision and it takes a very long time before those decisions get rendered. I don't think that's fair to the people who are waiting for that decision.

    So the skill set is a different skill set. It's not taking anything away from the people who are currently on the board, but it's a different skill set that's required in order to be able to deal with these cases, to understand the complexities of them, and to be able to make a fast, efficient decision.

    I think that pretty much puts it in perspective as to what we're trying to do here. It's not taking away from people who were sitting there before, but we're going to do things differently in the future. And all of those appointments will come through the proper process, which is through the chair of the IRB. They will not be coming on the recommendation of ministers.

¹  (1555)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Let me repeat the question. What prompted you to reform the appointment process and what will happen to IRB members appointed in recent months?

[English]

    Hon. Judy Sgro: The people who are currently on the system.... Within the next year, everybody will be tested under the new program we have.

    The Prime Minister indicated on December 12 that he wanted a reform of the appointment process of the IRB. He wanted it free of political interference in any way, shape, or form. He also asked me to look at streamlining the refugee determination process. In order to do that, you have to start with who the decision-makers are and with their ability to make competent, fast, efficient decisions.

    So the first step, on March 16, was just helping to change the decision-makers and their qualifications. The second will be recommendations on how we might better streamline the system.

    I might remind you, Mr. Rocheleau, that we had a backlog of 58,000 people. I think we will be down to 37,000 or 38,000 by the end of March, but we have to work at reducing those numbers. Keeping people waiting for years for a chance to make their appeal is not a fair system either, so it's important that we change the system altogether.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Is it acceptable, in your opinion, that three years are needed to process sponsorship applications? What is your take on this situation? To what do you attribute the delay?

[English]

    Hon. Judy Sgro: There are anywhere from six to twenty avenues of appeal or review in our current system. For people who opt to use all of their avenues of appeal, it can take three, four, or five years, and even much longer.

    On most of the spousal applications, by the way, we are processing 50% of those in six months and 80% in twelve months, in answer to your other question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I think we have a couple of minutes left over from the Bloc, but we have five Liberal members who would like to ask questions. I will give each member about three minutes.

    I'll start with Ms. Beaumier.

    Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): Three minutes?

    The Chair: Three minutes. Five people want to ask questions.

    Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I think you know I'm not a very happy camper when it comes to immigration. I think the IRB appointments now becoming bureaucratic patronage is just a knee-jerk reaction to an unfortunate situation.

    I have a problem with.... You know, we have our H and C regulations, and H and C regulations weren't put forward by Parliament. They didn't come before a committee. I think we have done a great disservice. And in turning over the responsibilities to the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, are we not just saying that we assume, or are taking the attitude, that everyone who comes to this country as a refugee is a potential criminal?

    I just don't know where this is coming from. I don't see us, as parliamentarians or as committee people, having an input into things. I just feel that we have knee-jerk reactions that haven't addressed the backlog, haven't addressed the points system, haven't addressed family reunification.

    What are we going to be doing about family reunification? You mentioned six to twelve months for a spouse. That's a long time. And these are subjective decisions. I could go on and name case after case after case.

    Now they're saying, especially in New Delhi, that with a visitor's visa you require a letter from your member of Parliament. And those letters are being tossed, and treated extremely disrespectfully. I know that. I make phone calls to New Delhi. I sit up until 3 o'clock in the morning and do not get a response.

    What are we going to do about the arrogance in the bureaucracy and their attitude towards us?

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Minister, one minute.

    Hon. Judy Sgro: Ms. Beaumier, I'm well aware of your concerns and those of some others on some of those issues. I can assure you that I have attempted to communicate the role of parliamentarians to many of our people in the embassies. When members of Parliament make interventions on behalf of constituents or family members, we ask that they be given full consideration and the respect they deserve.

    We continue to look at a variety of issues. I certainly have made spousal applications a priority, both inland and abroad. The sooner we can reunite families the better. When we're a country that talks about building communities, I think that making sure the spouses get here as soon as they can, or are able to get landed, is important. We have moved those processes and numbers up fairly quickly.

    I don't know if the staff want to comment on that.

    Mr. Michel Dorais: As the minister pointed out, we've already taken a number of measures, especially directed to members of Parliament, in terms of getting phone numbers for direct access.

    I'm troubled by the adjective “arrogance”. Our mission in the department is to bring people to Canada and help them become Canadian citizens. I would certainly like to believe that our people abroad and at our ports of entry everywhere are doing their best in the circumstances.

    It is trying sometimes when there is a fixed budget and a fixed target for the number of people. It's been tabled in this committee and in Parliament. We have a target of 220,000 to 240,000 people a year, and we have a fixed budget to administer that. We meet our target. We have tabled our number of 221,000 last year, so we've exceeded the low end of our target. We're trying our best.

    I'm troubled when I hear that our people are arrogant. As we said earlier, if there are specific cases we're certainly willing to take action. But I'd like to believe that our people like their jobs and are doing their best when they're abroad.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Madam Folco.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Minister, to our first meeting with you. I have several questions. I won't be too long, since I only have three minutes.

    I realize that you're in a difficult position. You were only recently appointed to the Citizenship and Immigration portfolio and you're succeeding several ministers who were responsible for a number of initiatives.

    I'll come back to the budget later. First, I have a question for you concerning initiatives taken by some of your predecessors with respect to the regionalization of immigration, as we refer to it in Quebec. Pursuant to a federal government initiative, wherever possible, immigrants are sent to regions other than the large urban areas.

    A second initiative is the National Identity Card and a third, the accreditation of Canadians, immigrant or non-immigrant, who obtained their degree abroad. I'd like to hear your views on these three initiatives. You stated in your opening remarks, and I quote:

[English]

So we've taken a few steps forward. But there's still much work to do.

[Translation]

    What positive steps have you in fact taken since your appointment to office? Thank you.

[English]

    Hon. Judy Sgro: The issue of regionalization that you raise continues to be a very important strategy for us to look at as a government. What opportunities does it provide for us?

    Regionalization is a strategy that has huge potential to assist us in working very closely with our cities and various communities on their needs and how we can better facilitate them. It's something of which I'm very supportive, and I will continue to work and look through various strategies to deal with that.

    On the ID card you mentioned, I'm looking to have more consultation with the committee on the work it has already started to do on some of these issues. I had some consultation with Canadians as to what avenue we need to use. That's just one of the things. I'm hoping we can work with the committee successfully in the future to identify the feelings of both the committee and Canadians.

    On the third issue of foreign credentials, as you know, the Prime Minister made that a huge priority by naming Hedy Fry to be my parliamentary secretary, with a specific mandate to work on foreign credentials. The $15 million that was added to our base budget yesterday was for enhanced language training as well. So it's just one of the many things we'll move forward on.

    On the foreign credentials, I'm also hoping that the committee will take the initiative to invite the associations and some of the employers in to start working together. I think that's the only way we're going to find the avenues. HRSD plays an integral part of all of this. So it's an opportunity for us. Maybe we could even work as a joint committee, if the committee were interested, on this issue in a couple of the meetings.

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: I have one last question. It has to do with the statement that “we've taken a few steps forward”.

    The Chair: Okay, but very briefly, please.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: You said in your initial presentation that you need to recognize that systems based on inventory management...and so on and so forth, and that you'd taken a few steps forward, but there's still much work to do.

    I'd like to understand what you meant by that. Which steps have you taken forward--you or the department?

    Hon. Judy Sgro: In January I chaired the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of immigration meeting, and there was a focus on the issue of foreign credentials as an example of one of the issues. We left that meeting with everyone having agreed to meet again in September to share best practices, what works throughout the country and what doesn't.

    I've had meetings in several of our provinces with the provincial ministers of immigration and with the city mayors. I think that's making a major move forward when we have the cities talk about immigration and how we could better work together, all three of us, to improve the lives of people who move to our country, both as immigrants and as refugees, to see what the roadblocks are. The only way we're going to do that is by sitting down together to talk about these various issues. Involving our cities is a whole new direction we're moving in, and I can tell you they have been very responsive. And the provinces have been very open to further discussions about pilots and different things we can be doing on the immigration pilots.

    The Chair: Andrew Telegdi, please.

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

    Minister, welcome.

    May I warn you that new ministers should always be careful about initiatives they pick up from the bureaucracy when they first get into office. I'll give you an example of Sergio Marchi. Ten years ago he was appointed minister and very quickly made an announcement that he was going to abolish citizenship court judges. After about six years of hearings, it seems there was a pretty solid feeling in the committee that our citizenship court judges be maintained, particularly separate from the bureaucracy.

    The other one is that you're talking about efficiency. I'm sure every one of us around this horseshoe has situations where we have family reunification. Of course people have to get security checks, health checks. Because of the length of the process, the health check will expire. Then you have to go and get a new health check, and by the time that comes back, your security check expires. So we really look for efficiencies coming through. I would like to have some report on that to the committee.

    The other one is turning down visas. I don't think we use our officials in the country enough, because a lot of the time the guarantors who come forward are the ones who should be taken into consideration, and they're not. I agree with my colleague that particularly when we try to deal with overseas people, visa officers, we don't get the kind of respect we should as members of Parliament--and I don't care which party we're from.

    Also, every time you turn a visa down you're losing potential economic development in the form of tourism, because people who come here do a lot of travelling around. So it's an economic loss. But also, when somebody gets married or somebody dies, I think it's very important that we have a process so we can act quickly.

    Finally, the Citizenship Act has to come back. We've been kicking it around for six years, and the bureaucracy is just going to have to accept the fact that the committee has made decisions. By not bringing it back in the proper form, it doesn't mean that it should be ignored. We want to act on it, because I believe Canadian citizens deserve that.

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: Very briefly, Madam Minister.

    Hon. Judy Sgro: Thank you very much, Mr. Telegdi.

    I can tell you on the Citizenship Act that I hope that will be the first piece of business on the committee's agenda when we come back in the fall. I think it's very important to get it changed. I have reviewed the act that the committee had been working on and would have attempted to bring it back already, but there clearly isn't enough time to get started on that. But I believe it's long overdue--we've been waiting since 1977. And I share with you that interest and determination to see us get a new Citizenship Act as soon as we can.

    The issue of that constant turnaround of medicals and security checks certainly makes it very difficult for people. It comes down to the fact that we have to get our processing times up faster. I think it's unfair to keep sending people back. I think I got a recent number like 11% as the number of people who are required to take it back a second time. Quite often it delays, it hampers, and it frustrates people who are trying to come here. There isn't any doubt about it. We need to move the process faster as we go through. As the deputy said, over 700,000 visas get issued a year. That's a lot of visas to do. There is a limit as to the resources, as well. You also have to do the processing.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Anything further? Go ahead.

    Mr. Michel Dorais: If I may add a fact, 83% of those 700,000 visas are accepted.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Leung, please.

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

    I want to welcome Minister Sgro. Thank you for your presentation.

    Thank you also to the deputy minister.

    I have a couple of questions.

    FIrst, I notice in your estimate, on pages 5 and 6, they have language instruction for newcomers to Canada. Of course we are happy to have the additional $15 million for the immigrants. Do you intend to actually use the funds for job training or additional jobs?

    In B.C. we started a very effective job fair, as we call it. It's like a trade fair, but this is a job fair to integrate based on the government, the community, and the private sector. Are you intending to develop a special way to develop more jobs, plus the language training? That's one question.

    Secondly, I can see that the chair of the IRB will be a very important selection. What is the process for the selection of the chair? Is this person is going to be really determining who is qualified to be a potential member?

    Thirdly, we have visitors turned down yearly on the basis--maybe correct me, some of the cases come to my riding--of suspicion of their intentions to stay as immigrants. Sometimes the suspicion may be very factual, but there are cases where it is very difficult to determine what is factual and what is suspicion. What is this really based on?

    We have first refusal and second refusal. I know that our constituents are very frustrated. Is there any way it can be more standardized on the reason for refusal?

    Thank you.

    Hon. Judy Sgro: Daniel, do you want answer the initial one about the refusals?

    Mr. Daniel Jean (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): On the criteria, you are correct. In assessing visitor visas, our officers have to look at what we call bona fides, which is a somewhat subjective assessment of the likelihood that this person is actually going to go, obey the terms and conditions of their visas, and return. In order to do that, they try to base it on some objective factors. They look at what kind of interest the people have in returning to their country, their occupations, their income, their family situations, and the kind of roots they have. They look at the kinds of patterns in terms of violations that we have from people of these countries.

    When we talk about the refusal rate of 17% worldwide, it ranges from 2% in some locations to 60% in other locations. It's all based on the number of violations that we get from these locations. We do not want to refuse people who should be receiving visas. At the same time, if we start issuing visas to people who will not obey the terms and conditions, then we get into the situation of the first question today; we get into the situation of having to remove people.

º  (1615)  

    Hon. Judy Sgro: On the issue of the $15 million that was added to our base budget yesterday, there was $5 million put in for enhanced language training last year, so we have an additional $20 million now every year into the budget. The $15 million yesterday was specifically for enhanced language training, the advanced level of language training.

    We're finding that when people come with their basic skills of English, it still isn't enough for them to integrate to the level that they need to be. We wanted to focus this money specifically on those who needed the extra top-up of language training that would allow them to do that. At this point, all options are on the table as far as where we're going with it, but we look at it as being able to help 20,000 newcomers to integrate faster and to find employment.

    On the issue of the chair of the IRB, it will be put into the Gazette notices. It will be publicly advertised and it will be a public competition. We'll review that and we'll come back before the standing committee for a review at the time, as well.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Pickard.

    Hon. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Minister and staff.

    I think your group is doing a good job with immigration. There are some problems that do need to be dealt with, and I'm sure you will go at them as strongly as possible.

    There are two things I would like to ask about. First, there are four-year backlogs, and all the discussions this committee has had in the past have very pointedly said you need more funds to deal with them. We need to be more cognizant of how that affects the lives of people who are making applications, not only in Canada but around the world. Are there changes to that backlog looked for in the third-party agreement as well?

    Second, you are now going through a restructuring process, and through that, the CBSA will be getting some of the funds. I don't know if there are formulas set; that's a matter of negotiation between you and the deputy prime minister's staff, but how do you see that process unfolding so that there's a reasoned distribution? The basic tenet--and I don't believe the basic tenet is correct--was that there will be even dollars shared. I think the formation of this new agency requires extra funding. But I leave it to you to give me an idea of how that change will occur.

    Hon. Judy Sgro: You refer to it as a backlog, but another way of looking at it is as the inventory that's there. The department continues to meet its mandate of between 220,000 and 240,000 a year. Canada continues to be a very popular place for people to come to, and on the processing times, we meet the objectives Parliament has set. Could we move faster? If Parliament wants to increase the numbers, it will have to increase resources, there's no doubt about it. That's just the reality of dealing with it. If the department were unable to meet the numbers set by Parliament, it would probably be revisited, but the department for the last several years has met the targets that have been set by Parliament.

    I think this change with CBSA coming into effect and whole issue of removals now becoming part of Minister McLellan's jurisdiction provide us with an opportunity to start talking more about the positive benefits of immigration, why it's important, and to celebrate immigration in Canada. As immigration was the past, it's clearly the future. We have an aging population, we have a declining birth rate, and we have very serious problems ahead of us. So to start talking now about the good things in immigration and where we want to go with it is a chance for us to do some really good work, both as a committee and, I think, as a department. To get away from the deportations and removals I think is a positive for us and an opportunity to move forward and concentrate more clearly on just how we are going to build Canada and where we're going with this, working more closely with our provinces and our cities.

    The provincial nominee program started as a pilot with the provinces, and it's worked extremely well, where the provinces can identify who they need and sponsor them. I think the closer we get to responding to the needs with the cities and the provinces assisting on immigration, the more successful the integration will be as far as that goes.

    On the safe third agreement, the regulations finally got published. It's taken a year to get that done, but they have been published, so we are awaiting completion of that program.

º  (1620)  

    Hon. Jerry Pickard: What about the backlogs? I guess that was my question.

    Hon. Judy Sgro: It should help to decrease the inventory of people seeking refugee status in particular, but it does pose a problem with inland. It doesn't stop anybody from coming inland and making that application. But yes, we look at that as being helpful in what we're trying to do here in the department.

    Hon. Jerry Pickard: Is there a formula for CBSA transition?

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I think we've completed our first round of questioning. We're going to have a second round of short questions and short answers if it's possible.

    Before we go to the second round, Madam Minister, I'd like to ask you about PR cards. What is the latest on PR cards? How far have we gone with them? Are there any left in the inventory, as you call it? When do we expect to complete the backlogs, so we can have the PR cards in the regular turnover time?

    Hon. Judy Sgro: We have surpassed the million card mark; we're at about 1,016,000 permanent resident cards that have been issued, and have gone way over and above what we had expected to do. It has been very successful, actually. It's been completed on time and on budget. We are currently having about a 12-week process for the turnaround of the card.

    Overall, it's been extremely successful. The intent of the card was to secure the safety of Canada and Canadians. On January 1, an individual attempting to enter Canada with a fraudulent IMM 1000 was arrested and detained for criminal activity. So certainly, the intent of the permanent resident cards was to protect our country and Canadians, and it's been a very successful program.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. McNally for a second round, with a short question and answer please, so we can go one more round if possible.

    Mr. Grant McNally: I'd just like to begin where I left off and say that the changes you suggested to the appointment process are mainly cosmetic, because of the fact that ultimately the chair is appointed by the government, and then the people who are recommended are ultimately approved by you.

    But I want to move on to another topic, and that's grants and contributions, which are listed in the estimates as, I believe, $387 million.

    Do you have some criteria in place to measure value for dollars in that regard, whether the dollars spent are being spent wisely and effectively, and that the dollars taxpayers are putting into the system ultimately achieve the goals they are intended to do?

    Hon. Judy Sgro: Well, let me do the preliminary question, when you mentioned the IRB appointment. I can tell you that this is certainly not cosmetic at all. The fact that a Governor in Council appointment is the chair shows accountability, and in a democracy you intend to have accountability. That's why we have a democracy in Canada.

    I intend to ensure that every cent of money from this department you referred is spent wisely, as Canadian taxpayers would expect it to be.

    I'll ask Mr. Jean if he will go on and elaborate a bit further.

    Mr. Daniel Jean: On the issue of the contribution programs, of course there are audits for verifying compliance and making sure the funds are used in a proper way. We have program evaluations that are conducted on these programs to make sure they are getting the results we want them to.

    But more systematically, we are developing an accountability framework on all our integration programs. Most of these grants and contributions are in our integration programs. We are developing a systemic accountability framework that will allow us to constantly measure what is being invested and what kind of results we are having from it.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Grant McNally: Can you specifically talk to the line item of $500,000, I believe, for the immigration consultants program, and what that would refer to?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: That is a contribution to set up the CSIC, the Canadian....

    What's the exact name?

    Mr. Daniel Jean: Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

    Mr. Michel Dorais: The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, I'm sorry.

    Mr. Grant McNally: It's a one-time....

    Mr. Michel Dorais: It's a one-time contribution.

    Mr. Grant McNally: For set up costs.

    Hon. Judy Sgro: If I can just add to the comments on the immigration consultants, I think you and your constituents, as well as everyone else, know that we've had a huge problem with immigration consultants in Canada. The establishment of the CSIC will be an excellent opportunity for us to ensure that the people who are getting service are registered, and that they are qualified to be able to represent people. Hopefully, it will result in the elimination of the kinds of consultants who take advantage of people who are looking for their assistance.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Let's make it very quick, please.

    Mr. Michel Dorais: Just to correct a fact, the first contribution was $700,000. The $500,000 you see there is in case they need money for the second year, and it's a repayable contribution or a loan. It's repayable.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I want to remind everybody that the minister will leave shortly, but the department officials will be here. So if you want to ask questions, the departmental officials will be more than happy to entertain them.

    Mr. Rocheleau, very briefly, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Minister, I'd like to discuss with you a contentious issue pitting the Government of Canada against the Department of Immigration and the Government of Quebec. I'm referring to the costs associated with applying for refugee status and the delays encountered by claimants.

    It's no secret that the process takes 14 months on average to complete and that slightly less than 44 per cent of claimants obtain refugee status. In the meantime, the Quebec government is left to foot the bill for the overall social costs incurred as a result of the processing delays. For the year 2002 alone, we're looking at tens of millions of dollars in costs.

    Is this situation acceptable to you? Do you intend to see to it that the department gets the resources its needs to shorten these delays? Can we count on the federal government to assume all of the social costs associated with the fact that claimants' lives are on hold?

[English]

    Hon. Judy Sgro: Thank you very much for the question.

    I referred earlier to our aggressively looking at the claims in the refugee determination system. It would be wonderful to get the average down to six months. Quebec is the first province where we have been able to succeed in getting refugee determination claims down to having a decision made within the six-month timeframe. So Quebec is ahead of the rest of the provinces on that.

    So it's six months now, not 14 months any longer, though it was 14 months. We've now managed to reduce it to six months. That's ideally what we would like to be able to do for all of those claims across Canada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: The time-frame is six months, even in Quebec?

[English]

    Hon. Judy Sgro: Quebec is the only one where it's six months; the rest of the country is much longer, unfortunately.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I see.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madame Folco, please.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mention is made somewhere in the document of the Immigration and Refugee Board and of the budgets allocated to various sections. A year or two ago -- the time-line may be off a little - I recall a decision was made to create a refugee appeal division. The idea was discussed at considerable length. This happened during the tenure of a former minister. It seems to me a decision was made to move forward with this initiative and I'm wondering if anything has happened on that front.

    I note that there is no reference to this section or to its operating budget in the Main Estimates. Why is that? Do you intend to establish such a division? If so, what kind of budget do you intend to allocate to the IRB?

º  (1630)  

[English]

    Hon. Judy Sgro: Thank you very much, Madame Folco.

    On the issue of the refugee appeal division, or RAD as it's referred to most formally, in part of the review process that I have been asked by the Prime Minister to do to streamline the system, I will be looking at that particular section of it and seeing just how we might incorporate it into the review process, if that's appropriate.

    As far as the reference to it is concerned, there is no reference to the dollar factor specifically because of that.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We're up to Ms. Beaumier, but as she just left, it is Ms. Leung, please.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you Mr. Chair.

    Minister, in the estimates here of your budget, there is an item that I think you call migration policy development, and that's for $300,000. Would you explain what kind of work is involved there, and to whom this funding is allocated? That's my first question.

    Another part is, you have many offices in different locations and countries. Would those be part of the budget? It's not here. For a foreign country, where do you allocate your budget?

    This is related, but under the last minister of immigration they were talking about—almost 90%—that a new visa office was going to be set up in Guangzhou, but that just disappeared. I wonder if that is due to the funding, or to the lack of a budget. I don't quite follow how your budget is allocated for that kind of overseas service.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Michel Dorais: I can answer those questions, with your permission, Mr. Chair.

    The funds or contributions referred to under policy are for three things. One is for the Migration Policy Institute, an international organization that we contribute $80,000 to. That's like a retainer to do some research and to expose us to research that's done around the world.

    The second one, for $112,000, is our contribution as a member of the Regional Conference of the Americas, which we're a member of. It's called the Pueblo Group, and each country contributes a pro rata to it.

    The last one is the Inter-governmental Consultation on Asylum, Refugee and Migration Policies in Europe, North America and Australia, based in Geneva. Our contribution to it has been set at $112,000. There are 23 members there.

    With respect to the budget for accommodation, it's in the foreign affairs department's budget. That's why it doesn't appear in ours.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I know, Minister, you have to leave, but before you do, do you have any words of wisdom for the committee regarding the foreign credentials study we will be doing?.

    Hon. Judy Sgro: The matter of foreign credentials, as I indicated earlier, is extremely important to our government, to our Prime Minister, and I know to all of us on the committee. I'd welcome the opportunity if the committee could make that one of the issues they wanted to look at.

    I think we're at a real turning point, with various initiatives in a variety of our provinces. We have an excellent time right now regarding cooperation among our provinces and our cities, and we need to work with our employers, our associations, our universities, and our colleges. I think we have a great opportunity right now. I think the momentum is there, the time is right.

    Dr. Fry will join you shortly; she is replacing me at a committee right now. I think working with her will be very positive. I welcome the opportunity to come back and further discuss the whole issue of foreign credentials and where we might go with it.

    Thank you for the opportunity to come and to speak with you today. I hope the standing committee and the minister will be able to work closely together on making some changes in the future and on some very positive directions I know we'd all like to go in.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: On behalf of the all the committee members, thank you very much again. We hope to see you soon, as we work together to improve the lives of many Canadians.

    Hon. Judy Sgro: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: We start a new round with the Conservative Party of Canada.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Can we have a five-minute break?

    The Chair: The proposal is to have a five-minute break. We'll suspend for five minutes.

º  (1635)  

---

º  (1639)  

    The Chair: Order, please.

    Mr. McNally.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Can you hold on, Mr. McNally?

    Mr. Grant McNally: Yes.

    Mr. Michel Dorais: I would like a minute to introduce colleagues who are joining us: Alfred MacLeod, ADM strategic policy; and Irene Bader, who is acting ADM operations--the ADM is currently in Poland for a meeting.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, and welcome.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks.

    On page 6-5, to go back to grants and contributions, under language instructions for newcomers to Canada, do you have a breakdown of what those dollars would be by province?

    Mr. Daniel Jean: We could provide that for you. I don't have it here.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. It looks like that number has increased a little bit, but I hear from a lot of people that language is a big issue with immigrants coming to Canada and their integration into the community. I was talking to one of the assistant superintendents of the third-largest school district in B.C., which has a large and ever-increasing immigrant community, and they struggle with that so much, they are just overwhelmed with the job they have to do with the limited resources.

    It would be nice if we could get that broken down, and also find out the criterion. Is it per capita, dollar value? How is it determined how much goes to each province? Is it based on population or on the number of new arrivals?

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Daniel Jean: There is a model agreed on with the provinces for the allocation of integration money, and that includes language training. We could provide you the provincial numbers in respect of language training, as well as the overall package as a description of the model, if you want.

    Mr. Grant McNally: With the model. Okay, thank you.

    Then I also see “Promoting the Integration of Newcomers” in two different places. Maybe the second one is just a further breakdown in more detail. It's on page 6-4 and on page 6-5, the third line item on 6-4.

    Is that what I'm looking at? Is that the same dollar total, just broken down, or is that two separate programs?

    Ms. Diane Vincent (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): If I may, the one you have on page 6-4 is the total amount. When you go to 6-5, it's broken down into two categories, what we call a grant for promoting the integration of newcomers in Quebec, which is on the top of page 6-5. After that, it is in terms of contributions for provinces in Canada, except Quebec. You have the rest here.

    So on 6-4 it is the total, and on 6-5 you have it under grants when it refers to the Canada-Quebec agreement, and under contributions when it refers to other provinces in Canada.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. Does the department do any advertising, by any chance?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: We did some advertising last year related to the permanent resident card.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Which category would that come under?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: I don't know offhand, but we can dig that out easily.

    That and the citizenship week were the only two events.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Given the importance of advertising these days, that was just a question that I threw out there for you.

    Mr. Michel Dorais: We've already responded to questions in the House, outlining all the details of all that advertising. We can give a copy to the committee. It's all broken down by contract.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

    I do want to thank you for the hard work you do in coming to the committee to answer the tough questions. It's probably not the number one fun thing to do in anybody's day, but we do appreciate the hard work you're doing.

    Mr. Michel Dorais: Thank you, sir.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Going back to the grants and contributions, you had mentioned in response to one of my earlier questions that the immigrants consultants program part was repayable.

    Are there other parts here that are repayable, or are they all mainly grants—apart from that one?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: They're not grants; they're contributions, which means that they're not reimbursable, but people are accountable for how the money is spent. There's a contribution agreement that spells out the accountability structure—contrary to a grant, which is an amount of money given.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Right.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Monsieur Rocheleau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    As mentioned earlier, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contemplates the creation of the Refugee Appeal Division. This division has yet to be established and the Main Estimates do not appear to contain any budgetary provisions for the creation of this division. Yet, the UN High Commission for Refugees has been critical of Canada's record in this area. Moreover, the legislation does provide for the establishment of the RAD.

    What explanation do you have for the department's actions in this area? Will the government create this division, in accordance with the legislation, before the next elections?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I can't answer the last part of the question.

    However, as for the first part, last year the government announced that it was delaying the coming into force of this section of the legislation for administrative reasons. In fact, it began an overhaul of the refugee system which is still underway today.

    Before enacting this section of the legislation, the government felt it would be wise to complete the reform now under way. The government will make its intentions known when this stage of the process is completed.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Deputy Minister, from a humanitarian standpoint, persons affected by the legislation often face life and death situations. Are the people running the department mindful of that fact?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: Considerable recourse is available. Of course, the committee will be able to put questions to the Chair of the Board, which is a quasi-judicial body. Various steps can be taken at all stages of the process, whether it be in terms of risk assessment prior to deportation or in terms of humanitarian considerations. Rulings can be subject to judicial review and appeal at each stage. That isn't the problem. It was deemed counter-productive to introduce a further level at this stage of the game, when the entire system is being overhauled.

[English]

    The Chair: Yes, go ahead with a short question, please.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: The new legislation also makes provision for the establishment of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. How will this new society operate?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: In actual fact, the legislation makes provision for regulations respecting immigration consultants. These regulations have been drafted. Last year, having identified the consultants issue as a serious, recurring problem in terms of immigrants being exploited, the government mandated four eminent individuals representing refugees, consultants and lawyers to do a study on regulating consultants.

    The report was tabled last year and the government asked us to implement the recommendations that were formulated. The report, a copy of which has been presented to the committee, recommended the creation of a non-profit agency to monitor and regulate consultants.

    The four individuals responsible for the report became the founding members of this non-profit society. Other members of the consultant and legal community subsequently joined the society which later was incorporated.

    We provided a contribution of $700,000 to help the society incorporate and it is now starting to issue membership cards. The society's board of directors will be elected by the membership, in accordance with certain rules and regulations. This body will be fully independent and self-financing.

    Pursuant to the federal regulations, immigrant representatives must be members of either a provincial bar association, the Notarial Association or the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Madame Folco.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is along the same lines as the one put by my colleague.

    As I understand it, this society operates at arm's length from the government. Could we compare this body with the Collège des médecins du Québec which sets professional standards, sanctions its members, where necessary, and so forth?

    Will this new society be a similar type of corporation?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: Absolutely. The principles are exactly the same. The society is independent and its board of directors is elected by the members. Membership criteria have already been determined. The exams to be written by new members are being drawn up. Clients who experience problems will be able to lodge a complaint, as is done in the case of any other professional association.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Will there be a fee schedule for consultants?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: I can't answer that question.

    Mr. Daniel Jean: As a rule, the fee schedule is not dictated either by a bar association or by society like this one. Conversely, clients will have access to society members. Just as they do when hiring a notary to arrange a house purchase or attend to other legal business, persons will be able to shop around, choose the type of services they want and judge whether they are getting value for their money.

    Fees will not be set by the corporation. However, persons will have access to the society's full membership.

º  (1650)  

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'd like to ask another question, Mr. Chairman, if time allows.

[English]

    The Chair: Yes, very briefly, please.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: In the documents listing the names of the most recent Governor in Council appointees to the IRB, I noticed that the duration of the mandates varied, in the case of both new and renewed appointments. Terms varied anywhere from one and sometimes two years, to occasionally five years. Could you explain the reason for these variations to me?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the department is not involved in the IRB appointment process. I urge the committee to direct these questions to the IRB chairperson.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Are you saying that the length of the mandate is determined by the chairperson?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: I don't believe that's the case. The Chairperson of the Board makes recommendations. It's my understanding that under the old system, the government sets the length of the term of office. To be honest, I can't really answer that question because I'm not involved in any way in the appointment process.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Then I assume none of your colleagues is in a position to answer the question either. Thank you.

    Mr. Michel Dorais: We respect the fact that a certain distance must be maintained between this quasi-judicial body and the department.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I have a question that I think will satisfy many Canadians, those who are viewing this program here today, or whenever they get a chance to do it.

    When I came here in 1970, there was a one-page application. After the page, it said “make sure you sign here”. That was basically the most difficult thing to do, just the name, address, date of birth, basic information.

    Now we know--it's not a secret--when you come here from India, say, or from Damascus, it takes three years to four years to process the application. I know we have more people coming in now than we had in the 1960s or 1970s, whatever the case may be.

    My question to you, sir, is of the 36-month to 48-month waiting period, what step will be the longest or most time-consuming for the department: security check, medical check, background check? Of the overflow of applications, what item consumes the most time to cause delay? Is there such a study you can tell me about? Maybe the security check will take one year, or the medical check will take two years. That adds to the overall waiting period of potential immigrants coming here.

    It's very frustrating for us to wait four years. Someone could be married, have a kid, the kid will die. Something happens to them. Then after four years down the road, you'll say “Listen, you applied for this, and now something is missing on the application, so we're going to refuse the application. Apply again.”

    Thank you.

    Mr. Michel Dorais: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the precise number, but I would say probably somewhere around 95% of the time is spent waiting in the queue. The processing itself is not time-consuming; it's waiting in the queue that's time-consuming.

    The reason, as I explained to the committee in other testimony, is very simple. We have a pipe that's 220,000 to 240,000 big. We have an intake and the committee had decided on the selection grid who had access to the intake. We built an inventory. But I'm limited with the resources that the department has to let in 220,000 to 240,000 people.

    There are only two ways to limit the intake into that pipe: to reduce the intake at the beginning, or to take longer. So the more people are in the inventory, the longer the wait is, the longer the time is spent in the queue.

    The Chair: How about resources? Would that have any impact on it--if you had more resources, more manpower, more distribution of intake offices, what have you? I think you agree, and I think everybody agrees with me, that four years is a very long time to wait for a visa to be processed. Is there a problem with the funding or the staffing?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: Resource is one element, obviously, but there are other elements. When the government or the committee, with its recommendations, suggests that we prioritize one segment of the intake--for example, spousal landing--well, if we decide to focus our effort on that, something else has to give somewhere else.

    The resource package is finite. However big the resource package is, it is fixed. So when we decide to accelerate the treatment of, let's say, highly skilled workers or something like that, it is always done to the detriment of others. As we informed the committee at some point, prioritizing the spouses or the skilled workers means that some other categories, like grandparents, could suffer from longer waiting times.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. McNally, any questions? Mr. Rocheleau? Okay, everybody's happy.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: I wouldn't put it that way. It's because we didn't get all the answers we wanted.

    The Chair: Andrew Telegdi.

    Hon. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's great having the deputy ministers in front of us. We can perhaps get some answers.

    The question I have relates to the amount of money the department allocates for what they say are World War II denaturalization cases.

    In May of this past year, during the course of the hearings on the Citizenship Act, we had Madam Frith in front of us, and she presented us with some statistics that were less than stellar in terms of success, cases that were very expensive to process. They essentially involved about 20 individuals in their eighties against whom an accusation had been made under the Citizenship Act that they had come into the country fraudulently.

    This issue, as you know, has been of concern to me, because I have always maintained that a process that denies section 7 of the charter to individuals to defend themselves is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Just to refresh everyone's mind about what section 7 says, it basically states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” It essentially says that if somebody is going to be accused of fraud, they must have the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    We have something like close to six million Canadians who are citizens by choice through naturalization, and there are a number of us sitting around this table. The process that exists under the present Citizenship Act allows for one hearing in front of a Federal Court judge, with no right of appeal of the decision, and the decision is made on the balance of probabilities. The other thing I strongly objected to was that there was no right to appeal.

    Eventually, as I thought it would happen, the case was taken to Superior Court in the jurisdiction of Waterloo region, and the applicant went before the court claiming that his charter rights under section 7, and a number of other charter rights, were violated by the process. The question the court had to decide on was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The decision came down on January 6 of this year, and essentially what the judge decided was that yes, he did have jurisdiction to hear the case and he was going to hear the case.

    One of the things in his judgment states:

If revocation of his citizenship is justified, then the consequences must be justified. However, if revocation of his citizenship was not justified, was not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, then the impact upon his liberty and his security cannot be tolerated. In sum, I can think of no consequence, apart...

»  (1700)  

    The Chair: Excuse me. Is there a question coming up?

    Hon. Andrew Telegdi: Yes, there's a question coming up, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: I would appreciate it if you would put the question.

    Hon. Andrew Telegdi: Actually, this would be good for you to listen to, because it affects a lot of your constituents, including you yourself, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Hon. Andrew Telegdi: To continue:

In sum, I can think of no consequence, apart from a sentence of several years imprisonment in a penitentiary, which would be more significant to a responsible citizen than the loss of that citizenship.

    Now, this is Ontario Superior Court Justice Reilly.

    This is the crux of the issue I've been arguing and it's why I resigned as parliamentary secretary rather than rubber-stamp something coming from my own government, no doubt prepared by the bureaucracy.

    When this decision came down, the judge said, “I'm going to hear this case under the charter”, which has been the very crux of my argument all these years. The first thing that happened is that the government launched an appeal. I asked the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who made the decision to make an appeal. They said it wasn't them.

    Now, I would like you, as deputy minister, to tell me who made that decision, when you don't believe under the act that citizens should have a right to appeal, and all of a sudden the government is appealing something as fundamental as what's done by Justice Reilly.

    Could you please tell me who in the department made that decision?

    The Chair: If there's any relation in the question to the main estimates, please go ahead and answer. If there is not, we have other questions.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Michel Dorais: There's no relation to the main estimates, other than the fact that the war crime program is now the responsibility of the Canada Border Services Agency, not the department.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any other questions?

    Hon. Andrew Telegdi: There is a relationship to the estimates, because we've spent $100 million on it.

    The Chair: Excuse me, I just asked the deputy minister if there's a relationship, and he said no.

    Mr. Rocheleau, please.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I'd like to come back to the matter of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

    It's well known that abuses have occurred in the past. Given the vulnerable state of applicants, particularly refugee claimants, are those who engage the services of consultants protected by existing safeguards within the department or by appeal mechanisms? It's always possible that they may fall into the hands of some unscrupulous consultants, even if regulations are in place and consultants must be either a member of a bar association or a notary.

    Are there any safeguards in place which would allow the department to monitor the actions of consultants?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: You are quite right. There is an inherent risk in the process and it was for that very reason that the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants was established. The Society has made provision for a complaints process.

    Conversely, the government can monitor the society's actions at arm's length. Clients will be dealing with society members. However, if they fail to receive satisfaction through the complaints mechanism in place, they can choose to sever their relationship with the society. That is the kind of balance currently in place in the system. However, the mechanism as such can be accessed through the society.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Andrew, do you have a question?

    Hon. Andrew Telegdi: Any revocation of citizenship takes place under the Citizenship Act. It takes a decision by the minister. Now, are you telling me that there are absolutely no resources allocated by your department to deal with the Citizenship Act and the revocation section that involves the Minister of Citizenship?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: Mr. Chairman, I didn't think that was the question. The member has stated facts on the table. I will not argue with those facts. They're there and they're on record. The decisions were taken by the government--it's not me who made the decisions, obviously. They were made by the government. I think the question should be addressed to the government.

»  (1705)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. McNally, a short question.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

    Just going back to grants and contributions again, is there a listing specifically of how many dollars are going to which particular groups, or are we going to find that somewhere else later on?

    Mr. Michel Dorais: Yes, there is a list of all our service providers. The list is quite extensive, obviously. We can provide it to the committee. It's a public list.

    Mr. Grant McNally: I would like that. Thank you very much.

    The Chair: I would like to ask you a question about the consultants again. It was mentioned earlier that way back when Sergio Marchi was minister, this issue was raised, and I'm sure it was raised before that time too. It's been noted by others that this is mostly provincial jurisdiction, and provincial governments would have to certify the associations or organizations, whatever the case may be. What are the chances that we can work together with this organization, with federal-provincial jurisdiction overlapping? I know Quebec would probably not agree to it. I'm sure--my colleague is smiling--the answer is no, but there must be a way we can expedite the resolution of this situation as soon as possible.

    In my riding office people come in and say they've spent $10,000 to $12,000 for a consultant, and then the consultant is either not there or nothing is done. They come to my office and say, please write a letter to XYZ to expedite this; I am stuck; I have nowhere to go; they asked me to come and see you; you're the member of Parliament.

    What can be done to make sure...? It's because people are suffering out there. The point was made earlier, as I said, that some consultants' behaviour almost borders on being criminal, I think. They especially suck the blood of new Canadians coming in. They want to start their life, new families--I have cases--they're asked for $10,000 or $12,000, and in return they get zero services.

    Mr. Michel Dorais: Mr. Chairman, it will happen fast. The Supreme Court gave us some guidance as far as responsibilities for regulating groups were concerned. What we're doing right now is that we as the federal government decide that we will deal with the particular group that is regulated by that corporation. It will be done, and the target is some time early in the new fiscal year, which means April or somewhere in that timeframe.

    The provinces are well aware of what we're doing. It was discussed at the last meeting, and they are happy with what we're doing. Quebec is examining the situation right now to decide whether they will create their own system or use the system we've put in place. The corporation, I understand, has offered the Government of Quebec to set up a Quebec branch to deal with consultants in Quebec.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Before we conclude the meeting, I want to make the following announcement. Our next meeting will take place Monday, March 29, from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m., and there will be a briefing on foreign credential recognition. Just in case anybody is watching this program, they'll know what's coming up.

    Are there any other questions?

    That concludes our meeting. Thank you very much, and I'll see you soon, I hope.