[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, April 18, 1996
.1529 
[English]
The Chair: The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will begin. Our order of reference is pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, a review of an Order in Council appointment.
We have with us today, from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Janice Cochrane, the Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Welcome, Ms Cochrane.
Before you begin, I would like to make the members aware that in terms of the examination of this committee, we're under certain rules that have already been set in terms of the type of questioning we can do. I will be very flexible today. I want to mention that.
.1530
According to a ruling of Speaker John Fraser on December 11, 1986, the powers of examination of a committee are narrowly limited to the qualifications and competency to perform the duties of the post, and that's what we are here to examine today. Our scope is not larger than that, so I would like us to keep that in mind when we are questioning the witness.
I thank you very much, and I will begin with Mr. Nunez because he has to get to the House of Commons.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez, would you like to begin?
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Thank you, Ms Cochrane, for coming here this afternoon. I've read your C.V. with great interest. It is very interesting. I see you are from New Brunswick, the province next to Quebec. You have a BA and a degree in law, like me, and that you have been Queen's Counsel since 1987. You've been with the public service since 1975, that is for 21 years, and have occupied positions in the departments of Justice, Indian and Northern Affairs and the Environment. However I don't see any experience related to immigration or refugees. I assume you must have some experience in this field that is not shown in your C.V.
I'd like to know about your involvement in refugee and immigration matters and find out why you have been appointed to the prestigious position of Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
[English]
Ms Janice Cochrane (Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Immigration, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Merci. Madam Chair, first of all,
[Translation]
I'd like to say that the member is right. I do not have experience in the field of immigration or refugees.
[English]
Nevertheless, I think my curriculum vitae demonstrates that over the last 20 years I have had considerable experience in managing large, complex departments or parts of departments with social policy mandates - departments that have similarities. I'm thinking in particular of Indian and Northern Affairs, where there have been longstanding traditions of difficult moral issues coupled with complex legal issues that aren't easily described, but have evolved over time as a result of practice and law.
I believe my experience in Indian and Northern Affairs, coupled with my experience
[Translation]
as a lawyer with the Department of Justice and my experience in the Department of the Environment dealing with global questions.
[English]
has prepared me well for my position as Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
As to the Prime Minister's reasons for choosing me, I think you would have to pose that question to him.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: He is entitled to chose a woman deputy minister. I accept that, it is a good idea.
You are responsible for the Removal and Enforcement Branch, where there are a great deal of problems. You are aware of the Tassé Report where allegations are made about what the investigator refers to as facilitation fees but what I would describe as bribes paid by your officials to foreign authorities so that they accept their own nationals. Last week, when I was in Montreal, I was told about a case where $200 U.S. were supposed to have been paid to a foreign authority so that they would accept one of their own nationals.
There are many allegations that removal officers administer medicine, sedatives and other drugs to people making trouble on their removal from Canada. I visited the detention centres in Mississauga and Montreal. I was able to observe that there are a great many problems. Minors are kept without any reason in these centres for months and there are no criteria to determine whether they will be kept or released.
.1535
I'd like to know what you intend to do as Deputy Minister of the Department.
[English]
Ms Cochrane: Let me begin by saying that we welcome the recommendations that Mr. Tsaï made as an opportunity for us to continue the process of making the kinds of changes we need to make in order to ensure that the highest ethical standards are applied by enforcement and removal staff across the country. We have begun a process of implementing in concert with our people, I might add, because it is important
[Translation]
to ensure that people who are in violation of the law are on side and that they understand their obligations.
[English]
So we have developed an action plan, a national approach with the enforcement managers across the country. We will be holding national workshops with enforcement staff to examine the recommendations. Where there is a need for us to make changes to procedures and manuals of operation, we will do so.
I should add that what we are really looking at here is the fundamental change to the culture of the organization. These kinds of changes don't take place overnight. There is a history or a tradition of a certain way of operating, and without commenting on the past, I can simply say that in the future it is my intention to make a personal commitment to ensure that the highest ethical standards are articulated and well understood by our staff.
Mr. Nunez: But specifically on this question of facilitation fees, what do you intend to do? These fees are reimbursed by your department.
The Chair: Before you answer, Ms Cochrane, I said at the beginning that we're here to limit the questions strictly to qualification, competency and performance of duties.
Mr. Nunez: That is what we -
The Chair: If you will let me finish, Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
We shall be able to review a number of departmental practices when the Deputy Minister appears before the committee during our examination of the departmental Estimates and operation.
We are here today to look into the qualifications of the Deputy Minister. This is the reason for our meeting and please bear in mind that it was at your request.
Mr. Nunez: That is correct.
The Chair: You were the one who asked.
Mr. Nunez: One way of evaluating a person's qualifications and competence is to find out whether she is aware of what exactly her duties and functions are. I don't see much background experience here, it's just a list of titles. What type of questions can we ask? Let me ask another one.
As far as the IRBC is concerned, a quasi-judicial body, do you intend to do anything about the backlog? In Montreal you have to wait almost a year for a hearing and half of the refugees arrive in Quebec. Although there are far more cases in Montreal than in Toronto, Montreal has fewer commissioners.
You also know that it is a considerable financial burden for the government of Quebec because if the immigration review board takes one, two or three years to settle a question, in the meantime the Quebec government has to pay welfare. Although it is a quasi-judicial body, what are you able to do in the areas that come under your responsibility?
[English]
Ms Cochrane: Thank you, Madam Chair.
As the hon. member pointed out, the Immigration and Refugee Board is quasi-judicial, so our ability to influence their practices is somewhat limited. But we have established a good relationship at the working level to enable us to give the minister the kind of advice she needs to ensure that there is a proper functioning of the system.
.1540
We have as recently as last week met at the senior officials level with various individuals, including the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board. One of the issues we addressed was the question of backlogs, and I can assure you that the chair of that board has a plan in place. It is her prerogative to deal with this issue. It includes the engagement of part-time members, as necessary, in order to assure that any current backlog is cleared up, and beyond that she is accountable to the minister to ensure that cases proceed through the system in due course without bottlenecks being created.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: The Vegreville processing centre leaves a great deal to be desired, there are considerable delays in processing visa applications, visa extensions, work permits, etc. We never know when a file will be sent back to the region and what the reasons for these delays are.
There have been many complaints from lawyers, intervenors, and plaintiffs. Some people claim that it is easier and quicker to go to Buffalo in the United States and apply for a visa there that you can sometimes obtain the same day, rather than send the file to Vegreville where a permanent resident certificate may take as long as two years to obtain.
What additional efforts will you be making to deal with this very serious problem?
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, her answers will of course be based on her experience in other functions. I come back to my first point. The questions must deal with the Deputy Minister's qualifications. In any case, we'll let this question stand. You may answer, Ms Cochrane.
[English]
Ms Cochrane: The processing centres in Vegreville and in Mississauga are relatively new. As you know, there are three, and we have a processing centre in Sydney, Nova Scotia that also processes citizenship applications. Vegreville, in particular, began operations in April 1994, and we acknowledge there were start-up problems. Some of the start-up problems had to do with systems implementation and the pace at which systems and applications and training of people who were managing the systems occurred.
We have established national service standards, and all three of our case processing centres are now operating within those service standards. The service standard for the process of immigration kits at Vegreville is 90 days. On average we are processing cases within 59 days, and that includes10 days of mailing time. Visitor kits are being processed within 18 calendar days, and the service standard for visitors' permits is 25 days.
So we feel that while there may still be areas in which we can improve with that system, we are operating well within the standard that has been set and accepted as the national standard.
Those centres, as you are aware, Madam Chair, are intended to process routine high-volume applications, and that's freeing up staff in our local offices to handle the more complex cases. Naturally, where cases are more complex, where applications may be incomplete, additional information is required and so forth, more time is required to deal with those.
It may be those cases to which the hon. member is referring in terms of delays. We are confident that within the case processing centres we are meeting and in fact - in the case of Sydney - well exceeding the service standards even of those we set for ourselves.
[Translation]
The Chair: You may ask another question, Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: I'll attempt to please the Chair.
The Chair: That is the process, Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: Ms Cochrane, you've been with the public service for 21 years, if I'm not mistaken, since 1975.
[English]
Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier):
[Inaudible - Editor]...surviving that long.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Have there been performance appraisals done by your superiors? Have you always held positions of trust? Your appointment order stipulates that you have been appointed to this position of Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at pleasure. Why was this added to the order? Normally all Deputy Ministers are appointed at pleasure. So my two questions concern your appraisals as well as the appointment at pleasure.
.1545
Ms Cochrane: I believe that that is the practice with respect to Order in Council appointments.
[English]
As for my performance evaluations,
[Translation]
I'm very proud to say that my performance evaluations were in the superior category.
Mr. Nunez: Were there written evaluations?
Ms Cochrane: Yes, but sometimes my bosses forgot
[English]
to file their performance evaluations, but since I became a senior manager 10 years ago, my performance appraisals have been in the superior range.
[Translation]
The Chair: Your time is up.
[English]
Mr. Hanrahan.
Mr. Hanrahan (Edmonton - Strathcona): Thank you.
Madam Chairman, I'm on House duty as well, so I have to get back.
I would only congratulate the candidate on the position acquired and the long history of experience with government and wish her all the luck in the future.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms Cochrane, it's very nice to meet you. Having read your résumé, I am quite impressed with your background, experience and the depth and breadth of your experience in government.
I believe the job of a deputy minister is one of management. Within that context, I'm wondering what you see as the priorities of the department, the priorities you will be addressing in your term as deputy minister?
Ms Cochrane: Thank you, Madam Chair.
As the hon. member and others know, the minister will be appearing before this committee before too long to talk, in the context of the departmental outlook document and business plan, about the policy priorities of the department.
Until that time our current policy priorities are as were described in last year's business plan, and they are a matter of public record. For my own -
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I want to congratulate you on your appointment.
Ms Cochrane: Thank you.
[English]
There are a number of management priorities I have set for myself. As the hon. member perhaps is aware, Madam Chair, the department has recently been restructured. A new organizational structure was announced two weeks before my arrival in November last year. That created an organization that is somewhat novel in the federal system.
It is a very flat organization. Besides my position, there are two assistant deputy ministers, neither of whom have direct line responsibilities, and fifteen directors general, all of whom report to me. So it's intended to be an experiment in horizontal management.
We believe it's a flexible department with clear accountabilities, and we're trying to make it work. It's forcing us into teamwork and to more horizontal rather than hierarchical behaviour.
All of that is by way of background to indicate that a department that undergoes change to that degree at the same time as it's going through cuts as a result of program review needs some time to stabilize.
So I will put a good deal of my own personal effort into the consolidation of the new organization. I will also try to stabilize and rebuild some morale in the organization so that we do not lose productivity at the same time as the organization is beginning to settle down.
The second part of my key priorities, and I alluded to it earlier, is that I wish to use the opportunities presented by the Tassé report to focus the attention of the department - the entire department, not just at the enforcement level - on the highest of ethical standards that we feel the Canadian public deserves from us.
We have a code of conduct, and, for the most part, our officers are well aware of its contents and operate in accordance with its tenets.
I think it is helpful to everyone, including the senior management of the department, from time to time to remind ourselves to revisit the contents of those codes of behaviour to ensure that they do address the kinds of challenges employees are faced with in modern times. We should also make sure that our employees understand that we, by our own example and by our directives to them, expect everyone in the department to demonstrate that behaviour.
.1550
So in a management sense those are the two key priorities I would be addressing in the next couple of years.
Mr. Cullen: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Thank you, Madam Chair. I won't prolong the meeting, but I wanted to say hello and say how pleased I am, if I may say so, that we have a lawyer in the position.
I see long experience in the law and in the internal workings of the bureaucracy, which I think is absolutely mandatory. If I may say so, Ms Cochrane, I feel that if there is a bureaucracy that is more labyrinthian than Immigration, it is the end.
So I think you come from excellent work experience to go into a department that will require your expertise. I wish you well and look forward to working with you for the duration of the time I'm on this committee.
You indicated you'd be coming back with the minister. In your capacity as deputy minister, would you be called upon at all to discuss policy, or only implement policy?
Ms Cochrane: In terms of working with the minister?
Mr. Wappel: Yes.
Ms Cochrane: Madam Chair, we have two roles. Our roles are to advise the minister. The minister deserves and expects from us the best policy advice the department can offer, following which she takes a decision. Then following her decision the department's role is to implement her wishes as best we can.
So we do work very closely with the minister and her staff. The minister is new, as I am, in the portfolio, and she does rely heavily upon the advice of long-serving public servants, professional public servants in the department, as she works her way through some of these very complex policy issues.
Mr. Wappel: I guess the answer then would be that yes, indeed, you would discuss policy and give your views. Obviously the minister ultimately would make the final decision on policy matters.
Ms Cochrane: That's right.
Mr. Wappel: You said you were going to be appearing here before the committee with the minister?
The Chair: We will be inviting Ms Cochrane back when we do the outlooks and the estimates. I cannot give a timeframe now. It depends on the other work of the committee.
Mr. Wappel: Good.
Then I would be very interested if you would at that time be ready to answer questions I would have with respect to the advice you've given the minister, your views on the direction the department should take when the Human Rights Act is amended to include as a prohibited ground sexual orientation, how that will affect -
The Chair: In what way does that...?
Mr. Wappel: I'm simply asking that she be ready at the next meeting.
The Chair: How is that relevant to today's meeting?
Mr. Wappel: I'm not asking a question. I'm simply pointing out that these would be questions that -
The Chair: You are asking a question, Mr. Wappel -
Mr. Wappel: No, I'm not.
The Chair: - by not asking a question, but I won't go into that any more.
Mr. Wappel: I'm asking that you be ready with your answers to those questions at that time. No doubt you'll be giving advice to the minister on that issue. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Dhaliwal.
Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and let me also welcome you, Ms Cochrane. You have a tough challenge ahead of you.
I have many questions, but I'm not going to ask them, because we want to make sure you stay around for a lot longer and have some continuity.
My colleague to the left, Mr. Bélanger, has an excellent idea. He came up with the great and bright idea that maybe we should move the Vegreville office to Vancouver, and I support him 100%. Perhaps we should look at that as one of the first things.
As someone who has been involved in the immigration field for a long time, I want to say that there are a lot of areas for improvement in the area, particularly in this era of tight resources. I'd just like to put you on notice - I don't want you to respond to this - about some of my concerns -
The Chair: Not another question that is not a question.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I was recently in Delhi and the officer told me that 80% of adoptions were rejected by the Delhi office. I'm wondering why I've had so many adoption cases in my office. There has been an 80% rejection rate. That concerns me. I think it should concern you and the minister that a huge amount of resources is being spent, both by the government and by individuals, to go through these processes, only to have a rejection. I think that whole area needs to be looked at.
.1555
The other area has to do with the time I was quite involved in the immigration area. I was surprised that a lot of real common-sense cases were going to the appeal board. I'd go to Immigration and say, this doesn't make sense. There's a woman, they got married, she's pregnant from the marriage, and they say it's not a bona fide marriage. In the end the appeal board approves it when the evidence is provided, but when we went to Immigration, they said, ``Well, it has to go to appeal; we know nothing about it. We know you're right. It makes good sense.'' I said, ``Why are we wasting all these resources when we know this is not going to pass through appeal, but we are just going through the steps?''
There are a lot of resources being used. People know they're being used, that we can really help in these tight times to better utilize the resources that exist in the immigration area.
I don't want you to respond because you have quite a learning curve ahead of you, to learn something this year. But I can assure you that we want to work with you and come up with some creative ideas. I hope you'll be willing to work with us to make sure we improve the present situation, because I think we can work together and improve upon a lot of things.
Not too long ago in Vancouver I was surprised to read in the media that one of our own immigration officers was questioning the refugee board and the integrity of that board. The officer went to the press and said there must be some political interference in a decision made by the appeal board, which is a quasi-judicial organization. I was surprised that our own people were questioning the judgment of the refugee board.
So I think you have a tough challenge ahead of you. Somebody told me that the immigration employees' job is to keep people out, not to bring them in, so we had it all wrong. They shouldn't be helping to bring in people; it's how they can create barriers to keep people out. That was their fundamental job, and they're really doing their job when they're creating all these barriers.
So I think there's a mindset that hopefully we can change as well.
I very much look forward to working with you. Good luck, and thank you very much for coming forward and meeting with us at such an early point in your tenure.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: I also would like to congratulate you, madam.
[English]
What would you want and expect from this committee in terms of advice or help or in acting as a sounding board? How would you see us trying to help you in your functions?
Ms Cochrane: I think that, as many of the hon. members have indicated, the immigration program is fraught with difficult and complex policy issues. Not all of them can be addressed at any given time by officials within the government system.
It's very helpful to have examination by members of Parliament who also have an opportunity to question witnesses from NGOs, from the external community, including our stakeholders, to give us objective advice.
Sometimes we're not always objective within the department. We tend to get locked into our own ways of thinking. The kind of advice the committee can provide to me and to the department is advice that challenges our way of thinking on many of these issues.
As a result of having worked with these issues for some time, the hon. members for the most part are every bit as expert in this field as the officials in the department. It is tremendously helpful for the minister to have a variety of perspectives.
Mr. Bélanger: Thank you. You'll get it.
The Chair: I can assure you of that.
Mr. Knutson, you have the last word, I think, unless Ms Minna will go.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Thanks very much, Madam Chair, and congratulations. I'm a substitute today, although I'm a past member.
The Chair: You're a former member, yes.
Mr. Knutson: Sorry, a former member.
The Chair: A good member who gave recommendations.
Mr. Knutson: That's my substantive question.
The issue of dangerous criminals being deported has been flagged in the media over the past few months as a potential flashpoint. It's been suggested that we may be deporting people who, in a certain sense, are undesirable.
You may not want them living next door to you because of a past criminal record, but in a true sense perhaps they aren't real dangers. Their offences may have been fairly minor when, for example, you look at the amount of time they've actually spent in jail.
.1600
I am just wondering if I could have your views on what constitutes a threshold test, beyond what's written in the legislation, to indicate when somebody should be deported.
Ms Cochrane: Frankly, it's difficult for me to comment on the threshold after having been with the department the short time I've been there. I myself have not examined this issue in any detail.
Let me say that we are aware that it's important to approach this issue from a question of risk management. It is the most serious criminals who should be removed first. That is generally the way we approach our work with the law enforcement agencies.
Perhaps Mr. Tsaï can elaborate. He may have been involved in the development of the joint task force on strategy with the RCMP since 1994.
The Chair: I'll allow it even though it has nothing to do with... I'll allow it as the last question.
Mr. Georges Tsaï (Assistant Deputy Minister, Partnerships, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Madam Chair, thank you. The determination of whether or not somebody constitutes a danger to the Canadian public is, of course, a very delicate one. I think the criteria applied in the context of the Immigration Act are different from the criteria used under the Criminal Code. We won't have the same definition of what and who is a danger to the public.
It's always a matter of a very delicate balance between the facilitation side of the immigration program, which is so important to let people in, and the control side, which is meant to protect the integrity of the system and the process.
We now have relatively new provisions under the act to deal with this dangerous-to-the-public concept, which denies recourse to the appeal mechanism, the IAD. It's still in the early stages, but we have a designate of the minister who makes the determination. This is being done very carefully, and we have to monitor how the precedents are being developed.
There have been a few court cases. I am aware of at least one court case that went to the Federal Court, where the decision with respect to the determination of whether or not somebody constituted a danger to the public was maintained.
The Chair: Ms Minna.
Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): Ms Cochrane, I simply wanted, on behalf of my colleagues, to thank you for taking the time to meet with us this afternoon. I look forward to meeting with you again and to working with you.
I know a lot of the issues we've tried to sneak in while the chair very rigidly - and quite rightly - adhered to...are issues we all are going to be coming back to because they are there and need to be addressed. Hopefully in the next few months we can work on those together. So thank you for being here.
The Chair: Since I did allow the opposition certain flexibility, I wanted to make sure government members also had a chance.
I'd like to thank you, Ms Cochrane, on behalf of all the members and myself, for appearing before the committee. We do look forward to having you back. Thank you.
We are adjourned until next Tuesday at 3:30 p.m. We will be doing four Orders in Council of the IRB. Thank you.