[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, June 5, 1996
.1533 
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to welcome everyone.
[English]
This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The order of the day is the main estimates for fiscal year 1996-97, votes 1, 5, 10, and 15 under Citizenship and Immigration.
[Translation]
On behalf of all the members of the committee, I have the great honour and pleasure to welcome the minister, Ms Lucienne Robillard, who is accompanied by Mr. Tsaï and other officials from Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
I would like to welcome all of you here. Madam Minister, please proceed when you are ready.
The Honourable Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to say to you, the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, that I am pleased to be here with you again. I am also very pleased to table the Department Outlook and the Main Estimates.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has achieved significant progress over the last year. I would like to take this opportunity to explain to you what we have achieved, but especially to hear your concerns.
When the Prime Minister gave me this portfolio last January, I found myself working in a department which was being completely reorganized.
Over the last two years, we have focused on the way we operate. This has led us to examine the structure of our organization, and we have also conducted an in-depth study of our procedures.
Over the past few months, there have been a lot of questions asked and consultations carried out. We had to ask ourselves certain fundamental questions: What is immigration? What do Canadians expect from Immigration?
As you know, the Canadian experience vary significantly depending on whether you live in Gander, Quebec City, Toronto or Vancouver. Does that mean that people's viewpoints regarding citizenship, for example, are different?
.1535
Finally, we had to ask ourselves what kind of services we should provide. What are we doing now which would be better done by other people?
We put these questions first to people working within the government, and subsequently to people working outside. We realize that citizenship and immigration affect us in our daily lives. They are powerful agents for change. We listened to what Canadians want. That is the way this government operates; we listen and then we decide on the direction we will take.
Madam Chair, I am pleased to tell you that the direction we chose seems to us to be the right one. A new structure has been developed as a result of these consultations. A completely new organizational framework is now being introduced. I believe that once that is completed, Citizenship and Immigration Canada will be better able to meet the needs of Canada, Canadians and those people who wish to become citizens of this country.
I think the mandate of our department is clear. We must help to build a stronger Canada, through the involvement of Canadians in their various communities across the country.
That is what immigration really is. Over the past 150 years, people have come to Canada to build a new life here. In so doing, they have helped to build something very valuable here. Their dreams and hopes are part of the very fabric of this country. We want this dynamic contribution to continue, and in order to do so we have focused on our four fundamental responsibilities.
First, we are trying to benefit to the greatest degree possible from the current movement of so many people around the world. Second, we are controlling and managing access to Canada. Third, we are developing rules for belonging to Canadian society. Lastly, we protect refugees here and abroad. These are our primary responsibilities as a department. This is the task entrusted to us.
I can assure you that we are well equipped to successfully carry out this task. Of course, a lot remains to be done. However, I believe that we can be proud of our recent achievements. We have reached the immigration levels set out in the 1995 immigration plan. The plan states that 190,000 to 215,000 immigrants should be admitted into Canada. In fact, 209,090 people were admitted. We planned to gradually rebalance the category of immigrants admitted for economic reasons in relation to the family category. We hoped to achieve this goal by the year 2000. I am pleased to inform you that we have already done so.
This means that in addition to achieving our objectives, we have managed to increase the proportion of immigrants with a good knowledge of the language, business skills and the necessary experience to stimulate and generate jobs as well as the economic growth of our country.
Last year, we resettled approximately 27,000 refugees, and the government took charge of over 7,800 of them. Through initiatives such as the "3/9", sponsorship program, which has been very successful, we have been able to respond generously to an appeal by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, particularly to help victims of the war in Bosnia. We exceeded our commitment to accept 500 refugees. Canadians opened their homes and their heart to these people. We shouldn't be surprised by this, because it is the Canadian way.
These figures are impressive. We must never forget the fact that they represent people. When we see figures listed in a column or a report, it is sometimes too easy to forget that they represent human beings, people with hopes, dreams and aspirations. I can assure you that we will never overlook that reality. We are committed to serving these people to the best of our ability. As a result of this commitment, we have introduced innovative changes to reduce the time needed for processing procedures.
.1540
I am pleased to inform you that the long line ups in front immigration buildings in certain locations such as New Delhi or Hong Kong are now history. We are trying to reduce the waiting period and frustrations resulting from a process which is both complex and important for the people concerned.
[English]
Madam Chair, what particularly impresses me about us meeting our targets is that it happened at a time of great organizational and process change. It shows the professionalism and dedication of the Canada Immigration and Citizenship staff. Despite the massive changes and despite the obvious anxiety that accompanies such change, they continue to get the job done.
I personally experienced this high standard of excellence when I travelled abroad recently to visit our Hong Kong and New Delhi offices. This trip gave me an opportunity to see the front line. Asia continues to be our largest source area for newcomers to this country. I welcomed the opportunity to go these centres, meet with staff, and hear their observations on the program. The visit was very useful from that point of view. We also felt that it sent a positive message of support to our partners in Hong Kong. This is very important now, as Hong Kong prepares for the transfer of sovereignty to China in 1997.
During the course of the trip I was very impressed with the coordination between national headquarters here in Ottawa and the international offices. I am confident that even in far-off countries such as India and Hong Kong, the Canadian government and the Canadian people are being well served by the CIC's employees. They are excellent representatives of our country abroad.
Perhaps now is an appropriate time to announce that there will be a further redesigning of the overseas delivery network. We have developed a new model as a result of simplified immigrant processing, advances in information technology, and changing patterns of immigration. This model favours centralization of immigration services wherever possible to reduce the costs.
The new network will be composed of regional program centres, satellite offices, full-service centres, and a few specialized offices. We are still maintaining a network of offices to be able to provide specialized services that require face-to-face contact. This design will allow us to make considerable savings.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, there are many other initiatives which I would like to mention. I have chosen just a few which, I believe, will be of particular interest to the members of this committee.
In October 1995, Citizenship and Immigration Canada began consultations with its partners with a view to finding new ways of administering settlement and integration support services.
We have already held over 60 consultation meetings across the country, speaking to over 3,000 people. It is too early to comment on the results, since we are now preparing a second round of consultations.
However, we are encouraged by the response of our partners at all levels of government, as well as that of the private sector and non-government organizations.
I would like to express my gratitude to the Standing Committee for the careful attention it has given to this important subject. The report you recently tabled raises a large number of questions and makes recommendations which we should examine during the next round of consultations.
[English]
In December we announced a strategy to strengthen family sponsorship. We are focusing on tightening eligibility criteria, minimizing abuse of Canada's social welfare programs, and improving enforcement of sponsorship agreements. We realize that the number of sponsors failing to meet their obligations is small. The majority do fulfil their commitments, but when sponsorship does break down and family class immigrants are forced to rely on welfare, this is unfair to all Canadians.
.1545
We are therefore addressing this issue. We will work with our provincial colleagues and with the sponsors themselves to make sure the sponsorship agreement is entered into seriously.
We are also looking at ways to ensure that individuals are equipped to meet their obligations to their families and to this country. Last year we developed innovative strategies for dealing with the movement of refugees from around the world. A new agreement between CIC and the Immigration and Refugee Board, for instance, will allow us to share information in support of our refugee determination system.
We are continuing to examine the phenomenon of global migration. Within that context we are developing strategies to ensure that legitimate refugees are afforded protection while preserving the integrity of our determination system. As one step, we have entered into negotiations with the American government to conclude a responsibility sharing agreement.
We should never forget that global migration is an international phenomenon that transcends borders and political designations. We continue to work closely with international partners such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to seek national and international solutions.
I know you are also all aware of the success we had with the ``3/9'' project, as we call it, for settling refugees from the former Yugoslavia. We exceeded our targets and expectations. Initiatives like this one show just how generous and caring Canadians can be and just how effective policy can be when there is cooperation in this land. We want to build on projects such as this one as we look for effective ways to encourage private sponsorship in the months to come.
[Translation]
As you know, Canada is recognized for its efforts to protect refugees. This year is the 10th anniversary of the Nansen medal being granted to the Canadian people by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We will continue working to honour our reputation for compassion and generosity. However, we must also examine our various procedures so as to ensure that those people who have to be expelled are in fact removed from Canada.
I read recently in the media that the Government of Quebec had concerns, which at first sight seem very legitimate, concerning two of our programs: the one concerning the Deferred Removal Orders Class and the program regarding Post-determination Refugee Claimants, but for whom we evaluate the risk of them returning to their own country. Both programs will be evaluated over the coming year.
Madam Chair, the growth and prosperity of our country are inextricably linked to immigration. Immigration is one of the keystones of our program of economic renewal and job creation. That is why we are taking steps to attract immigrants with the skills, knowledge and capital needed to contribute to our economic, cultural and social development.
We are currently restructuring our Business Immigration Program. I know that we had announced that a new program would be in effect this summer. It must now be very clearly stated that such an objective was not realistic. We need further time for vital consultations with our partners, particularly our provincial colleagues.
We will not rush things simply so as to be able to say that we met the deadline. This question is far too important to be dealt with lightly. We are working with our partners in every departments and with the private sector in order to implement a new system as quickly as possible.
At the end of April, we announced a plan to implement a provisional immigrant investor program. As a result of amendments to the regulations, it is possible to extend the validity of offers for new or existing government-administered funds until June 30, 1997, at which time a new program will be implemented.
.1550
The provisional program will help ensure that Canada continues to receive business immigrants and capital investment while we are working to restructure our program.
Madam Chair, we are also working with certain countries and carriers to improve our ability to prevent illegal immigration. We are focusing on cooperation with other departments in order to take steps to combat terrorism in Canada. We have adopted regulations to simplify the processing of refugee claims at points of entry. We have begun discussions with the US authorities in order to facilitate the movement of legitimate travellers and thus be able to more effectively allocate our resources to controlling dangerous travellers.
[English]
In the area of removals, a number of recommendations were made by Mr. Roger Tassé in his report entitled Removals, Processes and People in Transition. These recommendations were designed to improve the professional values, standards and practices of the removals function.
The department is currently responding to these suggestions and is in the process of introducing a number of initiatives, including the publication of a departmental code of conduct, the organization of a national symposium for removals officers in the fall and the establishment of regular meetings between regional removals staff and non-governmental organizations.
My officials and I are deeply committed to addressing the issues raised by Mr. Tassé. Mr. Tassé is also working on a review of the port of entry function. His report is due at the end of June of this year.
Finally, on the question of criminal removals, the immigration RCMP task forces, which we set up two years ago, have led to a permanent arrangement with the RCMP and local police forces to deal with high-risk criminal cases.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, before concluding I would like to deal with the citizenship component of my responsibilities as minister.
Citizenship is something precious for all Canadians. Last year, we announced that we would try to enhance the image of Canadian citizenship. Canadians across the country told us that they wanted us to develop concepts to make citizenship more dynamic and more relevant to their daily lives. They want us to find ways of letting Canadians show that they are proud to live in this country.
We therefore organized projects such as "Canada, Take it to Heart". We want to encourage Canadians to celebrate the things we share together. Heritage Canada and other sponsors from the public and private sectors are working together to organize this week celebrating Canada. For seven days, Canadians in all parts of the country will take a moment to reflect on the rights and responsibilities they share as citizens.
I know that several of you have taken part in some of the events during this week of celebrations. I appreciate your assistance and your support.
Next year marks the 50th anniversary of our citizenship. We are already preparing a few interesting activities to commemorate this special event in the history of Canada.
In accordance with the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne on February 27 last, we are working actively to prepare a Bill on Citizenship and examining the recommendations of your committee. In so doing, we seek to better reflect current ideas on the rights and duties of citizens.
In the administrative area, we have adopted new methods so as to modernize the processing of citizenship applications. People entitled to Canadian citizenship should not be obliged to wait to assume their rightful place as fully-fledged citizens.
We also work with the Passport Office so as to enable new citizens to receive their passport at the same time as citizenship, without having to complete a separate application.
.1555
Madam Chair, Citizenship and Immigration Canada has a clear mandate and knows where it is going. We will build a country, a stronger Canada. Our government considers that immigration has served Canada well over the past 150 years and that it will continue it prosper.
We have the necessary legislative tools to achieve this. We are developing new departmental structures and we will continue to work to meet the needs of all Canadians.
With all these assets and a budget of $615 million for 1996-97, I trust that we will succeed in meeting future challenges.
Madam Chair, I will be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. I am accompanied by my departmental team and my political team. The Deputy Minister, Janice Cochrane; the Assistant Deputy Minister, Partnerships, Mr. George Tsaï; the Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Mr. Girard; and my Executive Assistant, Mr. Marc Saint-Pierre.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister. We are very encouraged by what you have told us and the changes you have made to the department.
I would also like to welcome Ms Cochrane. I apologize for not greeting her earlier. Please feel welcome, together with Mr. Girard and Mr. Marc Saint-Pierre.
I will give the floor first to Ms Meredith who, unfortunately, will have to leave soon.
[English]
Please go ahead.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you.
Thank you for coming this afternoon, Madam Minister. I would like to ask you a few questions on several different issues, so I will start with a concern or a question.
There was some encouragement for people in various departments in the government to come up with innovative, cost-cutting, cost-saving measures. I'd just like to get your feelings on whether or not you're in favour of any cost-cutting initiatives that might come up in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: It's very clear that the government has made commitments in the area of public finances. As you know, a few years ago our government decided to put its fiscal house in order, and each of the departments is involved in achieving this goal which is shared by Canadians as a whole. It is therefore very clear that the budget of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has also been reduced and that we have been obliged to reassess all our operations.
During a time of fiscal streamlining, managers are faced with a further challenge. I think that it is very easy to manage at a time where resources are growing, but during a period of fiscal streamlining it is a very big challenge to try to continue to provide the public with efficient services while at the same time developing new ways of working.
I must say that for at least two years our department in particular has been working to meet that challenge.
[English]
Ms Meredith: A number of measures have been suggested, one in particular. I'm wondering if you would be in favour of or would be willing to consider a new submission by Carleton University to take over the documentation, information and research branch of the IRB for a savings of approximately $2.5 million a year. Is this something you would be supportive of?
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: As you know, privatization of the research office of the Immigration and Refugee Board has been considered by the Board.
I would remind you that the Board is a quasi-judicial tribunal and therefore independent of the Department, and the Chair person must manage its human and administrative resources herself. She also had to deal with demands for budget cuts.
.1600
Madam Chair, I believe that Ms Mawani is to appear before your committee. You could perhaps put these questions specifically to her. I can also tell you that the Chair person assured me that the decisions taken in her area were done so in accordance with the rules of Treasury Board.
The Chair: Exactly, I would point out to the members of the committee that questions concerning the Board should be kept for the meeting of June 18. Thank you.
[English]
Ms Meredith: One of the cost-cutting measures I understand you're planning on taking is, I don't know if it's to privatize, but to have the medical doctors of the local community being used in a greater way. I notice you have increased I believe it's one full-time equivalent position for that. If this is a move the ministry is going to be making, how are you going to ensure the credibility and the impartiality of the local doctor to guarantee they do not falsify information in order to assist a claimant in getting entry into Canada?
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: At the present time, we are already using what we refer to as "designated medical practitioners". As you know, on our staff we have doctors abroad responsible for deciding on the eligibility of the applicant, in terms of his or her medical condition. In practical terms, I think it would be impossible for us to have doctors in every country around the world and in every region of each country. Take, for example, the case of India which is an enormous country with 900 million inhabitants.
Under the present system, we have local designated medical practitioners who carry out basic tests on individuals. The results are sent to our doctors located in our missions abroad.
We have also developed a few pilot projects to see whether it might be possible to provide the same services at a lower cost by using private clinics for example. There are a few pilot projects underway, Madam Chair, but they've not yet been completed or evaluated. Consequently, no decisions have yet been taken about them.
[English]
The Chair: I'd like to bring up an issue that might be a bit controversial, but I think it's important that it come into the discussion. It's the Canada-Quebec accord. In article 7 it states:
- Quebec undertakes to pursue an immigration policy that has as an objective the reception by
Quebec of a percentage of the total number of immigrants received in Canada equal to the
percentage of Quebec's population compared with the population of Canada.
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: Before I reply specifically to the question asked, I must tell you that the Canada-Quebec agreement, as a whole, is an example of cooperation between the government of Canada and the government of a province.
.1605
As you no doubt know, immigration is an area of shared responsibility between the government of Canada and the government of the provinces, and this very year we have concluded agreements with some provinces, and we are in discussions with other provinces with a view to signing agreements of understanding on various immigration-related issues.
As regards the Canada-Quebec agreement which, I would remind you, was signed by the previous government, it is true that it provides a guaranteed amount for Quebec, which could be referred to as a floor, of $90 million a year. On the other hand, the agreement also takes into account the fact that Quebec wanted to be able to receive up to 25% of immigrants, which is equivalent to its proportion of the population of Canada.
However, we have noted that recently the present government reduced the number of immigrants into Quebec. We have not been given any very clear explanations from the Quebec government about this, but I can assure you that officials of both levels of government are in regular contact and that we strongly encourage the government of Quebec to continue to receive immigrants into the province.
[English]
Ms Meredith: I think, Madam Minister, that the problem here is that under this report Quebec receives an average of $3,300 per immigrant while the national average is only $863 per immigrant. To me, this seems to be grossly unfair to provinces such as Ontario and British Columbia, which also receive a large number of new immigrants to their provinces.
I don't know if you can continue with an agreement that is guaranteeing $90 million to a province where the numbers of immigrants coming in are continually dropping.
Does this government feel that if Quebec was taking 5% of the immigrants and refugees they would still get the $90 million, even though the numbers of newcomers were dropping to that level? In fairness to the rest of the provinces, should this not be addressed?
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: First, we have to be very careful when we talk about the amount of money given to Quebec in relation to the number of immigrants, that is the amount per capita, so to speak. We have to be careful for two reasons. First, Quebec accepted responsibility for the selection and integration of immigrants, which entails of course further costs. That means that Quebec has immigration offices abroad responsible for selecting immigrants, something which no other province has chosen to do. You must not forget that.
Second, it must be appreciated that the integration of new immigrants coming to Quebec and not speaking French very often requires a specific effort and more work than would be the case for other individuals who choose to settle in other provinces.
Having said that, I would like to assure the members of this committee that our contacts with the Quebec government are ongoing and regular, that a number of questions are under consideration, that we have a joint committee made up of representatives of both levels of government monitoring the agreement signed, and that the committee in question is currently studying all questions raised.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Meredith. We'll come back if we have time.
Do you have time?
Ms Meredith: I'll have to leave at 4:30.
The Chair: If all the members agree, I'll give Ms Meredith the other five minutes that she would get on the second round. Is that okay? Yes?
Go ahead.
Ms Meredith: Thank you very much. I am thankful for the cooperation from my colleagues.
.1610
Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): You owe us one.
Ms Meredith: I owe you one. You're right.
To follow that up, is the Canada-Quebec accord audited? Is this a regular process, an annual process, of auditing that agreement?
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: The joint committee has an ongoing procedure to enable both governments to study the various facets of the agreement, particularly those which may occasionally give rise to probleMs Therefore, we have an ongoing dialogue.
[English]
Ms Meredith: Thank you.
I'd like to move on to another program you spoke about in your comments, the immigrant investor program. I notice that's a joint program with the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: This program is strictly the responsibility of the Department of Immigration, but we also consult our colleagues in Industry since the program is intended for business people with expertise in the area.
[English]
Ms Meredith: Okay. It's just that I noticed a document and it was a joint document. So that would be part of the consultative process, I assume.
Are you considering extending the private investors part of that program, and if so, for how long? I notice in the document I saw priority seems to be given to government-sponsored investor prograMs I know there is a concern particularly in Alberta, which doesn't have a government program, that the private investor program be continued.
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: Madam Chair, I think that is an excellent question because many questions have been raised regarding the Immigrant Investor Program. A great deal was expected of this program. As you know, the former minister of Citizenship and Immigration placed a moratorium on the Immigrant Investor Program. Why was this done? Because we had problems monitoring this program, in which there had been cases of abuse and fraud. Consequently, the former minister imposed a moratorium on the program so as to try to redesign a new one, and the projected date for starting this new program was July 1, 1996. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet that deadline, which means that if no decision had been taken as of July 1, 1996, there would no longer be any program for business people. Only Quebec would have continued to have its program, given that it is responsible for it.
Since we knew that we would not be ready for July 1, 1996, we decided to establish a transitional program, which I announced. Therefore, from July 1, 1996 to July 1, 1997, there will be a transitional program, and as from July 1, 1997, the new program will be in place.
As regards the transitional stage, it is being proposed that the funds be managed only by governments, and that explains the reaction of the government of Alberta which, unlike other provinces, did not manage any funds.
The government of Alberta has made representations to me on this point. I met the then minister responsible for immigration who, I am told, was recently replaced. It was Mr. Smith, but I think there has recently been a Cabinet shuffle in Alberta. We agreed with Mr. Smith that we would try to find a solution, so as to avoid Alberta being penalized and to allow the government to delegate to the private sector, management of a fund which it is administering itself.
.1615
We do not intend to exclude the private sector, but nor will we allow it to have complete management control of the funds after July 1, 1996.
Therefore, the private sector will not be able to have total administrative control before July 1, 1997. During the transitional period, the funds will be administered by the government, which can entrust part of its management to the private sector. I can tell you that the representative of the government of Alberta was very satisfied that such a solution was found.
[English]
Ms Meredith: So then the government would be able to transfer some of the funds for the private sector to manage in the interim period. But what about when the transitional period will be over and the program will be in place? Will that continue, where the government can transfer money to the private sector?
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: Are you asking me about the new program? As of July 1, 1997, the private sector will be directly responsible for the funds, but following different rules. It will be easy, and the government will be able to choose the solution it prefers. What is important is that the private sector will continue to be involved, even during the transitional period.
[English]
Ms Meredith: With the -
The Chair: I've given you more than enough time, and the minister has to be out of here at5 p.m.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: You'll also have a chance to ask questions of the officials when they will come back with the new prograMs
Thank you. I'm sorry.
Because of his generosity, we'll now proceed to Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Thank you, Madam Minister, for appearing before this committee. You should come more often. You are always welcome.
You say that new Canadians are full-fledged citizens. You are the minister of Immigration. You have no doubt heard the comments of your colleague, the minister Mr. Young, concerning the member for Bourassa. Mr. Young asked him to look for another country if he was not happy with the immigration and refugee policies of the government and continued to promote the sovereignty of Quebec.
I can tell you that these statements were insulting to many immigrants and refugees in Canada. It should be noted that your predecessor, Mr. Marchi, reacted immediately to the statements made last year by Mr. Parizeau about the ethnic vote. I also dissociated myself from those statements, but I have noted that you kept silent although you are the Minister of Immigration.
Therefore, I would like to ask you whether you agree with the statements made by your colleague, the Minister for Human Resources Development.
Ms Robillard: Madam Chair, I am not sure that this question is directly linked to the estimates we have presented today.
The Chair: No.
Ms Robillard: I did, however, have the opportunity to provide journalists with an answer to that question. At this point, since the Prime Minister of Canada himself answered this question in the House, I have no further comments to make.
Mr. Nunez: So you share the views of your government?
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Nunez. I believe the Minister answered your question. We are here today to examine the estimates. Do you have another question on that topic?
Mr. Nunez: I would just like to say that the Minister mentioned that new Canadians were full-fledged citizens and that immigration was her portfolio.
The Chair: Do you have another question on the matter we are examining today?
Mr. Nunez: I have several questions. I must conclude that you share the views of your government and of Minister Young, and I think it tarnishes Canada's image and reputation.
Ms Robillard: Excuse me, but that is not what I said, and I would not want my comments to be misquoted.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Nunez: I will move on to another question. As regards the Canada - US agreement on refugees and asylum seekers, the committee on citizenship and immigration held consultations, and almost all of the organizations and people who appeared before the committee were opposed to the signing of such an agreement, especially because the level of protection for refugees in the United States is far lower than it is in Canada.
.1620
In addition, on April 18th, the United States enacted anti-terrorist legislation enabling the government to summarily deport all asylum seekers who have no documents, or false documents. They are not even entitled to a hearing, even though they are applying for refugee status.
When in Opposition, the Liberal Party opposed the signing of such an agreement with the United States. Mr. Marchi told us that he could not sign an agreement with another country that did not offer the same level of protection as Canada.
Are you still determined to go ahead with the draft agreement with the United States?
Ms Robillard: Madam Chair, this desire to sign an agreement with the United States is based on the sharing of responsibilities by two countries with a common border.
Might I remind you that several months ago, President Clinton and the Prime Minister of Canada indicated that both countries planned to enhance cooperation with respect to responsibilities. It is in that context that we work closely with the United States to reach an agreement on these responsibilities.
As you know, we held official consultations on the draft agreement, and we published it so that everyone would be aware of its content. In Canada and in the US alike, many groups and individuals made representations. Your own committee held public hearings on the agreement. I announced that for the time being, there was no question of our signing this agreement in the short-term, since there are bills which are still before the US Senate and Congress. But as soon as this legislative matter is resolved in the United States, we will examine the outcome and see what legislation has been adopted by the United States. I am sure that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will also have an opinion on that subject. At that point, we will see whether or not we are in a position to sign the agreement.
Mr. Nunez: Even if the situation in the US is deteriorating with respect to the protection of refugees?
You are also aware that NGOs in both the US and Canada unanimously reject this draft agreement. It is not necessary! Refugees are not flooding into Canada. There were more refugees accepted under the Conservative government than there are now.
Ms Robillard: Madam Chair, the member for Bourassa has left the door wide open by saying that refugees are not flooding into Canada. I could talk about the influx we have had in recent months. But having said that, I did not say that we would sign the agreement at all costs. That is not what I said, and I think that the member for Bourassa is distorting my comments.
I believe I said that the two governments wisely decided to delay signing the agreement in order to take a closer look at the content of American legislation. So we have reserved the right to study the American legislation before making a final decision on signing the agreement.
Might I also remind you that one third of all refugee claimants currently come to Canada after passing through the United States. This is a concrete reality that we did not invent.
Americans are not seeking asylum in Canada. There are even Chileans who go through Miami on their way to Canada to apply for refugee status. This is a reality, Madam Chair, that we cannot ignore.
.1625
May I repeat once again that Canada always has and will continue to be generous and open with respect to genuine refugees.
The Chair: I would ask the member not to interrupt the Minister while she is speaking.
Mr. Nunez: I would like you to be a little more impartial. You are the Chair, and you did not even want to allow my first question. I find that unacceptable!
The Chair: The first question was out of order, Mr. Nunez, but I allowed it anyway. Nevertheless, you were able to use the time allotted to you.
We will now go to Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): Thank you for your presentation, Madam Minister. I would like to welcome you as well as your team.
[English]
Madam Minister, if I could, I would like to turn to the question of administrative backlogs in the department. It has to do with people looking to become citizens of Canada and also with their first step of becoming landed immigrants if they have been declared political refugees.
As you know, permanent residents are eligible for citizenship after three years, but there are cases - and I know you have identified this as a priority and your department is working on this matter - in my particular riding where the Somali community has had to wait for a period beyond the three years.
[Translation]
Madam Minister, what is your department doing to ensure that applications for citizenship are being processed quickly and efficiently?
Ms Robillard: The member has raised a very good question. In fact, people are not eligible for Canadian citizenship until they have resided here for three years, and they are very eager to become Canadian citizens with their rights and obligations. That is why people who have to wait months and months to obtain their citizenship are quite anxious and frustrated.
I can assure you that the Department has made great strives in improving its efficiency, particularly in the area of granting citizenship to these new Canadians.
We set standards for ourself to try to process applications as fast as possible. Our objective was to process regular, problem-free applications within six months.
Might I remind you that a mere two years ago, it was sometimes necessary to wait up to two or two and a half years before getting a reply.
We felt that a six-month delay would be a significant improvement in our service delivery. At present, we are well on the way to meeting this objective. We have not yet done so, but we now have an average waiting period of 11 months.
As we speak, we have successfully reduced the waiting period. Naturally, all applications were centralized and we are now using new processes and new technology to speed things up. I like to think that we will meet our six-month target in the near future.
Mr. Cullen: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Dromisky.
Mr. Dromisky: Madam Minister, before I present a question to you, I would like to give some credit where credit is due, and that is to your department. I'm talking about the department on both levels, as well as the political level, about the kind of service they have been providing not only for me but for many of my colleagues, right from the constituency level to all the way up here on the Hill. They have handled their responsibilities with great compassion, caring and dedication, and also with professionalism of the highest level and form. Therefore, I say thank you very much to your staff. And I'm sure those levels of professionalism and service will continue. Thank you.
.1630
You've been in this office as a cabinet minister for just a very short period of time, yet all our meetings, and today's meeting especially, have indicated clearly to me that you have a fairly good grasp of the actual components, problems, structure, policies and everything else pertaining to this ministry. Therefore, I'm going to put you on the spot, Madam Minister, and I'm going to ask you about personal priorities.
We do have priorities as dictated by policy, and we have former policies from the previous minister, but I'm sure you might have some indication of where you would like this ministry to go and where we might reallocate some of our funds, what other areas you feel - and maybe some of your staff do too - we could use our dollars in much more effectively than we are doing at the present time.
So often we abide by existing structures, and for great periods of time we just maintain them for the sake of maintaining them. I'm just wondering if there's any possibility of personal perceptions overpowering some traditional practices and visualizing some more effective models of providing service.
A voice: What's the question?
Mr. Dromisky: I'm asking for the personal priorities. Do you see any change whatsoever, or are you hoping for any change? Not that there will be, but possibly...
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: That is an excellent question. I must say, however, that in terms of the administrative and organizational structure, I would like some calm, as the Department has been undergoing restructuring for almost two years because of the new financial challenges it is facing. Consequently, there have been a lot of organizational changes.
I must say that I find our employees very committed to the department's mission because on all levels, they were somewhat overwhelmed by the reorganization. We completely reconfigured our services. The department's organization and flow chart completely changed.
We have three different sectors: the service sector which includes selection, integration and enforcement of the Act; the sector for program delivery in Canada, but also abroad; and the sector for strategic support. You asked if there are things that need to be changed in the department and what the priority sectors are; I would respond that it is surely not administrative structures.
We are now at the stage where we need to consolidate our new administrative structure and ensure that our employees are comfortable with it and continue to deliver new services.
Moreover, there are several sectors in the department, especially the policy sector, which are of particular concern to me, because there are choices regarding priorities that must be made for the upcoming year. We have made a commitment to review certain policies at the Department of Immigration, and consequently, I would like priorities to be set in the near future.
There is currently an exercise underway at the department to redefine the priorities. It is impossible for a department to have 45 priorities at once. We really need to be focused. I am thinking specifically of the selection sector, where next year we will have to rule on a new program for business people. This is very clear, as you saw when I responded to questions from the member of the Reform Party.
In the short term, we will also need to rule on regulations concerning sponsorship with respect to family reunification. In the coming year, it will also be necessary to examine selection criteria for independent workers. All of these matters are under consideration in the department.
.1635
Regarding enforcement, there are priorities which have emerged. We want to try to protect the integrity of our system.
Regarding citizenship, I would like more to be done to promote our citizenship and in particular, I would like to undertake a review of the Citizenship Act.
It is in that context that I have provided members with a copy of the departmental outlook, which contains not only our accomplishments over the past year, but also our priorities for the upcoming year.
Regarding budgetary allocation and streamlining of budgets, I must say that with the budget we have, we need a lot of imagination and initiative to continue to provide an excellent service to all citizens and new citizens we accept in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Dromisky: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, you have five minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Regarding the financial compensation requested by the Quebec government, the minister mentioned $13 million, because social coverage for asylum seekers in Quebec is very costly.
I see in the Estimates that Ontario received $15 million to cover health insurance for refugees in 1995. As you know, the IRB, in other words the federal government, is responsible for delays in decisions regarding applications for refugee status.
Are you open to this request from the Quebec government?
Ms Robillard: First of all, I have not received any such request from the Quebec government. That is my first response.
Mr. Nunez: But like me, you have read the newspapers.
Ms Robillard: Like you, I have read the newspapers, but I do not think that is the way requests are made.
I read the newspapers, and I think that the first article I read mentioned $138 million. That surprised me somewhat, and I said to myself that the minister responsible for immigration in Quebec had surely not taken a close look at the figures. I think that he has undoubtedly looked at them since then. Moreover, at present, Madam Chair, I have not received a verbal nor written request from the Quebec government.
It is the provinces that determine the services they provide to the people in their territory. I am referring to education, social and health services. The provinces determine all these services.
In reading the newspaper article, I got the impression that Quebec was reviewing all these services and that it would perhaps ask the government of Canada to share health insurance costs with it, as we currently do for all other Canadian provinces.
You asked me if I'm open to such a request. My answer is that I have not yet received one, but when I do, I will certainly be prepared to examine it in detail.
Mr. Nunez: Thank you.
Regarding the past reports that you mentioned in your main presentation, it seems that the person who conducted the study levelled very harsh criticism at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. For example, there is the issue of facilitation fees to which you never responded in the House.
At the same time, he formulated 28 recommendations, including being accountable to the people, which is not the case, and better handling of complaints, because often there is no response. In addition, there is still no code of ethics for removal officers.
.1640
Commissioner Tassé also recommended improved selection, training and deployment of removal staff, in addition to the need to review the Act and the regulations.
Recently, in Montreal, there were very real complaints regarding people who allegedly administered medication without a prescription. The medication was allegedly administered to them by people who were not authorized to do so. It happened particularly in the case of Algerians.
How are you going to follow up on this report? Do you agree with the recommendation I have just formulated?
Ms Robillard: I believe we are talking about Mr. Tassé's recommendations, and not the member for Bourassa's recommendations.
First of all, it must be clearly stated that the department asked Mr. Tassé to prepare a report after examining existing practices and procedures at the department. It is clear that we carefully examined the report when we received it.
The report contains a number of recommendations. Each and everyone of them is being examined as we speak. For some of them, there are even specific steps that are being taken and others that will be taken.
I must point out, Madam Chair, that I personally read the report. Generally, what emerges from the report is how complex the work of removal officers actually is.
You must understand what removing people who have been refused by Canada and who must return to their country of origin actually means for immigration officers. It's their daily work. You can imagine some of the traumatic situations they often face. This is often done in a spirit of cooperation, even though people have regrets, but in other cases, they end up in very complex and difficult situations.
What I have noted specifically from the Tassé report, is how complex this work is and how necessary it is for our department to fully support the employees who do this work, to be there for them in complex situations, to have clear rules with respect to ethics, but above all, to support them in their work. I can assure you that all the recommendations are taken very seriously in the department and that steps will be taken.
The member for Bourassa mentioned facilitation fees, saying that I never responded in the House. The reason is that during question period, the member for Bourassa kept using the expression "kickback", which was not the case. I think that he has used the proper term today, the one used in the Tassé report. We are concerned as to whether this practice exists or not, and if it does exist, what is the nature of it?
Regarding facilitation fees, madam Chair, we can imagine a situation where one of our officers has to accompany a person not only to the airport, but sometimes to his or her country of origin. Once in the country of origin, the payment of fees can be demanded. Fees of what nature? In which countries? How does this happen? This is what we are currently looking at. Is there really abuse? What is the exact nature of it?
We are currently examining the situation very closely, madam Chair. If ever this practice did exist in very specific countries, we would certainly intervene.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Dhaliwal.
Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Thank you very much, and welcome, Madam Minister.
Before I ask you a question, just for the record, as my colleague, Mr. Nunez, brought an issue forward, let me say that all Canadian citizens, whether they came first or last, have the same full democratic rights in this country. If anybody says otherwise, I find that offensive, and I think all Canadians would find that offensive.
.1645
The Chair: Let's stick to the order of the day. I would really appreciate it, because our time is limited, as the minister has to leave at five o'clock and I have two speakers still.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes, thank you. I think it's important to put that on the record.
Madam Minister, my question is in terms of the landing fee. As you know, recently there was an increase of $975 per adult for sponsorships to Canada. Prior to that, there was a $500 application fee. This brings it to a total of $1,475 per adult coming to Canada.
As you know, some members of Parliament, including myself, originally, when this was introduced - I know it was introduced prior to you becoming minister - had some concerns. It was simply because as Canadians I think we don't tax those people who have the least ability to pay. People from some countries in which their income is not more than $500 a year are now asked to pay $975. I had some concerns when it was introduced, and I still have some concerns to this day.
Often, Madam Minister, being from business, it's a lot easier to look on the revenue side instead of looking on the cutting side to see how we can improve the cost efficiency and the prograMs Sometimes the easy thing in government is just to raise the taxes or the revenue to get revenues instead of looking at how we can improve the way in which we do business within our ministries and with our system.
Coming from business, I know that as a businessman I perhaps can increase the price of my product without looking at where the costs are. Obviously, if I can pass it on that's a lot easier.
Here's my question: As for this $975, as a new minister, would you consider reviewing that? This is my second question: Is the $975 specifically earmarked toward settlement programs?
My third question has to do with when a person applies. They pay this $975 at that time; however, they may not, first of all, know whether they're going to be accepted, whether they're going to even ever come to Canada, or whether they're going to utilize those settlement prograMs It may be three years before they actually come to Canada. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to charge the $975 when the individual knows he has gone through all the process and he has been accepted to come to Canada? At the time when the visa is being issued, could the fee be collected? It's like paying for a hotel that you may use three years down the road: you don't even know if you're going to go to that hotel.
Is it something you would look at? I know the last minister said he would have the fees collected at the time of the issue of the visa. Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: That is a very good question, madam Chair. I know that that issue was of great concern to many of our members. When the decision was made, it was part of the government's budgetary framework. It was a budget decision. Bear in mind that at the time, like this year, we had made a commitment to all Canadians to clean up our public finances, and to reduce our deficit. We asked all Canadians to do more. We asked all Canadians in several sectors to contribute. In this context, if all Canadians were being asked to do more, could we not ask people who want to share our lives here in Canada to do the same, and to contribute in order to come and live in this country and eventually become citizens of this country?
Having said that, since the $975 settlement fee has been in place, it has not had a special impact on the number of people wanting to immigrate to Canada. We have followed the impact of this measure very closely. You know that at the same time, we offered loans to people who were not in a position to pay. So in terms of impact, the number of people wanting to immigrate did not change from what we had anticipated.
.1650
The same is true for refugees. The number of refugees exceeded our expectations.
So, quantitatively, we did not see a particular consequence and we hit our targets.
When you look at how much revenue is generated in comparison with expenditures for the department as a whole, I must acknowledge that the department is not self-financing, but that it is running a deficit. You mentioned settlement fees, but you know that other fees apply in other areas of the department, even with respect to citizenship. I can tell you that revenues and expenditures do not balance and that the department is running a deficit. While the fees collected do generate a significant amount of revenue, this amount does not correspond to the expenditure of public funds. I want to be very clear on that point. I could be more precise and give you the figures if you would like them.
Your last point dealt with when the $975 is collected. Could we not ask these people to pay settlement fees only once they have been accepted?
You must be aware of two things. Changing the time when the fee is collected would necessarily add an additional operation, which would increase our administrative fees. In addition, the administrative delays, which are already rather long, would get longer.
It is more important to examine how many times we have to refund the $975 amount. We collect the money at the start of the process, and after having studied the application, we have to refund the amount if the person is rejected. Much to my surprise, I discovered that we remitted the amount in only 4% of the cases! That means we reject only 4% of the applications. I must admit that, quite naively, I expected the number of rejections to be a lot higher.
Having said that, several of our members, especially the members of the B.C. caucus, asked to take a detailed look at the impact of collecting that fee to see if it were possible to change the time when it was collected. We are currently doing so.
The Chair: You have five minutes.
Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): I have a point of order, madam Chair. Does everyone get five minutes before going back to the opposition?
The Chair: These are the rules that we established at the start of our committee work,Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: So it would be our turn now.
The Chair: No, because he already had five minutes.
Mr. Bélanger: Madam Chair, the Standing Orders state that all government members have five minutes in the second round.
The Chair: When Mr. Nunez has finished, you will have your five minutes, Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: He had his five minutes.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: Might I remind you that revenues from user fees have reached $333 million, and last year, they hit $157 million. At the same time, I noted that many refugees did not become landed immigrants because they did not have enough money and they could not bring their families over.
.1655
There have been a lot of requests by various organizations, including the Official Opposition. Are you willing to make an exception for refugees regarding the $975 tax?
Ms Robillard: The decision to apply settlement fees covers the two classes, future regular immigrants and refugees. In addition, I reiterate that we have a loan system for our refugees.
I'd like to think that the member for Bourassa is not saying that we accept too many refugees in Canada, like he did recently in the House. He was concerned about the number of refugees accepted in the Montreal region. I do not think that Canada is considered any less generous; on the contrary, we are very generous.
I was recently examining the comments made by the Quebec minister responsible for immigration, who said Canada was too generous. I do not think that prevents people from being accepted here.
Mr. Nunez: That was not my concern. How can you explain that an impartial, independent, quasi-judicial tribunal accepts only 57% of refugees in Toronto, or in Ontario, I should say, and 70% in Quebec. It is the same tribunal, the same commissioner. That is my question.
I said at the same time that I was proud of Quebec which, in this regard, has been much more generous than other provinces.
The Chair: That is the type of question that we could raise with the representatives of the Board when they appear before us.
Mr. Nunez: Yes, of course.
The Estimates say that it can still take almost a year to process a citizenship application. When he appeared last year, the minister told us he would reduce this to six months. This has not yet been done, except in the case of Quebec on the eve of the referendum.
You read the newspaper articles, and one in particular which talked about the pre-referendum factory for issuing certificates of citizenship. Were all acts and regulations abided by at the time? You will note that 37,168 applications were accepted in Quebec during the eight months preceding the referendum. This is a 50% increase. How can you explain that across Canada, the minister's six month objective has not yet been met, whereas in Quebec, everything happened so quickly?
Ms Robillard: We are back to the refugee acceptance rate; the figures quoted by the member for Bourassa are inaccurate. I like to hope you will raise this issue when the chairperson of the Board appears before you, because the numbers quoted do not in any way reflect the 1995 reality. Recently, the highest acceptance rates have been in Atlantic Canada and in Ottawa.
This matter must be examined in clear and concrete terMs There is something completely unrealistic when you compare the Board's acceptance rate from one region of the country to another, because the origin of the refugee claimants is not at all taken into account. We are all well aware that the situation in some countries is so problematic that we accept the majority of people coming from them.
However, we accept fewer refugees from some other countries, including Chile. The rates go up and down. Each decision is made individually. I encourage you to raise this detailed question with the chairperson of the Board when she appears next June 18th.
.1700
Regarding certificates of citizenship, I like to hope that the member for Bourassa does not share the views of some journalists who said that we inordinately accelerated the issuing of certificates of citizenship, to the point of not abiding by the rules. That is completely false.
When someone becomes a citizen of a country, is not the right to vote one of the most important rights this person obtains? I like to think that the member for Bourassa is not opposed to our having paid particular attention to Quebec during the referendum vote in order to issue certificates of citizenship because of the waiting period that existed, just like we did recently in British Columbia because of the elections.
When you look at statistics on certificates of citizenship for the past year, you can see that we responded to the highest percentage of applications in British Columbia, and not in Quebec.
If an election or a referendum were to be held in Quebec tomorrow, we would do exactly the same thing. Someone who meets all of the conditions for exercising his or her right to vote should be able to do so. It is our duty; the employees in our organization must take all the necessary steps so these citizens can exercise the fundamental right of voting in Canada. That's what Canadian democracy is all about.
The Chair: Mr. Bélanger, you have the last word.
Mr. Bélanger: I will not have the last word, the minister will. Let's see.
My first question concerns the overall thrust of the categories of immigrants. In 1994, the government stated its objective was to increase the economic class, if I can call it that, by 55% between now and the year 2000. That has already been met.
Does your department plan to review this policy, to increase this class or not?
My second question is more specific and deals with the announcement made yesterday or the day before of a decision with respect to Chile, which we already broached twice here today. As it has in the past, Canada will now require that visitors from Chile obtain a visa to enter the country. What motivated you and your department to make this decision?
Ms Robillard: The thresholds we had set for the current year with respect to immigrant classes, even the projection to the year 2000, were reached more quickly than was anticipated.
We were somewhat surprised at reaching these targets much more quickly than anticipated. According to our initial analysis, two factors could explain the situation.
Since 1993, we have noted a drop in applications to sponsor family members, probably because most of our immigrants have been in Canada for several years and have already been able to sponsor most of the members of their immediate family.
Bear in mind that we pre-published our new regulations, which included stricter criteria for the independent immigrant class.
A decision has not however been made yet. We noted an increase in applications before the new criteria came into force. Because of the drop we identified on the family side and the increase due to this pre-publication, we hit our targets more quickly.
Next November, I will have to report to Parliament on targets for the upcoming year. In immigration, we always try to have a balance. Family reunification is always a cornerstone of our immigration policy.
But we also want to accept people who will contribute to Canada's economic development. We always try to strike a balance between these two aspects, but the basic thrust remains the same.
.1705
Regarding your second question, we regretfully had to announce that we would once again be requiring visitors from Chile to Canada to obtain a visa. Since 1995, when we lifted the visa requirement, each week and more specifically in the Quebec region, an inexplicable number of people have arrived and applied for refugee status in Canada. In 1994, our statistics indicated that80 people from Chile had applied for refugee status; in 1995, we lifted the visa requirement in February, and more than 1,600 people applied; the movement continued into the start of 1996, so much so that more than 3,500 Chileans came to Canada to apply for refugee status. This number is inexplicable, given the situation in Chile.
We have closely cooperated with the Chilean government in an attempt to identify the problem and to stem the tide of people arriving in Canada. Many steps have been taken both by the Chilean government and ours; we did not succeed. We even identified travel agencies which were advertising and telling people that Canada had an employment program for refugees.
I admit that this is a difficult situation on the human level. Human tragedies will surely occur when we decide to return these people. They are people with modest income who sold everything they had in Chile to settle in Canada where, they thought, there was an employment program. They were victims of false advertising. The people who have come here are not trying to defraud nor abuse the system; I would not want anyone to believe that.
So we were obliged to reimpose the visa. The Chilean government would have preferred finding another solution; unfortunately, we exhausted all of our solutions. Cooperation between Chile and Canada is excellent, especially with respect to the development of commercial and cultural links.
Our decision will make life easier for genuine visitors and permit multiple visas which can be valid for five years. If you were considered a genuine visitor and you hold a Chilean passport which is valid for five years, you can obtain a visa to come to Canada for five years. You do not need to reapply each time. So business people and students who travel regularly from one country to the other will not penalized. That is the situation.
Mr. Bélanger: Thank you. That was the last word.
The Chair: Thank you. I would like to thank all of the members of the committee for their patience. I hope this will not be the last time.
Mr. Bélanger: Would you like a motion to adopt the votes?
The Chair: Not yet.
[English]
Do we need a resolution? No.
[Translation]
No, we still have the three sets.
Mr. Bélanger: Will we adopt them all together?
The Chair: Yes.
Thank you very much, Madam Minister. We wish you all the best in the carrying out of your duties. We would also like to thank Ms Cochrane and her staff who are here today. We will see you again soon. Have a nice day, everyone. Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.