EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 13, 1996

.1535

[English]

The Chair: This meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will begin. The order of the day is the main estimates for the fiscal year 1996-97.

We welcome today witnesses from three different sections in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. From international services we have Mr. Gerry Campbell and Mr. Jeff Le Bane; from policy we have Scott Heatherington and Doreen Steidle; and from corporate services we have Jerry Robbins, Phil Edmond and Cathy Downes.

We will begin with Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Gerry Campbell (Director General, International Region, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. Would you like me to start by introducing the different responsibilities of the officials?

The Chair: Certainly, if you'd like to do that.

Mr. Campbell: I run the overseas international region, which is responsible for processing all immigrant and visitor applications abroad.

We have 252 Canadian-based officers abroad right now and 960 locally engaged employees at about 62 missions overseas. We issue 178,000 immigrant visas overseas each year and close to 600,000 visitor visas. We do reporting, intelligence, interdiction of improperly documented passengers, liaison with foreign governments and a range of overseas responsibilities.

Doreen, would you like to do something similar?

Ms Doreen Steidle (Director General, Selection Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Yes.

My name is Doreen Steidle. I'm director general of the selection branch.

We're a new branch that was formed in November with the reorganization. We are a service line branch, which means we develop the policy, the program and then the procedures that go to the field nationally and internationally. It's something new; it's not been done before. So if I don't know the answers to all the questions you ask, please forgive me, and I'll find them out.

In the selection branch we're responsible for monitoring the levels. We're responsible for programs and policies relating to the economic well-being of Canada. This would be non-immigrants, for example skilled workers, and negotiations with NAFTA for the social well-being of Canada, which would be in-Canada landings, the LCP program, or the live-in caregiver program, and family class.

We're also responsible for business immigration, and you're aware we are introducing an interim program on the business immigration side. Also we're responsible for immigration health policy and programs and how that impacts on who we allow into Canada in terms of their medical admissibility.

That's our portfolio in the branch.

Mr. Scott Heatherington (Director, Strategic Policy, Planning and Research Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): My name is Scott Heatherington. I am substituting today for the director general of our branch, which is the strategic policy, planning and research branch. I'm actually working as the program manager for the immigration section in Bonn, so you may find that on some things I don't have quite the background you would normally get.

Our branch deals with the federal-provincial relationship on various projects. We deal with the planning and review function. We have a responsibility for regulatory affairs within the branch and for the research function. We have a very exciting project abroad to exchange information with other governments on settlement of immigrants in cities; it's called Metropolis.

Mr. Jeff Le Bane (Director General, Refugee Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): My name is Jeff Le Bane. I look after the refugee branch. This also is a new service line branch in the department. It brings together a grouping of three distinct responsibilities.

One is resettlement of refugees to Canada. We're responsible for ensuring our refugee levels are met. Last year we brought to Canada approximately 11,100 government-sponsored and privately sponsored refugees. That's one responsibility of the resettlement division.

.1540

Another responsibility is to design refugee programs that best meet Canada's humanitarian and protection responsibilities abroad. An example of that is our 3/9 program that we introduced in response to the UNHCR appeal for the former Yugoslavia.

The second distinct responsibility is the asylum area. In that division, we are also responsible for bilateral relations on asylum issues, for example the responsibility sharing agreement.

The third area is our international division, which is responsible for our relationships and multilateral fora like the UNHCR, Canada's role in trying to resolve global issues, and our relationship and our partnership in international organizations like IOM.

The Chair: Mr. Robbins.

Mr. Gerry Robbins (Director General, Finance and Administration, Corporate Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): My name is Gerry Robbins. I'm director general of finance and Administration. As such, I'm responsible for the financial planning and budgeting for the department, for cost recovery, for the accounting operations to ensure all our accounting practices are in order and our travel claims are properly accounted for. On the administrative side, I'm responsible for facilities, purchasing and contracting.

The Chair: Ms Downes.

Ms Cathy Downes (Director General, Human Resources Branch, Corporate Management Section, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): I'm Cathy Downes. I'm the director general of human resources. We are responsible for both the policy and the operational side of the traditional human resource agenda, such as staffing classification, training, staff relations, and also in this context responsible for managing the human resource side of our most affected department status.

The Chair: Mr. Emond.

Mr. Phil Emond (Director General, Information, Management and Technologies Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Good afternon. My name is Phil Emond. I'm the director general of the information, management and technologies branch. I've been in that position since the creation of the department.

In the recent departmental reorganization in November, information management was added to the portfolio. The essential function is that I'm responsible for the introduction, maintenance and support of all the information technology holdings in Citizenship and Immigration.

The Chair: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome.

I don't know if any of you have any opening statements, but we can begin with questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez, you have ten minutes.

Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): I would like to thank our witnesses for coming here to answer our questions. My first question will deal with the visitor's visa for Portuguese people. Since 1994, I've been asking the minister to put an end to the visa requirement that came into effect in 1986 for Portuguese visitors. In Canada, more than 300,000 Canadians of Portuguese origin are not happy at all with this decision of the federal government to require visas from Portuguese citizens. Close to 60,000 Canadians of Portuguese origin live in Quebec. I have met with them and they are quite concerned with this unfriendly gesture towards Portugal. They invite members of their families - and you know that in Portugal family is very important - but it takes time to get a visa and this creates all sorts of administrative problems.

Portugal is the only European Union member where visas are required. This certainly does not promote tourism between the two countries. In 1994, Mr. Marchi even wrote me telling me that the issue was under review, and that I would be advised as soon as the review was completed. What is the current situation regarding visitor's visas for Portuguese citizens?

[English]

Mr. Campbell: Thank you. The visitor's visa was imposed on Portuguese nationals, correctly as you state, in 1986 because of a very large volume of asylum claims made by Portuguese claiming to be Jehovah's Witnesses. Efforts were made to stop this practice; they were unsuccessful, and at that time the Department of Foreign Affairs felt they had no option but to recommend the issuance of the visitor's visa requirement.

It has been reviewed since then, most recently I think about a year ago. The conclusion was that if we took the visa off, we would be at risk to exactly the same circumstance developing.

.1545

To answer your question precisely, it is again under review. We would not keep the visa on Portugal if we felt we could take it off. That could be the outcome of the review, but given the experience we've just gone through with Chilean nationals where we were compelled as of last week to reimpose the visa on Chile, I think the department would have to proceed very cautiously with this. The circumstances that gave rise to the visa requirement in the case of both countries were very similar. It was widespread abuse of our refugee determination system by persons who did not have very good claims to refugee status.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: That's all very well, but it's been over ten years, and according to information I received from the Portuguese community, the situation has greatly changed. There haven't been any problems for the past ten years, and it's not fair to compare Portugal with Chile. The situation is very different, because Portugal is a European country that is a member of the European Economic Community. And what irritates the Portuguese community in Canada even more is that you have removed visa requirements for several countries including Slovania, Hungary and Korea, but that you are not willing to do so for a friendly country, a member of the European Union.

[English]

Mr. Campbell: It's true that we have removed it from Hungary and Korea, but not from Slovakia at this point. We were well aware that Portugal was a member of the EU and that the economic circumstances are quite different from what they were ten years ago, but the connections that were there in 1985 when we had this problem are still there.

As I recall, it was something that had been orchestrated by unscrupulous travel agents. The movement came mainly from the Azores, where the conditions, as far as I'm aware, are significantly different from those on the mainland, but as I said earlier, it is currently under review and all of those factors will be looked at.

If it were felt that we could remove the visa we would be quite happy to do so because it would free up our resources to use in other areas. Most of the visitor visa movement from Portugal is quite legitimate, but there is still a vulnerability to a resurgence of the same problem we had before. It would be irresponsible of us to take the visa off if that might happen again.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: A lot of people come to see me and other members of Parliament on that issue. These are mostly people who want to come from Latin America. It is quite difficult to get a visa for someone from Salvador who wants to come to Canada, because this person has to go to Guatamela. If someone from Nicaragua wants to come to Canada, he or she must go to Costa Rica to request a visa, which increases the cost. It is currently very expensive.

Can I talk to you about a specific case, that of Ms. Saraguro?

The Chair: Mr. Nunez, we cannot discuss specific cases.

Mr. Nunez: But there have been articles about it in every single paper!

The Chair: Maybe so, but I don't think that Mr. Campbell should have to answer that question.

Mr. Nunez: I will give you a letter I have sent to the minister. I can't believe that in the House of Commons we cannot ask questions of the minister on a specific case. If you will not allow me to discuss a specific case with people who are knowledgeable... The minister cannot be aware of every single issue or case, and I can't even ask the questions of those who are aware of what's going on.

The Chair: This letter is addressed to the minister if I've understood correctly.

Mr. Nunez: That is correct.

The Chair: Therefore you will have the opportunity to talk to the minister. I would like to remind my colleagues that today, we are dealing with the Main Estimates and I have yet to hear a single question pertaining to the estimates.

We are meeting people from the International Service. They are the ones who issue the visas. It is a problem and I personally think that we should deal with it now.

Regarding the reorganization of the International Service, you say that there are pilot projects in Buffalo and in other cities. Do we have a similar project in Miami?

.1550

[English]

Mr. Campbell: No, we do not have an office in Miami. We have only an officer who does liaison work with the airlines.

The Chair: Ms Meredith.

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you for coming out this afternoon.

I'd like to begin by asking a question of whoever is responsible for the health requirements. I understand that the Department of Health transferred the interim health program to Citizenship and Immigration. Did they also transfer the $15 million for that program to Citizenship and Immigration?

Ms Steidle: This is not my specialty. I have to refer it to one of the other DGs. I think we'll have to get back to you on that. The director general who's responsible for the delivery network is responsible for interim federal health, and he's not here.

Perhaps I could introduce Anne Sinclair, who's the director of finance. She can help us.

Ms Anne Sinclair (Director of Financial Planning, Analysis, and Reporting, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): There were resources related to the program as it existed at the time of the transfer from the Department of Health to Citizenship and Immigration. With respect to the $15 million, however, that did not form part of the transfer. The $15 million were additional resources that were provided to the department at the time when Ontario indicated they were going to be de-insuring from OHIP the refugees, and as a result the department received additional resources to cover that responsibility.

So there were two different amounts the department received. The first was part of a transfer and the second was additional resources related to that particular requirement.

Ms Meredith: So when the Department of Health transferred the responsibilities to Citizenship and Immigration, they did not transfer the full dollars they used.

Ms Sinclair: Yes, they transferred the full amount of resources they had at that time.

Ms Meredith: Okay, that was to Citizenship and Immigration, but then you are seeking more dollars because of Ontario backing out of the system.

Ms Sinclair: Following the transfer, we received a notification from the Ontario government that they were going to be in the process of de-insuring. Subsequently the department sought additional resources to cover this additional requirement.

Ms Meredith: So that explains this additional amount of money.

Ms Sinclair: That's right.

Ms Meredith: With the changes in policy on the medical staff overseas, do you foresee this being an additional cost or a saving in contracting out health care services?

Mr. Campbell: I'm sorry, could I ask for clarification on that? Are you talking about the changes in the medical admissibility criteria?

Ms Meredith: No. I understand that there's a change in the medical doctors who will be reviewing the cases of health admissibility overseas, and I've noticed in the estimates that there is going to be one more position created. I understood it was a cost-saving measure. I'm asking you if it is going to cost fewer dollars by contracting out or if it is going to cost more dollars in the long run.

Mr. Campbell: It should cost fewer dollars or there wouldn't be much point in doing it. But there are a number of options that are being looked at as to how we do medical assessments abroad.

It's very expensive to use Canadian medical officers stationed overseas. Consistent with what we've done with visa officers, where we can have it done by contract doctors locally or through some contractual arrangement with a clinic or an international organization, we are looking at different options where we would be satisfied that the integrity of the process of the screening was not lost, and of course the quality of the screening.

We may look at various options to try to reduce the number of Canadian-based medical officers abroad. But the plan is not, as far as I know right now, to increase it. There would be a small net reduction in the number of Canadian-based medical officers abroad this summer, probably of two positions, but this is something we're working on right now.

Ms Meredith: Speaking of positions overseas, I understand, and what I would like from you is an idea of numbers, that in our immigration offices we employ non-Canadians or residents of that country. What kinds of numbers are we talking about?

.1555

Mr. Campbell: Right at this moment, we have 252 Canadian-based visa officers abroad and 960 locally engaged staff.

Again, something we are working on at the moment is a reconfiguration of our overseas offices with an emphasis on centralizing immigrant processing in a number of very large regional processing centres, probably numbering eight or nine, depending on how the final plans come out. We would have approximately another 30 full-processing offices also dealing with immigrant applications, and about 60 offices dealing with visitor and immigrant processing in total.

Ms Meredith: I may want you to expand on that, because I'm trying to figure out how you can, in a world context, have eight or nine processing centres. What do you do? Do you locate them in the areas we receive most of our immigration from? How would you locate those so they would be meeting the needs of the clientele?

Mr. Campbell: It's based on a number of factors, including the operating environment, cost, and volume of the workload in the area.

The eight regional centres we're looking at are Manila, Singapore, London, Paris, and probably Accra. New Delhi and Hong Kong would be very large full-service offices, but they would not be regional processing centres because of different reasons. Hong Kong is a very high-cost environment, and with the takeover in 1997, a year away, it would not be feasible to cover, for instance, Taiwan from Hong Kong. New Delhi has a very large volume in itself and it's warranted to keep a large immigration post there, but similarly, for various reasons, it's not the best place to operate out of as a base for other areas.

Ms Meredith: What will be the difference between a full-service, high-volume office and a regional processing centre?

Mr. Campbell: A regional processing centre will have an area of responsibility with a number of satellites reporting into it, which will be very thinly staffed. They'll probably have one or two Canadian-based officers and a number of locals. They will deal mainly with visitor visas and non-immigrant processing, but they will also do immigrant interviews on referral from the regional processing office.

By doing that, we gain efficiencies of scale, as Mr. Emond can elaborate on if you wish, on the cost of putting in our IT hardware. We will concentrate our heavy-duty computer equipment in those regional processing centres. They will have links to the satellites and they will pass information back and forth electronically, but we will then consolidate more of our resources in the regional processing centres.

The full-service offices will either be very high-volume operations, like Hong Kong, New Delhi and Beijing, where it would not make sense to try to process them from a distance, or they will be places like Belgrade, where we have a large refugee movement for the time being, or Ankara, where we have the same thing, whereby we can't make them satellites right now, but we might at one point in the future when the workload subsides.

Ms Meredith: In these regional satellite centres, is there one-on-one contact? If somebody is applying for a visitor's visa, does somebody actually sit and talk to them to make sure their application is valid and that the person applying is actually the person to whom you're talking?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, that's wherever it's warranted, but with the downsizing and streamlining of our operations we are waiving a higher proportion of interviews. We're trying to focus the interviews on the cases in which the risk is greatest, where we have concerns of some specific type. We're trying to focus the issues on those specific issues that are at play, rather than doing long, drawn-out interviews, as would have been the case 15 or 20 years ago.

.1600

Ms Meredith: Isn't the enforcement then getting the short end of the stick? If you're not having interviews and cross-examinations, how are you going to know of the legitimacy of the request for a visitor's visa or application for a student, or whatever the case might be?

Mr. Campbell: It depends on the circumstances. There's no question that when you waive a higher proportion of interviews you're taking more risks, and that's part of the philosophy of this process. On the other hand, if you're doing it well, it means you're concentrating your interviews on the cases you have more concerns about and you have more time to pay attention to the higher-risk cases and you waive what would be considered to be the lower-risk cases. That's something we've always done, perhaps in a less systematic fashion.

Obviously elderly parents who are coming to Canada from Delhi to visit their children would not be considered to be a high-risk category. They could be sponsored under the family class if the children wanted. And using profiles, young single males in the 25 to 35 age range coming from certain countries or with certain backgrounds would be a high-risk category and would be the ones we want to focus our resources on.

Ms Meredith: When you're doing documentation in your overseas offices, particularly in Hong Kong and Beijing, are you using the Chinese telegraphic code? I've asked your colleague that.

Mr. Campbell: I was hoping you'd ask that. I've been trying to research it.

Ms Meredith: I want to see if there's any consistency or to bring attention to the fact that if there is consistency in all the immigration offices, inland and overseas, then maybe we can get a handle on it.

Mr. Campbell: I'm not sure there is, to be frank. The Chinese telegraphic code was originally brought into use by the Royal Hong Kong Police in Hong Kong as a means of standardizing the transliteration of Chinese characters. A standard Chinese name has three characters. The code is rather like a postal code book, which, as you probably know, has a four-digit number ascribed to it. So every Chinese name has a twelve-number code.

It is, as I've been told by our intelligence people, not infallible. There's still some duplication in it, but it is the closest thing to being infallible to ensure that the English equivalent of the Chinese name has been exactly transcribed into English.

We used to use this, and it appears that with the introduction of computerized processing in the mid-1980s we then stopped using the code systematically. We still use it though in enhanced checks. For instance, if we're checking for persons who have connections with Triad activity, we would use the code in our referral.

In Hong Kong, which is where it originated and where it's most in use, on the Hong Kong identity card... Gord, could you let me see the passport and the card you have with you? It might help to illustrate this.

A voice: Just remember it's a forgery.

Mr. Campbell: Well, I trust the code is real.

Ms Meredith: Are you saying the document is a forgery?

Mr. Campbell: The document is a forgery, but for illustration purposes it hopefully shows the standard practice.

This is a Hong Kong British passport issued to a Hong Kong national. The front of it has the name of the bearer, which I guess I won't repeat for the record, and then right underneath it has the twelve-digit code. So we would see this.

In this instance this passport is visa-exempt but if it was a Hong Kong certificate of identity it would not be, and we would have the code in it, which we could use if we had doubts about the individual.

Similarly, the Hong Kong permanent identity card that is the basis on which the document is issued has, in sequence, the English name of the bearer, the Chinese characters, and then the twelve-digit code. So we see this and we use it for enhanced checks but we don't use it as part of the computerized record.

The Chair: We'll come back unless you have a final question on the code.

.1605

Ms Meredith: No, that's fine. I will pass this along for everybody. Are my ten minutes up yet?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Campbell: I would just finish that one, because I think it is a very good point to raise. It was very difficult to get an answer to this in the department, when I saw that you'd raised the question earlier this week.

What we did find is that it has been raised by our office in Hong Kong as something we should build into the new version of our computer system that Mr. Emond's group is working on right now, to build in a field for the STC, as it's called. It is a means of verifying absolutely the identity of the individual and it's possible that someone could apply say in Seattle and tell us that their name was Chen when the name would be transcribed in Hong Kong as Chan. We're looking into it.

Ms Meredith: Good. It was a point I was trying to get across. Thank you very much.

The Chair: You have taught us something, Ms Meredith. CSIS wasn't your only expertise.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): Thank you, Madam Chair. Do I have time for three quick questions?

The Chair: You have ten minutes.

Mr. Cullen: I have ten minutes. Okay.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming. I'll throw out the three questions and that will give you the chance that if there is any paper to dig out, you can do that.

My first question is on this notion of cost recovery. In the estimates, the numbers I have indicate that there is $330-odd million of revenues that are netted against the gross cost of the program. Presumably those revenues go into the consolidated revenue fund. I wondered if Mr. Robbins could give us this. I'm going to throw out the three questions first, but I will come back and hope you could give us a profile of what roughly comprises the $330-odd million of revenues.

My second question perhaps I'll address to Mr. Le Bane. In 1994 there was a report, the Hathaway report, which I gather was critical of the department's role with refugees. I wonder if you could comment on what action has been taken in response to that report. Secondly, for my benefit, being relatively new, could you describe the interaction of the role of the department with respect to refugees and the role of the IRB with respect to refugees and how that interacts? I'm not quite clear on that myself.

I don't know if anyone can answer my third question or deal with this or if it's on topic. But as part of the NAFTA there was greater movement that was permitted, as I understand it, for let's say management consultants moving from Canada into the U.S. and the U.S. into Canada. I am told by some consultants that now they identify themselves as management consultants. There are still some border irritants and basically they are challenged on the basis that they are taking jobs away from U.S. citizens. They are sort of harassed. I don't know if that's still going on, but it certainly was when I spoke to some of these people a while ago.

I am wondering if that falls within the purview of the department, or is that a trade irritant that would be taken up by international trade, or if there are any retaliatory measures, if appropriate - and I'm not sure they are appropriate - that we can take in Canada if there are these irritants at the border.

Those are my three questions. Maybe, Mr. Robbins, you could start.

Mr. Robbins: I can give you some of the larger numbers and give you some ideas where the numbers come from. For example, for the right of landing for immigrants, we collect approximately $137 million. That's what's being projected for 1996-97. For the right of citizenship, it's$19 million. On immigrant applications, the processing fee, we are projecting approximately$79 million. On things like employment and student authorization, it comes to $26 million. There are a number of other smaller fees. For example, on the visitor visa fees, we're projecting approximately $45 million. So that gives you some idea of some of the larger numbers.

Mr. Cullen: Okay. I think you indicated earlier they all do go to the consolidated revenue fund.

Mr. Robbins: Yes, everything goes to the consolidated revenue fund.

Mr. Cullen: Now the refugee question.

Mr. Le Bane: Yes. The IRB actually commissioned Professor Hathaway to conduct a commission on the type of information that was being gathered by the board, how it was being disseminated to the members, how the panel members were using that information and the legitimacy of that information.

.1610

He was, in a certain sense, critical of the panel members. He said the department was not living up to its responsibility on control and enforcement issues so that panel members were assuming that function, taking on an aggressive role. Simply put, his comments were twofold, that the board had to ensure the receipt of better information and that the board was not there to act in an enforcement capacity. That was the department's responsibility.

What the department does in support of the IRB - and I'm getting into your second question - and in support of panellists' decisions is that before a refugee claimant gets to the IRB, when he seeks admission to Canada, the interviewing officer, the senior immigration officer, at the port of entry does an admissibility evaluation and an eligibility evaluation, whether this person is eligible to make a refugee claim. The notes taken at those interviews are then provided to the IRB and finally to the panel members. What is taken at interview is provided directly. There is no change and there is no commentary.

Those notes are provided as informational support to the panel members making the refugee decision. When the basic separation between the department and the IRB is that the IRB makes the refugee determination decision, or the credibility decision, we do an evaluation on eligibility and admissibility to get to the refugee determination process.

Last year we signed a memorandum of understanding with the IRB. The IRB came to us and told us our staff overseas could provide them with very valuable supportive information, both general and client-specific.

So the IRB comes to us on a specific case asking for information, either of a general nature, such as country-specific, or a particular case. This is with the full knowledge of the counsel and of the claimant. The information provided from overseas is shared with the counsel and the claimant. But before a request is made for an officer overseas to do it, there's an assessment by the IRB that we're not putting the claimant or his or her family, if they have a family abroad, in a dangerous situation.

Mr. Cullen: In terms of responding to the Hathaway report, did that constitute your response?

Mr. Le Bane: If I may suggest, I think that really should be addressed by the IRB, because they commissioned the report.

Mr. Cullen: Okay.

Ms Steidle: I can answer that, I think.

Chapter sixteen of the NAFTA agreement allows for the entry to either Canada or the United States of four categories of business people - business visitors, professionals, intercompany transferees or traders. Those are the four basic categories of people allowed to move back and forth across the border, by agreement.

We have instructions under chapter sixteen and we have negotiated the basis upon which breakdowns of people within those categories of occupations can come to Canada. Most of these require a degree. So in our instructions to the field, both in the American field and the Canadian field, we have a list of the categories of occupations and what requirements are needed to qualify for entry under chapter sixteen.

I can table this for you. It's a public document.

When we get to management consultants, it's a little more tricky, and hence the problem. Normally the only education requirement in terms of occupational categories covered under NAFTA is a baccalaureate degree. Management consultants is a question of judgment on the part of the interviewing officer at the port of entry, because you could have a baccalaureate or else equivalent professional experience as established by a statement or professional credential attesting to five years' experience as a management consultant, or five years' experience in a field or specialty related to the consulting agreement.

.1615

Because of the vague way in which this is written, and the fact that many management consultants have experience but not necessarily a degree, that judgment is required by the actual official at the port of entry. Many times they'll do it correctly, but many times they may ask a few more questions than perhaps the visitor had expected.

Mr. Cullen: Some of these people I've talked to have MBAs and so on. You're saying it's not, in your view, harassment -

Ms Steidle: That's certainly not our intention.

Mr. Cullen: - but legitimate problems they've encountered at the border.

Ms Steidle: That's right. If you think it would be useful and if you could give us information of a particular spot where this seems to be happening, we can look at that.

Mr. Cullen: Okay. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Nunez, you have five minutes.

Mr. Nunez: On a point of order. Earlier, you prevented me from discussing Ms. Saraguro's case.

With the help of the staff members who are with me today, I have found the Standing Order of the House of Commons as well as the paragraph in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms that indicate that you do not have that right, Madam Chair.

Beauchesne states that the Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct the Member to discontinue his or her speech.

There are two grounds here: irrelevance and repetition. Neither are the case here.

The Chair: The order of the day calls for a study of the Main Estimates. If you want to ask other questions, we will have to strike a subcommittee.

Mr. Nunez: I would like you to state the grounds for your decision, Madam Chair, because I take issue with it.

The Chair: Very well. Do you have a question to ask of our witnesses?

Mr. Nunez: No. You must justify your decision before I ask another question.

The Chair: I've already explained why I've made that ruling. Your question, in my opinion, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Main Estimates which are the order of the day.

Mr. Nunez: I think you should read and reread the Standing Orders...

The Chair: I have read the Standing Orders carefully, Mr. Nunez.

Mr. Nunez: ...as well as Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. I have my advisors.

The Chair: We will not discuss a specific situation. Please proceed.

Mr. Nunez: I will come back to that later, Madam Chair, because I don't want to get into a whole debate on the issue in front of our witnesses today.

The Chair: You started the whole debate.

Mr. Nunez: That is true, and I will keep raising the issue because I am not happy with arbitrary decisions.

The Chair: You have two minutes.

Mr. Nunez: As for your international services, the Auditor General has already questioned their efficiency.

Do you have a deadline? How long does it take to process visitors' visas or immigrants' visas? Are there problems? How will you solve them in answer to the Auditor General's criticism?

[English]

Mr. Campbell: I'm not sure the Auditor General was actually criticizing the processing timeframes, but instead was suggesting that we should publish service standards for those timeframes. In fact, we already produce detailed statistics on actual processing timeframes by post and by category so that it is possible for a lawyer or an applicant for a visa to know exactly what the standard processing timeframes would be in their category, regardless of where they intended to apply.

That, in our view, is better than what the Auditor General had proposed, because normally service standards are forecast processing timetables, or targets that posts are expected to meet. It is very hard on a global basis to publish a figure that says, for example, an average immigrant applicant in the independent category will be processed in one year. There are so many factors outside our control it would mean you would never be entirely living up to what you published in one place or the other.

.1620

For instance, in Hong Kong in 1989, after Tiananmen, several times there were queues around the building in Exchange Square Plaza, queues of tens of thousands of persons who all filed immigrant visa applications because of the Tiananmen episode in Beijing. It took us five years to clear those backlogs in Hong Kong, and of course in 1989 and in 1990-91 there were long backlogs, which are now completely clear.

The department as a whole is working towards service standards, both domestic and internationally, and in some areas, such as family class for spouses, the processing standard that has been set is that 80% of the applications are expected to be processed within six months. We are very close to meeting those timeframes. It may be that we gradually work towards those in other categories, but it's difficult to deliver on this, because of the factors I've mentioned. There's a tendency for applicants to shop around between posts and to transfer their applications. We get backlogs that can build up in very short order in one place or the other. We have that situation right now in New York and Los Angeles, for various reasons.

That having been said, at the moment we do publish processing timeframes by post and by category, and those are publicly available through a variety of sources.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: But there is a problem. I became aware of it myself and people are complaining about it. It takes too much time to give an answer to a request for a visa. In Moscow, I personally saw long lines of people waiting outside in the middle of winter. People could not even get into the embassy.

As for the promotion and recruitment campaigns mentioned in the Main Estimates for 1996-1997, mention is made of marketing campaigns that will be carried out in Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and the United States. What will these campaigns be like? Why is there no mention made of Africa? Why isn't Africa included?

[English]

Mr. Campbell: Promotion and recruitment are very narrowly targeted, largely in support of provincial initiatives. The provinces of course have a joint role in immigration. They are involved in consultations with the department and in some instances approach us for support in campaigns or fairs that they want to be involved in to attract particular types of immigrants, particularly in the business category, because the provinces are understandably interested in attracting business expertise and investment capital. Wherever possible we try to support those provinces in their requests, and we have been involved in business fairs in Taipei, in Dubai. Off the top of my head I can't recall other locations. In some instances there are targeted groups of people provinces are interested in, particularly in the computer field, where they're seeking specific expertise.

We do try to support the provinces, but it is a very focused type of activity. It's obviously aimed at markets where there are known to be, or felt to be, persons who have either the business expertise or the particular training and expertise that is required, usually by a province but sometimes by Canadian firms that are having trouble recruiting people locally.

Mr. Regan (Halifax West): I hope the witnesses will bear with me. I'm not a regular member of this committee.

I want to ask about settlement renewal. Perhaps I've misunderstood something, but if I look at the total settlement budget, I believe it's roughly $250 million. I'm reading the estimates about settlement renewal on page 44, and they mention we're in the process of withdrawing from the direct administration of settlement services and funds. I understand you're negotiating with some provinces about this.

.1625

If we are withdrawing from it, why are the provinces interested in taking over this function? What is the improvement? Will we continue to pay the bills for some period of time? As I said, I understand we're withdrawing from funding this as well.

The Chair: We did have the department officials yesterday on this issue, but if anybody from policy would like to answer... Or if you would like to defer the question, we can get back to Murray on this.

Mr. Regan: Sure. It probably was thoroughly dealt with yesterday.

Mr. Heatherington: I think it was covered yesterday, but I think the principle we're trying to maintain is the delivery of services at the local level. It's a very complex issue when you get to the financial negotiations. I'm not in a position to answer, but if you like, I can have somebody call you this week to go into the financial arrangements.

Mr. Regan: Or it may be possible just to look at the transcript from yesterday's meeting. I wouldn't ask you to go to that trouble.

Again, at the risk of asking about something else that's been dealt with, I understand that as a result of Bill C-86, refugees accepted by the IRB cannot be landed in Canada until they can provide acceptable proof of identity. Apparently some 8,000 people were unable to be landed as a result of this, I think back in the fall of 1994. What is the current status of that situation?

Mr. Le Bane: When that provision of legislation was introduced - basically section 46 of the Immigration Act - it states, simply put, that while a person may have been declared a refugee, that is separate from Canadian landing requirements as an immigrant. That's number one. Two, in order to be landed, a person must have some documentation - a passport or a school certificate, something to establish or confirm who he or she is - to satisfy an immigration officer.

Approximately 8,000 Somalis and some Afghans have been declared refugees by Canada, so we've met our protection requirement, but they have not been able to prove or to establish who they are; hence they haven't been landed. The minister, approximately a month and a half ago, said in Montreal that she had asked the department to try to find solutions to try to respond to section 46 of the Immigration Act - that is, to try to come to terms with landing these persons to facilitate integration into Canadian society and to facilitate family reunification.

She also said at that time that any resolution of this problem had to be balanced with front-end solutions, because if Canada lands these people it could be misconstrued abroad that anyone can come to Canada, destroy their documents and eventually ultimately be landed. So she said we must also, at the front end, tighten up to ensure that we can preserve the integrity of our refugee determination system.

Mr. Regan: Front end means...

Mr. Le Bane: When persons turn up or arrive at Canada's frontiers, Canada's airports.

So right now we're providing the minister with an action plan in terms of both landing these 8,000 persons, primarily Somalis and Afghans, and providing a parallel package to protect our refugee determination system and avoid abuse.

We met in April with representatives of the Somali community in Toronto and representatives of the Canadian Council for Refugees to hear how they could contribute, what recommendations they would make, in terms of landing. What we're looking at - and some of this reflects the community's comments - is that because we have a basic issue where we likely can never identify with certainty who some of these people are, we're looking at possible options, including sworn affidavits from within the community, confirming who these people are, to the best of the community's knowledge. Some of the refugee determination processes go back four or five years in time, and we would be also examining the possibility that if no criminal activity or bad actions have been identified in Canada or abroad, we could also look at landing them in terms of good faith. We're in that process right now.

.1630

The Chair: Ms Meredith.

Ms Meredith: I'd like to follow up on this last conversation, because we heard yesterday from the enforcement people that it is not uncommon to have people either pass off their documentation to a courier or destroy their documentation. If you are going to allow landed status for individuals who do not have documentation, how are you not going to send a message worldwide that you do not need documentation in Canada?

A question I'd like to add to that is how does an individual get to Canada either by air or by sea, either through the United States or some other country, without documentation? How is it possible to travel internationally without a passport or some documentation?

Mr. Le Bane: I'll address the second question first. Every person who flies to Canada must have some type of travel document at the time they board a plane. That's a requirement, and there are fines for carriers if they don't. Many of those people who turn up at ports of entry after arrival have either destroyed their documents on the plane or on arrival have slipped documents to other people on that flight, smugglers.

Persons who seek, for example, refugee status at our Canadian-American border would most likely have entered the United States with passports, travel documents, and destroyed them or handed them back to smugglers, who reuse them. But everybody who comes on a flight to Canada must have a document.

Ms Meredith: So how can there be a legitimate claim to not having documentation? How can there be a legitimate claim for anybody to say, I have no documentation, therefore I should be given landed status?

Mr. Le Bane: At the port of entry, when a person arrives, the only onus is to try to establish anything that would preclude his making an application, for example if he or she had made a refugee claim elsewhere; and we sometimes discover that. But these persons can say they fled on false documents in order to escape a difficult situation in a Third World country and they were afraid that if they used that document and the identification of that other person became known it might put their families in further prejudice. These are the comments that are made. This is one of the reasons why the minister is also addressing front-end solutions on arrival.

Ms Meredith: So basically what you're saying is the minister is going to attempt it, but there's no guarantee of protecting Canada from people who are coming into the country illegally by using a charge of having no documentation.

Mr. Le Bane: The minister is trying to protect Canada from people who would abuse the system, but she's also trying to ensure in terms of added protection the integrity of the refugee determination system, given our humanitarian commitments and responsibilities abroad.

Ms Meredith: I want to go back to the medical assessment volumes. I notice there is a fairly substantial...and I believe it's 16,000 for last year, and again this past year, or 1994-95, where people have been admitted under the ``admissible with surveillance'' category. These are people who would be deemed to be medically inadmissible, but they're being allowed in under an ``admissible with surveillance'' category. Can you explain why and how?

.1635

Ms Steidle: I can't, personally, but Dr. Neil Heywood, director of immigration health policy, can.

Dr. Neil Heywood (Director, Immigration Health Policy, International Service, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): As I understand it, you're asking about the 16,000 people placed under medical surveillance.

Ms Meredith: That's right.

Dr. Heywood: Under the assessment process, these individuals are indeed medically admissible. These people are largely individuals who have been identified as having some form of inactive tuberculosis. About 90% of the 16,000 will be in that category. Approximately 10% were people who have positive serology - some past evidence of syphilis that has been treated and rendered non-infectious.

Both these groups of people are placed under medical surveillance. You would report them to the public health authority of the province of destination. It then falls to the province to actually follow up on these people in an appropriate fashion as deemed by that province. I just would like to underscore that they are not medically inadmissible.

A very small number of people we do identify as having active disease. Those people are normally deemed medically inadmissible until they have been appropriately treated and rendered non-infectious.

Ms Meredith: Those individuals would not be admissible until such time as their diseases have been treated.

Dr. Heywood: Correct.

Ms Meredith: So you're allowing people who have an inactive tuberculosis - 90% of them, you said -

Dr. Heywood: Yes, approximately 90% of the 16,000 would have tuberculosis.

Ms Meredith: Is there any tracking to see whether there is provincial follow-up, and what kind of cost there is to the provincial levels of government in surveilling these individuals, and in treatment down the road if their diseases become active again?

Dr. Heywood: We are currently in the process of tracking exactly this information. This is a very important element, because as you say, there are some inherent costs the provinces have to meet for that process. We have not been advised by the provinces of exactly what those costs are.

Ms Meredith: When you are advised by the provinces and you do have that information, could you make it available to the committee?

Dr. Heywood: Yes.

Ms Meredith: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Thank you. I have a couple of questions, but first I think I'll follow up on Ms Meredith's questions.

Let's take an airplane. We have a bunch of people boarding. Some of them have to give proof of citizenship, a passport or whatever. What is the problem with surrendering those documents to the airlines in exchange for a boarding pass, putting those documents into a travel pouch in the captain's cabin and giving it directly to an immigration officer upon landing, who will then call those people in order of the travel documents?

That should be a practical question, it seems to me. Has anybody thought of that yet?

Mr. Le Bane: I would make one comment. I suspect airlines may not want to undertake that responsibility.

Mr. Wappel: If they want to have travel rights in Canada I guess they might rethink that position. There's nothing illegal about that. Many countries do it. It would presumably save people from flushing their documents down the toilet or ripping them up or eating them, because they wouldn't have the documents. All the documents have pictures on them. Simply by looking at the pictures every person could be identified when they got off the plane Then there would be no problem - at least on airplanes - of documents being destroyed in transit. Is that not true?

Mr. Le Bane: That's one solution.

Mr. Wappel: Could I ask you to look into that and perhaps report back to the committee on why it's not a good idea - aside from the fact that the airlines don't want to do it? It's too bad, but if they want the flights into Canada, they'll have to reconsider that position. They also didn't want the obligation of having to determine whether people had travel documents, but they took it because they want the business.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel, we put that question to the minister, and the minister then does present the hypothetical question to the department.

Mr. Wappel: I've already presented it, but if the minister thinks it's a good idea, I'm happy to give it to her.

The Chair: I didn't say she did or didn't.

.1640

Mr. Wappel: I'd just like an answer, because it seems so simple to prevent the loss of identity documents on an airplane. Ships are a different matter, with stowaways, etc., but you can't get onto an airplane, except in extremely rare circumstances, particularly depending on the country you're coming from, without producing travel documents. I just returned from a country where I had to hand them my passport. Now, if they said to me, we'll keep your passport till you get back to Toronto, what am I going to say? No? I want to get to Toronto; keep the passport.

Mr. Campbell: I have been involved in discussions on this. It's not a new idea. It has been raised before. It would be administratively a nightmare. That was the conclusion.

Mr. Wappel: How?

Mr. Campbell: First of all, you would have to ask the airlines globally all to take passports at boarding - not at check-in, but at boarding - because you need the passport when you go through exit formalities. Normally the procedure at an airport like London Heathrow would be that you check in, you check in your bags, you present your passport to the airline check-in personnel, and then you go through immigration exit control. Canada doesn't have this, but most countries do. So you need your passport at that stage.

That means the airlines would have to have personnel who collected the passports right at boarding. As you say, you present your boarding card and the passport. It would have to be taken. 747s carry 400-plus passengers. This would be rather like going back to the days of travelling by ship, where you did exactly this. Immigration personnel were stationed on ships and they had hours to go through the documentation. When they actually arrived, you would then have to take the bag of passports and you would have to have someone sorting through the bag of passports and handing them out to 500-plus persons.

Mr. Wappel: Excuse me. First of all, I travelled to Pakistan last year. That's exactly what they do. They have an officer at the bottom of the gangplank. Just before I boarded that plane I had to show my papers. He opened it up, he looked to make sure my face was the face in the passport, and we boarded. It didn't take particularly longer than it takes me to board an Air Canada flight in Toronto - a little; I'm exaggerating.

Secondly, there would be no need whatsoever to sort anything, because you simply pull the document and call the person's name, and that's the person who comes forward. If the person doesn't come forward, you go to the next document. Eventually you're going to get everybody. Since they're all pictures, the people who are left will be very easily matched with the people whose documents...when they didn't come forward.

So it has nothing to do with sorting anything. First come, first served, based on who is pulled out of the bag.

Mr. Campbell: My colleague has a comment, but just to finish, bear in mind the configuration of the Toronto airport, which is already very busy. Once you've done that, even assuming you don't have any problems with the matching, then the next stage... Toronto airport is not configured so that an individual flight goes straight to the primary inspection line at the airport terminal. Once you gave them the passports, there'd be nothing to stop them from mixing with incoming passengers from other flights and dumping their passport. So they could destroy the passport at any stage.

Mr. Wappel: No, I'm saying you wouldn't give them their passport. The passport would be given by the airline to the immigration officer. The satchel of passports would be given by the airline to the immigration officer. The immigration officer would pull the document out and call the people forward. They may mix with people from other flights, it's quite true, but they can't go past that line until they've gone through an immigration inspection. They would never see their boarding papers, they would never see their travel documents, from the moment they handed them to the airline till the moment they cleared customs. That's when they'd get them back.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel, I'll repeat something I said earlier. We're here to discuss the estimates, not a theoretical question.

Mr. Wappel: I've asked a question. Madam Chair, pardon me. I would suggest this line of questioning is directly relevant to the estimates, because it involves landing, it involves the amount of money required to look after these people, it involves offloading onto the airlines. It's a suggestion that apparently has been discussed at some level at some point, and only negatives have been found. It doesn't seem to me any positives have been found. I'm trying to point out a few of them.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel, I didn't say you were out of order. I said I think you've examined this question with the officials. It's a theoretical question. If you do have another question, I'll take it now, because your time is nearly up.

.1645

Mr. Wappel: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.

On page 59 of the estimates, maintaining a strong family program, we read:

The current approach to family migration may not include those who provide or require the greatest support.

What does that mean?

Ms Steidle: I'll answer that, but I have to say I don't understand the wording myself.

Mr. Wappel: Then at least we're of the same mind on this question. What did whoever drafted it mean?

Ms Steidle: What we're trying to get at here, I think, is new sponsorship regulations, which we prepublished in November of last year. The idea was that we would reinforce the sponsorship obligation of the sponsor so that people would not be defaulting on the sponsorship when they brought people to Canada.

Unfortunately, because of the consultation process we found that we didn't have those prepublished regulations quite right. So we've gone back essentially to the drawing-board to look again at what the public and the provinces are trying to tell us about redesigning new sponsorship regulations.

Mr. Wappel: What do you mean by what the public is trying to tell you? What do you think the public is trying to tell you about people who sign contracts to support people they bring over here and then default on them?

Ms Steidle: You're quite right in asking the question. The problem is crafting the regulation that addresses the problem without either overkill or underkill. That's the tricky part.

Mr. Wappel: I guess the idea is that in the general case the sponsor should meet the contractual obligations, with specific cases being dealt with on a humanitarian basis depending on certain personal circumstances. Isn't that it?

Ms Steidle: Yes. I'll give you an example. In the current regulations there's nothing to say that someone who is on welfare or social benefits, for example, cannot sponsor a spouse from abroad. In the prepublished regulations we said that if you wanted to sponsor someone from abroad you couldn't have been on welfare for 12 months. Many interested parties asked, why 12? Why not nine or six or three?

Mr. Wappel: Yes, but they're always going to say that.

Ms Steidle: So what we've had to do, in many ways, is to go back to look at the original research to find out if in fact the problem we thought we had identified could be solved in this way.

Mr. Wappel: I might say to you, why not 24?

Ms Steidle: Right.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: Last year, in November, the government created a new category of immigrants, the provincial nominee category, or those sponsored by the provinces and territories; however, we still haven't received any information on this new category. What are the selection criteria? Are they the same as for skilled workers, or independent immigrants? Which provinces have used these programs so far? How many people have been accepted so far? Is it a good system? Will it be broadened? What do you think of this new program?

[English]

Ms Steidle: I can answer that.

In the framework we announced that there would be 1,000 places under a provincial nominee category. We're still negotiating in many ways the framework of that; we're still talking to many of the provinces.

The first province that actually said that it wanted a group was Manitoba, using this provincial nominee category. The rest are waiting to see how the new selection criterion, which we had also prepublished, is going to play itself out, to find out whether or not they need to bring in people under this particular category or if the people they are interested in having will be attracted to Canada or eligible to come to Canada in any case. So we're still exploring that with the provinces.

Mr. Nunez: How many immigrants under this category have you received?

Ms Steidle: So far we are processing up to 200 from the Philippines destined to Manitoba.

Mr. Nunez: Could you give more information in the future? It is something new and I am very interested in it.

Ms Steidle: I have some things I can pass on to you.

.1650

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: I would like to ask another question regarding refugees who have been recognized as refugees and who cannot be granted permanent residence because they do not have all the required documents. It would seem that some 14,000 people are in this situation.

What will you do about the increasing number of people who have been recognized as refugees in Canada but cannot become permanent residents, nor, or course, citizens? Sometimes they can't even go to the bank or register at the university. How will you solve that problem? It would seem that there have been discussions between the Canadian Council for Refugees and the minister. What is the solution to this serious problem?

[English]

Mr. Le Bane: Do you mean the persons who had been declared refugees by the board?

Mr. Nunez: No. They have already been recognized as refugees, but they apply for permanent residence and don't have all the documents.

Mr. Le Bane: We had discussed this earlier. The minister had a meeting in Montreal with representatives of the Canadian Council for Refugees, saying she was looking for a solution.

Mr. Nunez: So what is the solution?

Mr. Le Bane: The solution is to seek landing for these people, numbered in the range of 8,000 to 9,000 persons, mainly from the Somali and Afghan communities. She recognizes that there's the issue of integration into Canadian society, and the issue of family reunification, because many of those persons have family overseas, particularly in Somalia. But she also said she wanted a balanced response so that in terms of our refugee determination system, a humane response on one hand would not invite further abuse on persons coming to Canada, some of whom wilfully destroy their documents and try to abuse our system.

Right now we're preparing recommendations for the minister that will reflect her wishes for a balanced approach, both to facilitate landing for those persons here and to avoid abuse in the future.

Mr. Nunez: Could you mention some of these recommendations?

Mr. Le Bane: We spoke to the Somali community and representatives of the CCR in Toronto in April to seek some of their views. Some of the Somali community leaders have told me they also recognize that there must be front-end admissibility and eligibility solutions to stop this abuse.

Some of the options we have discussed with the community are affidavits, working with community elders, and landing persons who have been declared refugees, some of whom go back four or five years, on the basis of time. These persons have not broken Canadian laws and no adverse information has been presented to us from abroad.

These are some of the options we're looking at in terms of landing.

Mr. Nunez: Okay.

[Translation]

New regulations regarding the sponsoring of parents were to be implemented last March, but they were later postponed. What is the new deadline?

[English]

Ms Steidle: I can answer that. As I was saying to your colleague, we are going back not to the drawing board but certainly to rethinking what we had pre-published, doing some analysis behind why we crafted the regulations the way we did, whether they in fact respond to the needs of the provinces, the needs of the community, and balance out the needs of the family as well. So we have a ways to go yet.

The Chair: Merci.

Any questions from the government side? Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Wappel: This isn't a question. Our researcher pointed out paragraph 114(1)(q.1) of the Immigration Act, which gives the Governor in Council power to pass regulations to require or authorize transportation companies to hold travel documents to ensure they are available for examination at the port of entry. No regulations have been published under this section. I hope you guys are thinking about it, hard.

.1655

Back to page 59, on maintaining a strong family program, it says a decision whether to alter the current family definition will be made following detailed discussions with experts and interested members of the public. What does that mean?

Ms Steidle: That's also the selection branch, but I have my director of social policy and programs here to help answer that question.

Mr. Jim May (Acting Director, Policy and Programs, Selection, In-Canada Service, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): When the strategic framework document was being prepared some consideration was given at the time to perhaps expanding the definition of family, or at least looking at situations where individuals who were being allowed to remain in Canada in quasi-family situations could be incorporated into the class so there would be a link, perhaps a financial link, between those decisions and the person here who was sponsoring their presence here.

Mr. Wappel: Can you be specific? What's the current family definition and what's the proposed definition?

Mr. May: To give you an example, sometimes under our present processing guidelines we may see situations where let's say an aged aunt has lived with the family for some extended period. We might decide on a humanitarian basis that in the interests of that family we would allow that aged aunt to come forward.

I think that's a good thing, but one of the unfortunate down sides is that right now there is no provision to make anyone financially liable for that decision. So it's a family-class type situation, let say bringing your mother or father, where we do require sponsorship and an undertaking to indicate that support, but in the case of bringing the aunt we would not have that same guarantee.

Mr. Wappel: Why not?

Mr. May: Some consideration was being given -

Mr. Wappel: Why not, sir?

Mr. May: Right now?

Mr. Wappel: Yes.

Mr. May: There's no regulatory authority to do that. This document is recognizing that perhaps we should look at doing that.

Mr. Wappel: Rather than changing the definition of family, why not simply put in a regulation that would say if somebody asks for a humanitarian pass for their aged aunt the quid pro quo is a sponsorship agreement for ten years. Then you don't change the definition of family.

Mr. May: That could well be the result, that's right. But this statement was not limiting our options. It was simply looking at the options.

Mr. Wappel: All right. Are you looking at same-sex couples there?

Mr. May: I was not looking at that, no, but these are all options, I suppose.

Mr. Wappel: Well, are they being discussed with respect to same-sex couples?

Mr. May: That we amend the definition of family? No.

The Chair: Ms Meredith.

Ms Meredith: Madam Chair, I want to follow up on this family sponsorship program that's been mentioned by a couple of my colleagues.

I want to raise a couple of issues. First, you did make the pronouncement. Part of that announcement, I understood, was a change in the contractual agreements between the sponsor and the sponsoree, because right now it's between the sponsor and the Government of Canada and there isn't any way to enforce it through the courts. I also understand there was a lot of resistance from the immigration lawyers and from the advocacy groups to that plus the raising of the family income required to be able to sponsor.

I want to ask you, and I want to ask you honestly, should your concern not be for Canada and Canadians rather than for the sponsoree who is looking to come into the country? Why can you not and why did you not follow through on that change in the contracts making the sponsor obligated to the sponsoree and vice versa, so the courts of this country could enforce those here?

Ms Steidle: We're looking at the sponsorship regulations as a package. Rather than introduce one, we've decided to introduce all, and we're trying to craft them to reflect the comments, some of the criticism, we've received. That's number one.

.1700

So although we could do it in that sense - we could introduce a small regulation - in a certain way there's a balance to the package. We need to ensure that we are balancing a number of factors at the same time: the relationship between a spouse and a sponsor, between a sponsor in Canada and his fiancée and the various conditions that we impose. So we look upon it as being a package.

We want to make sure that there will be equity amongst many groups when we deal with the sponsorship package. We're not going to get a chance to do this again if we don't do it right the first time.

Ms Meredith: I think there's always a chance to change when you see that there are problems with it.

I know I'm going beyond this, but do all countries accept the missions of immigration lawyers and advocacy groups that have a self-interest in this? Whose guidance are you taking on this? Are you taking into account the best interests of the country, or are you taking the advice and submissions from people who have a self-interest in making sure that things won't change?

Ms Steidle: In fact that happens quite often. The people who respond during the public comment period are the very ones who don't necessarily want you to impose the regulation. That's just the nature of prepublication.

However, there are often kernels of truth in the criticism. Putting self-interest aside, we often also hear from provinces during this consultation period, on pros and cons. So it's not all one-sided. It's not necessarily catering to the industry. There's an awful lot of that - this is a powerful industry - but that's certainly not our only consideration. As I've said to you before, we consider Canada, the provinces, the interests of the sponsor, and balance in the program.

Ms Meredith: I want to move on to another comment that has been made by one of my colleagues - and I'm losing track of who says what.

When we start talking about persons who come to this country without proper documentation or as refugee claimants - and in Canada we grant landed status, if we can at all - I understand that there are many countries around the world that give asylum to refugees, that give them protection, but do not give them permanent landed status. They do not give them the equivalent of citizenship.

Why do we in this country feel an obligation to go beyond providing asylum, providing protection, to give them permanent landed status?

Mr. Le Bane: I think it's part of the government's articulated humanitarian role of responsibility and compassion in assisting and working with United Nations High Commission refugees, working on resettlement with them.

You are quite correct. A lot of countries afford only protection. They do not afford resettlement. Last year in the former Yugoslavia a lot of refugees fled to European Union countries and they have been afforded temporary protection. So you are quite correct on that.

It is a decision of the government that we will provide permanent resettlement as an option for Canada.

Ms Meredith: But when we talk about permanent resettlement - and you mentioned the former Yugoslavia - we're talking about small numbers. We're talking about genuine refugees that the country is sponsoring - that Canada is sponsoring, not the inland refugees, the people who are coming here for whatever reasons, stepping on Canadian soil, and claiming refugee status. So I differentiate between the compassion and humanitarianism and in many cases being taken for a ride.

I would like to move on from that and ask you about the resettlement program. That is very many dollars in your budget. I believe it is $256 million, compared to operating expenditures of$315 million. These are the two largest sums in your complete budget. I have difficulty when people who are sponsored, where someone has given a commitment to look after their financial needs for ten years, are accessing taxpayers' dollars.

Where is the control of the department in enforcing the sponsorship contracts, sponsorship agreements, sponsorship commitment to look after the financial needs of these individuals for ten years, when we're spending this kind of money for those kinds of programs, when we're talking about small numbers of genuine refugees sponsored by our country?

.1705

It's under ``Grants and Contributions''.

Ms Steidle: If I could clarify, we might be mixing up two pots of money. People who come to Canada as family class immigrants and whose sponsors are in default do not access this department's money. That money is for a different thing, which I think belongs to refugees. It isn't sponsorship default.

Ms Meredith: My understanding from conversations is that the settlement renewal process does not distinguish that it is there for anybody who walks through the door. The people who are receiving these grants and providing the services do not distinguish between those people who are genuine refugees sponsored by Canada and a new immigrant who wants to use language training, that type of service.

Mr. Robbins: If I could just make one brief distinction, part of the settlement funds available are for things such as language training. Quite rightly, that would be open to people other than refugees. But there's an aspect of support payments within the settlement funds that are directed to refugees, and only refugees.

The Chair: I'd like to ask three questions based on the estimates. I refer you to page 73 in the estimates, part III. Under ``Professional and special services'', there's an item that has gone up, if you look at the estimates for 1996-97, from the forecast $49,151,000 to $68,898,000. What are these professional and special services? Would you like to elaborate?

Mr. Robbins: Much of the amount would be for consultants helping us on the whole process of renewal and streamlining our process. Some of the funds would be for information technology advancements, which Mr. Emond is responsible for.

The Chair: When you talk about consultants, are you talking about contractual work?

Mr. Robbins: Yes.

The Chair: What types of consultants?

Mr. Robbins: In certain cases, management consultants would help us in terms of how we would streamline a certain process on certain projects of renewal. But a very large proportion isMr. Emond's.

The Chair: Mr. Emond, would you like to elaborate on that?

Mr. Emond: A number of these costs would be related to information technology . There you have a whole variety of services - application development people, technical specialists. The department is in the middle of a very large systems modernization program of more than$100 million over five years. To get through that program, we need some special expertise from outside to get us through this peak period. That eventually winds down as the program is put into place.

So a number of the dollars associated there would be related to various kinds of technical specialists who, quite frankly, are not available to us in our own staff.

The Chair: Thank you.

In the same page, under ``Controlled Capital'', there's a footnote to explain why there's been an increase. Why is this item not taken care of under the item from Foreign Affairs, on the table at page 80, which says ``International immigration services''? Maybe I'm making the wrong link, but I need a clarification on that.

The footnote talks about the acquisition of land, buildings, engineering structures and works, major alterations. What are we altering and what are renewing overseas, here...?

Mr. Campbell: It's not overseas. You're quite right about page 80. That contains our fenced resources within the budget of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is for our leases and our capital expenditure abroad.

.1710

The Chair: Just to elaborate on that while you decide, could I have Mr. Campbell again?

For the international immigration services, are we including all our missions in each of the embassies and any officers involved?

Mr. Campbell: Yes. As I said earlier, this refers to a fenced amount of the foreign affairs budget which is used for the delivery of the immigration program abroad. The resources I mentioned much earlier of 252 Canada-based visa officers and 960 locally engaged staff are deployed to Foreign Affairs missions overseas, but they are known as ``fenced resources''. They belong to this department. The cost of our share of the leases, the staff quarters, the vehicles, and other things needed to run our operations abroad are reflected in that table on page 80.

In addition to that we have funds in our budget in the international region which are used for salaries of officers based at headquarters, support staff at headquarters, and some parts of our budget such as temporary duty costs and relocation costs, which we fund out of my budget, based at headquarters.

The Chair: So the relocation wouldn't be under the $116,000. It would be under the other items.

Mr. Campbell: I hate to tell you this, but it's $116 million.

The Chair: Million, excuse me. It's in thousands of dollars.

Mr. Campbell: No, relocation funding is covered out of our headquarters budget.

The Chair: Just to go back to controlled capital, when we're talking about land, buildings, engineering structures and works, and alterations, are we talking about buildings -

Mr. Emond: Yes. That line item also includes information technology, computers, hardware, major capital items around technology. In fact, the amount there relates primarily to information technology acquisitions, which are part of our systems modernization program, which I mentioned earlier. That's what those amounts relate to.

The Chair: It would be nice if it had said that, instead of land, renovations -

Mr. Emond: Indeed. I was confused as well.

Mr. Le Bane: I think the reason for that is controlled capital can include those items. But in fact it's predominantly the computers.

The Chair: One of the things the Auditor General brought up last year about your estimates was that there was not enough detail in the items, and I'll repeat that. I think there has to be a clarification. I'm not an expert, and I'll put that down on the table, but I had some confusion in trying to figure out some of the items that were listed.

Mr. Nunez.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: I don't know if this is part of your responsibilities, but I would like to know if the immigrant identity card is still in the works? What is the situation?

[English]

Mr. Emond: The department is indeed exploring the idea of what we call a ``client card''. Some years ago we started an initiative called the ``permanent resident document'', which you might be referring to. What we're exploring - and no decisions have been made yet - is the possibilities of advanced card technology, either chip card technology or optical card technology, to help us identify our clients more positively. From the technology perspective, we've done a great deal of research in this area, but we have not yet made any decisions inside the department. A number of factors need to be considered, including the cost of this kind of initiative. That's where the initiative sits right now.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: Will this client card be optional or compulsory? How will you guarantee confidentiality of information?

.1715

[English]

Mr. Emond: Again, we've not made decisions on the actual use of the card.

In terms of guaranteeing confidentiality, I'm not sure if you're referring to confidentiality of the data that is included on the card or something else, but by using advanced card technology it's quite easy to make the data on the card quite secure so that only systems inside the department can read the card.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: Regarding processing fees paid overseas, why must people applying for immigration pay $975 before their application is even processed? Also, there seems to be a project or an agreement with the banks where these funds could be deposited. Do you plan on signing contracts with the banks? How will all this work?

[English]

Mr. Campbell: An initiative entitled handling of public moneys is being looked at.

Perhaps you would be better qualified to answer that.

Mr. Robbins: We're looking at two proposals right now. One proposal has been established that we're going to do that domestically, where a certain bank will collect on our behalf and that money will be deposited into the consolidated revenue fund. We're also looking at proposals of being able to do the same thing internationally, where money can be deposited to these banks for a certain number of the services we provide and again that money would be deposited directly to the consolidated revenue fund. Again, this is looking at streamlining our process so that we within the embassy or within our own offices will not have to collect this money.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: Why must these applicants pay processing fees of $500 before their request is even accepted?

[English]

Mr. Robbins: One of the reasons we felt in establishing the procedure was that it would speed up the process. In other words, if we had to wait until the end, then we would have to notify the person that they were eligible for the visa and then we would have to wait for them to send in the $975. In this way we can collect it all at once right at the beginning. That was one of the reasons.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: Even if it takes two years to process the request?

[English]

Mr. Robbins: That's correct.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: You have mentioned the Metropolis program. Is it the same thing as the centres of excellence for research on immigration which were announced by the Minister a few months ago and which involve several universities? We don't have much information on those programs.

I know that there are a lot of university researchers, of professors that are involved in that sector. How were these funds allocated? How much money did Quebec receive? How much did the other provinces receive? When will you get results?

[English]

Mr. Heatherington: On March 22 we announced four centres of excellence for research on immigration. They are in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and Edmonton. It involves 15 universities and 300 researchers.

I think the idea of the project, and of Metropolis, which goes along with it, is to share out research worldwide so that everyone can benefit from the experience of researchers in other cities around the world so we can get a better effect for our research or more research for fewer dollars and try to share our experiences, both to improve public policy and to learn how better to meet the needs of the cities in terms of integrating immigrants into those societies.

.1720

This has just begun. If there's something you wish us to share with you, we can call you this week and give you more information, give you some of the press releases, if you haven't seen them. But it's new.

We're also working very actively with other industrialized societies to try to get more interest and more funding in other societies to increase the network of researchers.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: When will you get the first studies? Yours is not the only department involved. There's also the National Research Council of Canada...

[English]

Mr. Heatherington: Well, we're working -

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: What role does your department play? Who controls the program?

[English]

Mr. Heatherington: We have a metropolis section, with a director of the project. We're also working in partnership with the Carnegie Endowment and with the research organizations here in Canada and also abroad. Already we are exchanging information. It's already beginning.

The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms Steidle, earlier on you referenced this business immigration program, I think in your opening comments or in response to a question. I just wanted to get some clarification. We may have touched on this earlier, and I don't want to go over the same ground twice, but is this immigration program going to be the redesigned immigrant investment program? Is that the same thing, only couched in a different way?

You talked about a significant redesign. I'm wondering if the new name reflects where it's going to be going or if you could paint a bit of a picture of what we're likely to see or what some of the issues will be. If there were significant problems with the first program, what are we likely to see coming out in this new program?

Ms Steidle: As you know, we are lifting the moratorium that was imposed in November 1994 on immigrant investor syndicates. This is reinstating the minister's authority to approve certain kinds of funds as of July 1 of this year. We're putting an interim program in place. That interim program is for provincial government funds only.

In the meantime we are redesigning a new program. Right now the business immigrant category for Canada composes three components: self-employed immigrants, entrepreneurial immigrants, and investor immigrants. We are looking at redesigning the front end of the selection criteria to encompass entrepreneurs and investors in a single definition of a business person. What we're looking at is stronger front-end selection of those business people to allow them into Canada to do essentially what they're good at, which is business. We're looking at, for example, increased experience, which isn't there right now in the way we select that category of immigrant; something in the range of three years of experience as a business person, perhaps in the last five; a stronger emphasis on language ability, because we know people settle better and easier and integrate better if they have the language. It's things such as that.

The immigrant investor program is just half of that larger coin. Part of it is the entrepreneur program, part of it is the immigrant investor program. As of July 1 next year we hope to have the investor program redesigned. We're working right now very actively with the provinces to meet some provincial needs for this program, but also Canada's.

Mr. Cullen: Would it still have a component of this sort of...? Is there a loan type of program? These are investors. These are immigrants bringing capital in.

Ms Steidle: Exactly.

Mr. Cullen: Okay. We made this distinction under the old program: self-employed, entrepreneurs, and investors. I'm still not clear what we're trying to achieve by redesigning it in this new way. Maybe you could elaborate a bit on that.

Ms Steidle: We found it was a question of objectives. What were we trying to get out of the investor program? Although the program was designed to emphasize risk capital, we found that Canada, as we looked at it, has a tremendous amount of risk capital available. What we really need is human capital. So we're looking at people with the skills. That's why the emphasis is much more on the front end of the program, in terms of selecting better, than it is at the back end, in terms of what happens with the money when it comes to Canada.

.1725

Mr. Cullen: So the emphasis, then, is on the kind of people coming in, on their experience, based on the premise that if they're qualified people with a lot of experience they're going to do the right things.

Ms Steidle: Yes. I can give you an example. When we look at equity with other immigrant programs, in how we select skilled workers, if we select an architect to come to Canada, we say ``Welcome to Canada: you're an architect and you can work here'', etc. We tell a business person that they can come to Canada, but within two years they have to establish a business, and if they don't, we'll hunt them down. I don't know if that's the best signal to give to a business community you're trying to attract.

So what we're trying to do is strengthen the front end so that we actually select the people who are likely to do what they've done before quite successfully in their home countries, and allow them into Canada, treating them the same way, with ``Welcome to Canada, sir''.

Mr. Cullen: Obviously there will be some capital requirements.

Ms Steidle: Yes. These are the things we're looking at. Again, we're still in the design phase as to how much, where it should be placed, etc. We're talking, but that is something we are looking at very seriously.

Mr. Cullen: I guess there's a careful balance there between control and attracting the right kind of people.

Ms Steidle: Absolutely. We've had tremendous success with the current program, but there have been some glaring instances of fraud and abuse. We do have to address that. That is something we're looking at in terms of the redesign.

Mr. Cullen: In terms of the redesigned program, when might you expect to have something this committee could have a look at?

Ms Steidle: I think the minister would like something announced in the fall.

Mr. Cullen: Okay.

The Chair: I'd like to thank all of the officials who were with us today - Mr. Heatherington, Ms Steidle, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Le Bane, Mr. Robbins, Ms Downes and Mr. Emond. Merci beaucoup.

Members, you have before you a supplementary budget submission. I need someone to move that the chairperson be authorized to submit a supplementary budget to the budget subcommittee.

Mr. Wappel: I so move.

Motion agreed to

The Chair: Thank you. We are adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page