[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, November 27, 1996
.1535 
[Translation]
The Chair: In accordance with the agenda of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will proceed to a study on immigration levels.
We are pleased to welcome today the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, the federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Welcome, Madam Minister. Would you like to introduce the people with you or would you prefer me to do so?
The Honourable Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Please do so, Madam Chair; I think you know them.
The Chair: I know them a little. They are Mr. Marc Saint-Pierre, Executive Assistant to the Minister, Mr. Marc Lafrenière, Associate Deputy Minister, and Mr. Raphael Girard, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations. I would like to welcome them together with the other members of the department who are accompanying the minister today.
Madam Minister.
Ms Robillard: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I am honoured to be here with you today. You asked me to attend this meeting to discuss the immigration levels which I recently tabled in the House. My opening statement will therefore be brief, so that we can move on quickly to your specific concerns.
We will reach the projected immigration levels for this year; some 200,000 people will come into Canada in 1996. These figures are consistent with the commitment we made in the 10-year Strategic Framework announced in November 1994, and also with the Red Book where we targeted immigration levels of approximately 1% of the population, within Canada's limit to absorb immigrants. We entitled the document which I tabled "Staying the Course", since that is exactly what we are doing. We are therefore following the plans we established.
Setting immigration levels is not a simple task. There is no convenient chart to which statisticians can refer. We have to take a number of factors into account. It is a complex undertaking to determine Canada's ability to welcome immigrants. We must balance the needs of our country and our ability to absorb and settle newcomers. We must balance our need for business immigrants and our commitment to the family. We must take into consideration the needs of each of the provinces and territories. That is why we consult our provincial and territorial partners when we draw up those figures.
We must also continue to listen to Canadians. Some say they are concerned and feel that immigration levels are too high, but there are small communities everywhere in the country which would be delighted to welcome newcomers, because they need new families to help them to build strong communities.
It should also be kept in mind that demand is one of the main driving forces for immigration. Demand fluctuates, and the levels we establish must reflect that reality. As you can see, projected levels take account of many factors and the need for a good balance.
A breakdown of the figures shows that we projected an increase in the economic category, and that is indeed what is happening. In fact, the number of immigrants in the economic category has exceeded our expectations. However, we still want to maintain a strong family category.
As you may have noted, levels in this category have dropped slightly. However, we do not believe that there are any immediate grounds for concern. We have taken note of this drop and we are monitoring the situation very carefully.
Lastly, I am proud to be able to say that we have also met our targets for the resettlement of refugees. In fact, last year we even exceeded our targets for the number of government-assisted refugees. I know that these goals are important for Canadians.
.1540
Canadians are proud to be able to bring these often dramatic journeys to a happy end. We take our responsibilities as citizens of the world very seriously, as you know.
[English]
Let me turn now to some of the specific programs and challenges we faced recently. I was in Winnipeg recently to sign an agreement with the Government of Manitoba that will allow the province greater input into the development of immigration policy. This agreement will help both levels of government avoid duplication, improve efficiency and provide good service to our clients.
On the refugee front, two weeks ago I announced measures to address the problem of undocumented refugees. I'm proud to say that we have worked out a solution that provides a fair balance between the need of these people to integrate into Canadian society and the need to protect Canada and Canadian institutions from abuse.
We had a recent success in enforcement policy. Just last week, we concluded three memorandums of understanding with Hong Kong on removals and illegal immigration. These are all steps in the right direction.
Part of making good public policy is keeping an eye on the future. We need to look ahead to make sure that we are equipped to meet the challenges of five and ten years from now.
That's why on Monday I announced that we will be undertaking an immigration legislative review. This review will guide any changes our legislation may need to ensure that we have a solid foundation from which to pursue our policy objectives into the 21st century.
The review will be carried out by an advisory group. We have left the mandate of this group intentionally broad so they can cast their net wide for maximum results. The mandate includes a variety of issues, such as ways to facilitate access by legitimate visitors and immigrants to Canada while denying access to Canada by those who would abuse our generous system, ensure the integrity and efficiency of our refugee determination process, enhance the coherence of the process while streamlining it to improve client service, and continue treating people with dignity and respect while ensuring that their cases are completed in a fair and expeditious manner.
The group will also study the scope of ministerial discretion and a framework whereby exceptions are made to regulatory processes. They will be submitting their findings and recommendations to me by December 31, 1997. I look forward to discussing this further with you after the group submits its report.
[Translation]
Members of the committee, we have an immigration and refugee determination system which serves Canadians very well.
As Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I will continue to work to find new innovative ways of ensuring that Canada benefits to the greatest degree possible from world population movements as we approach the 21st century.
Madam Chair, I would be very pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister.
We will begin with Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Thank you, Madam Minister. It is the members of the Bloc québécois who proposed that you be invited. You do not come here often. However, as you know, you are always welcome. I hope that you will stay until the end because we have a lot of questions to ask you. Thank you for your opening statement.
I interpret your infrequent visits to our committee as an indication that you do not place a great deal of importance on our work. Yet I see that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Finance, to give just two examples, often appear before their respective committees to explain policy and answer questions.
.1545
You mentioned a point concerning 1997 immigration levels which was the subject of serious criticism when announced, namely the family reunification policy which, according to your Red Book, is a priority policy issue. You also referred to it in your statement today.
However, we see that only 35% of new immigrants will belong to the family category in 1997. This is quite a sharp drop for a government which says that its priority is family reunification. Yet 60% of immigrants will belong to the economic category. Five percent come from other categories.
Some studies indicate that Canada's job market is not adequate to provide employment for all these economic immigrants. How would you explain the official policy of the government, the Red Book, and the enormous disparity between that position and the announcement you made on immigration policy for 1997? I remember that a few years ago the number of economic immigrants and immigrants belonging to the family category was almost equal.
The Chair: I would just like to make one point before you answer Mr. Nunez. As the chair of this committee, I cannot just let Mr. Nunez's comments go. Every time we invited the Minister, she kindly agreed to appear. There was never any question of her not wanting to appear before the committee.
Madam Minister, please proceed.
Mr. Nunez: But there was...
The Chair: I will not get into a debate on that point.
Mr. Nunez: I will come back to it.
The Chair: Madam Minister.
Ms Robillard: Madam Chair, I am always pleased to respond positively to your invitations.
To come specifically to the question of the member for Bourassa, it is true that there has been a drop in the number of family class immigrants, in the light of very realistic figures based on the situation last year regarding applications to the Department of Immigration.
As we all know, family class applications may vary from year to year. As a first point, I would ask you to note that applications by workers under the economic category also include members of their families. Therefore, if an engineer applies to come to Canada with his wife and two children, four immigrants will be included under the economic category. This has to be taken into account when reading the figures.
Second, I will point out that in 1992 the previous Conservative government amended the definition of the family, and we are now able to assess the impact of that.
Third, we find that the majority of immigrants who come to Canada have already brought their family into the country. This is the situation because the department has given priority consideration to all these applications; it has speeded up the processing of them. This explains the drop in the figure which we now see. I would remind the members of the committee that the proportion was in the order of 4% in 1995. I'm talking here about actual results and not projected figures.
The year 1996 is not yet over and we continue to believe that the figure will be in the order of 35%. That is why I have used that figure again for 1997, on the basis of the 1996 figures. Therefore there is a difference, a real drop, of 7%.
I don't think that this drop is so dramatic as to set the alarm bells ringing. We must monitor the situation carefully so as to ensure that a family reunification remains one of the pillars of our immigration policy. Thus, when developing each of its policies, the department will now have to look more carefully at its particular impact on the family class. That is what we're doing at the present time.
Mr. Nunez: I think that this is the second time you have appeared here. You have been the Minister for almost one year. We would have liked to meet with you immediately after the announcement. You made the announcement almost one month ago.
.1550
You say that there has been a drop in applications from the family class. However, what I hear from my constituents and as the spokesperson for the Official Opposition, is that it is increasingly difficult for people to bring in their families because sponsorship requirements are more and more stringent.
I meet people who have been recognized as refugees in Canada and cannot bring their families in since they cannot pay the fee of $975. This is something which stops them bringing their families into Canada. At its last convention, the Liberal Party of Canada adopted a resolution to review this $975 immigrant landing charge, which prevents families coming into the country. As you know, immigrants from some countries tend to be far more attached to their family than is the case here.
My second question concerns the level of immigration. The Red Book stated that your target was 1% of the Canadian population. In 1997, the same percentage is being maintained, namely, 0.73%, as you explained. I think that you are right to indicate that there is a growing feeling of hostility to immigration here in Canada.
You referred to the existence of a myth and said that Canadians believe that new Canadians will take their jobs from them. Why do you not organize a campaign to educate Canadians about the positive aspects of immigration, instead of excusing yourself by saying that you cannot bring in more immigrants because the Canadian public is not ready? In fact, Canadians are extremely hostile to immigration and particularly to refugees.
Ms Robillard: I would like to qualify what the member for Bourassa said concerning the reaction of the Canadian public and also sponsorship of family members, namely that it is increasingly difficult to bring in family members because of the requirements for sponsoring family members.
I would just point out to the member for Bourassa that it is the Quebec government which determines the financial requirements for sponsoring someone settling in Quebec. Furthermore, the recent fee increases were introduced by the government of Quebec. I hope he would qualify his approach when discussing immigration policy because, as you know, the government of Quebec has a major responsibility as regards selection and settlement.
When the honourable member for Bourassa says that we are not complying with the commitments we made in the Red Book, he is wrong. It is important to read exactly what is stated in the Red Book. In it, we said our target was 1% for the immigrant population, taking into account our capacity to settle and absorb these newcomers to Canada. That is what I was trying to explain in my opening remarks.
How do we measure the capacity to settle and absorb newcomers to Canada? A number of factors come into play, and the process is very complex. We have to start by measuring our own needs and the capacity of our labour market to absorb these immigrants. There is also the fact one we cannot avoid, that our immigrants are concentrated in three large cities, namely Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, and this makes for additional difficulties.
Can we conclude from this that people in Canada are "hostile"? The answer, Madam Chair, is a definite no. The people of Canada are not hostile to immigrants. The people of Canada want us to remain cautious, because they want newcomers to be integrated quickly into Canadian social and economic life. I think there is general agreement on this.
.1555
That is why we always have to try to strike a balance between our needs and ability to absorb these newcomers to Canada.
[English]
The Chair: Ms Meredith, ten minutes.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Minister, for coming. I don't know quite how to condense the questions I have for you, but I will try.
One of the main concerns I have with immigration and immigration levels in Canada is the inequities from province to province. I know I've raised this issue before, but the numbers you presented in your Staying the Course document reinforced the disparity between the province of Quebec and the support it gets from the federal government and the numbers of immigrants and refugees they're taking as opposed to other provinces.
In using your own numbers it is apparent from the levels for 1997 that Quebec is going to be taking only 12%. This is a number set by the province, I understand. Even taking 12% of the total, they will still retain their $90 million support through the Canada-Québec Accord. That equates, or did equate before, to approximately $3,300-plus per immigrant, per newcomer, compared with $800-and-some in the province of British Columbia. Now that the numbers are even lower, dollar value per newcomer goes up. Are you looking at renegotiating that agreement with the Province of Quebec to bring it more in line with the support other provinces get?
Mrs. Robillard: First of all, Madam Chair, I think the member said there's an inequity here where the immigrants are in the country according to -
Ms Meredith: In the dollars that go -
Mrs. Robillard: Well, let's be clear about that, because as you know, the immigrants choose where they want to go in this country, and we don't intend to change that.
Second, according to the Canada-Québec Accord, Quebec has the power of selection and settlement for its immigrants. That means they can decide themselves about the numbers of immigrants. This is not the case for the other provinces.
Even if other provinces would like to have more and more and more immigrants...and I think specifically of Manitoba. Manitoba would like to have more immigrants in the province. That's a problem, to attract immigrants to Manitoba especially.
But you are talking about the amount of money we are giving to Quebec according to the agreement. That amount is in the agreement right now, and we can't change the agreement without the agreement of both parties. Let's be clear about that. We need the agreement of both parties to change the agreement, and if we don't have it we're not able to change it.
My way of seeing that is not that Quebec has too much money, it's to ask whether we could look at the other end. Could we look at the settlement program we have in the other provinces and see how we can help them with the settlement of newcomers?
Ms Meredith: From your answer, Madam Minister, I understand you are not renegotiating with the Province of Quebec to bring their federal support more in line with the rest of the country.
Mrs. Robillard: What I'm telling you is that to change the agreement, the content of the agreement, including the amount of money, we need the agreement of the Province of Quebec. Right now, all the time, we discuss with them the level of immigrants they are receiving in the province. As you know, they've changed some of their criteria to try to attract more immigrants to Quebec right now. Also, we are taking into account the fact that perhaps in North America to integrate francophone people is a little more expensive. All these factors are being studied with the Quebec government. My objective is...I'm hoping they will be able to attract more immigrants next year.
Ms Meredith: But Madam Minister, the Canada-Québec Accord stipulates 25% of the newcomers is the expected level for Quebec to take. They are accepting, in the new levels presented to us in Staying the Course, 12%, which is half of what was agreed in the Canada-Québec Accord.
.1600
I understand you have to negotiate with the Province of Quebec to change it, but my question is, are you making efforts to negotiate with the Province of Quebec to either have it increase the levels, as stipulated in the Canada-Québec Accord, or redistribute the settlement dollars that go, since it's taking half the number of people it was to take under the Canada-Québec Accord?
Mrs. Robillard: We negotiate all the time with the Quebec government because we have permanent committees that work, officials from both sides, on different issues and on the levels of immigrants. We're trying to find out why it had only those numbers. I think the reason is exactly the same reason they didn't go as high in the whole country.
I think it has to take in account exactly the same factors we take in account, such as the unemployment rate, and the fact that all the immigrants are concentrated in the Montreal area, which means the absorption capacity of the city has to be evaluated.
I can tell you, yes, we discuss that issue constantly with Quebec.
Ms Meredith: Madam Minister, I also am referring to some documents provided by your department on the number of investors in the province of Quebec, under the immigrant investment program. It would appear that Quebec gets 48% of these individuals coming into the country, to the tune of $1,310,000,000, which is substantially more than other provinces.
Can you explain to the Canadian taxpayer why Quebec, with that kind of money going into the province and the high percentage of immigrant investors going into that province, would get the bulk of settlement dollars they do?
Mrs. Robillard: I think you are putting together two things that are not comparable. On one side is the objective of the immigrant investor program and on the other is the settlement of new immigrants and refugees in our country. Those two things are not comparable.
If Quebec has success with the investor program, as you know, it is responsible itself for that program according to the accord. It has people abroad working to attract investors to Quebec especially. So it means it has a different program with different criteria.
Ms Meredith: But Madam Minister, the people who come under the immigrant investor program get landed status in this country, and they bring their families. We do know, from information coming from the provincial government of Quebec, that 49% of these investors do not stay in the province.
So even though Quebec is getting the financial resources, it is not keeping the immigrants who come through that program in the province. It is getting financial resources from the federal government to look after these immigrants' resettlement when, in fact, these immigrants coming in under that program are going to other provinces, particularly Ontario and British Columbia.
When the Province of Québec complained that it needed more money for the medical needs of refugee claimants, the federal government was very quick to step in and provide it with another $3 million or $4 million above and beyond the $6 million it already gets for that purpose.
Why does the federal government see a need to help Quebec financially in a manner in which it does not seem to be prepared to help other provinces, particularly Ontario and British Columbia?
Mrs. Robillard: Madam Chair, let's be rational here. The questions I hear this afternoon make me think that perhaps, in our decisions in the Canadian government, we are giving everything to Quebec and nothing to the other provinces. That is not true.
When we speak about the medical admissibility of the people who are asking to be refugees in this country, there was already a program directed by the federal government. All the provinces had access to that program.
.1605
Quebec alone didn't ask to be part of that program. They asked for it, so they got it. This is one point.
Second, the investor program is a program to attract money to the country that will go to the private sector and create jobs or enterprises, as you know. I don't think we have to mix that with settlement programs.
Let's speak about settlement programs. In this country, Quebec decided in the past to be responsible for the selection and settlement program. At the time, they negotiated with the Tory government and signed a legal agreement with that government that is still legal. We have a contract here saying that each year we give $90 million to Quebec for their settlement program. I also have to respect that contract. Let's be clear about that.
That said, it doesn't mean we are not looking at the problems other provinces could have with the settlement program.
In fact, Madam Chair, right now, as you know, we are negotiating the settlement renewal with different provinces. Your committee has studied this issue and has made some recommendations about it. In these negotiations we are looking at the amount of money we put into the settlement programs and we are trying to help them give the services to the immigrants.
We have to be very clear about this. Each program is different. Don't make everything the same and have a false global judgement.
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister. Mr. McTeague.
[Translation]
Mr. McTeague (Ontario): I would like to pursue discussion of the government's immigration plan, but from a slightly different point of view. From what you've just said, the Immigration Act establishes a quota of immigrants that Quebec will be able to accept in the future.
I believe an agreement was made with the Quebec government in 1986-1987. Since Quebec is now prepared to settle a certain number of immigrants, might the agreement be cancelled now?
Ms Robillard: No, and I think that is quite clear in the agreement. It provided that Quebec reserved the right to settle a percentage of the total number of immigrants that corresponded to its percentage of the total population - hence the figure of 25%. Moreover, the agreement provided for the possibility of more than 25% of the total number of immigrants. The $90 million was seen as a floor, if you will allow me to use this expression...
Mr. McTeague: Certainly.
Ms Robillard: ... as a minimum. The $90 million figure mentioned in the agreement is in no way tied to the 25% of all immigrants that go to Quebec. That is stated very clearly in the agreement. As I was saying, both parties must agree in order to change the agreement. If one of the parties is opposed to changing the agreement, our hands are tied.
Mr. McTeague: I have already discussed the legal and perhaps even constitutional aspects of this issue with my colleague, Mr. Wappel. If he arrives soon, he may have some comments to make on this subject.
[English]
I'd like to change this, perhaps, and ask you this. If a province feels it should receive the same treatment, other than Quebec, is it possible for that province to make a demand to enter into a similar agreement - a province such as Ontario, or Manitoba, as you indicated earlier?
Mrs. Robillard: Yes.
Mr. McTeague: So any province that has a problem or says it wants the same type of arrangement that exists in Quebec could simply make the same undertaking.
Mrs. Robillard: Yes. As you know, we have agreements with almost all of the provinces right now except B. C. and Ontario. But the agreements we have with the other provinces don't include exactly the same responsibility as Quebec has, not because the federal government refuses but because the provinces don't want it. If you're responsible for the selection of your immigrants as a province, it means you need to open offices abroad. You need agents abroad. This is expensive for your government.
.1610
Mr. McTeague: It will be very difficult for Mr. Harris, I'm sure.
Mrs. Robillard: It's the same also for Manitoba or....
The provinces, the way I see it, since I'm in the portfolio and I speak with the provinces, are more interested in being active in the settlement program. When they arrive in Canada, how do they settle in the community and how can we help them integrate into the community? That's why the agreement differs from one province to the other.
But let me tell you, if a province wants to negotiate with us exactly the same agreement as the one with Quebec, about the responsibilities, it's open on our side to discuss that.
[Translation]
Mr. McTeague: Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Ms Beaumier.
Ms Beaumier (Brampton): I'm very pleased to see you here today, Madam Minister.
I must comment to the member across the way that you have a very difficult portfolio. I think we have done battle on a number of individual issues. I would like to say I'm extremely pleased you have such a hands-on approach to your ministry. I'm more than satisfied with your responses.
We know in family reunification we have seen a lot of problems develop over the last little while. I'm wondering if you have plans to look at some of these issues. Will the family class remain the cornerstone of our immigration policies?
Mrs. Robillard: Yes, it will remain the cornerstone. We've noticed a drop of 7% in the family class from 1995 to 1996. It's not dramatic but it is a drop. I think we have to be very careful. It means for us in the department we have to look at all the policies we decide on to see if there's some impact on family class.
I'll give you an example. You know last year we issued a free publication on sponsorship. We have received a lot of comments from different people in the community. In the department we have studied the impact of these new regulations. If we accept them like that, what will be the impact on the family class? That's why we haven't made a decision yet. We are studying that very closely because we don't want them to have an impact that will produce another drop. This is to demonstrate to you that in each policy now we look more and more at the impact on the family class, because we don't want that to drop any more.
Ms Beaumier: Thank you.
The other question I have is on refugees. As the minister is well aware, I have a very high immigrant population in my riding and a number of people awaiting their refugee status. I may be wrong, but I think the process now can drag out for so long that by the time the final decision has been made it isn't terribly humane to be sending people back after they've lived here in hope for six, seven, eight years, and sometimes longer. Can we possibly work on a system that would speed up this process and set a timeframe on it? I realize in some situations these people are trying to scam the system and postpone the hearing. Have we any plans to speed that process up a little?
.1615
Mrs. Robillard: As you know, this process is under the responsibility of the Immigration and Refugee Board. This is a quasi-judicial tribunal, so it's independent from the minister. I can tell you that the chair of that board works on the productivity, if I can call it that, to be more efficient inside the board about the delay. It's not only the board in itself, because, as you know, after the decision of the board, a person can appeal at different levels. It takes time in the courts for that. The process is quite long.
For the efficiency of the board, I think you already had here the chair of the board, Mrs. Mawani. It could be something you address to her.
The Chair: Thank you. The minister has to leave in a little while, so I'm going to allow one more question on the opposition side.
Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Benoit (Vegreville): Thank you. I have a question for the minister. I'd first, though, like to table this document, which is an administrative review dated July 1, 1996, prepared for Citizenship and Immigration by TLS Enterprises of Winnipeg.
I'd like to ask the minister whether she'd have any objection to this committee reporting this document back to the House very soon. Has the minister any objection to that?
Mrs. Robillard: To a report, you said?
Mr. Benoit: To reporting this document to the House.
The Chair: Just a minute. I'd like some clarification. What do you want to table, Mr. Benoit?
Mr. Benoit: I'd like to table this document, which is an administrative review of the immigration centre in Vegreville. I'd like to again ask the minister -
Mrs. Robillard: Technically, I don't know exactly, but I can tell you that this is a document that is accessible according to the law. Anybody who wants it can have it. We've sent the report to different people ourselves.
I don't know whether the member wants to have -
Mr. Benoit: So you'd have no objection to the committee reporting this document to the House.
Mrs. Robillard: Reporting?
The Chair: Excuse me. That's exactly what I wanted to say. We cannot table in the House of Commons a report that is not a report of this committee. It's not our report.
If you'd like to ask a question, Mr. Benoit, as I've said, the minister has to leave. I've already kept her over the time she allocated to us. Is there a specific question you would like to ask the minister?
Mr. Benoit: Yes, actually, I have a few.
Are there any plans to close the Vegreville processing centre?
Mrs. Robillard: Not at all.
Mr. Benoit: Has the centre, in fact, met the standards that have been set for it, and is it performing satisfactorily?
Mrs. Robillard: You want to know whether it's met the standards?
Mr. Benoit: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Girard.
Mr. Raphael Girard (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): With respect to visitor renewals for people in Canada seeking to renew their status, the processor is ahead of the standard set. The standard is 25 days. They are now turning the application around in 6.
With regard to the immigrant processing workload, we are in arrears by about 1,500 cases on a base of 4,000 cases. Our standard was nine months, and we expect to be within that by mid-1997.
The Chair: Before you continue any more questions, we invited the minister here today to discuss les niveaux d'immigration - the levels. I fail to see how this is pertinent to that. The report is public knowledge, as the minister said. It's not a report of this committee.
I will allow one more question from Mr. Nunez, if he would like, or from any other member. Are we ready to go?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Yes, please, Madam Chair.
The notice said that our meeting was supposed to last from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. We have many questions to ask.
The Chair: No, no, Mr. Nunez. I knew you would ask that question. Our committee normally meets at 2 p.m.
Mr. Nunez: As I was saying, the Minister never comes, and when she finally does comes, she stays for less than an hour.
The Chair: Do you have a question?
Mr. Nunez: Yes, I have a question. First, I would like to protest the traditional anti-Quebec comments made by the Reform Party. A contract is a contract. The government cannot cancel its contract now. I support the Minister's answer in this regard.
My question is about the immigrant landing fee. A resolution calling for a review of this $975 fee was passed at the plenary session of the Liberal Party's Convention.
.1620
What are you going to do about this resolution, Minister?
Ms Robillard: Madam Chair, I would just like to say that I'm even more familiar with the resolutions passed by my own party at its recent convention than is the honourable member for Bourassa. This resolution will be studied carefully by my department.
[English]
The Chair: Merci.
I failed to see Mr. Wappel's hand before. If you'd like to have a question, Mr. Wappel, please go ahead.
Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Madam Chair, on a point of order, the minister has to leave, but do all her functionaries have to leave too? Can we continue the questioning with them?
The Chair: Are Mr. Lafrenière and Mr. Girard ready to stay on?
Mr. Wappel: That's assuming there are any more questions. I don't know. But just because the minister leaves doesn't mean everybody in the room has to leave.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Wappel: My question, Madam Minister, is this. I believe you said early on that we in Canada have the principle that anybody can go anywhere they want if they're an immigrant. They can settle anywhere they want in Canada.
Mrs. Robillard: Yes.
Mr. Wappel: I want to know if that is true for the province of Quebec. If 35,000 people in 1997 wish to settle in Quebec, can 37,000 people do so?
Mrs. Robillard: Of course they can move. If 10,000 immigrants from Ontario are moving to Quebec, we'll be happy to welcome them.
Mr. Wappel: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions for the officials?
Ms Meredith: Madam Chair, I think I should have an opportunity to put the Bloc member in the correct position. My comments were not anti-Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: [Inaudible] ... in the House of Commons.
[English]
Ms Meredith: My comments were related to the number of individuals who settle in the province of Quebec and the amount of federal dollars that are appropriated for the province of Quebec for the numbers. If there's some inequity, I was pointing that out.
If Mr. Nunez has a problem with that fact, that is something else. But my comments are not anti-Quebec, and I want that on the record.
The Chair: I will end here. I'd like to thank the minister for being with us today. We will certainly invite you back -
Mrs. Robillard: When you want.
The Chair: - at any time. You have always been very accommodating, Madam Minister. Thank you.
Mrs. Robillard: Thank you.
The Chair: Can the officials stay on if there are any questions? Are there questions, members?
Ms Meredith: Yes. I don't know if they can answer them, but I have questions on the centres of excellence and the reason why another advisory committee has been appointed to review the Immigration Act. Is that something the officials can answer?
The Chair: We will ask the minister back, Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Please.
The Chair: I thank you, Madam Minister, and Messrs Lafrenière and Girard for being with us.
We have some business we have to approve of from the steering committee. You all have in front of you the fifth report of the subcommittee. Does everybody have a copy?
Ms Meredith, this may be of interest to you.
It's the fifth report of the subcommittee, item one. I want to explain it. This was discussed. I want the clerk to talk about it.
You were mentioning earlier, Ms Meredith, about the work of this committee. The subcommittee had asked the main committee, and the main committee had agreed that we would bring before us the clerk and researcher on the privatization of services.
Unfortunately, one was sick, if I understood properly. However, Susan could perhaps clarify this. We did make the attempt to -
The Clerk of the Committee: This was the person who was in charge of the exercise as it had been first exercised at the IRB.
The Chair: So he's away?
The Clerk: He's on long-term sick leave. We're not sure when he's coming back.
.1625
The Chair: I want to bring it to the attention of the committee that we did try to bring this before the committee. Unfortunately, we can't do this, because the person is not available. That item will have to be put aside for the moment.
I would like approval for the fifth report of the subcommittee.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We're adjourned.