[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, June 1, 1995
.0901 
[English]
The Chair: Order.
I welcome the Hon. Sergio Marchi, Minister of Immigration and Citizenship of Canada, to our committee.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Good morning to all my colleagues.
It's a pleasure once again to be here today before you to discuss with you the progress we have made over the last 18 months and, perhaps more importantly, to outline, as we have in the document, the direction we will be taking in the coming months and years.
[Translation]
I believe we have accomplished a great deal in a very short time. But we also know we have some distance to travel. Citizenship and Immigration will never be a tidy row of numbers lined up for addition and substraction. Sometimes it appears as big and diverse as the nation it serves.
[English]
The document you have before you is a straightforward account of our labours and a guide to the future. It also relates a considerable success story. We have taken our new mandate seriously and to heart.
Accordingly, we have introduced citizenship and immigration policies that promote national unity and contribute to our country's social fabric, as well as economic growth.
We've also met our international commitments and responsibilities as a leader among the community of nations.
We are committed to continuing on this successful path in a manner that all Canadians would support as being both responsible and fair.
As we all know, current realities have forced us all to re-examine our programs and policies. This exercise has put us on a course of revitalizing the way government does business. This has become essential to reflect the fiscal and operational demands facing our country.
In our department this process is known as business process re-engineering. We are finding many ways to do it more cheaply, to do it faster, and, best of all, to do it better.
[Translation]
Fiscal and socio-economic reality dictates that government has to be more efficient, and more cost-effective. We must create a lean department capable of providing services to the public which are affordable and sustainable. And that is precisely what we are doing.
[English]
On November 1 of last year, I tabled the strategic framework. It outlined the direction we will travel into the 21st century. We're moving along on a reasoned and thoughtful course, a middle course between those extremists who say we should build walls around us and those who would have no walls at all.
To direct us on our course, we have identified several priorities in order to better serve the Canadian people.
First, as I indicated in the November 1 document, Into the 21st Century: A Strategy for Immigration and Citizenship, there will be adjustments to ensure that newcomers will be able to help our nation to move into the new economic era and the new century.
As a result, we will see newcomers with skills move into our society more rapidly and in more significant numbers. This adjustment in emphasis recognizes that Canada needs adaptable people who can quickly and effectively integrate and contribute to Canada's economic and social development.
Our new selection criteria will place greater emphasis on education, on the ability to communicate in one of our two official languages, and on the relevance of skills to today's changing economic marketplace.
.0905
We are also working with the provinces to redesign our business investor and entrepreneur programs. We hope to implement these changes in 1996, to improve the capacity of these programs to nourish the economy and create jobs for all Canadians.
This focus adjustment does not mean we've abandoned our long-time commitment to family reunification. On the contrary, it always has been and will continue to be a central element of our immigration system and program.
But let's face facts. The system is not flawless. As a responsible government we have a duty to make improvements where those improvements are needed.
More importantly, times change and we live in a rapidly changing world. Anybody who believes we shouldn't modify programs that have been untouched for decades should take a long look at the world that is swirling and changing around us. Therefore we too must change.
Not for a second does it mean we have lost faith. It simply means we are ready to face a new day and a new era.
Secondly, it is important that I mention the settlement process. Canada has enjoyed a tradition of helping newcomers get settled in this land. It is a front-end cost that returns dividends to the nation and to the newcomer.
The department and my government are committed to finding ways to facilitate the settlement and the integration of newcomers. We need settlement services to help people become full participants in our society more quickly and make it easier for them to become productive citizens.
This year we will spend over $250 million on such programs. This is a significant sum of money. Therefore we must be certain it is well spent. We must make sure the services delivered to newcomers are appropriated and provided by those best positioned to do so. That's why we are moving the delivery of settlement services closer to the communities, where they can be best tailored to local needs.
Let's be frank. If it doesn't work in the neighbourhoods, it doesn't work for Canada.
This is not a plan to issue directives from head office to those who work in the communities and neighbourhoods. Rather, it is a time to listen and be responsive to their voices.
Partnership will be a key. Through innovative partnership activities our objective is to make the most out of the dollars available. The successful development of new strategies will depend on close cooperation among federal, provincial, and municipal governments, as well as NGOs, both traditional and non-traditional, and other stakeholders. First we listen, and then we act in the best interest of all Canadians.
As we pursue this new direction, we will make sure our tradition of compassion and fairness will never be jeopardized.
[Translation]
Another point I want to make is about compassion and caring. Canada has long been known as a compassionate and caring country. We are a world leader when it comes to extending a helping hand to those in need. We should continue to be proud of that and never listen to the tiny voices from the sidelines who say this is a sign of weakness.
Canada has never turned its back to those in need and this government will maintain that tradition.
[English]
We want to make the refugee determination system fairer and more efficient. This will mean streamlining the IRB. It also means finding ways to achieve a measure of consistency between those coming through the inland Canada process and those overseas refugees selected by both private and government sponsors.
We are already going in the right direction. Recently I introduced planned changes to the Immigration Act to reduce the number of people on refugee hearing panels from two to one. The annual savings from this measure alone will be in the neighbourhood of almost $6 million. This money will be targeted for the selection and settlement of refugees from abroad - and that's a good thing, for those of us who have been at those refugee camps. Those individuals need hope and need a home.
I also announced the creation of an advisory committee to assist in the selection of all IRB members. This committee will reinforce the independence of the IRB while at the same time strengthening the calibre of the IRB decision-makers.
Thus far I have only addressed primarily one-half of my portfolio. Consequently a fourth point to be stressed, naturally, is citizenship. Let me assure all members of this committee that our long-term vision does indeed incorporate both aspects, citizenship and immigration.
.0910
In the coming years our strategy will raise the profile of citizenship, for Canadian citizenship is a precious commodity and we should make every effort to have all our citizens cherish it.
We have already taken administrative steps to streamline the process of becoming a Canadian citizen and have chopped the waiting period considerably. In the months to come, through legislative changes, we will continue to improve this time period to make it even more efficient and less time-consuming for those who want to join the Canadian family.
We will continue to bring citizenship ceremonies out of the courtrooms and into the community, into the neighbourhoods where newcomers are settling and where all of us can celebrate citizenship together. Whether you've been in Canada a short time or a lifetime, citizenship and citizenship ceremonies are matters for us all.
We've also been using the Order of Canada recipients, and I'm happy to say that as they have conducted these ceremonies, they have been fine examples to us all. I also think they symbolically communicate to new citizens that citizenship is not something that should be taken in a passive way by simply accepting a certificate, but that citizenship should be lived aggressively and enthusiastically. Clearly, the Order of Canada recipients, who are Canadians who have received the highest order that any private citizen can have in this country, are fine communicators of that message.
Finally, a fundamental responsibility of Canadian citizenship is a respect for the laws that govern our country. All of us must respect our legal code. Regrettably, we know this isn't always the case. There is always a minority, whether they are Canadian-born or whether they are newcomers, who think the laws are for someone else. As a department we are committed to providing law enforcement officials with the tools necessary to deal with that tiny minority of law-breakers who slip through the cracks.
We hope to have full parliamentary approval for Bill C-44 soon. While this will not make the system foolproof - and no one pretends this - this bill will give our enforcement officials wider authority to investigate, detain, and remove serious criminals. We're also working on strategies that will combat the smuggling of illegal immigrants.
[Translation]
The message we are sending is clear: Canadians will not tolerate foreign criminals taking advantage of our good and generous nature.
[English]
We are not getting tough with these individuals for the sake of looking tough. The challenge is not one of appearance. The challenge is to protect the integrity of the system and deal with the few who would tarnish the reputation of the many and who would undermine the integrity of the program.
Colleagues, these are just a few of the main priorities and initiatives we are concentrating on and will continue to address in the coming months and years. But these are by no means the only changes that will be taking place within the department.
You will note that in the financial information provided there will be a fairly stable expenditure budget for the next two years. By 1997-98, however, we are expecting to reduce expenditures by roughly 10%, or $54 million.
Much has been accomplished over the past year and a half, and I also know we have to do an even better job in the months to come. I believe in general, in the big picture, which is the essence of the document before us, that the plan before you is good for newcomers, is good for long-time citizens, and most of all is good for this country. I welcome and look forward to your comments and your input on the document before us, before Parliament, and obviously before Canadians. Thank you.
The Chair: Merci, monsieur le ministre. Thank you very much, Hon. Mr. Marchi.
I'd like to also welcome - I'm sorry I didn't do it at the beginning - Peter Harder, who is the deputy minister, and Mr. Brent DiBartelo, who is the director general of finance and administration. Welcome this morning.
We will begin with ten-minute rounds for each of the opposition parties and ten minutes for the government.
[Translation]
M. Nunez (Bourrassa): Thank you, Mr. Minister for your presentation on the outlook for your department. In fact, the title hardly reflects reality. I see nothing new in your presentation. It's a repetition of what you have been saying for several months.
.0915
For two weeks I met with many groups of immigrants in Montreal and other cities. They are really upset with the immigration tax. The situation is becoming disastrous.
Mr. Minister, you do not want to admit it. I asked you a question a few weeks ago in the House as to why 4,000 claims had been rejected in Mississauga alone because the claimants did not have a cheque for $975. You said that 3,800 claims had been turned down, but I think a lot of claims were never returned because people did not have the money and the government does not give out many loans.
Could you provide us with the figures this morning, because my staff has asked your department to do so and everyone has refused. How many claims were rejected because of this immigration tax? How many requests for loans were rejected and how many were accepted?
I think it is time to take stock. It is a disaster and you refuse to give us the figures we are asking for. You are dealing with real people here. In Montreal, people are telling me they had to put off bringing their family over because they did not have enough money.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, just a moment please. I would like to remind committee members why we are here today. We are not in the House of Commons to ask questions of the minister during question period. We are here today, pursuant to Standing Order 81(7), for consideration of the expenditure plans and priorities in future fiscal years as described in the departmental Outlook.
[English]
If the members would like me to repeat it in English, I'll do it, but we are studying plans and priorities in future fiscal years as described in the departmental outlook.
[Translation]
That is a question you should ask the minister in the House.
Mr. Nunez: No, because the minister has just told us the government is known for its compassion and generosity and is constantly claiming the family reunification program is one of its priorities. This tax has the exact opposite effect.
The Chair: If the minister wishes to answer, that is fine. As far as I am concerned, I think it is a question that should be asked in the House of Commons.
[English]
Mr. Marchi: The first part of the question was that there's nothing new, that you've heard these things before. Part of the reason why you may have heard these things before is that last year in this department we consulted Canadians as never before.
When we tabled not only a short-term but also a medium- and long-term strategy, we took a number of decisions in that cross-country consultation, which lasted for almost a year. It would be incompatible for me not to make reference to some key decisions this government made in presenting last year's levels and reflect them in the outlook document, in the business plan, which is very much that - a business plan, the big picture, the general view of directions that we want to calibrate before this committee today.
Yes, some of the things we have said are flowing out of the levels, but they are consistent. If I have a paper for the next five years, then it would be irresponsible and inconsistent on my part if I didn't include that in the business plan of where our department will be going in the months and years to come.
Secondly, you mentioned that the right of landing fee is catastrophic. That's your opinion. Certainly I don't share that kind of -
Mr. Nunez: We have facts.
Mr. Marchi: - rhetoric - inflamed rhetoric, if I may be so bold as to say that.
You mentioned the 4,000 that were refused. I tried to be very clear and unemotional in the House of Commons in stating that the 4,000 were not refused, that they were returned.
Mr. Nunez: What did you do for them?
Mr. Marchi: The fees were not attached to those applications. Those applications were returned, which is different from saying ``refused''. Once they are returned, the applicants are then returning them with the appropriate fees. Things are coming through quite naturally.
To talk of the numbers, I don't try to bean-count this situation to death, because we have to allow the program and the fee to be in place for a while. I'm concerned about getting it right. I'm prepared to sit down in the summer and early fall and look at where the trend lines are going.
.0920
But the general trend lines are positive. Out of 18,000 applications since the budget, there have been 400 applications for the loan. What does that mean -
Mr. Nunez: Where? In Mississauga or in Vegreville?
Mr. Marchi: That's 400 across the country.
So what I wanted to suggest is if you look at the big numbers, 400 out of 18,000 represents 4%. That is to say there were 17,600 people who had no difficulty in attaching the landing fee as part of their entry into Canada, and did it willingly.
The other big number is that the applications from Mississauga or Vegreville or international - and yes, maybe it's a little too early to tell - have not fallen off. Therefore you can't say the landing fee is discouraging applications. In fact, since the budget the number of applications has gone up.
When you look at the 400 who have made the requests for the loan, the majority to date have been accepted. The benefit of the doubt to those individuals -
Mr. Nunez: Give us all the figures.
Mr. Marchi: - has increased weekly since the budget put this fee in place.
It was like the task force on enforcement. It would have been unfair in the early going to say simply, how many did you get this week, how many did you get last week? Equally, when you look at the big picture and the big numbers, it is a satisfactory statement. I want to make sure the loans work, and perhaps work as well as the transportation loans.
Last week my officials took the occasion to go to the annual meeting of the Canadian Council for Refugees. They had a very good discussion. The CCR made a number of recommendations where perhaps we can fine-tune, and we're looking at those. We communicated to them the general situation as well. There wasn't the kind of catastrophe at the Canadian Council for Refugees that you're trying to pass off.
I'm concerned that those who merit Canada's help through the loan get it. That's why we put a loan package there. We didn't put it there for semantics or for appearances. We put it there because the Liberal government believes it to be a progressive way of trying to assist those who may face a hardship with the $975.
Canadians in general, of all groups, ages, and ethnic backgrounds, have bought into it...whether it's the Insight poll in Ontario, which showed 80%, or the Environics poll showing 72% across the country. What it says is it's a price that is reasonable and fair to expect if it is to be the answer -
Mr. Nunez: Mention only one group who support you on that immigration package.
Mr. Marchi: You don't believe the Canadian people are one group that is substantial in terms of those polls?
Mr. Nunez: Working on the refugee question, defending immigrants. Mention one group.
Mr. Marchi: When you talk to many of the groups, it's easy for a group involved in immigration to say they don't like the landing fee. I didn't expect people to line up and say they enjoy it. But instead of asking what they're in favour of or against, I ask them to pretend they're the minister.
The status quo is not on, in the program review facing our department. We couldn't have said citizenship and immigration are too important to touch us. We couldn't say that, because if we did, then every other department could have said the same thing. Then we wouldn't have got the reduction. So the status quo is not on.
The second option would have been to allow the minister to ding the $270 million budget for settlement. That's the only discretionary part in the whole department, outside of paying bureaucrats to turn on the light switches. So if Martin wanted $150 million, which he wants from the landing fee, he could have taken it from the envelope of settlement.
What that would have meant is I would have been the minister presiding over the death of settlement. I didn't want to be that minister, nor did my government want to do away with settlement.
So I asked the people, and my groups, would you want to do that? No. Would you want to slash immigration levels to very low numbers so as to decrease the cost of settlement? The answer was no. Would you want to charge people directly for only those who use the settlement fees and those who do not use the language classes do not pay? They said no, because that would mean charges of $3,000 to $5,000.
.0925
What are the options left if we have to come up with those savings and if we want to save settlement? When you put it in that context, Mr. Nunez, the fee becomes reasonable.
Then what we've said is, if you have a tough time paying it -
Mr. Nunez: They do.
Mr. Marchi: - there will be the eligibility for a loan.
For refugees, it is a post fee. It is not a fee that is charged during your refugee status. You have your refugee hearing. You can now work as a result of our government changing the rules.
Mr. Nunez: Some of them can.
Mr. Marchi: You become a refugee, if you are fortunate, and there is no better system than the IRB internationally.
After you have been given the number one priority, if you are a legitimate refugee, which is protection - I don't need to say that to you; it's protection. Once they've gotten that protection in arguably the best country in the world, we say that for the purposes of landing, because of our settlement needs and budgets and because we want to keep it going, this is the fee. If you have a hardship, we have a loan.
When you put it in that context, then you should ask some of the groups what they think as to whether there's a better way. You know, there are not too many who come up with an alternative. So there's a general acceptance of the fee.
Then you move on from that to ensuring that we get the fee and the loan right for those most in need, and I'm with you on that. I do give a damn about how it's going to play out, and so far it's moving well.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Hanger.
Mr. Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Thank you, Madame Chair. Mr. Minister, I'm going to quote from page 1 of your statement:
- As we all know, current realities have forced us all to re-examine our programs and policies.
Mr. Marchi: The Canada-Quebec accord is working and working well. The aim of settlement, I think we should keep in mind, is the broad picture, and obviously within that are the financial allotments that are given across the country. But in the Quebec model, they have done it well. They have done it longer and better than any other province.
I am equally as concerned with those provinces that don't have an agreement with us. I question why Ontario, the biggest province in terms of receiving immigrants and refugees, doesn't have an agreement with the federal government. I'm puzzled why British Columbia doesn't have an agreement with the federal government. Manitoba is the third province, though certainly not as major as Ontario or British Columbia.
My concern, Mr. Hanger, comes initially from a larger picture of ensuring that we have agreements with all provinces. Let's ensure that we know what the priorities regionally of those provinces are. Let's ensure that we do settlement better.
I'm convinced that we can do a lot better and get a lot more mileage out of our budget for settlement than we do now. I think part of the mistake - and hindsight is easy - is that we basically dictated it from Ottawa. This whole question of resettlement renewal, I think, is the way to go, to allow local stakeholders to sit around the table like this and dictate for themselves the kind of priorities in their own backyards.
I think we also have to look at settlement from a macro level. Obviously once you've gone through that renewal, there will be the answers and the requests that come up on the financial basis. At that point you can redress the situation in terms of how provinces are being treated, as opposed to trying to start with a Canada-Quebec accord that is working quite fine.
In fact, the way Quebec does settlement should also be a few lessons for other provinces, as opposed to starting it from a negative tangent.
Mr. Hanger: Will you reopen the Canada-Québec Accord?
Mr. Marchi: As you know, the Canada-Quebec accord has to be reopened jointly, and I have no plans at this stage to reopen the Canada-Quebec accord.
Mr. Hanger: So there will not be any, if you will, regional justice established then.
Maybe you can enlighten me. I can't see how the rest of the country will negotiate an accord similar to that of Quebec. I don't believe any of the governments are willing to do such a thing.
.0930
Mr. Marchi: I don't accept that if there are no plans to reopen the Canada-Quebec accord, then that will deliver regional injustice. Firstly, I don't think that's true. Secondly, I believe that not all provinces want what Quebec has.
I know that in your province the provincial minister and the legislature will soon come out with a made-in-Alberta immigration policy. We will wait to see what Mr. Ady is going to present to the legislature, but he told me quite openly and quite frankly that his province is not looking for the kind of agreement that Quebec has. They are not interested in posting their officers around the globe in terms of selecting, both on a refugee front and on an independent basis, applicants coming to Alberta. They want to stress other avenues.
I haven't heard that from Manitoba or from British Columbia.
So it is wrong to assume that other provinces want what Quebec has, because each comes to the table with different needs and different priorities. It's from there that we have to establish a national grid on settlement, rather than assuming that others will want what person A or person B wants, because that's not the case.
Mr. Hanger: Quebec receives 12% of the immigrants, yet receives the greater portion of the settlement funding. It's something like $3,000 per immigrant, if not higher than that now. Are you willing to negotiate such an agreement with every province in the country?
Mr. Marchi: I'm willing to go to the table with those provinces that don't have an agreement, but I'm not going to -
Mr. Hanger: And put every province on a par with Quebec?
Mr. Marchi: I'm not going to negotiate here at this committee an agreement with the provinces that don't have one. I'm prepared to be responsible and to see what those provinces want. I'm prepared to wait to see what Alberta wants to renegotiate in its existing agreement with Canada.
Clearly, I want to give some onus and some lead, as we have in the documents we tabled last year, to the provinces, as long as they also meet national standards and national policies set by this government.
Mr. Hanger: I would have to look back at your statement here to re-examine our programs and policies. You say that you're being forced to do that. I think the Quebec-Canada accord should be up for grabs, as well.
Mr. Minister, a year ago you appeared before this committee and made quite a deal about the immigrant ID card. How is that going?
Mr. Marchi: I will allow my deputy to respond to that.
Mr. Peter V. Harder (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): The permanent resident document, PRD, has had some technical problems in its development.
In the context of our renewal and our investment in ID, which I spoke about at the time of the estimates, we're looking at how we can jump the next hurdle of ensuring that we have appropriate and secure client identification for all immigrants and permanent residents in a more sophisticated technology.
Mr. Hanger: What are the technical problems?
Mr. Harder: They are systems problems. It's the technology, the software. We will be in a position to make an announcement reasonably soon.
Mr. Hanger: I will turn the remainder of my time over to my colleague.
Mr. Mayfield (Cariboo - Chilcotin): I would like to quote from the executive summary:
- Our domestic environment is best understood through the prism of change. Migration produces
significant social change, particularly in our three largest cities: Toronto, Montreal and
Vancouver. Complex interactions between new communities and the host society and its
institutions place unique pressures on relationships of all kinds.
- To me, that sounds as though the department is trying to out-reform the Reform Party in this.
It's something we've been saying all along.
.0935
Mr. Marchi: First, you don't have to worry about being out-reformed. I'll leave that to your cousin in the Conservative Party and to Mr. Harris in Ontario.
Secondly, I think what we said was something straight up, and it's not something that is by any means new. All waves of immigrants throughout Canada's history have obviously had an integration. When my parents came there wasn't any English as a second language; there weren't any settlement programs.
So I think the evolution of settlement has played, not to a new phenomenon, but something we have learned from the old. It actually makes sense financially and every other way for a new resident and ultimately a new citizen to be integrated as quickly and as successfully as possible. It is to the mutual advantage of both the newcomer and the country.
That's why we are different from the United States. That's one of the things that differs, even in the immigration area, where they do a lot of good things as well. But after people come into the United States, they are on their own. We have tried to spend some of those resources up front to try to make that integration and landing a lot easier and a lot more successful.
For instance, the whole question of language is pivotal so we don't ghettoize individuals and the individual doesn't cost the state in a number of different ways, but the person integrates horizontally and then, through the benefits of language and other integration vehicles, moves up vertically in the system. That's very important.
I think there's a role for older immigrant communities to play. If you take my Italian-Canadian community, there's only a trickle of immigrants from Italy in comparison to post-Second World War. What is the role for those communities? It's to give a lending hand to the newer waves of immigrants who may in fact have similar or new pressures compared to the forefathers of the Italian immigrants when they came. Our community is now putting in motion a number of programs to deal with the new arrivals.
Another area where I think our department and our government should do more - and it's also a financial one - is that you can bring in partnerships from the private sector, companies as well as communities, in a public education program. It's not to simply say to Canadians you have it wrong or you don't understand, but a public education program that strives to tell the story, that tells the story of the facts of immigration and of immigrants to Canada. It isn't simply the stories that sometimes make the headlines, but it's a bigger picture than that.
Multiculturalism is also a concept that I know your party has trouble with. But when I look at it in the larger context, it is positive because it complements an immigration strategy. You and your party can't prove to me that had we not had an official federal multiculturalism policy since 1971, and then one that transcended provincial and municipal governments, we wouldn't have been worse off in this country in terms of the relationships between people.
Mr. Mayfield: If I may press you, sir, though, what I'd like to know is -
The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Mayfield: - what initiatives your government is taking towards alleviating these pressures.
The Chair: Mr. Mayfield, your time is up.
Mr. Dromisky, please.
Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): My question is very short.
Mr. Mayfield: My question was not answered, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Your time is up. You'll have a second round.
Mr. Dromisky: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for being here. My question pertains to some concerns that were raised in the past.
As we know, and we've looked at the estimates, the numbers are big. The big numbers are really containing a great number of smaller numbers and your theatre of operations is global. Within that global picture we have a multitude of theatres in which your personnel operate.
In the estimates, will there be any transfer of funds from one theatre of operation to another theatre of operation in order to entice or to encourage or to bring about an increase in potential immigrants from that particular theatre?
I also have a question that's related to that. Has there been any change in your internal policy regarding directions from your office pertaining to the numbers of potential immigrants from any theatre, relating it to the budget, of course?
Mr. Marchi: I'll allow the deputy to respond to a few things.
Generally speaking, I think one area in terms of encouraging immigrants from different theatres is the whole question of promotion internationally. In the last number of years, as budgets have been thinned, Immigration has lost the capacity, to a certain degree, of promoting the way they used to back in the sixties and seventies, in the good old days. Then we had officers who were assigned to the various posts who exclusively did the promotional work within those theatres, within those communities, to try to articulate the kind of people that were seeking, through immigration, the kinds of opportunities that could be sought from an economic vantage point, as well as the family and refugee classes.
.0940
Over the years that capacity to promote has lessened. I think that has hurt, because it's allowed perceptions to be created that are not entirely true. That is to say, in the early 1980s the government basically shut down the independent class. Between shutting down the independent class because of the ensuing recession, the lack of promotional opportunities, and the fact that immigration has also shifted from post-Second World War, there were perceptions created in a number of different theatres that we were closed for business, that we weren't interested in you any more.
I don't think Immigration, operating internationally, can afford to say that to anyone. If in fact we have to be fair and balanced it means having to be open to the international community, ensuring that those different roads that bring those different kinds of people are all respected so that whether you are an entrepreneur, family class, refugee, or an independent skilled person, you have a shot at coming to Canada.
In the promotional area, it is my hope that savings can be generated through technology abroad and we can utilize some of those savings and reinvest them in the promotional area, which will have an impact in selling the immigration program, in growing it, in creating the kind of numbers I think both you and I seek.
Mr. Harder, I don't know if you want to add something.
Mr. Harder: Let me just add a couple of points. The minister has made the point that information technology changes will allow us to shift the kind of work our foreign service officers do abroad from being the visa officer itself to supervising locally engaged staff, at lower cost, or using technology for centralized processing at some of the major centres.
As you know, we have sixty offices abroad, but we've got about five or six really quite substantial offices - Hong Kong, London, Paris, Damascus, Delhi - and those are the kinds of offices where we have a broader range of activities and hope to develop some niche markets.
In addition to that, we've had every program manager in since January and have asked them to develop marketing strategies for the sixty offices they run. A couple of things came out that I'd like to share with you.
First of all, the minister today is the first minister of immigration that I know of that can report to you no backlogs in Delhi. That gives an opportunity for the program, particularly in south India - Bombay, Calcutta, the lower part of India - where there is some significant demand, particularly on the independent side, that we wish to develop.
There was a poll taken in Taiwan last November of university graduates, which said that 23% of the respondents saw emigration in their personal future and that Canada was the number one destination of choice, United States a distant second, and Australia third. Those are the kinds of opportunities that we're looking to. At the same time I've got to tell you that the program managers from Germany and parts of Europe, eastern Europe in particular, also were encouraging some kind of niche strategies for certain potential immigrants.
The advantage that Canada poses to immigrants is perhaps not the advantage we once did. People are coming here for children, education, stability, lifestyle, and not necessarily, if you take Taiwan, because of economic growth comparisons. That's what we have to target our advantage towards. Thanks.
The Chair: Mr. Assadourian, you have five minutes left over from the ten.
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): My question is regarding citizenship. In this paper, page 4, you mention, Mr. Minister, that the Order of Canada recipients are conducting the ceremonies for citizenship. Can you give us an evaluation of how well we're doing or how badly we're doing compared to the previous system? Are there any bugs that you think should be corrected in the system with the Order of Canada recipients conducting ceremonies? That's my first question.
.0945
Mr. Marchi: First, I have been very pleased and I compliment our citizenship people in the department because they have done a simply first-class job with the file. In some of the big cities like Toronto, the waiting periods were up to two years from the time of citizenship application to swearing the oath.
In terms of the administrative changes, we have been able to almost halve that time so that a person waits roughly a year. We believe and anticipate that with some further legislative changes, which will be part of the Citizenship Act review, we will be able to take that one-year period in the major urban centres and hopefully bring it down to six months.
When you compare it to other countries, I think six months and even a year is quite good and also quite progressive, because we don't ask people to wait around a long time. In some other societies, they are made to orbit in a kind of purgatory that is neither fish nor fowl.
I believe when we are concerned that a two-year waiting period is too long and we cut that in half, those are the right values that Canada speaks to and they are in fact why people want to come to this country.
There has been a 50% increase in productivity.
Second, on the Order of Canada recipients, again I take my hat off to those recipients who have come forward to do it. There was a worry that if we did that, it would take the ceremonial aspect out of the ceremony, which is important to maintain. On the contrary, however, because of who the Order of Canada recipients are - and many are high-profile, like Knowlton Nash or June Callwood - when they have done ceremonies with us, it has elevated the kind of status that those ceremonies have because everybody has gone to bed with Knowlton Nash for 30 years while he was reading the news.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: You don't mean that literally.
Mr. Marchi: First, it elevates the ceremony. Second, they are Order of Canada recipients because of what they gave back to this country. That significance is not lost on the new citizens, because they are introduced for what they have done to merit that Order of Canada.
This is the message to that new citizen in the hall: look, don't just take the certificate we give you today and put it on the wall, although that is nice as well; wear your citizenship, and be aggressive and enthusiastic. That is a message equally as true for new citizens as it is for not-so-new citizens, but for the Order of Canada recipient it has a higher symbolic value.
I'm not saying it was the fault of the citizenship court judges. They were doing their jobs. For the most part, they loved doing their jobs and they were doing their jobs according to the law of this country. We also appreciate their contributions.
I think the Order of Canada recipient has hit a special feeling and gives the ceremony that extra oomph that I think qualifies it for something a little more special than the fear of taking away some of the merit of the final stage of the citizenship process.
Mr. Assadourian: A few years ago we were able to receive the list of new citizens in this country, and as members of Parliament we used to send them a certificate congratulating them. Now we don't receive that list. Can you give us an update as to what is going to happen to that? Are we going to continue in the same way or are we going to reverse our decision?
Mr. Marchi: I suppose I was just as frustrated as the members of Parliament who brought their frustrations to me. As a result of the privacy commissioner's decision, I was requested to stop the procedure because there were complaints raised with him about the use of some of those names. Obviously, I have to respect his request.
My officials and I have had numerous discussions with him. We even had the justice committee come in with a unanimous resolution through the House of Commons. According to the privacy commissioner that was not good enough.
We are now in the process of - and I think he has concurred with this - putting a disclaimer in the citizenship application asking the citizens if they would mind if their members of Parliament sent them a congratulatory message. Thus far, the response I have from the privacy commissioner is that he would approve of that, so shortly I will once again be able to issue those lists to members of Parliament.
.0950
I think it is absolutely fundamental, especially since we are moving ceremonies outside of the courts and into the communities, that the members of Parliament elected by those citizens have a role to play - if not an increased role - given that citizenship is a federal matter.
Those citizenship lists should flow quite quickly and quite soon. The only problem is those citizens who became citizens between the 1993 election and now. How do you go back to all those individuals and ask permission? It becomes a time concern and also a cost concern, but I think we have a solution that will please members of Parliament.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: On page 5 of your document, you say that an agreement on our common border was signed by Canada and the United States during President Clinton's visit. Since I have been in this Parliament, there has been a lot of mystery and lack of information on the negotiations between Canada and the United States. This committee never received any specific information and was never consulted on those negotiations. It seems that we still have not received the official documents signed by the two governments. Why don't you brief the committee on these negotiations? How come you do not consult this committee on those negotiations and why is your government not more straight forward with regards to those negotiations? It seems that there will be another agreement on the sharing of responsibilities with regards to asylum. At what stage are those negotiations? Could we be briefed on them?
Once again, my major criticism is that you keep this committee on the sidelines, while you should brief us on these negotiations and their results, provide us with the signed official documents and tell us at what stage you are in these negotiations between Canada and the United States.
[English]
Mr. Marchi: It's my pleasure. As you know, Mr. Clinton and the Prime Minister of Canada signed a document that incorporated the possibility of a signed memorandum of understanding between our two nations with respect to the issue of migration, specifically refugees.
The time line they gave their officials was six months, which would bring us to early fall. Janet Reno recently visited Canada and I had a chance to meet with her to discuss the general outlines.
There is no signed agreement or signed document. I don't think agreements can be negotiated between countries at a standing committee. That doesn't stop the committee from perhaps making a number of references to my department or to me. Or I can come back and have a session on some of the things you believe are pivotal with respect to any international agreement or to some of the general guidelines. I have no problems with the committee making those kinds of representations.
However, to say there has been no consultation with the Canadian community is wrong on two fronts. First, there were consultations over a year ago with a number of interested organizations. A few weeks ago, departmental officials involved on the MOU met with the Canadian Council of Refugees, the national umbrella group for refugee determination and refugee policy interests.
I have stressed with my American counterparts at both Justice and State that I believe our respective NGOs should be part of the equation. It may not be part of the table where you negotiate country to country, but I believe there should be some round tables on both sides of the border, hopefully jointly, to incorporate the views of the NGOs and to see their concerns about any potential agreement. Ms Reno agrees with that and has assured me she will push for that. We expect those discussions in the coming weeks and months.
.0955
Finally, on the whole concept of an MOU, there is some concern among some individuals or groups that we're trying to download or offload on the United States. The primary focus for an agreement with the United States and others, however, is not to download or offload. It is to make sure the international community can deal with this sea of humanity that is on the move.
Quite frankly, I don't believe the international community has done as good a job of dealing with that movement as it can. I believe if it doesn't get its act together internationally, this will be one of the larger looming issues in the next few years. As the globe gets smaller, the movement of people will get larger.
So it becomes more than just an immigration department in Canada or the United States. It's how the international community deals with that international corridor of people moving. The more agreements there are between countries, the better we will be able to manage the macro-migration aspect, as long as the agreements are founded on two issues: protection and the credibility and integrity of the system.
In Europe some of the agreements we've seen have been weighted too much on the question of ``he's not my problem, you take him; where did he last land'', and not enough on protection. As long as an agreement has both, then it's not only a balanced agreement...but if we can get that kind of an agreement with the United States, it might show the way for other such agreements to be modelled on this one. There is an onus on countries such as Canada and the United States, which have certainly done a credible job over the long term in dealing with a progressive immigration policy, to try to lead the way.
Australia is also interested in signing an agreement with Canada. I talked with my counterparts from Argentina at the Cairo conference. Because of their migration policies, they are interested in looking to Canada and having an agreement. Italy, through its legislature, for the first time is recognizing immigration to Italy. Finally, after all those years Italy has produced millions of immigrants across the globe, they have come to recognize officially there are people actually immigrating to Italy. They are interested in pursuing an agreement with Canada, because they recognize some of the things we've done. It is not that we're perfect, but there is a track record.
So when we speak of those agreements, it's not somehow to deceive people or offload; it's to intermesh the international community so when we do have a calamity or a crisis, there's a system, a backdrop, and the movement becomes rational...rather than someone declaring a crisis, as a previous Prime Minister did a few years ago. He created a crisis for 157 people off the coast of Nova Scotia, and then he brought the House of Commons together to deal with the emergency. Get a life. That's ridiculous. That's what we have to avoid.
The Chair: Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): I want to give you the view from the hinterlands on the north shore of Lake Erie. It seems to me, as somebody who has been on the committee for a year, the department has gone through some fairly massive changes. You've brought stability to the levels...everything from clearing up backlogs in Vegreville or Delhi...you have tightened up enforcement. My sense is there's less agitation and concern about immigration in the country right now than there was two years ago, or when we went through the election. I think in large part that is due to the performance of the department and the minister, but also to an improvement in the economy. Are you reading that same lessening of social pressure or conflict around immigration? If you are, what implications does that have for the future?
Mr. Marchi: I think you're partly right in the observation that there has been a lot of activity. I compliment our department, which has been asked to move on a number of different fronts - it has not been easy - and at the same time there has been a lot of front-end activity in a department that's also new in terms of our fusing it with Citizenship.
.1000
Secondly, the Canadian public has seen a number of activities on a number of fronts. This offers a perspective and a context in which to deal with immigration. However, immigration continues to be an emotional topic, and it continues to be that way not only in Canada but across the globe. We see the United States' experience in California, the speeches recently made in Washington about the kinds of things said and attributed to immigrants. We see some movements in Europe that are not entirely pleasing. Because of some of the tough economic times, Canada is not oblivious to some of those currents.
What holds us in good stead, as our Prime Minister said in a speech in Dallas not too long ago, is that we are different and we have different values. Those values didn't come by accident, but by design. Those are the values that will hold Canadians in good stead when we look at immigration. I've said this before and I'll say it again: despite some of that emotional turbulence in discussion and debates, Canadians are not less tolerant.
More than anything else, Canadians want a system that works and that has integrity, so that those who come with negative motives are dealt with quickly and harshly, to a certain degree, so they're not making a statement about the others. That's the key message in all of this.
That's why we have tried to move on a number of fronts, not in an anti way, but in a way to distinguish between right and wrong, and to make sure Canadians understand that immigration overall has been a big boon to this country - not only domestically, but as we compete in that international marketplace it is an advantage that gives us a leg-up over other countries.
The other fact is the degree to which citizenship comes in. Citizenship, in addition to promoting citizenship values, can also help sell immigration. When you move the ceremonies out of the courts and into a gymnasium with other Canadians, Canadians actually see who these new arrivals are and they see them raising their right arms. There's a breakdown of the bogeyperson attached to strangers.
When we amend the Citizenship Act, we must talk about some of the obligations of citizenship, what some of those responsibilities are and what values we share. I think there again it helps to sell immigration, because Canadians will see a balance between the rights they enjoy and the privileges of membership in the Canadian family, but that they don't come free of charge and there are mutual obligations.
When Lloyd Axworthy had to authorize 175,000 skilled foreign workers to meet the economic niches of the country, as he did last year, it's a statement. What does that say? It says there were 175,000 people needed for specific jobs. Despite a million unemployed in this country, we still had to go to Great Britain to bring in tool and dye makers. When we try to tailor-make the independent class into the niches we need today, I think people respond favourably. When we increase the language criteria, they know it makes sense for someone to try to have those abilities.
Hopefully, some of these changes will reflect a number of the legitimate concerns people have.
The ultimate frustration and concern is that Canadians accept immigration in the context that it should be offered: to yield a reasonable discussion. When you lose context in immigration, you lose the discussion.
When people talk to me about immigration, they think that over half of the immigrants coming to this country are refugees. Some think three-quarters are. Why? Because there is a lot of attention paid to the refugee within the whole program. I tell them it's 10%. They marvel at the small number of abusers, which no doubt make your hair fall out, but in the larger context they're surprised it's not more prevalent.
.1005
It's the lack of context that sometimes fuels the whole question and the whole debate on immigration. I think we have to go beyond just economic insecurity and also address some of those other citizenship values that people want us to look at as a way of balancing those who come here as immigrants and then ultimately become citizens and the responsibilities owed to the country.
So I would like to think that some of the things we have done have helped. I think a great more needs to be done in terms of the public education program. That is a project that perhaps your committee would want to make representations or observations on. I think there's a bigger need simply to mobilize the story to be told in a modest way, in a non-aggressive way, but to allow the facts to come through when sometimes the facts are nowhere near the story that is told on immigration from some people and from some quarters of our country.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I didn't mean to cut you off, Mr. Minister, but I know you have a very tight schedule.
Mr. Hanger, you have five minutes, or Mr. Mayfield.
Mr. Mayfield: If I may, I have a couple of questions regarding citizenship for you.
Someone was telling me that the promotion for the Citizenship Act has already begun. Someone heard Susan Musgrave featured in one of these promos. I wanted to ask you, has this Citizenship Act promotion begun already?
Mr. Marchi: No, because we don't have a new Citizenship Act. I think what some of that may have been, Mr. Mayfield, is that during Citizenship Week we did do some promotion on the value of Citizenship Week. We also had very friendly cooperation from a number of media outlets that did a number of things free of charge. Rogers Cable, for instance, did an entire broadcast on the whole theme of citizenship. I think maybe some of that was part of Citizenship Week. But no, there is absolutely no promotion on a new Citizenship Act because clearly that act is a long way off.
Mr. Mayfield: Can you give some indication of when that act may be brought to the House?
Mr. Marchi: The parliamentary agenda, as you well know - we'll begin evening sittings soon - is pretty jammed. It would be my hope that in the fall or winter to come we would be able to find a slot in the parliamentary agenda to move with the Citizenship Act.
Mr. Mayfield: The main estimates talk about promoting the Citizenship Act, but there's nothing in the budget about that. I'm wondering where the money will be coming from for this promotion. Is this going to be money that you don't spend in other areas of your department, or will there be new money brought into budget for this promotion?
Mr. Marchi: No, there won't be any new money. Part of the moneys that are envisioned to be rechannelled into promotion, which I strongly believe in, will come from the increased fees on citizenship. So obviously part will be there for the budget revenues, but there is also a part of those dollars flowing from those fees that will be rechannelled back into citizenship, and that has met with the approval of Finance.
Mr. Mayfield: Thank you very much.
Mr. Hanger: I want to pick up on something my colleague Mr. Nunez brought up about a U.S. agreement, or agreements with any country for that matter. You indicated that Australia was interested. Why don't you do just what the Immigration Act gives you the power to do already? That is, to stop hearing refugee claims from people who have travelled through safe third countries like the United States or Israel.
Why are you allowing Canada to be a patsy when you could stop the nonsense that is going on already and save the taxpayers millions of dollars? You could unilaterally make that decision now and shut the door on all of those applicants from the United States, who number in the tens of thousands. They're already in a safe third country.
Mr. Marchi: First, the numbers are incorrect, and I could have my officials address the specific numbers. Second, I don't share your definition of our country with that ``p'' word. I think that brings disrespect. Third, it's a wild exaggeration. Fourth, it shows a profound ignorance of what's happening in the rest of the world too.
.1010
Yes, we had roughly 25,000 people seek refugee status in this country. Germany had 400,000 a couple of years ago. Italy received 5,000 Turkish Kurds in boats just two weeks ago. The Netherlands, 55,000.... You can go down the list.
That speaks to the need for international agreement.
So when you describe Canada as somehow being a patsy, not only is it incorrect -
Mr. Hanger: No, you're allowing it to be that by not making a decision from your department.
Mr. Marchi: Well, if it's such a patsy, why aren't the 400,000 coming to Canada instead of to Germany? What's your answer for that?
Mr. Hanger: I'm asking you, sir.
Mr. Marchi: Why are we much...? But I'm asking you to be responsible.
Mr. Hanger: I am asking you, sir, why you don't unilaterally make the decision that we will not take any more claimants from south of the border, for instance - or from Israel, or from England, or from any other safe third country.
Mr. Marchi: No, because what you are saying is that because someone simply travelled through another country, that disqualifies their claim. No, I'm not prepared to say the same thing. Some individuals don't have any status in the United States of America.
Mr. Hanger: You're going to allow the abuse?
Mr. Marchi: So some people will go back under your law and then be transferred right out, perhaps, without any hearing.
Mr. Hanger: You will allow the abuse to continue?
Mr. Marchi: That was the case during the era of your friend, Ronald Reagan. They didn't believe there were refugees coming from Central America. No, Canada didn't send them back to the United States. I support that.
It doesn't mean that to do what is right is to be a patsy. In fact, sometimes it's a hell of a lot more courageous to say the things I do than the things you stand for.
The Chair: On this note, I would like to thank the minister for being with us today.
The officials will be staying with us, if I understand right.
I had occasion to participate in the ceremony, where 400 new citizens were sworn in. It was a major event in my riding, in the basement of the church. I think it has had a very positive impact in terms of the community.
Mr. Nunez: [Inaudible - Editor]...excluded.
The Chair: Excuse me, nobody was excluded.
Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, and we hope to see you back again.
Mr. Marchi: You were invited to the ceremony that I did and you were in the front row. Some of your other colleagues -
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I was prevented from speaking.
[English]
Mr. Marchi: We had a lot of Bloc members at the citizenship ceremony, and it was heartening to have people from your caucus believing in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: How come your officials prevented me to make a speech? Why?
[English]
The Chair: If Mr. Harder and Mr. DiBartelo would like to stay, there might be members who have other questions. I have one or two.
We'll begin with the Liberals. Mr. Knutson, you have five minutes.
Mr. Knutson: My colleagues in the Reform Party have made an issue of deporting criminals to countries that won't acknowledge that they're their own or won't provide the proper documentation, that put up barriers. We are having difficulty in kicking people out, to use the vernacular. My understanding from previous discussions is that there are roughly 1,200 people identified as criminals whom we want to deport. We're hoping to do so under Bill C-44.
What percentage of those would you expect to have difficulty with? Is it a very minor, small number?
Mr. Harder: Let me talk about the progress we're making.
The return agreements are now in place with Jamaica, for example. Discussions with Vietnam are proceeding well; in fact, the first returns are taking place under the framework of the discussions we've had. We're discussing with Chinese officials the modalities to achieve removals to China. There are a few countries, China among them, where it is difficult. There are also some of the technical issues that fall out, for example, from the split of Czechoslovakia between the Czech and the Slovak Republics. Some of the issues we're discussing with their officials are their responsibilities to return their nationals who say they were from the Czech Republic, for example, when the Czechs say they were Slovaks.
.1015
The important point is that while some of these discussions are prolonged and not always as quick as we would like, no one country has stopped the process and that speaks well. It speaks to a realization among these countries that part of being a normal member of the international community is accepting the return of your nationals. That's part of the normal exchange of people, whether it's in the context of visitor visas or emigration.
I am pleased to report substantial progress in the course of the last year in those discussions. In some cases they've yielded signed agreements. In other cases, they've yielded agreed procedures. At the end of the day, it's being able to do it that counts.
Mr. Knutson: On that last point, do you have a sense as to what percentage of the 1,000 or 1,200 -
Mr. Harder: I can give you a nationality. People from the PRC will be the more difficult to achieve some removal orders on and the Vietnamese as well, just because of the complexity of the process and travel documents and the nature of the discussions.
Mr. Assadourian: I asked a witness we had at the beginning of the week whether he felt our levels of immigration of 190,000 to 215,000 were too low or too high. He said they were too low and for economic reasons he would feel more comfortable if they were to go higher, to maybe 250,000. How do you react to that, and why did he quote 250,000?
Mr. Harder: I think the Economic Council of Canada and various other economic studies have shown that immigrants contribute to the economy, both in the short term and in the longer-term inter-generational transfer of economic growth.
Certainly the kinds of policies that have been put in place with respect to selection criteria and increasing the tilt to independence will increase the economic contribution already made. To that extent, if you can achieve the balance and the mix the minister has put in place, increased immigration levels wouldn't adversely affect economic performance, and indeed would contribute to it.
The trick is to be able to sustain the level over a period of time in a rather predictable way and increase the tilt of the independent immigration. That's something we have to work at more effectively because you can no longer just put the shingle out and say come to Canada and expect to necessarily get the mix and level the policy is predicated on. So to that extent, economic performance is there.
I should also underscore to some people who talk about the cost of immigration and the like that the plan you have before you will see this program generate roughly $330 million in cost recovery in right of landing. That exceeds the O and M budget of the department. That's before you even talk about the kind of investment business investors make in terms of the business program. That's before you talk about the skills of an individual or the individual economic contribution.
In my view, the program is not only self-sustaining in the broader sense of the contributions made, but in the operations itself it's quite a significant achievement, and I think sometimes unrecognized.
The Chair: I am very interested in looking at new methods in terms of citizenship and having more access. For instance, a recommendation has been made to me to have the applications in a post office as we have the income tax forms, for instance. Have you looked at creative ways of making citizenship more accessible?
.1020
Mr. Harder: Absolutely. I don't mean this with any disrespect to the people who have run the citizenship processing historically, but it was somewhat immune from modern techniques. Those of you who have visited the Sydney facility will recognize that while it's 11 years old, its technology is 11 years old. The kind of process where you need an appointment to pick up a form is not what we would call modern client service.
We are and have been more innovative in the course of the last year, with the kind of administrative changes the minister referred to. But in the longer run the kind of innovation you speak of in terms of accessibility and the kind of support that information technology can give you in terms of just supporting speedy application processing is the wave of the future. That's very clearly what the business plan and the outlook is all about.
I mentioned at the time of the estimates that included in this proposal you have before you is $50 million of IT invested over the next three years. That's entirely to ensure better client service; a higher integrity of documentation and assurance that who we are dealing with is who we are dealing with; a more coherent sort of management of the client continuum from immigration to permanent residency and the kind of question Mr. Hanger asked; as well as citizenship processing and passport issuance.
We're all dealing with the same people within essentially the same questions in terms of the integrity and whether or not they've met the obligations of the act.
The Chair: Very good point. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: On page 12 of the French version of the document, there is a reference to the research unit in your department. The text states that the department is supposed to be improving its research capacity significantly so as to publish information regularly and maintain on-going consultations with its partners and stakeholders.
We have invited some research officers to appear before the sub-committee. I was really not very pleased, because we do not get much documentation from the department. We are not familiar with its publications. We are carrying out a study on some fundamental issues and our basic document was not produced by your department, but rather the C.D. Howe Institute.
I would like to know in what direction your research unit is heading. What percentage of the research work is done in-house, and what percentage is done outside? In the past, apparently some documents produced by the department were distributed to members of Parliament and senators. However, this is no longer the case. Why not?
[English]
Mr. Harder: Mr. Nunez, the strengthening of the research capacity of the department is based on our view that informed public debate needs to take place on the basis of facts, and public policy decisions need to be based on more than gut instinct. But we have to do research in a modern way. We don't want to create within the department the university of immigration. We want to partner with other organizations.
I'm pleased to let you know, and I believe you do know, that the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada has invested significantly in what we're calling the metropolis project, which will create centres of excellence in Canada and cooperation with other countries that are part of this consortium to do hard research in exploring some of the issues.
What are the ones we need to look at? The social and cultural impacts of immigration are not well understood. We need to have more research-based information on social tolerance. We need to have more of a local labour market need research in terms of the immigration program. What kind of integration intervention works best? That is the kind of research agenda we're putting in place. The research has not at this time yielded reports, but it will, as we put in place the centres of excellence, be an ongoing source of information. But we also want to provide that information using modern technology, such as Internet, and new ways of disseminating information and using it for a research base.
.1025
The commitment to research is real; we're investing in it. The longitudinal study we have in partnership with both Revenue Canada and Statistics Canada, which has given us real economic performance results from immigrants over the last five years, is being extended. It is our hope that in that context we can have informed debate on immigration levels.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: How much money do you spend commissioning outside research, and how much do you spend on research done in-house?
[English]
Mr. Harder: I would have to get you the precise figure. I know that we've increased it in the course of this year, both to support Statistics Canada's work on our behalf and to account for the contribution made by something like the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and other departments that are contributing to this. The total policy budget is $7 million, so it would be some proportion of that. I could get back to you, but it's in that context. The objective is to lever our investment with the cooperation of either other departments or other agencies or non-governmental agencies. We don't want to do it all ourselves; that's old thinking.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: What documents did you distribute to Members of Parliament and Senators in the past? You are no longer distributing these documents. Why not?
[English]
Mr. Harder: We are no longer doing that kind of research, where it's all in-house and then we disseminate it. What we are trying to do is build a longer-term research plan in coordination with other departments, in cooperation with universities, the centres of excellence, and yes, we'll start distributing the data as it becomes available. But this department, in the course of establishing itself, made a strategic decision to do research differently.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harder. Ms Clancy.
Ms Clancy (Halifax): Thank you very much, and welcome, Mr. Deputy.
A couple of weeks ago I had the very great honour of attending one of the installations of the Order of Canada recipients at Rideau Hall, and at my table was an Order of Canada and Nobel laureate who said he had had a letter from my minister asking him to take part in the citizenship courts but he didn't figure he meant it. I said no, no, we meant it, absolutely. I'm wondering if you are getting responses back from them. Do they realize we mean it? Is there something more we could be doing so they don't think it's some sort of perfunctory...? These are very humble people, I'm discovering, as opposed to politicians.
Mr. Harder: Yes, we are getting responses, and yes, we have to do more in terms of follow-up, but at least we have now gotten the initial letter out. Maybe in addition to Order of Canada recipients, other distinguished Canadians could participate, as long as it's some kind of.... I think what the minister is insisting on is that it's not some one person that's deciding who the distinguished Canadian is.
Ms Clancy: Right.
Mr. Harder: There are other organizations that have said they'd like to participate. The retired heads of missions, retired ambassadors, have spoken to us saying they'd like to do this sort of thing and asking what we think about that. We're discussing with them. The objective here is to use distinguished Canadians whose example of contribution to the country is a model for the people whose citizenship we're welcoming. And we'll follow up on the letters as well.
Ms Clancy: I might just say another group is former lieutenant governors, who kicked the dirt three or four times and said they weren't trying to get pushy but they'd love to do this. I said I would pass it on, which I've done.
I'm also wondering, with regard to the Order of Canada people in particular, who really are very humble, if maybe - and I just throw it out as a suggestion - members of Parliament, this committee and other members of Parliament, when they have constituents who are elevated to the Order, might contact them and encourage them....
Mr. Harder: That's great; that's excellent.
Ms Clancy: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Mayfield.
Mr. Mayfield: Thank you very much. The statement mentions that in the introduction of the new Citizenship Act the purpose is to raise the profile of citizenship and ``assure fairness in its granting''. I just want to open this up and try to understand your thinking about fairness.
It seems to be an implication that there were areas of unfairness that need to be addressed. Could I have your comment on that, please.
.1030
Mr. Harder: I think what we're trying to pick up on is some of the comments made by the standing committee's report itself, not only about the unfairness of processing times - which is an unfairness if people want to participate in elections, for example, and there is a long period of processing delay - but also about some of the issues of fairness such as the question the committee was asked, to what generation can citizenship pass without residency? There's an issue of fairness there to Canadians and to those who, without any attachment to Canada...indeed, no language skills of either English or French after several generations, maintain and can pass on their citizenship to the next generation.
The issue we're raising - because it's not for us to decide; it is for Parliament to decide - is what is the balance of fairness here. The committee has helped us in that regard and the minister will be taking some of those issues to cabinet when he deals with amendments to the act.
The bottom line is that citizenship should reflect the broad values of Canadians on what is fair in processing, the concept of citizenship, the rights and entitlements of citizenship for you and for your children, and how you pass them on.
Mr. Mayfield: What I'm trying to do in my questioning is to understand some of the scope of the concepts and thinking in your report.
I want to come back to my first question again. It seems to me...and I'm pleased to see the report addressing some of the thoughts about the problems, at least, that have occurred in the larger centres that were mentioned: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver. In raising this issue, what specific initiatives is the department considering to address the complexities of these problems that are mentioned?
Perhaps I should just shut up now and let you talk about it, but I'm thinking about some of the issues of partnering that have already been mentioned. It strikes me that perhaps there has been a lack of partnering that has made these problems more complex than they might otherwise have been. Could you talk about initiatives the department has in mind on this?
Mr. Harder: Mr. Mayfield, I'm happy you used the word ``partnerships'', because as you began asking your question I just wrote a note to myself, ``partnerships'', because that's the response. It's partnerships in a range of activities, and it's a deliberate strategy. It's not simply saying everybody is responsible.
Let me give you some examples. When we talk about settlement renewal, we're talking about working with all levels of government that have an interest in the appropriate integration of newcomers...to sit around the table and say, for our community, for our province, depending on what the jurisdiction is, what interventions work best? We are committed to bringing - and we have with this plan - stable funding...our funding to that table and working with those other partners on the priorities that make sense for that locale.
I hope provinces and municipalities come with that same sense of client focus and respect for the taxpayer, because at the end of the day all funding is from the same person. At the end of the day you want to focus on the well-being and integration of the same client. So if we can partner in that sense, that's citizenship renewal.
I will use another example of partnership, on the enforcement side. One of the key findings of the work we've done on the enforcement side in the last year as a result of the task force and other initiatives as we looked at our own business process re-engineering work in the enforcement area is a couple of things. First, we're finding there really is an immigration expertise in enforcement and immigration intelligence. The police are telling us that. Our partners are telling us that. That is what we need to focus on and professionalize: what we bring to the enforcement table.
We also need to work more clearly in partnered agreements with police agencies, the RCMP and local police, on our respective roles. That's not only in cases but in exchanging data. We will be providing - it's currently under construction - a 24-hour, 7-day centre for access to our FOS system for enforcement activities. So it's that kind of partnering -
.1035
Mr. Mayfield: Would this also include NGOs in the partnering concept you have in mind?
Mr. Harder: The settlement table has NGOs at it, absolutely. Indeed, the service providers are not governments. We are not in the service-providing business.
Mr. Mayfield: Is there some thought of perhaps catching up a bit on some of the problems that already occurred in the past, without this partnering in mind? What compensation may be in mind for the larger centres that are trying to work their way out of the problems they're in the midst of now?
Mr. Harder: When I hear ``compensation'', I hear the word ``dollars''.
Mr. Mayfield: That might be, but that's not necessarily -
Mr. Harder: It's not always dollars, you know; it's sometimes ideas. I was pleased that British Columbia, for example, when the minister announced the settlement renewal exercise there.... There will be other announcements as part of partnering around. I think governments of the future are increasingly going to have to put in place mechanisms that partner more.
The challenge for members of Parliament on that is going to be to get your minds around what are the appropriate accountabilities from a financial integrity and probity point of view and for political accountability around partnerships. That's going to be a real challenge because of course the traditional thinking is command and control - departments administer, ministers are accountable - and these are specific programs we're delivering.
If we're getting into more of a shared sense with government on what our priorities are, pooling our financial resources, and having service provided by non-governmental sectors in large numbers, the accountability framework for members of Parliament will change too. I hope that's one of the issues that will be stimulated by a plan that indicates where we're going over the next three years. We've never done that before.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Harder, your name came up yesterday in our committee hearing looking into the issue of consultants.
Mr. Harder: In what sense?
Mr. Knutson: I'll tell you. We were talking to the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants, OPIC, and they advised us that they had held discussions with you directly. My sense - and I don't want to make a judgment after only meeting with them for a couple of hours - is that they're very well-organized and seem to have a real sense of professional ethic. They are ready to take on the task of acting as the regulating body and they were looking for an endorsement from us in law that gives them that authority.
Do you have any concerns or things you might want to articulate around that issue, dealing with them directly?
Mr. Harder: One of the reasons the department is particularly pleased that the committee is looking at the consultants is that we've been around the bush so many times. As you know from the work the committee has done, the issue often is not in Canada but outside Canada and the jurisdiction on that is very difficult. We certainly take what steps we can in order to not deal with disreputable persons abroad, but that's not always possible, and that's an area of some concern.
The other issue, of course, is the provincial jurisdiction in terms of professional organizations. I myself have met with various attorneys general and deputy attorneys general in Ontario, because Ontario did a study on this, where regrettably the province decided that was not an area they wanted to touch. That's too bad because at least with the legal framework we have a way of disciplining bad performers, in a sense.
Mr. Knutson: I'd just like to interject on that point. It was the opinion of OPIC that if we were to label them, give them the stamp of approval, the marketplace would then drive the people in need of the service. They would look for that stamp of approval regardless of whether or not the province also had its authority there.
We might not stop somebody from putting up a shingle and giving advice; only the province could do that. Without the OPIC endorsement, people needing the service would go to somebody with the endorsement as opposed to not. That would solve the lion's share of the problem locally, regardless of whether or not we -
Mr. Harder: I think the moral suasion point is well made. I think OPIC has - it's relatively recent - significantly enhanced the credibility of non-legal immigration advisers, and that's to be commended. As a result of their credibility, we in the department have regularly met with them to discuss operating issues, just as we meet with the immigration bar. It has been mutually beneficial.
.1040
If the committee can get its mind around how we can encourage provinces, particularly Ontario given its size, to deal with this and what kind of overseas sanctions should and could there be.... That is the tough one.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: In fact, this was a question for the minister. I wonder if you can provide an answer. It deals with the visitor's visa policy. There has been a lot of incoherence in this area lately. For example, three Algerian actors who work in France were denied a visa. Then a visa was given to an FIS lawyer, and to a representative of Human Life International. What is the policy? No one understands anymore. Sometimes, the department tells us that officials suspect...
The Chair: I will use my right as chair of the committee to say that this is a political and not an administrative question.
[English]
If Mr. Harder wants to answer it....
Mr. Harder: I'm quite happy to answer this, because it is an important question.
The Chair: That's fine, but I've ruled before not to discuss cases in committee.
Mr. Harder: No, I'm not going to discuss cases.
Mr. Nunez: You ruled before, not the committee -
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, there are proper channels through which to voice your disagreement with my rulings. It's not here right now. Speak to your whip.
Mr. Nunez: I will not wait to oppose this -
The Chair: I rule you totally out of order.
Mr. Hanger, do you have a question?
Mr. Hanger: In follow-up to my colleague Mr. Knutson, Mr. Harder, you mentioned an Ontario study on consultants.
Mr. Harder: Not on immigration consultants. It was on the whole area of paralegal advice being given. It was done some years ago in conjunction with Consumer and Commercial Relations in Ontario and the Attorney General's office.
Mr. Hanger: I see. Do you have a copy of that report?
Mr. Harder: I'm sure it's somewhere in the department. If not, I can probably try to scare up a copy.
Mr. Hanger: Would you do that for me?
Mr. Harder: Yes.
Mr. Hanger: I also wanted to ask about a major initiative that the department entered into in reference to the RCMP task force in locating the criminal element and dealing with them in a more effective manner. I'm curious as to how that is actually turning out. How many of the criminals who were targeted were actually removed? I don't want you to confine it to the RCMP, because I realize that communication is going on between other police departments, and you've mentioned that also.
I would like to know an up-to-date figure on how many were actually removed to this point and how effective you think the task force has been. I have some other comments that I wanted to ask you about in reference to that, but first I'd like to have your opinion.
Mr. Harder: Let me give you some figures that I have, which are the ones I'm carrying with me today. They change over time, however.
Mr. Hanger: Sure.
Mr. Harder: Last summer the department identified 1,888 cases of criminals who had been ordered deported but had not been removed. At the present time, 337 cases are still under investigation, 545 cases have been concluded, and the balance are being tracked through the judicial and correctional systems and appeals and Federal Court processes.
The important issue is not the numbers but the trends and what we've learned. As you know, we've had three major centres where they operated. Since then, from the work that the task force itself has done, as well as some of the advice that we're getting as a result of some discussions and some work that we've asked the former Commissioner of the RCMP, Norman Inkster, to do, we'll be coming forward to the minister in the very near future with what we need to do as a department in order to re-engineer our enforcement activity.
Some of it is based on the principles I spoke to Mr. Mayfield about in terms of partnering, in terms of the professionalizing of our role, the immigration enforcement and intelligence role. Some of it has to do with investing in better technology and sharing it with police forces. I think we're just on the cusp of doing some pretty interesting stuff.
.1045
Mr. Hanger: I've been speaking to many front-line officers in both the RCMP and the municipal forces, but also immigration officers, and one of their complaints is that the emphasis on really concentrating on this particular problem has been going in the wrong direction, in the sense that front-line officers have been spread too thin. In other words, if you're going to take a proactive approach, why is the department spreading the officers out in a thin line across the country, if you will, when there is a greater need in those central areas, as you point out? Should you not beef up the front-line enforcement officers?
Second, the speciality units that were designed years ago to deal with that problem specifically have been disbanded. You now have a gaping hole, if you will, on the investigation side to deal effectively with that.
Mr. Harder: Let me make a couple of comments. Mr. Inkster in his work hasn't identified a gaping hole, and the work we're doing with the task force hasn't identified a gaping hole. I think what people were concerned about is the appropriate linkage when a case passed from police to immigration officials and the like. The kind of environment in which immigration enforcement takes place is different in one community from in another. You have to ensure that how we do enforcement takes that into account.
On the distribution of resources, it would be no surprise, I think, to look at the enforcement resources and see that they are in fact distributed with some sensitivity to Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, where the largest numbers of the case-load are. But we also need to ensure there is a capacity to enforce in Halifax, on the northern shore of Lake Erie, and in northern Ontario, to name just a few places that come to mind.
To be honest, the trick we're going to have as a department with implementation of this framework is within the financial constraints that are inherent in this to achieve the $54 million reduction, and to ensure in the process that we're retooling some of our personnel from activities that are, I would say, not the two present priority activities, some of which undoubtedly is the enforcement function - some of which.
So what we have to put in place in the course of the next two years - and a period of two years isn't much - is the appropriate mechanisms, the changes in how we do our work, so we can pull people out of certain functions and train them and put them into others. That's the challenge we have from an administrative point of view.
But I hope you would agree the days of simply going to Treasury Board and saying ``give us more money'' are over.
The Chair: I am sure if the members have more questions we can invite the witnesses back another time.
Mr. Harder and Mr. DiBartelo, thank you very much. I hope to see you back.
Members, we are moving to Room 208 West Block to continue.