[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, June 12, 1996
.1548 
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Ladies and gentlemen, we shall proceed. Today we will be deliberating with in-Canada services and the settlement portion, responsibilities and concerns.
I would like to turn over the session to Mr. Girard, but I'd like to point out that Mr. Girard, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister of Operations, has been with us for a great number of years. In fact, at some time this year it will be 33 years of service. I think he knows more than all of us -
Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): He must have been a very young man when he started, Mr. Chairman.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): I think so, yes. He probably knows more about this area than all of us put together.
Mr. Girard, I'm turning the chair over to you.
Mr. Raphael Girard (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today the theme of service in Canada is a very broad one. It encompasses what we do at ports of entry, the services we provide to visitors and temporary workers and students within Canada, the services we provide to deal with people who have the right to apply to become permanent residents while in Canada. It deals with the settlement services we give newcomers. It deals with everything we do in enforcing the Immigration Act against people who have contravened the terms and conditions of their stay here.
Today I have with me, to assist in the proceedings
[Translation]
Pierre Bourget, Director General, Enforcement.
.1550
[English]
We also have here Brian Hudson, acting director general of what we call the departmental delivery network. These are the services that don't restrict themselves to clients in any particular region, and include the central processor at Vegreville, the citizenship processing we do by mail-in to Sydney, and our call centres, which will be our first point of contact with our clientele from coast to coast.
[Translation]
You already know Agnès Jaouich, Director General, Integration. She is ready to discuss our immigrant settlement program.
[English]
As well, Mike Weber is a program specialist on our settlement renewal program.
[Translation]
First, Ms. Jaouich would like to comment briefly on our settlement program.
Ms. Agnès Jaouich, Director General, Integration, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): I would like to thank the committee for its work and its report on Settlement Renewal which it submitted and we recently received. The committee has raised a number of important issues and recommendations which we hope to address in the upcoming second round of consultations with those interested and involved in newcomer integration.
As you know, Settlement Renewal has three phases: two rounds of consultations to find out what those interested and involved in newcomer integration have to say about the issues, the second phase of which we are just beginning in June; negotiations with new partners which will take place during 1997; and implementation, which is targeted for April 1, 1998.
You can be sure that your recommendations will be taken into consideration and that we will answer the questions raised. Since you are already familiar with the settlement program, I will not describe what we do, but I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
Mr. Girard: We're ready.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Then we will open with questions from the official opposition for a ten-minute period.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Please accept my apologies for arriving late. I had to stay in the House in order to table a bill on National Refugee Day, which would be on April 4 each year. Thank you very much for your brief presentation.
First, I would like to ask you a few questions about the Business Immigrant Program. A study was carried out and the recommendations of that study were to have been implemented on July 1, 1996. However, according to the document before us, the implementation of that report has been deferred until July 1, 1997. Can you please explain to me why?
Mr. Girard: The Minister, Sergio Marchi, implemented a review of the Immigrant Investor Program. The report was received in...
Mr. Nunez: August 1995.
Mr. Girard: A few weeks ago, the minister, Ms. Robillard, announced an extension of the moratorium on private investors, but continuation of the program for investors sponsored by the provinces, pending the negotiations of new long-term programs with the provinces.
.1555
This is an extension of the moratorium for private funds and a continuation of the funds sponsored by the provinces, until the provinces and the federal government reach a consensus on the future of the current program.
Mr. Nunez: Certain Quebec businesses have expressed concern about the amendments which the federal government wants to make to the programs. They fear that there will be an adverse impact.
Have you had discussions with the Quebec government, because these programs, which concern business and investor immigrants coming to Quebec, are an area of exclusive Quebec jurisdiction?
Mr. Girard: Organizations don't like competition. The terms for the new programs in the rest of Canada do not affect the program in Quebec. The Quebec program is continuing.
However Quebec businesses, which are suspicious of changes in the rest of Canada, are afraid of competition on the international market. It's as simple as that.
Mr. Nunez: On April 27 last, there was reference to more intense consultation with the parties concerned.
Could you tell us who you are going to consult and in what context? Could we have more information. I was not told why that had been postponed. I would like you to be more specific.
Mr. Girard: This is quite a complex program. The problems of the former program are due to the way the financial mechanisms were managed, something which requires an expertise not often found among the management staff of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It takes time to reach a consensus with all partners.
In the future, official and non-official consultations will involve everyone. We will hear the viewpoints of the provinces, companies already involved in this area and individuals. Before making any change, the main points and the proposed regulation will be published. Afterwards, everyone will be able to express his or her viewpoint.
I can assure you that every stage in the consultation process is open to all the provinces, including Quebec.
Mr. Nunez: Will there be an impact on Quebec?
Mr. Girard: No, except as regards competition on the international market, because Quebec currently receives 40% of all investments.
Mr. Nunez: It's a good program.
Mr. Girard: Yes.
Mr. Nunez: We were very concerned, a few weeks ago, when three Romanian stowaways were thrown overboard from a taiwanese boat.
I would like you to address the subject of fines imposed on carriers with stowaways aboard. It seems that they could be fined $7000, in addition to being obliged to pay for the removal of each stowaway coming to Canada.
Can you explain to us the system of fines imposed by the Canadian government on carriers?
Mr. Girard: I would ask Mr. Bourget to answer.
.1600
Mr. Pierre Bourget (Director General, Enforcement, National Service Sector, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Nunez, to put things in perspective, I have the figures concerning arrivals of stowaways aboard ships over the last few years. As you will appreciate, this is a very popular phenomenon among Romanian nationals.
In 1993, of 422 stowaways aboard ships, 337 were Romanian nationals. In 1994, there were 226, 159 of whom were Romanian nationals. Lastly, in 1995, there were 251, 196 of whom were from Romania.
Most people who try to claim refugee status in Canada use more traditional methods. They do not stowaway in ships' containers. They generally arrive by plane or, after managing to reach the United States, they cross the border to come to Canada.
We are concerned about this method of arrival in Canada which, we recognize, is extremely dangerous. On the international scene for example, we have taken steps to work with several other countries, including European nations, to try to substantially reduce this movement.
Canadian legislation has provisions enabling us to impose penalties on air or marine carriers bringing to Canada people who do not have the travel documents or visas required under our law. Such fines can vary depending on the efforts made by the companies concerned to halt this movement.
As regards carriers, the maximum is $3,200. There are other costs.
Mr. Nunez: Per person?
Mr. Bourget: Per incident. Example, we have agreements with 56 airlines. These agreements allow us to impose fines according to the type of cooperation, the type of training they give their employees, the type of control mechanism used before people board the plane, and the number of people brought in each year without the necessary documents by these carriers.
This system takes into account the efforts made by carriers to reduce the number of people who chose to come to Canada without the necessary documents.
Mr. Nunez: As a result of this tragic event, do you feel you must review your penalty policies?
Mr. Bourget: You are right to say that the event was tragic. We do our utmost with our partners in international organizations. I'm thinking here for example about the International Maritime Organization, whose headquarters is in London and where Canada is involved in discussions and resolutions to try to reduce the problem.
We have also provided shipping companies with human presence detectors to find whether there are people hidden in container before the ship sails. It is regrettable, Mr. Nunez, that a kind of link was made between the tragic fate of these people and the fact that Canada imposes penalties on shipping companies.
.1605
It's easy to make this connection but it could be carried to an extreme in a number of other examples. It would probably show that this is not necessarily the best way of going about dealing with the problem.
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you.
Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to follow up on something my colleague from the Bloc brought up, and that's the immigrant investor program. It was interesting to hear you say that Quebec receives 40% of the moneys that come in through that program. Is it because Quebec has a much lower acceptance rate that there are three different classifications? I believe Quebec allows somebody to come in as an investor immigrant with $150,000. I believe Alberta and perhaps the prairie provinces require $250,000 and British Columbia $350,000. Does Quebec get 40% of the dollars because they're literally giving landed immigrant status for a much lower dollar amount?
Mr. Girard: No. This is subject to correction by one of my colleagues, but there are only two tiers. The upper tier is for the provinces that traditionally attract large numbers of immigrants and the second tier is for smaller provinces that have difficulty attracting immigrants. They can use the $150,000 tier and the rest market it at $250,000.
The secret to success for Quebec is aggressive marketing. They've done very well with the program and they have offered terms that are probably more attractive, in terms of guarantee of return or approaching a guarantee of return, than those offered by other funds.
Ms Meredith: Are the individuals who are given landed status under this program required to stay in the province in which they invest their money?
Mr. Girard: No. The money is locked in to the province of destination, but the people are free agents. Traditionally most people settle in B.C. or Ontario or Quebec. There's a fair bit of drift to the bigger provinces of people recruited into Atlantic Canada, for instance.
Ms Meredith: Do you have the numbers of people who invest in Quebec and do not stay but migrate to other provinces?
Mr. Girard: Quebec itself has done studies on re-migration, and I think the stay rate for investors in Quebec is between 60% and 70%. Again, I'd have to check that out.
Ms Meredith: The latest figures I was aware of were that 54% stay in the province of Quebec.
I saw a joint report between the Department of Industry and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I believe the date was August 8, 1995. That report outlined what I perceive to be the parameters of this new agreement or this new program. One thing that was clear was that the Government of Canada was going to be guaranteeing the capital investment for a five-year period. Is it the plan of this program to give a guarantee to an immigrant investor for their capital for five years?
Mr. Girard: That would have been a feature of what we call the Sharwood report. This is the panel of experts who were commissioned by Sergio Marchi to produce a report.
They suggested a plan whereby the basic capital investment would be returned to the immigrant after a period of five years. The actual front-end investment would be split into two parts. One would go into a secure vehicle that would return the amount of the investment after a period of five years, and the rest would go into a risk capital fund that would guarantee no return but would be used to finance risk investments in the country.
Whether or not that will be the plan at the end of the day depends on our consultations with the provinces and the decision of the minister to accept the final consensus for referral to the Governor in Council. As you said, it has attractive features but it also has a down side.
Ms Meredith: I have two questions following that. Is there going to be a guarantee of capital investment of the same nature for any Canadian investor? Will they be allowed to participate in a program similar to this?
.1610
My second question is what are the intended enforcement controls to make sure money made from criminal activities will not be laundered through this program and they will not end up using the Canadian government for laundering money?
Mr. Girard: On the first question, this vehicle isn't very attractive to Canadians. No Canadian has ever invested in one of these funds before, because it doesn't provide an attractive opportunity for growth. If you think of an investment locked in for five years and returned at that amount, the investor has actually paid the price of whatever could have been earned on that money in the interim. So we wouldn't expect Canadians to invest in these investment funds.
As to money laundering, every single application made by every single investor has to satisfy the criterion of probity. A visa officer will not grant a visa to an investor even if that investor has locked in some money with a fund if there's no evidence of the source of funds that suits the criterion of probity. It must not be money produced from the avails of crime.
Ms Meredith: My next question is on the enforcement aspect. In point-of-entry control, in sponsorship, and in all aspects you're concerned about, do you use the Chinese telegraph code for identifying individuals through your different programs for all those people who come from Chinese origins?
Mr. Girard: Most of the people we deal with have an identity document which has the name written in Chinese characters and in latinics. They usually have the telegraphic code on the face of the document. Gerry Campbell, who will be here tomorrow with our international service, can probably speak more specifically to that.
Pierre, are you aware what we do in Canada?
Mr. Bourget: This is used also for security verifications with CSIS.
About port of entry, to my knowledge it uses automated systems. It's not equipped to be able to make the relationship with that sort of coding.
Ms Meredith: Is there any attempt to develop the ability? It's been brought to my attention that this is the only way of specifically identifying individuals and they can use different interpretations of their name and in essence have many different names they could be using. From a consistency point of view in immigration, if you were to use that Chinese telegraph code, it would eliminate that potential.
I understand from sources that it's not only Chinese characters but Arabic and Gurmukhi where this should be used. There should be a system to identify the person by script. I would suggest the system is there, and I ask you whether there is any proposal by Immigration to work this into your system so we can have clarity in our enforcement process and our selection process.
Mr. Bourget: I was forewarned of your question. I think you raised that yesterday.
Ms Meredith: I did.
Mr. Bourget: I apologize - maybe it has to do with this subject - for not being able to provide you with as complete an answer as I would like to. I can confirm to you, and to the chair at the same time, that this is something I will look at carefully in terms of enforcement, to see the benefits, to examine this with regard to other systems we have in place, to ensure there is a certain continuity in the identification and the people posing as being people seeking to immigrate to Canada or to come temporarily. So the commitment I will make is that not only will I go for a crash course on that concept but...if there are major advantages in implementing this.
My understanding is it's implemented for the purposes of security verification for people applying for permanent residence. We will look at the advantages of implementing it for other parts of the enforcement program, such as the port of entry.
.1615
Ms Meredith: And I suggest that you expand it, like I said, to Arabic and to Gurmukhi, because I understand that there are 75 different spellings of Colonel Gadhafi's name within the system, and that really poses a concern when you're talking about enforcement.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much. We'll now hear from the government side.
Are there any questions from the government side? Mr. Dhaliwal.
Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): I have a point of clarification. I'm certainly not able to read Chinese, but I am familiar with Gurmukhi. I want to ask the member across from me if a name is written in Gurmukhi how it would be different from a name written in English. I want to try to clarify that in my own mind, because I do write some Gurmukhi and I speak it. Would the member clarify to me where there's a problem with that?
Ms Meredith: I understand there is really not a difference between a V and a W, and that with one name there can be a dozen spellings. It was shown to me where that's the case, where there are a dozen different spellings of basically the same name. So when you take the character and translate it into English, it's not always clear in English.
For reference, I brought some copies of how the Chinese telegraph code works, if anybody's interested. It's just a clearer way of defining a script that doesn't have a very clear reference to English characters. To prevent multiple spellings of a name that may allow an individual to merely change the spelling or change the reference of the name to move -
Mr. Bourget: That's without being accused of having changed his name, so that's -
Ms Meredith: No. It's just a clear reference of who this individual is and of the connection to the writing their name was originally from.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): I think we have a grasp of the root of the problem. We'll continue now.
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I'll just say that the way you spell a Gurmukhi name in English depends on... Different people spell it in different ways. There's no clear set way you can say this Gurmukhi name has to be spelled under this English language, because it depends on how that person spells it. There are names like Benga, which is spelled in ten different ways -
Ms Meredith: That's precisely my point.
Mr. Dhaliwal: - depending on how they came, but it doesn't mean they can then change it. Once they have established the spelling of their name in English...they have established it once they make the application.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thanks, Mr. Dhaliwal.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I just wanted to clarify that point, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Mr. Cohen.
Ms Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up onMr. Dhaliwal's point, I know that when I had business cards done up in Chinese and in Russian, they came out in ten different ways. I don't know if that's relevant, but I can see the kind of problem.
I would like to direct a question to Mr. Bourget. You touched on a topic in the context of stowaways. We hear stories about people in foreign lands getting on airplanes or ships with false documentation. Then in transit, in passage, they destroy the documents or eat them or whatever, because they know that when they arrive in Canada the jig will be up in the sense that people will understand that these are false documents.
To what extent does this go on, sir? What are we doing about it? Do you think it is a problem? Are there any enforcement measures you're implementing to deal with it if you think it is?
Mr. Bourget: While I begin to answer your question, I will at the same time expect my colleague to give me the proper reference number so I can give you the statistical data. So there's a lot of pressure being put on my colleagues...
In fact, it is a major problem, if we talk about what we call the undocumented refugee claimants. Basically, we are faced with people whose intention is to reach Canada and claim refugee status and who will not accept that they should normally be in possession not only of a valid document but of a visa issued by our office abroad.
Out of the ten countries that produce the most refugee claimants, I would say that probably eight out of the ten are citizens coming from countries where they require a visa to reach Canada. As I said, these people do not accept the fact that you need a visa; or if they've applied, they've been refused, and they will then deal with people that will, in exchange for money, either present them with a travel document of a country where there is no visitor's visa required to travel to Canada; or if there is more money that can be involved, they may try to present them with Canadian immigration documents that will reflect, for instance, that they have been accepted as immigrants to Canada and therefore are just returning to Canada after a visit they spent in country X.
.1620
We presently have 26 immigration control officers abroad, located in countries that are being used for people to come to Canada undocumented or improperly documented. These immigration control officers, which we call ICOs, are there to assist the airline companies - as I said toMr. Nunez, we give some responsibilities to the airline companies to make sure passengers are well documented - in recognizing who is or is not properly documented to reach Canada. Therefore it's not the immigration officers who are refusing people to board the plane, but they're providing advice to the airline companies, saying they feel these documents are not appropriate or genuine, or whatever.
In terms of ordre de grandeur, in 1990 we received 8,104 improperly documented arrivals. In 1995, we suspect partly caused by the network of immigration control officers that we have abroad, it went down to 4,466, and rose to 5,119 in the last calculation we made. So we've been successful not in stopping the movement but in reducing the movement of improperly documented arrivals.
I know the answer is long, Mr. Chair, but it's a complex problem.
We also suspect that when many of these people arrive without any documents, it's because they give them back to the provider of the false documents. So rather than paying, for instance, $3,000 for the fraudulent document, if you give it back after you've used it and passed the different security gates, it may come to $1,500, because it's important that these documents be recycled for other people. Or they don't show it when they arrive - they still have it in their possession - because they do not want to give us too many edges or advantages in knowing what sorts of documents some of them are using in order to be able to come to Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier): To turn to another subject, could you tell me about the effect of NAFTA on your service and responsibilities? Where do you think it will take us? How many applications did we get from people wishing to work temporarily in Canada after the signature of our agreements with the United States and Mexico?
Mr. Bourget: Our colleague Doreen Steidle, who will be here tomorrow, will be in a better position to give you an answer, Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: I thought we were talking about In-Canada Service today. Does this come under In-Canada Service? That is what is shown, in any case.
Mr. Bourget: That is more a question of bureaucratic definition of sectors but perhaps I could be of some assistance by saying a few words about NAFTA in terms of control.
You know, Mr. Bélanger, that our Prime Minister and Mr. Clinton signed an agreement giving concrete form to the types of exchanges with the United States under NAFTA.
This has had an impact on our boarder control. We have set up mechanisms to facilitate the movement of people between the United States and Canada. People may apply for a card and the preliminary check takes place. By displaying the card to a machine it is possible to enter Canada without making a customs declaration if the person has nothing to declare or if there is no need to pass through an immigration check.
.1625
There are a number of other initiatives for road transport, for truckers. It is certainly in our interests to streamline the red tape and thus facilitate the movement of truckers. This is already being done with the Americans. At the same time we must be careful so that this is not entirely one-sided but obtain reciprocal agreements from our American colleagues with respect to Canadian workers. We've been quite successful in this respect and are hopeful for the future.
Mr. Bélanger: Do you have any idea of the volume of goods being transported and the number of people who come to work here or of Canadians working in the U.S.? I know it's not the responsibility of your section but...
Mr. Bourget: We can provide you with this information. There is the economic aspect, that is the volume of goods exchanged between the two countries. There has a been a substantial increase. We could also give you the data relating to work permits.
I should mention that there has been a relaxation of the rules for work permits. Provision is also made for protecting Canadian interest in certain key areas such as the arts, etc. We want to avoid an invasion.
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much.
We'll now go into a five-minute round. Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Bourget, I'd like to come back to the case of the three Romanians who were cast overboard. I found it very disturbing. I put the same question to Minister Axworthy and he seemed to me to be more concerned than your department has given any sign of being.
As far as the fines are concerned, I have two articles here, one from the Daily News of Halifax.
[English]
which says:
- Ships landing stowaways in Canada are subject to a fine of $7,000 per person plus deportation
expenses.
In La Presse, the article says:
- In Canada this fine amounts to $7,000 per stowaway and the presumed murder of the three
Rumanians will thus have meant a savings of $21,000 to the ship owner.
Mr. Bourget: Mr. Nunez, I'd like to put the matter in the appropriate context. I previously spoke of a maximum fine of $3,200 and I state that this is the precise amount. It may be less depending on the agreements entered into with airlines and shipping companies.
The $7,000 is an amount to be paid by the shipping company if it is required to assume the detention and expulsion costs of persons who, at the end of the process, are ordered deported. This is more of a guarantee than a fine. As I said to you, the fines at the most amount to $3,200.
I'm not aware of the comments made by Minister Axworthy. With respect to my responsibilities, it seems to me that it is more important for Canada, sensitive as it is to the tragedies of this type that have occurred in the past weeks, to make a serious effort with our international partners to tackle this problem of the irregular movement of persons rather than to come up with easy solutions. An easy solution would be to abolish the fine or penalty imposed on those who under the act, are required to ensure that persons have the appropriate travelling documents when they come to Canada.
If the act is amended, Mr. Nunez, we will implement it with the changes but for the time being, decisions have been taken in relation to present circumstances.
.1630
As for the rash removals, I stand to gain nothing by engaging in a debate with you. I can merely say to you that there are people who must be removed. No one enjoys this situation neither the deportees or those carrying out the decision.
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much.
Does anyone from the government side have a question to raise? Then we'll go back to you, Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to follow up on the enforcement end. If you're telling us that in 1995 there were 4,466 improperly documented persons - you've been talking to my colleague from the Bloc about the penalties for companies bringing in individuals who have not come in legally - can you explain to me how you are going to ensure enforcement of immigration policies when there's a projected decrease of 150 full-time equivalent positions in the enforcement area?
Mr. Bourget: First, when we talk about the reduction of 150 in enforcement, unless my interpretation of the main estimates and the books that were published is different, we're talking about potential savings of 150 FTEs as a result of certain initiatives associated with the renewal. But it is my responsibility, and the responsibility of my other colleagues involved in the enforcement activities across the country, to demonstrate the necessity to reinvest or redeploy these FTEs in other enforcement activities than strictly to remove them.
So the message I'm passing along to you is that there has not been any decision to reduce the number of FTEs involved in the enforcement activities. However, in the context of decreasing resources everywhere, it is incumbent on me to demonstrate if these 150 resources need to be realigned or redeployed in other enforcement activities to be successful in making that demonstration.
Ms Meredith: Are you telling me, then, that you feel 4,466 undocumented persons coming in - and that's not talking about the ones who come in on the boats illegally, or the ones who may come in with documentation and claim refugee status - is a level you're satisfied with such that you feel you can reduce your staff?
Mr. Bourget: I think I have indicated that we have not reached a conclusion that we will be reducing the staff at enforcement. These 26 ICOs, for instance, working abroad are intercepting more people than those who are able to reach Canada. I think this is a good illustration of being able to invest your resources, in the context of decreasing resources, in as strategic areas as possible.
I am of the view that be it some of our border points, some of our airports or some other areas of enforcement, there is potential to work smarter, to invest the resources that will give us a better return, and it is my duty to make that demonstration to my deputy minister and my colleagues. But you know very well my other colleagues will have the same type of challenge. That's the beauty of the system. I have to make that demonstration, and I'm confident I will be able to do so.
Ms Meredith: I suggest 4,466 is a pretty incredible background, or back-up, for your request to keep the people in line.
I have a question. You had a problem a little while back with the procedure in which a deportee must sign an agreement to be deported. Has that been addressed? Do we still require the person being deported to sign an agreement, or have we gotten rid of that so that Canada can deport people without their consent without any problem?
.1635
Mr. Bourget: I've been occupying the position I'm in now since November 15 - sometimes it seems like 33 years! - but I have not heard of such a situation.
I know our legislation provides, depending on the reasons why you are inadmissible or the infractions you committed to the legislation, that if you are on Canadian territory there is a possibility of allowing you a certain time to effect your departure from Canada. If the motives for which you are to be removed from Canada are serious enough, there is no such possibility for what we call voluntary departure.
I must tell you that I have never heard of somebody having to give his or her consent to be removed. There are instances, Madame Meredith, where the people have to provide us with information, to volunteer information, to fill out documents so we'll be able to obtain a travel document issued by their country of citizenship. In certain cases, some are not very cooperative because they know very well that if we have a hard time obtaining a passport from their country we may not be able to remove them. But we have news for them. We do not want this to be a system where non-cooperation equates being able to stay here, and we have to be imaginative in making sure we find other ways of removing them.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Are there any more questions on the government side? Ms Minna.
Ms Minna: Thank you. If I could go for a moment to the PDRCCC program, there was the Waldman-Davis report, which had made some recommendations or suggestions with respect to the assessment. I wonder if you could give me, first of all, a definition that you would use today of risk, a risk assessment, how you would define risk. That would be helpful for me as it's something that comes up often.
The other is how many files were reassessed as a result of the report? Was there a reassessment, and if so, how many of these were reassessed, and basically could you give a bit of an update on what has happened with that old re-evaluation as a result of the recommendations?
Mr. Bourget: Yes, and again with bureaucracy, PDRCCC is the abbreviation of Post-Determination Refugee Claimant in Canada Class.
From February 1993 to May 1994 there were 10,435 applications made for PDRCCC. The vast majority of the applicants, 10,379, were refused.
The process they had to go through was one where an immigration officer, trained accordingly, who gets a file from the Immigration and Refugee Board on the unsuccessful refugee claimant that was dealt with by that board has the mandate to evaluate whether this person who has not been able to fall under the definition of refugee would have reasons to fear a return to his home country or country of citizenship, based on a concept called individual risk.
Therefore, it's something that is complementary. You may not fit the definition of refugee, but there may be reasons why you should not be removed from Canada, because even though you are not a refugee there are valid risks that could affect you individually, not collectively as being a citizen of Sri Lanka, for instance, and applying to everybody. This is what is being looked at during the evaluation of PDRCCC. It's a system that was put in place in, I believe, 1993 to make sure that in addition to the definition there would be an assessment on the aspect of individual risk.
Ms Minna: Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Are there any further questions on the government side? Then we'll jump over to Mr. Nunez.
.1640
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: With respect to the deportation service, my staff attempted to obtain more information, particularly with respect to the costs of this service. It isn't easy. I wish there were more transparency in this matter of expulsions. Very often it is kept secret.
What is your budget for the removal service and how is it broken down into wages, transportation, escorts etc.?
Mr. Bourget: Mr. Nunez, I'd be pleased, if there were more precise figures... I know that there is money set aside for wages and salaries and for other expenses. For the fiscal year 1995-96, 4,637 people were removed at a cost of $6,520,369, which is about the amount of our non-wage expenses for 1994-95.
You can make an approximate assessment of the amount set aside for wages. More specifically, these expenses amount to about $4 million.
Mr. Nunez: In addition to the $6 million.
Mr. Bourget: Yes.
Mr. Nunez: So the total budget would be in the neighbourhood of $10 million?
Mr. Bourget: The budget, wage and non-wage, is about $10 million.
Mr. Nunez: How much is spent in transport costs?
Mr. Bourget: About $6,520,000. I don't have the figures with me. These figures are established for each region. I don't remember seeing national figures. The sum of $6,520,000 includes of course removal and transportation costs. It may also include the travelling costs between the detention centre and the airport from which...
In some cases the Act provides that the airlines are responsible for the removal costs. We assume the costs and then ask the air carriers who have brought these people to Canada to refund the amount.
Mr. Nunez: And what was the cost in 1995-96 of what Mr. Tassé calls facilitation fees?
Mr. Bourget: No costing has been done until now. As Ms. Robillard had mentioned when she appeared before the committee, as well as Mr. Tassé when he spoke of facilitation costs, we examined facilitation fees for our three major centres in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, and in what circumstances those costs would be paid.
According to the information obtained in Vancouver, escorting officers have never had to pay sums of money to local immigration inspection authorities in foreign countries, nor to any other official for the removal of a person. In Montreal, we were told that it did happen but only very rarely. We were told by our Toronto office that such things were infrequent, but they do happen more often there than in Montreal.
Mr. Nunez, we are trying to obtain more information on that matter at this time. No one has suggested that anything scandalous has ever transpired, so that is reassuring. Mr. Tassé did not allude to anything of the kind. No one has said that there were bribes. We are talking about exceptional circumstances where escorting officers may have had to give tips to certain persons to obtain the removal of certain individuals who were to be sent back to their country of origin.
.1645
Mr. Nunez: Since those costs are reimbursed by your department, can you give me some idea of the order of magnitude involved? What is the total amount?
Mr. Bourget: It isn't singled out in the expenditures because it involved a local office.
Mr. Nunez: But it is reimbursed by the Department?
Mr. Bourget: If the costs are claimed by the escorting officers, they are reimbursed by the Department. Mr. Nunez, as Mr. Tassé asked us to do, we want to avoid placing our escorting officers in conflictual situations. We want to identify the circumstances where that type of thing can happen. Aside from having to tip certain individuals, are there any other options? You know that in some of those countries, such things are legitimate, almost a requirement.
Mr. Nunez: Which countries.
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much.
Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I want to know if the officials could compare - very briefly, because I have another question - the way Canada deals with the people it wishes to send back to their country of origin with the way other countries handle that.
Mr. Bourget: In terms of the process used to confirm whether somebody should be removed from Canada, Canadians should be proud of the systems we have in place.
They first allow everybody to be considered as being protected by the Charter, notwithstanding the fact that they have basically no legal status per se in Canada. Most people have access to quasi-judicial processes that allow them, for instance, not only to receive the benefits of the principles of natural justice but also, in many instances, to be provided with counsel of their choice, oftentimes paid through legal aid programs that exist - there are certain differences among the provinces. There are, in many cases, recourses or appeals -
[Translation]
Mr. Bélanger: How does that compare to other countries?
Mr. Bourget: Canada is in a very favourable position.
Mr. Bélanger: So, it might be more accurate to say that it is a very humanitarian system, as opposed to an illegal one. Do you agree with that?
I know that I am leading you into a political discussion, but there are certain points that have to be brought out here, because the Canadian system has been poorly described. It is our duty.
Mr. Nunez: That is your opinion, not mine.
Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Nunez, I have a right to my opinion.
Mr. Nunez: Yes, but...
Mr. Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Nunez. I would nevertheless like to...
Mr. Nunez: We are not going to argue. It is to...
Mr. Bélanger: I nevertheless would like to make sure that there no one around the table who believes that our system is unfair, as it has been described.
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you. Ms Meredith is next.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to go back to deportees who refuse to sign acquisition to travel documents. What do we do when somebody refuses to cooperate?
Mr. Bourget: For certain countries of destination, it is still possible for Canada to attempt - and sometimes be successful - to remove individuals based on a Canadian document that we issue, addressed to the authorities of the country of destination, which indicates that Canada is satisfied that this person, date of birth so and so, born in such a place, is in fact a citizen of the country in question. Certain other countries will not recognize such a document.
We are also presently making attempts with about five or six countries to reach what we call ``removal arrangements'' or agreements with these countries so as not to be at the mercy of officials who are too slow in issuing travel documents, or to find alternate methods of having a country retake the person in question.
.1650
There is also work we need to do with the individual, with the counsel of the individual, and sometimes with the cooperation of NGOs, to convince the person that there is no alternative - and this is where we have to stand on that. As I said before, we cannot accept such situations, and therefore we work actively with the person to demonstrate that it's not a question of going back forever, it's not a question of not having chances maybe to reapply to come if the offence is relatively minor, but the thing that is clear is that the person is not able to stay here and must effect a removal. It is not easy, in certain dossiers.
Ms Meredith: I will introduce this idea that the 1,500 ministerial permits that have been granted to people who have been convicted of criminal activities - would some of those ministerial permits be used for people who are in the situation of being here illegally, of being under a deportation order, and who we're not able to deport? If not, then who do these 1,500 ministerial permits apply to?
Mr. Bourget: That's the total of the 1,500 ministerial permits... I think there were some indications about who can receive ministerial permits, and as you know, the minister tables a report every year on whom the minister's permits were issued to. There are a variety of reasons somebody can get a minister's permit.
In certain cases, yes, there can be somebody who is under removal order who cannot obtain a minister's permit unless the removal is effected - that is, that the person leaves the country - but it does not mean the person needs to return to the country that is several thousand kilometres away. In certain instances the person can effect his deportation from Canada by just going to the United States and coming back. So it may well be that some of these people, when they return, if they are still inadmissible to Canada, may be issued minister's permits.
Ms Meredith: What would some of the other instances be? How many individuals who have committed serious offences would be under ministerial permits, and how many of those have criminally reoffended under a ministerial permit?
Mr. Bourget: First of all, I'm not too sure if we have the data. I think we have it in terms of the general motives for which a minister's permit is issued. As for the second part of your question, how many people who were under a minister's permit committed -
Ms Meredith: Broke the law.
Mr. Bourget: - I would dare say at this stage it is minimal, but we would need to pursue this and see if it could be extracted. If you do not mind waiting, we could attempt to provide you with the information.
Ms Meredith: I would appreciate that, if you could provide it in writing at a later date.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): We'll complete this round with one question from the government side, from Mr. Dhaliwal.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I have a question about temporary work permits. When I was skiing last year at Big White in Whistler, I noticed that there were a lot of workers there who had temporary permits to come and work there, and I attempted to find out the number of temporary work permits that we hand out outside of Canada before they come to see if I could get some sort of information that I could analyse. I was unable to get any information that would help me determine how many people obtain these permits to work three to six months within Canada, under different categories. In light of the situation - and I know it's only for areas where there is seasonal work, perhaps a ski resort that is very busy during the winter months - I was frankly surprised at how many people were there on temporary work permits from different parts of the world.
Could you maybe shed some light on that issue and also see if it's possible to get some proper figures as to the number of work permits we give out to foreign individuals to come to Canada to work on a temporary basis, and how you keep track of them and under what category? I was unable to get appropriate information from your department.
Mr. Girard: In 1995 our posts abroad issued 52,429 employment authorizations to people who wanted to come and work temporarily in Canada. That number doesn't include people who have the right to apply at ports of entry, but I'll get those numbers separately for Mr. Dhaliwal.
.1655
I can't segregate from that number the number who come for three to six months. Those permits are the exception rather than the rule in terms of cases dealt with abroad. They're usually fairly short-term assignments that people come for.
Within Canada, of course, there are larger numbers issued to people who are in the refugee determination stream. There are three different groups.
Those are people who are coming to fill skill shortages in Canada who are required by Canadian business and for whom there is no Canadian source. All of these jobs are validated by the Canada Employment Centres before they're made available to people abroad.
Then there's another group of people outside of Canada who will come in the interest of fostering a healthy exchange with foreign countries for reasons other than strictly employment. Youth exchanges, cultural exchanges, and the transfer of people between multinational corporations are facilitated without validation of whether there are Canadians available, because there are reciprocal opportunities for Canadians to go abroad and work in foreign countries.
Then, of course, there are the people in Canada who need to work to maintain themselves. They are granted employment authorizations without validation as to whether Canadians would be available, because the alternative to their not working is welfare. It's a much better arrangement to allow people to maintain themselves and get a sense of responsibility than to force them to stay idle and draw money from the public purse.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much. On behalf of the committee, I would like to -
Mr. Nunez: On a point of order, this meeting was called for from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and we still have questions. I have several questions and have been waiting.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Okay. We'll give you five minutes, Mr. Nunez, and this will be the last round.
Ms Meredith: Do I also get an extra round?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Yes, you do, and then the government side if they wish. That will be the end.
Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: The Saint-Jacques Centre was moved to Laval without a public call for tenders, it seems. We do not know the costs involved. That decision was criticized by the lawyers and organizations who work with refugees and the families of detainees. Why did you go about things in that way, and especially why did you not have a public call for tenders?
Mr. Bourget: In so far as the bids are concerned, unless I'm mistaken, we are talking about a vacant federal building. Any transactions in that case could have taken place with the federal Department of Public Works.
As for the reaction to the relocation of the detention centre in Laval, there were several consultations with NGOs before that decision was taken, as well as with the association representing Montreal lawyers and the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Even though we did not receive an enthusiastic reply from all of those stakeholders, we did hold consultations. The physical infrastructure of the Laval Centre will meet some of the concerns of the persons we consulted. As for the reasons behind that decision, it allowed us both to save money and meet practical considerations.
Mr. Nunez: But that is very far from the IRB and the courts, that are in downtown Montreal.
Mr. Bourget: The Director General of Immigration in Montreal has offered to help NGOs by facilitating the transportation of persons who might have to go to Laval.
Mr. Nunez: How?
.1700
Mr. Bourget: Through a system of shuttle buses. In other words, those responsible for immigration in Montreal have made efforts to facilitate transportation as much as possible for those who go to Laval.
Mr. Nunez: The Bloc Québécois has asked that deportations to Algeria be suspended. We were told that an advisory committee would examine the matter.
Who are the members of that advisory committee? Who assesses the risk involved?
Mr. Bourget: With your permission, I will ask my colleague Brian Grant to explain the structure of the committee and how it operates.
[English]
Mr. Brian Grant (Director, Program Development, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Merci, Pierre.
My name is Brian Grant. I'm the director of program development in the enforcement branch. I'm also the chair of this committee you refer to, which is called the Advisory Committee on Country Conditions for Removal. It's a committee that was set up two years ago and then restructured earlier this year.
The objective of this committee is to look at the conditions in a particular country, conditions of generalized risk -
Mr. Nunez: But who are the members of this committee?
Mr. Grant: The members are all members of the department. They come from all branches of the department.
Mr. Nunez: How many people are there?
Mr. Grant: We have ten or twelve inside the department. We also have members from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Each member of the department is required to bring to the table the interests of their stakeholders. So one group that has a particularly heavy task is the refugee branch. The refugee branch is responsible for ensuring that the human rights aspects of the question are brought to the table.
In terms of documentation we use, the main sources of documentation are our missions abroad, which will send us information on the country, and the documentation centre at the Immigration and Refugee Board. In addition, any documentation provided by NGOs is also considered when we look at it.
In the case of Algeria, the information we looked at included documents from Amnesty International, Africa Confidential, the Europa World Year Book, Human Rights Watch, Middle East Watch and an IRB documentation centre publication called Questions and Answers Series - Algeria: Islamism, the State and Armed Conflict. That paper was prepared by Human Rights Internet.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Have you examined the March 14 report of the American Secretary of State, which is very critical of Algeria?
[English]
Mr. Grant: We did look at that as well, yes.
All of these documents are brought forward. They are circulated to the members of the group and a discussion is held. The group is an advisory group to the minister. When it began it was an advisory group to the director general of enforcement. It is now an advisory group that makes a recommendation to the minister.
An important point to bear in mind is what the committee does not do. It does not look at the risk an individual might face if he or she were to be returned to his or her country. The individual or personal risk is looked at either by the CRDD, if it falls under the definition of a convention refugee, or through the PDRCCC process, which will look at personal risk.
This committee looks at generalized risk, at widespread violence. Essentially we look at two things. One, is the violence so widespread and so chaotic in the country that nobody is safe going back to that country? And two, is it possible for us to get somebody into the country? Sometimes the transportation links have broken down.
An example is Haiti. In July 1994 Air France had stopped flying in; nobody was flying into Haiti at that point. It was impossible to send somebody back. So Haiti was on the list of countries to which we would not send back and in fact could not send back. With the return of President Aristide, flights resumed and the violence was reduced. Haiti at that point became a country where we could send people back.
.1705
In the case of Algeria, which is the country you raise, our embassy in Algiers continues to be open. In fact, it's looking to expand. Regular trips, business trips, between Algeria and Canada are back. In fact, Algeria is either the largest, or one of the largest, trading partners Canada has in the Middle East. Tourism trips go to Algeria. There is regular transportation into Algeria. The economy is in good shape in Algeria.
There is violence in Algeria, yes. The violence, though, has been greatly reduced from what it was before the elections of last November. It is now less targeted and more sporadic. So we hear about car bombs in Algiers, yes. We also hear about bombs on buses in London, England.
We admit there is violence, but it is not widespread in the entire country. There are safe parts of the country. That is what this committee looks at: the entire country.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much for that.
I have to explain what we're doing here. We've gone beyond the time limit that was allocated for the member from the official opposition simply because this is the first time we've heard of this committee at this level in the standing committee. I would appreciate it if you witnesses before us at present would share with us that committee's mandate and any other information you have and you can share with the members of this committee and you feel comfortable with, simply because this committee had not heard of it before.
Mr. Grant: I can provide that to the committee. In fact, a request was made by the Comité D'Aide aux Réfugié(e)s de Montréal for the terms of reference, the mandate of the committee. It was provided in a letter the minister responded to and a copy of that was sent to Mr. Nunez at the same time. We'll provide this information to the committee.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Fine. Thank you very much.
Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: I would like to talk about the selection and inland control part of your department. I'm trying to find out what the specific criteria might be for somebody who wants to extend a visitor's visa.
Mr. Bourget: A visitor is defined in the legislation - and I'm sorry to bother you with the legislation - as somebody who seeks to enter Canada for a temporary purpose or to remain in Canada for a temporary purpose. So the key thing in deciding if somebody should have his visitor status extended or not is whether this person can be believed when he or she indicates he wants to extend his visitor status here.
There are elements our officers are invited to look at. How long did the person leave the country for? If it's a second, a third, a fourth extension, by definition you tend to remove yourself more and more from the definition of ``I want to be here temporarily''.
Financial means: is that person able to support himself or herself? Who is helping that person? If that person has worked in the country, it's maybe okay to have a one-month or two-month holiday, but is it normal that an employer would let his or her employee go for a six-month period, a one-year period?
These factors are looked at in a centralized process we have at Vegreville. We have experts from that processing centre present here this afternoon. I would say the officers who are looking at these applications received by mail will be alerted - I've given you some indicators - and may decide this person now should be entitled to an interview, a face-to-face dealing with an officer, because maybe some probing should take place before the visitor permission is extended.
Ms Meredith: Thank you.
With somebody who has been given refugee status, what is the format, or on what conditions are they considered, when they choose to visit the country from which they fled and claimed refugee status in Canada? Does it raise a red flag for you in the enforcement when you have somebody who has been granted refugee status who then turns around and goes back to the country that supposedly was not safe for them? Do you follow up on those?
.1710
Mr. Bourget: It does, but Mr. Girard, who is very knowledgeable in these aspects, has also raised his hand and by deference he will answer the question.
Mr. Girard: A person who is a refugee who avails himself of the protection of his country of citizenship, or returns, would in fact forfeit refugee status.
But we have two different processes. We have a refugee determination status and an immigration process. We do more than protect refugees; the law gives them the opportunity to apply to become permanent residents.
Once a refugee who has been recognized by the IRB in Canada becomes a permanent resident, we can no longer go behind the grounds for which they were granted that status. They are then permanent residents. They have the rights and obligations of permanent residents. If they return to their own country for any reason, there is no sanction to be taken against them for that act. There could be other sanctions for other reasons, but not simply because they went back to their own country for whatever purpose.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Does anyone on the government side wish to raise a question? No?
On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their very succinct and clear answers to some very perplexing problems. Thank you very much.
This meeting stands adjourned.