[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 18, 1997
.1602 
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan, Lib.)): Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call the meeting to order. The order of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), is a study of the main estimates for the fiscal year 1997-98: votes 1, 5, and 10 under Citizenship and Immigration.
We are very fortunate to have with us the Honourable Mrs. Robillard, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. With her are the deputy minister, Janice Cochrane; Mark Lafrenière, associate deputy minister; and Georges Tsaï, assistant deputy minister, partnerships. Thank you very much for appearing before the committee.
There will be more people entering and taking part in our deliberations this afternoon. I'm now going to turn the chair over to our honourable Minister of Immigration and Citizenship.
[Translation]
The Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, Committee members, it is a pleasure to be here with you this afternoon.
I last discussed the Main Estimates before this Committee in June 1996. I outlined the new structures we had put in place, and some of the challenges we faced at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Today, I would like to announce some of the results that those changes have allowed us to achieve, and some of the objectives we have set for the coming year.
My department has been especially busy during the past few months. As you are well aware, the mandate at Citizenship and Immigration is wide-ranging. Every day we deal with questions which cover a vast array of subjects. I am very pleased that we have enjoyed considerable success in various areas of our mandate.
We should never lose sight of the fact that my department works with people - with men and women who leave their country of origin against their will to find refuge here, or who choose Canada as a welcoming country where they can improve their standard of living.
Our decisions must always reflect a fair balance between the tradition of generosity and welcoming that has characterized Canadians, and our capacity to integrate newcomers.
.1605
I would like to highlight the fact that, for the year 1996, we actually surpassed our immigration levels in the government- sponsored refugee category.
We welcomed 225,313 newcomers - somewhat beyond the 195,000 to 220,000 range we predicted. This is clear proof that Canada does not have immigration quotas and that it is not the intention of this government to introduce them in future.
[English]
We have also had great success recently in our work with our partners from the various levels of government. As a result, we recently announced our intention to supply an additional $63 million for the purpose of settlement services in provinces other than Quebec, which has benefited from an accord since 1991, to allow us to better meet the settlement needs of newcomers.
These services are an important means to ensure than newcomers are given the opportunity to contribute more quickly to Canada's economic political and social life. We will be dividing the funds among the provinces and territories based largely on the number of immigrants they receive.
I know that my provincial counterparts support these measures. This type of collaboration between the two levels of government is crucial because by working towards the same objective we will be able to offer everyone who chooses Canada the opportunity to integrate as quickly as possible. There is consensus from one end of the country to the other that immigration constitutes an economic and social force, one that is essential for the continued prosperity of Canada.
I have invited all the provinces and territories to begin discussions that could lead to the realignment of the administration of settlement services. Currently, both federal and provincial governments administer these services, such as language training for adult immigrants. Under the realignment, the provinces and territories would administer settlement services, thereby eliminating administrative overlap and duplication.
In the same spirit of cooperation we concluded last October an immigration agreement with Manitoba committing us to closer collaboration on matters of mutual concern. We hope to conclude similar agreements with other provinces in the months to come.
[Translation]
We have also had to make difficult decisions, Mr. Chairman. The case of undocumented refugees is a delicate question we had to address. The Government created a new class of immigrants: the Undocumented Convention Refugees in Canada Class.
My chief objective was to facilitate the integration of those refugees whose lack of proper documentation did not permit them to fully integrate into Canadian society. As you are aware this group incorporated a disproportionate number of women and children.
I know that you have raised some concerns about these measures in your recent Report.
Rest assured, we are looking closely at your recommendations, and the Government will be formally responding to your report shortly.
In this same context of refugee affairs, I announced three proposed regulatory changes to Canada's humanitarian immigration programs late last year. All three of these initiatives are designed to improve an already good system. These initiatives have been pre-published and we are currently in the process of listening to any concerns that Canadians may have. It is crucial that we take the time to consult in order that we make the best and most effective policy decisions. That is what good government is all about.
.1610
I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that one of the regulatory changes I introduced, the creation of the Resettlement from Abroad Class, has generated some confusion. I know that most of you have probably read a mention in the media that we are introducing "refugee quotas". I can assure you this isn't the case. I have said it before, Mr. Chairman, and I will repeat it now: we don't set quotas.
Internationally, Citizenship and Immigration continues to take a strong leadership role in the Metropolis Project, supporting practical policy-related research both here and abroad. Immigration is a global phenomenon, and no country can ignore the migration of people around the world. I recently attended a conference in Edmonton and was struck not only by the high level of the discussions being held but also by the productive and balanced way in which Canadians are contributing to the debate.
Finally, fulfilling a promise which my predecessor made, and I reiterated last year, I will be announcing soon a new immigrant investor program. I know that this program has been anxiously awaited.
So far, Mr. Chairman, I have only touched on one side of my portfolio. The other half, citizenship, has been especially busy since we are celebrating this year the 50th anniversary of the first Canadian Citizenship Act.
I am sure that most of you either attended or are familiar with the many different activities which took place during Canada - Take it to Heart Week and during the commemorative ceremonies in January. These events gave Canadians across the country the opportunity to celebrate this country - and to think about what being a Canadian means to them and what common values we share.
Several pieces of legislation are currently before the House of Commons. Bill C-49 is intended to sensibly improve the refugee determination system, by proposing to reduce the number of people needed for a quorum for refugee hearing from two members to one. This will make it easier to schedule hearings. This will greatly speed up a process which many have criticized as too time consuming. In addition, the Bill also proposes to abolish the position of citizenship judge.
Another piece of legislation, Bill C-84, deals with national security. Both are important pieces of legislation and I would ask for your support in the House of Commons on these initiatives, which I repeat, will help make for more effective processes.
During our meeting last November, I announced to you my intention to strike an Advisory Group mandated to begin a review of immigration legislation. There is no need for me here to repeat my reasons for making this decision. Nevertheless, I think it is useful to remember that our Canadian Immigration Act is now 20 years old. It needs to be re-examined in light of new factors at home and abroad.
I am happy that we've already made considerable progress on the Review over the last two months. A consultation process has been kicked-off. The Advisory Group has solicited written submissions from all interested groups and individuals, including CIC staff who have unparalleled expertise.
I am very confident that the Committee, which will be reporting to me next December, will allow us to undertake a frank and useful discussion that will be good not only for the future of the immigration program, but also of the future of our country.
I will not claim that we have addressed all of our outstanding issues, but I look forward to dedicating all my energies, with your help, to tackling new challenges in the coming months.
.1615
[English]
One particular issue that has gained my attention as minister concerns regulations governing the sponsorship of the family members. Family reunification constitutes a cornerstone of our immigration program. It is a value that all Canadians cherish.
As you are well aware, regulations were prepublished several months ago. However, we have taken time to listen and examine the comments and concerns expressed by our different partners.
I repeat, all of our decisions relating to immigration must strike a just balance. They must take into account our concern for the individual while at the same time respecting our values and our priorities. This is why the regulatory and administrative amendments reflect so closely what we heard in the consultations that have taken place since prepublication.
Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to announce today that new regulations relating to family sponsorship will come into effect on April 1. I would like to take this opportunity to explain these new regulations to you.
As you know, currently there are no financial criteria in the case of nuclear families. This situation will not change. We want spouses and children to be able to join their family members living in Canada without any delay.
In addition, we haven't altered the way we use the low-income cut-offs produced by Statistics Canada for setting minimum financial requirements. We will also allow Canadian citizens residing abroad to sponsor their spouse or minor child if they are returning to Canada with their family. This was not possible before.
Canadians don't want our generosity to be taken for granted. We need to ensure that family class immigrants coming to this country can be adequately taken care of by the people they have come to join. That is why we have our family sponsorship program in place. Immigrants who wish to bring spouses and children to this country make an explicit commitment to look after them after they arrive here. This is a serious undertaking and must be treated as such.
I'm happy to say the vast majority of sponsors do look at it this way. Research in metro Toronto has indicated that 86% of sponsors fulfil their obligations. Nothing indicates that the numbers would be any lower elsewhere in Canada.
To protect the integrity of our program, we cannot turn a blind eye to the minority who do not honour their commitments. Part of this stems from our desire to avoid having sponsored newcomers arriving here only to find despair. They arrive with the hope of finding a better life and we must do what we can to ensure that dream becomes a reality. At the same time we do not want the community to have to pick up the tab because sponsors have made irresponsible promises they will not keep.
We have examined the problem from various angles. It is clear that action must be taken, but that action must be fair and balanced. On the one hand, we don't want to do anything that will negatively impact on the overwhelming majority of sponsors who respect their commitments. We also don't want to adversely impact on our strongly established family class component by introducing admissibility criteria that are so hard that it would be virtually impossible to qualify.
That is why instead of revamping the whole system we are targeting the problem area. We are focusing on the small number of people who default. The sponsor and the family member being sponsored will now be required to sign a new separate agreement outlining mutual obligations. We want people to know exactly what they are getting themselves into and we want them to understand what we expect from them.
.1620
The new eligibility criteria will provide a more realistic determination of a potential sponsor's financial ability to support sponsored family members. Among other things, this means that people in prison won't be able to sponsor. Likewise, individuals who have already defaulted on sponsorship agreements or other immigrant financial obligations will not be allowed to be sponsors again. This is a simple matter of commonsense.
As I have indicated, we do not want to penalize the large majority of sponsors who are willing to respect their commitments. We also don't want to take action that will have a negative impact on the family class immigration levels.
For this reason, we have not made a substantial change in the amount of financial support needed for sponsorship, thereby setting minimum financial obligations. This is also one of the reasons we are now allowing spouses to have their income added to that of their partner for the purpose of the financial test, providing of course that they become equally responsible for supporting the sponsored immigrant.
We propose to work closely with our provincial colleagues to expand and enhance our ability to share information on sponsors' default. This will allow provincial and municipal governments to take into account sponsorship information when a family class immigrant applies for services such as welfare.
We will be proactive in reminding sponsors of their obligations by sending them letters soon after they have defaulted. A pilot project showed that this is a very effective means of reducing sponsorship breakdown. We can also refuse sponsorship to someone who has already defaulted on previous sponsorship obligations. We will set a uniform timeframe for sponsorship obligation. This will amount to 10 years in all circumstances.
The intent is simple. We want to address the problem caused by defaulters but not at the expense of a program that has proven to work well and is close to the hearts of Canadians.
[Translation]
As you can tell, Mr. Chairman, a great deal has taken place at CIC in the few short months since I was last here. I am proud of the results we have achieved and the timely initiatives we have announced. We are following the right course. And I am confident, if the past has any bearing on the future, that we will continue to build upon and improve Canada's immigration program.
I want the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to play an integral role in energizing the discussions and changes we undertake. I am anxiously awaiting your report on the political impact of foreign workers on Canada's High-Tech Industry, and congratulate you on your thoughtful input. I thank you for your commitment to promoting an immigration program that responds to the needs and values of Canadians.
I thank you for your attention and will now answer your questions, Mr. Chairman, together with those here with me.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We will start with Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): How many minutes do I have?
[English]
The Chairman: You will have ten minutes.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: Twice, because I have so many questions to ask?
The Chairman: How about three times?
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: Thank you for your presentation, Madam. You do not appear before this Committee very often. I believe you have come twice since you were appointed Minister.
I don't think you attach a great deal of importance to the Committee's work despite your last statement. We tabled a report on the Somalis, undocumented refugees, and you considered none of our recommendations, a number of which were adopted by the Liberal majority. I very much regret that. You should recall the years you spent in the Quebec National Assembly where you were a member and minister. In the Quebec National Assembly, members and ministers are much more involved in the work of the commissions, as they are called there.
.1625
We have your statement here before us and the estimates for 1997 and 1998. I see that you are going to spend $575M in the coming year, which means cuts in the order of nearly $40M. This budget has been reduced by 6.5 percent from last year and there have been massive lay-offs in your department.
In addition, revenues will amount to $363M, which means that 63 percent of forecast expenditures for this year will be financed by users. I also note that services are declining at a time when greater efforts must be made to integrate new immigrants, new arrivals to Canadian and Quebec society.
I was in Taiwan last November and I met your official immigration representative there. He told me that he was collecting approximately $9M solely from tourist visas, immigrant visas and so on. The missions costs - because there is no embassy in Taipei, but rather a mission - amounted to approximately $3M. So you see that revenues are increasing, but services are declining. And, in particular, revenues are increasing at the expense of the poorest people who want to come here.
Today, Canada's immigration policy is mainly aimed at rich people, people who can pay $975.00 per person and $500.00 to have their applications reviewed, and who can find money to survive here for six months.
How far will your department go in its demands that customers finance your department? Do you believe we can select immigrants solely on the basis of their incomes and wealth? Do you believe that your department must make profits, which is neither the objective nor the mission of any state whatever in the area of immigration? That is my first question, Madam.
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Chairman, first allow me to answer the initial statements by the member for Bourassa, who says that I have not often come before this Committee and that I do not follow the Committee's recommendations.
I believe the statements by the member for Bourassa are only partly true. It has always been my pleasure to respond to your invitations to appear before this committee to explain our various immigration policies. As to whether we consider, and whether "I" consider, the committee's recommendations, I would say yes, Mr. Chairman. The member for Bourassa has cited only one example, that of undocumented refugees, but he forgot to say that the committee also reported, for example, on settlement services. After holding public consultations and after the committee also held hearings on settlement, the government accepted your recommendations.
He even forgot to mention that you have reported on a possible cooperation agreement that we want to sign with the United States respecting refugee claimants. You have made recommendations, Mr. Chairman, and we have accepted those recommendations on the whole. I could give you a number of examples. It is not because the committee's recommendations were not followed on one issue that anyone should conclude, wrongly, that the Minister of Immigration is not attentive to the concerns of the Committee's members. I have just proven the opposite.
The second point raised by the member for Bourassa concerns cost recovery at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
.1630
Yes, Mr. Chairman, as is the case of all the departments of this government, we have a cost recovery policy which is fairly significant in that it covers more than half of our department's revenues.
The member for Bourassa even took his ironic remarks as far as to ask me whether I wanted to make a profit. He constantly exaggerates. That is entirely out of the question, Mr. Chairman. You know perfectly well that, compared to other countries in the world, such as France and England, Canada has a proactive immigration policy and that we want to attract new immigrants to our borders. We are very much aware that we have competitors around the world. I am thinking of New Zealand and Australia, two countries which also want to attract people.
Financial situation is not a criterion for acceptance as a landed immigrant in Canada. And there I am not even speaking of refugees. We place much greater emphasis on a person's ability to contribute to our social and economic life. Yes, we assess charges. Those who do not want to pay them have access to our loan programs.
What we need in Canada are the best people who can come and contribute to the social and economic life of this country. We also remain faithful to our humanitarian purpose of protecting refugees. The program as a whole and its results to date prove that.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: A number of reports submitted by the committee were tabled in the House. No action was ever taken on them. The first report we prepared here - I am the committee's most senior member - is the report on citizenship. That was in June 1994. The minister at the time told us that it was an urgent matter, that he was going to table a new bill. We never saw that new bill. No action was taken.
However, Madam, I am nevertheless thrilled and the Bloc Québecois maintains a positive attitude because there are no quotas. There has been considerable controversy over this matter. The first time, I believe, it was between you and your officials who stated that quotas would be imposed. You said no and I support you on this point.
I am also delighted that you are in the process of reaching agreements with the provinces. Everyone, including the members of the Reform Party, complain that Quebec receives certain amounts of money for its immigrant selection and integration efforts, but the provinces request nothing. Today, you are signing agreements. This is a shared jurisdiction. The provinces have a certain power and they are going to exercise it.
I would like to ask you a question concerning the upshot of Bill C-44, which entered into effect in July, 1995. This legislation enables you to deport people who have committed certain offences and it prohibits certain appeal and other remedies. I would like to know how many individuals have been deported since this new statute entered into effect. We have tried to obtain figures from your department and others have tried as well. Once again, your officials are not very cooperative either with the opposition or with other persons whom I do not want to name today.
I would like to know how many persons have been deported under Bill C-44 and how many certificates declaring certain individuals a threat to the public safety and national security you have signed to date.
Mrs. Robillard: Allow me to tell you that I have been informed on a number of occasions that the staff of my department has met with the opposition to provide additional information or to answer questions. You should also know that all my associates here today provide members with answers to all questions on immigration.
.1635
So I am very much surprised to hear the member from Bourassa say he has had no cooperation from my officials. On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, my officials are there to provide the member with the necessary information so that he can play his role as a member.
As to the number of individuals deported, it is clearly very important for us to have Bill C-44 passed, as you know, to prevent individuals who have a criminal record from even gaining access to our refugee status determination systems. The sole purpose of Bill C-44, which has been passed in the House, is to block access to our system for individuals accused of crimes or who clearly are criminals.
You will recall that, at the time - this bill was passed in 1995 as far as I remember - the Reform Party voted against it. I never understood why.
That said, we have always asserted and we say it again today that Canada must not be a haven for criminals. In that context, we have increased our number of removals of criminals, which was the reason why we passed Bill C-44. This is also why my predecessor said in the implementation section of the department's statute that the priority must be the removal of criminals.
When you look at the 1994 statistics compared to those for 1995, the year the bill was passed, you see an increase in the number of criminals who were removed. I would ask Deputy Minister Tsaï to provide the exact figures.
Mr. Georges Tsaï (Assistant Deputy Minister, Partnerships, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): I would first like to return to the question of C-44 and to the cases that were considered as dangerous under this amendment to the Act. I can give you the following figures, Mr. Chairman. First there was an initial group of cases, which were cases in inventory. Some 787 cases were reviewed and we determined that 497 of those individuals represented a threat. They were therefore declared dangerous.
Second, for current cases, to date, we have designated another 371 individuals, for a total of 868 cases of persons considered dangerous under Bill C-44.
As to the question of removals, on these very specific cases, the only information we have that can really be checked is that 254 criminals have been removed from the province of Ontario, which handles 60% of these dangerous cases. That is the only information we have that I can share with you.
It seems to me that there was also a broader question concerning removals in general. I don't know whether you are expecting an answer on that point as well. The first question concerned cases considered dangerous under Bill C-44. However, if you are also interested in removals, I could give you the figures concerning those removals.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: How many removals have there been and how many certificates have been issued?
Mr. Tsaï: I gave you the figure, Mr. Chairman: it is 868. I also gave a figure for Ontario. We have 60 percent of the cases and I gave the figure of 254.
Mrs. Robillard: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add the information that I have before me. In 1993-1994, 15 percent of the individuals that we deported were criminals. In the following year, when the bill was passed, we increased the number of criminal removals as a percentage of the total to 35 percent, that is 4,742 individuals in 1995-1996.
.1640
This figure shows that there has been a significant increase.
[English]
Ms Val Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to ask you, Madam Minister, about the budget process and your estimates. In your main estimate your budget was actually down $39.8 million from the previous year. It was down to $575 million and $169 million. Two weeks later there was an increase of $88,627,584. Can you explain to me why that figure was not in the main estimates in the previous two weeks?
Mrs. Robillard: I'll ask Jerry Robbins, the director of finance in my department, to respond.
Mr. Jerry Robbins (Director General, Finance Administration, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): When the main estimates were prepared we didn't have the amounts that would be given as grants to the provinces under settlement renewal. Therefore, they were added to supplementary estimates. We didn't have those figures at the time of the preparation of the main estimates.
Ms Val Meredith: So you're telling me that a program that's been planned for two years.... The figures came out of the blue in the two weeks between the main estimates and the supplementary estimates?
Mr. Robbins: You can appreciate that the preparation of main estimates was well in advance. We are preparing the main estimates a number of months earlier, but the final figures in terms of what would be given for settlement renewal came out just prior to the preparation of supplementary estimates.
Ms Val Meredith: Madam Minister, you made the comment that you are looking for a balance and that you are dividing the funds available for settlement among the provinces based on the immigrants they receive. But we have a discrepancy between the provinces. We have the province of Quebec taking in half the number of immigrants as the province of British Columbia and receiving twice the amount of funding. I'd like to ask you why, if you're looking for some kind of equity, that is the situation after you have increased the funding to the province of British Columbia.
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleague from the Reform Party would be pleased by that announcement, because for years now the provinces have asked us to have more money for settlement services. Yes, they complain a lot about the money given to Quebec according to the numbers of immigrants, so what we have done with the $63 million is.... This is a major step to reducing the gap between what is received by other provinces and what is received by the province of Quebec. I think we must all realize that the average is now good, I think, for all the provinces.
With respect to Quebec, before the announcement of the $63 million, Quebec's share represented 40% of the total amount of settlement services. Now it represents only 30%. If you were asking me whether we should go further and to have one average for all parts of the country, I would say yes, Mr. Speaker. You will notice that in the distribution we made, for some provinces, like Saskatchewan, we didn't give any money. Saskatchewan is not receiving money in the new distribution. Why? It is because Saskatchewan is over the average. But we decided in that distribution that there won't be any losers among the provinces, and we also apply that principle to Quebec, as you know.
So I think everyone should be happy with the announcement of a new $63 million for settlement services.
Ms Val Meredith: Mr. Chair, I find it amazing that the minister would feel that British Columbia should be more than satisfied with getting on average $1,000 per immigrant when Quebec is getting over $3,000 per immigrant.
.1645
When you made your initial opening comments, Madam Minister, you said that it would be based on dividing the funds among the provinces based on the immigrants they receive. The percentage of immigrants received in the province of Quebec is considerably lower than the percentage of immigrants received in the province of Ontario and the province of British Columbia.
I don't think that Ontario and British Columbia should be in the least bit happy to know that they're getting a third of the amount of money per immigrant that Quebec is getting. However, I want to move on.
Mrs. Robillard: Let me just say that, on the contrary, the provinces are very happy with that announcement.
Ms Val Meredith: I'd like to move on.
In the supplementary estimates, as opposed to the main estimates, there is an amount of money that is considered an explanation of this requirement, the write-off of outstanding immigration loans to the tune of $1.7 million. Could you explain to me if these are the loans that Mr. Nunez mentioned about people who are expected to pay the registration fee, if you will, when they become new immigrants? Is this the $1.7 million that is being written off?
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: Immigration tax.
Ms Val Meredith: Immigration tax.
Mr. Robbins: No, we wouldn't. Any outstanding loans would take a number of years before we would actually write it off. So the amounts you see in supplementary estimates would be for much older loans, in excess of five years old.
Ms Val Meredith: What would these loans be for? What are the Canadian taxpayers absorbing $1.7 million for?
Mr. Robbins: They could be transportation loans we provided immigrants when they were coming to Canada. They also could be fines, for example, that we imposed on airlines. Perhaps they were a small amount and therefore the cost of trying to collect them is more than we could actually recover.
Ms Val Meredith: Do you know or can you get me the breakdown of that $1.7 million write-off?
Mr. Robbins: Certainly.
Ms Val Meredith: Thank you.
I'd like to move on to a new pilot project announced from the department that is going to bring in highly skilled workers from out of country without the companies having to show there were not any Canadians who could fill those positions. Could you explain to this committee why, as a minister, you continue to institute regulations? You announce them or report them in the Canada Gazette and we in the committee find out about it after the fact when it's too late for our input.
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, first of all, that it is very important when we accept temporary workers in Canada with a visa as temporary workers to be sure there are no Canadians available to meet the requirements or the needs of a specific industry. That's why, right now, according to our policy, in each case a person has to prove there's no way a Canadian can fill the job. That's why you need a valid job. Each person, and the business that wants to employ the person, needs a valid job offer from the local office of Human Resources Development. This is the current policy right now. I don't know if the committee has studied the current policy, but if you have some specific recommendations on the way we are acting right now, I will be pleased to.... But, as you notice, we are doing that for each case.
.1650
In some industries - and the high-tech industry is such a case - these people come to us to ask if we could go more rapidly with these demands, because one by one it takes a long time to process all these cases. Since then we have started to work with the industries to know exactly what are the needs, because we all know people in our country who are looking for jobs in high-tech industries. So that's why they analysed the situation, they spoke with our counterparts in Human Resources Development, and what we will do is for specific functions in the industry - not for all the functions, for specific ones - there will be an agreement that the person won't need a validation job offer just for her.
So it means the process will go more rapidly. This is not a new policy. This is a way to help the industry to fulfil the needs more quickly, being sure that Canadians are not available to fill these jobs. But having said that, Mr. Chairman, I understand that your committee is studying this, that you have already asked my officials questions on the project and that you will give me some recommendations in the weeks to come. I will be pleased to listen to your recommendations.
The Chairman: We jump over to Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are a couple of things, Madam Minister. First of all, let me say congratulations on the initiatives with respect to the sponsorship. I noted your words, ``this is a simple matter of common sense'', and while it may very well be and indeed is a simple matter of common sense, it is very sad to see how long it takes common sense to percolate upward and become pre-published regulations. I would have thought that 99% of the constituents of my riding would be surprised that a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence and is in prison could sponsor somebody. This is just unbelievable.
Of course it is also a matter of common sense that we respect contracts and that if someone wants to bring someone here and sponsor them, then we expect them to respect their promises. The same goes between governments. We have an agreement with the Province of Quebec and it cannot be unilaterally changed. It can only be changed by the consent of both parties. And I just want to remind everybody it was the Conservative government that entered into this agreement, of which Mr. Charest was a part.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Let the election begin.
Mr. Tom Wappel: I want to talk about really two things, one of which is Mr. Tassé's report, where he found a profound malaise regarding CICs' removal activities, both within and outside the department, that need to be faced up front and dealt with.
I can say that I have personal knowledge of the malaise in the enforcement division of immigration. I want to know what, if anything, is being done with respect to Mr. Tassé's recommendations. There are a number of them. Madam Minister, can you or your officials tell us which of his recommendations have already been implemented, which are being considered for implementation, and which are being rejected and why?
Ms Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I will agree with my colleague that, yes, there was a malaise in the enforcement branch. And this is not an easy job to do, I must tell you, when you have to remove somebody from the country and the person wants to stay here. It's not an easy job to do. I remember when I first read the report, I understood that these employees need the support of our management also and they need very good guidelines to do their job.
So that's why we've taken the Tassé report very seriously. I'll ask the deputy minister to go into details and tell the members what has been done since we got the report.
Ms Janice Cochrane (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you.
We have taken the report very seriously, Mr. Chairman. The report's recommendations, as you will recall, were directed less to specific actions that Mr. Tassé recommended should be carried out but more to the fact that in our organization we had to place a much greater emphasis on people. We had to deal with some of the underlying cultural issues in the enforcement community, in the removals community in particular. We had to improve internal communications, we had to set very clear standards of expectation and behaviours that the department would expect from removal staff.
.1655
We have taken a number of initiatives that address the recommendations, both individually and globally, in the last year. And I should point out that this is an ongoing process. It is unlikely that there will ever be a time in which we can say we have finished our work in this regard. This is an ongoing process and it is part of the ongoing renewal of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
We have been working with the removal staff in trying to address the recommendations, rather than imposing from the top down what we feel to be the right way in which to deal with them. There was a national symposium held last year of enforcement managers from across the country, which met to address all of the concerns raised in the Tassé report, and there will be a major symposium next week of the removals officers themselves, to address issues such as the content of a principle-based code of conduct, which we have drafted and which we think will help removals officers understand the standards of behaviour expected from them.
We have asked them to prepare for us reports on sensitive cases where there are concerns regarding removal. You will recall there was an issue last year around the payment of facilitation fees, identified by Mr. Tassé, which remains an ongoing concern for us. We are trying to find ways of working with the central agencies here to deal with this.
These are some of the initiatives we have undertaken. We think we have improved internal communications, but messaging requires ongoing reinforcement and we're confident that if we keep at it in a systematic way we will achieve progress in this respect.
Mr. Tom Wappell: Thank you. There were 28 recommendations. And were any rejected?
Ms Cochrane: No.
Mr. Tom Wappell: This meeting with the on-line officers, if I may put it that way, has it been made clear that there's not going to be any retaliation or job action or anything like that for frank discussion, for frank input? Because people are afraid of losing their jobs. People are afraid of speaking out. And there's not much point in talking to management. It seems you have to talk to the people on the ground who are actually removing people. They're the ones who feel the heat, both from the people they're removing and also from their management-level people, some of whom run for cover when there's a problem and leave them out to dry.
It's great that you have this conference, but has it been made clear to these people that if they speak candidly and frankly they needn't fear losing their jobs?
Ms Cochrane: Mr. Tassé began his work in the late 1995, early 1996. It was made clear to removal staff at the time that we had asked him to seek frank input from them. We can't deal with the issues unless we know exactly what they are. I'm confident that the new regional directors general in Québec region and in Ontario region have conveyed that same message, and I know that the RDG in B.C. does the same.
I personally intend to open the conference next week, and that is more than just a symbol. I think it will demonstrate to removal staff the importance that senior management in Ottawa place upon trying to get to the fundamental heart of some of these issues they face in their day-to-day lives. It's not easy.
Many of you may have viewed the TVOntario film last week, The Invisible Nation, and seen the impossible situations many of these people have to deal with, which they deal with in a professional and very responsible manner. We have to give them all the support we can.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague: I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate you on the change you have made here. This riding is obviously not far from that of my colleague, Mr. Wappel. The vast majority of people are definitely in favour of this change. I also appreciate the fact that you are here before this committee almost as often as I am.
[English]
In my riding there have been a number of petitions and memorandums circulated by at least the towns of Whitby, Pickering, and now Markham, which call upon the federal government to restore the citizenship court commemorations. Presumably some of the municipalities are interested in the financial consideration of having the courts held in their own municipal township's appropriate council offices.
.1700
I wanted to ask you, Madam Minister, what's happened with Bill C-49. I've got judges who are still hanging on unsure whether or not they'll have a job after June. Are we going to reappoint them? Are we going to phase in what's in your proposal? What's the hold-up here?
Mrs. Robillard: That's a very good question. What's happening with Bill C-49 in the House of Commons? As you know, we made the decision many months ago that we are abolishing the function of the juge de la citoyenneté.
Our intent is not to appoint new judges. I need that bill adopted by the House of Commons and the Senate very urgently so that we won't be in a situation in which we won't be able to process the citizenship demands. I'm hoping we'll do it during that session. If the members of the committee can help to push that bill through the House of Commons, I would appreciate your support.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Before I get to my final question, is there an actual backlog in terms of the number of people who are waiting to be citizens right now as a result of this?
Mrs. Robillard: There's a backlog in Sydney. This is clear. But this is not linked to the appointment of the judges or anything else. We have the problem in the Sydney office, but while I'm telling you that we have a backlog, I'll tell you that there is also a great improvement. More than a year ago it took a long time to get citizenship - more than a year. I remember that. I remember that it took more than a year. We now have a processing time of six to eight months. Our objective is to bring that down to two to three months.
We have had an improvement, but there is still a backlog. Because of the problem we have in Sydney, we've decided as a department to hire many employees in Sydney. Right now we have teams working even at night to process the cases there. But these cases will come to the regional offices after that, and they will have to be processed in order for the people to receive their citizenship certificates. So we have a whole program to follow that.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Thank you, Madam Minister.
The Chairman: Mr. Nunez, you have eight minutes for each party.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: With respect to visitor's visas, many constituents come to see me since I am the immigration critic. It takes too long and is too expensive to obtain a visitor's visa.
In Central America, for example, there is only one office in Guatemala City. There is no embassy either in Honduras, or Nicaragua, or Salvador. It is very costly to travel to Guatemala City and officials tell you that you have no money, you are missing documents and you have to go home. This is an intolerable situation for these people, particularly since the families they want to visit are settled here and already have landed immigrant status.
In Chili, you have reintroduced visas and officials have adopted an extreme position: they deny the right to visas, deny visas to virtually everyone. Here again, people must go to the only visa office, which is in Santiago. In some instances, they must travel 3,000 kilometres. Once they get there, they cannot meet with Canadian officials; they have to meet only local embassy employees, who are local people. They therefore complain a great deal. Those who complain the most are Canadian citizens who are here, but who are originally from that country. Why can't they bring in their families? They pay for everything, absolutely everything. It's extraordinarily difficult, particularly for Latin America.
I am not very familiar with the situation on other continents. Do you have an explanation to give me? How could the services offered to these people be improved?
.1705
How could you also improve Canada's image and reputation? The embassies are virtual fortresses. People can't enter to meet with officials. Yes, yes, this is true. No, you don't know the place. I visited it. All these countries say they don't require visas of Canadians. A problem of reciprocity arises. I am telling you, Mrs. Robillard, this is a problem.
Mrs. Robillard: I believe you have to consider the problem - if you want to call it a problem - of the issuing of visas for tourists to Canada in an overall perspective. We currently require a visa for one percent of tourists to Canada.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: It is required for people from virtually all Latin American countries.
Mrs. Robillard: When you view that in an overall perspective, you see that Canada is nevertheless a very open country.
Now, when we decide to have a policy requiring visas for people from one country in particular, it's because we have very good reasons. It isn't because we get up one morning and decide we want to require visas for Chili. It's because we have very good reasons: either the country in question does not have satisfactory controls over the issuing of its passports and there is therefore a possibility of fraud, or large numbers of citizens from that country have come to Canada and abused our refugee status determination system.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: There is no problem in Portugal.
Mrs. Robillard: That is what happened in the case of Chili, where we were forced to reintroduce visas. How do we act? The reasons why we require visas are very important and are based on facts, Mr. Chairman.
Now, for countries where a visa is required, each of a person's applications is reviewed individually. At that point, experience tells us that certain types of clients are high risk people; we believe that these people will not return to their country of origin. We may be wrong. It's a matter of judgement based on the information that individual gives to the information officer.
That said, it should not be forgotten that we currently have visitors whose visas have expired and who are still in Canada and we are unable to send them back to their country. You should know that the visa policy is applied as flexibly as possible and that processing time is as short as possible depending on the countries where the applications originate.
I have been given examples of countries where that can take more time, but I know of countries where an individual reports in the morning... I went to our New Delhi office. The person reported to the office in the morning for a tourist visa and received an answer that same day. We try to reduce processing times. I believe it is important to view this question as a whole.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: You didn't answer me with regard to Portugal. I have asked you a number of questions in the House of Commons and you have always refused to stop requiring visas for Portuguese visitors.
I would like to ask you another question concerning the IRB, on which I have also asked you questions in the House of Commons. You answered me that it is an independent, quasi-judicial organization. I agree, but there is a backlog of 30,000 cases, including more than 15,000 in Montreal. This is very costly for both levels of government, particularly the government of Quebec, which incurs expenses. In some instances, people must wait years before a decision is rendered. It's inhuman for claimants and for the members of their families who cannot come here and join them.
You are proceeding with Board member appointments the logic of which I find it hard to grasp. In some instances, you appoint them for four years, and others for three years, and still others for one or two years. We do not see why you appoint two members in Montreal, whom you know well, for four years and the others for two years and, in some instances, even for only one year. What is the logic behind all these differences? How can you solve these problems. I know that this is not your jurisdiction, but you have the means to take concrete measures.
.1710
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Chairman, as the member for Bourassa says, the Immigrant and Refugee Board is a quasi-judicial tribunal independent of the Minister. I thought I understood that your committee was going to hear from the Chair of that Board. So you could ask her every possible and impossible question on the Board's management.
That said, we are trying to support the Chair in her efforts by appointing board members across the country. The variation in terms granted to Board members is precisely designed to ensure that the Board does not lose all its members at the same time. It is very important for there to be differences in term lengths so that not everyone is there for four years and after four years we have to renew the terms of all Board members.
We are currently trying to have a certain number of individuals on the Board. It is always a good idea to provide for succession in an organization. This brings in new blood, new visions and helps replace certain individuals who are already there.
We have greatly expedited Board appointments. The Chair will definitely tell you that. A moment ago, my colleague asked me a question about Bill C-49. In C-49, there is also a measure to help the Board be even more productive. In future, if we manage to have this bill passed, the Board will need only one member for hearings. You can imagine how productivity will improve.
That said, the Board is still receiving a very large number of applications for file review each year and, although productivity has increased and they manage to process as many applications as they receive each year, there is a backlog as a result of which certain cases have not yet been reviewed.
Mr. Chairman, if you have any more detailed questions on the subject, I encourage committee members to put them directly to the Chair when she appears before you.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Ms Meredith.
Ms Val Meredith: Mr. Chair, before I ask the questions, I think it would be in the interests of all the committee members if the department would provide to all committee members two reports that were mentioned in the main estimates - the port of entry report and the detention and removals report.
I would also ask that the department make available to the committee members the benchmark study on removals and the study done by the Department of Immigration on provincial breakdown of immigrants receiving welfare.
If the department could see that the members of this committee get those four reports, I think that would help us.
The Chairman: You've asked for four things.
Ms Val Meredith: Yes.
The Chairman: Right, thank you.
Ms Val Meredith: I would like to talk about the investor program, Madam Minister.
I understand from discussions I've had with various players in this proposed investor program that you are considering the Quebec model. I think we have already seen where an agreement entered into with the Province of Quebec by a federal government has not been in the best interest of all players in Canada.
Granted, the Conservative government, with Mr. Charest taking responsibility for such, is responsible for it, but I would like to believe your government is not entering into another situation that is going to cost the rest of Canada, based on a Quebec model.
I would like to know two things: whether or not this committee will be reviewing those new regulations on the investor program before it is advertised in the Canada Gazette and before it becomes a program; and what provisions or protections are in the new program to ensure Canadian funds will not be used from any Canadian bank - any bank in Canada - for foreign investors to qualify under the investor program or money that has been borrowed from CMHC funds abroad. I would like to know if there is any protection in this new program that Canadian-source dollars will not be considered foreign investment for this investor program.
.1715
[Translation]
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Chairman,
[English]
you will realize that I haven't made a public announcement about the investor program. I told you today in my remarks that I will be ready in a few weeks from now or a few days from now to announce the investor program. It will be prepublishing regulations. So it means everyone can react.
I will remind members of the committee that many months ago my predecessor put a moratorium on the actual program we have because of abuses enshrined in the program. Right now we are in a transition period with a transition program.
I committed to having a new program for July 1 of this year. So in the near future I'll be ready to make the announcement. But again it will be a prepublication. So it means we will be open to receiving remarks. I'm not in a situation to comment in detail about that announcement today, Mr. Chairman.
Let me tell you that when one province - and today you mentioned Quebec - has an experience with a specific program, I think it is very good to learn from that experience and to learn also from the experience we had with the other provinces. The intention here is to have a competitive program for each province, not only Quebec and B.C. but each one, the small provinces also, the Atlantic provinces. We would like all the provinces to be able to attract investors in this country. So we will do that.
Ms Val Meredith: Mr. Chair, I'd like to change the topic, almost going back to the skilled workers Canada is bringing into the country. I'd like to ask the minister - in the landings, in the numbers, the levels that were released in the last couple of days, it shows there were almost 25,000 more skilled workers who entered Canada than anticipated.
I'd like to ask the minister if these skilled workers have to - if the employers have to prove there were not Canadians who could qualify for these jobs. I would be very interested to know what this government is doing to retrain Canadians who've been laid off, to accommodate the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians who are sitting without jobs, when we're bringing in almost 100,000 individuals, taking skilled worker placements.
Mrs. Robillard: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I realize by the question from my colleague, the member of the Reform Party, that she intends to say newcomers or immigrants take the jobs of Canadians here. I understand that in the question.
Ms Val Meredith: I'm asking if they do.
Mrs. Robillard: If it's her opinion, Mr. Chairman, I must tell her that this is not true, not at all.
Ms Val Meredith: So all these are screened?
Mrs. Robillard: No facts prove that. This is a myth the Reform Party is so happy to put on the table all the time about immigrants, that they take the jobs of Canadians, that they are on welfare, that they are criminals. This is not true at all.
Ms Val Meredith: That's not what I'm saying.
Mrs. Robillard: All the research is saying that newcomers in this country contribute economically and socially to the country, and the facts prove it. So when we have skilled workers, when we have entrepreneurs, when we have investors coming to our country, we should be proud and we should welcome them.
It is clear that when we accept a skilled worker, it will be in a field where we need to have more in that field in this country. We won't bring in a person who will be unemployed in our country. That's not our intention. That's why we need skilled workers.
Ms Val Meredith: That's why we need to retrain them.
Mrs. Robillard: That's why we have selection criteria here.
Ms Val Meredith: What is the government doing to retrain Canadians who are unemployed to take the place, to be able to fill these positions we are importing skilled workers for?
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I think we could have a very long discussion about the employment insurance reform we had this year and all the active measures we have to help people to retrain in this country and all the money we put in.
.1720
The Chairman: Now we'll jump across the table to Ms Bethel.
Ms Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Minister, service standards have been, I think, quite important to Canadians. Certainly the Auditor General identified that we do have many deficiencies out there.
I firstly would like to commend the minister and the department, because I think much progress has been made. But there are still some concerns, specifically around the determining of the full cost of the services, around assessing client satisfaction in particular. I'm referring to the telecentres - your department, as you know, is not the only one who's having difficulty with this - and also the quality of the telephone contacts.
The Auditor General had recommended you speed up the implementation of service standards to improve the effectiveness and quality of service. It will be very helpful too in determining the costs and help us target a little better. I wonder if you might tell us how your department's going to address this one, what kind of a priority you'll put on it.
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Chairman, it's a very good question, because this is the question about the quality of services to our clientele. I think that in the department we've made some improvements. We set some standards of service and this is new in the department, but not everywhere, not in every activity.
I'll give you an example. Two or three weeks ago I was visiting the Vegreville centre in north Edmonton. They have service standards to respect over there. I was very impressed to discover they are not only meeting the standards we set, they are going ahead. I was very surprised to see that. But in other fields I think we're still working on certain standards of service. So the job is not finished.
Perhaps Mr. Tsaï could add something to that.
Mr. Tsaï: Thank you.
In terms of the performance and service standards we would like to achieve at the telecentre, we have a goal of a 20-second response time by an operator to 80% of all calls.
Ms Judy Bethel: Can I just jump in here? I understand that, and that's tremendous progress. But what I sense might be missing is the quality of that contact and also client satisfaction.
Mr. Tsaï: We have plans of course to determine to what extent our clients are satisfied with the service we provide, not only at our call centres but of course at our processing centres. This is going to be examined very carefully. We are really part of a broader government-wide initiative to improve performance standards in all departments, and we are very actively involved in that direction.
Ms Judy Bethel: I appreciate that, Mr. Tsaï. I appreciate there's work to do.
Settlement renewal is the other one around which I have a question. I appreciate your comments on cost recovery. It's very important for effectiveness. But I sense too that cost recovery has to relate to the actual cost of the service. That's when you get into the equity. All Canadians, no matter where they live in this country - are we funding them to a level they need to be funded to for the services we're offering?
The example I would use, again, is based on the cost of resettlement. We know the costs of resettling refugees to ensure they integrate quickly and successfully into the Canadian stream are much higher than those for resettling others.
Are we able to determine and are we working on figuring out a kind of unit cost so we can fairly compensate provinces for the actual costs of resettlement? I use this example because when I look at Quebec and the dollars they receive, it's hard to relate them to unit costs. We can't make those comparisons. Yet what I do notice is that Quebec has a much higher proportion of refugees, and they're very costly. It's more costly to integrate them.
.1725
So it's not quite as easy as a number for an immigrant, period. I mean, if an immigrant comes as an investor, they have money, they can help themselves to resettle.
The question is, are we able to determine the costs of resettlement, the services a newcomer to Canada needs to successfully integrate? Is that in any way related to your discussions with the provinces?
Mrs. Robillard: I will ask my officials if we are making a study on that. As you know, for the settlement services, the amount we've announced, the $63 million, will be money for settlement services for immigrants. When we had public consultation with the people, they asked us to keep a federal government responsibility for refugees. This will be for settlement services for immigrants.
But you're right in saying that perhaps we could think logically that it will cost more to settle a refugee. I'm wondering if we're making a study on having a cost unit on refugees and immigrants.
Mr. Robbins: No. Our cost recovery is based on a processing fee for particular services, for example processing a visitor visa or an immigrant visa. Basically we look at the cost of delivering that service, and it always has to be below that amount.
Ms Judy Bethel: What consideration then has been given to those who could afford to pay for their own resettlement service?
Mr. Robbins: We don't have.... I'm not aware of any particular study that was done in terms of what it costs for somebody to be integrated into our society, or resettle. It's a little of the chicken-and-egg situation. We have a certain amount in our contribution fund that we allocate to the provinces and the regions, and that's what they spend.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr Chairman.
I'm of the view that every once in a while members of the committee ought to be charitable towards the minister. I'll ask a soft question, Madam Minister.
In the time remaining, could you tell us what the department intends to do? Could you tell us what it may have done, but more of what it intends to do from here on to underline the 50th anniversary of the Citizenship Act?
I imagine that for a great number of Canadians it is an occasion to remember a time when they started their new life. I think it could be a significant year for them, and I'd like to know what the department is planning.
Mrs. Robillard: I think that for everyone it was important, first of all, to be aware that 50 years ago we were not Canadian. We were British subjects in this country.
I must tell you that when we launched the celebration at the beginning of January, many people suddenly realized the fact that we were not Canadians 50 years ago. If some of you have attended some of these ceremonies...we wanted to re-create the history of this country, what happened 50 years ago.
The first ceremony we had here in Ottawa was at the Supreme Court with all the judges. It was really moving because of the time. As you know, the first citizenship ceremony happened at the Supreme Court. So I think it's a very good.... And throughout the year we had some events like that, and we even had a national conference on citizenship. What will be the sense of citizenship in the 21st century? What's the sense of being a good citizen? It was very interesting.
So throughout the year we have specific events like that to remind people about that. This is an opportunity to realize. And, as you know, the people who were born in this country, most of the time we take the country for granted, and we don't realize exactly what Canada is about. But when we speak with newcomers, or when we travel abroad, we all realize that.
.1730
So I think it is important that this year we celebrate all together. What is very important also is that we have a different ceremony in little communities all across the country. It is important that the celebration should be all over in different communities.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. That brings to an end our very fascinating and interesting relationship that existed here this afternoon.
Thank you very much, Madam Robillard, for appearing, for your supportive staff, and for the countless questions.
I'm asking the committee to stay just for about two minutes. This is simply because we have three little items that have to be resolved, and we have to resolve them today. If the committee members would just listen for a second, I'll go ahead with the three problems.
First, the Department of Industry is asking for an appearance. Provided that we all agree, the Department of Industry will be appearing before us on Wednesday afternoon, April 9, at the same meeting as the Order-in-Council nomination. In other words, from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. we will deal with Madeleine Dupont-Lévesque, and then from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. we will meet with the Department of Industry representatives. Is that okay?
Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Chairman, of course it's okay. But surely we don't need an hour to go over one single Order-in-Council appointment. I'm sure it's at the request of the official opposition, but what could we possibly ask for an hour?
Mr. Dan McTeague: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we're not senators.
Ms Val Meredith: Not only that, but I will not be asking any questions.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Surely we can put down a maximum of a half-hour or 15 minutes, something like that, and get on with the business of the committee.
The Chairman: What a good suggestion.
The second point is that Howard Greenberg has asked to appear before the committee on April 10, as part of the round table with employment agencies and lawyers. That can be the session, I believe, that we're going to be having in Room 253-D. It will be televised with CPAC, so be sure you're all there. Get your hair and your make-up done.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: When is it?
The Chairman: It's April 10.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Who is Mr. Greenberg?
The Chairman: A lawyer from Toronto, I believe. Is that right? You all have a copy of the letter.
Are we all in favour of that?
Ms Judy Bethel: I guess I'm asking.... He's made a request, but do we -
An hon. member: Do we roll out the red carpet?
Ms Val Meredith: Is he presenting a position that is different from the positions that are going to be presented by everybody else?
The Chairman: I really don't know. He just asked for the request -
Ms Val Meredith: I have no problem.
The Chairman: - and given his background.
Ms Val Meredith: Why wouldn't we?
The Chairman: He says ``I've been involved with various practices and procedures worldwide for expediting their processing.''
Mr. Tom Wappel: Well, he's just part of a panel, right?
The Chairman: Yes, that's right. It's going to be a round table. It's going to be a different format. How we're going to operate will be all explained to you.
The third point is that I won't be at this coming Thursday's meeting. Ms Bethel will be taking the chair. I have my nomination meeting that night.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Good luck. I have mine the same day. That's why I say that.
.1735
The Chairman: Mr. Peric is not going to be appearing before the meeting, but he's going to be presenting a brief in two languages for all of us to study. But there will be a witness before the committee on that Thursday meeting.
That's all I have to report. Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.