CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 31, 2000

• 1535

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Good afternoon, colleagues.

Today we have, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of chapter 3, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the economic component of the Canadian immigration program of the report of the Auditor General of Canada, April 2000.

It's our pleasure to have here Mr. Desautels, the Auditor General of Canada, and his colleagues. Perhaps, Mr. Desautels, you might introduce them at the beginning.

I believe you have an opening statement. If you would take about 10 or 15 minutes to do that, then I'm sure we will have a lot of questions from our members. Welcome, and thank you very much for agreeing to appear so that we can deal with this issue.

Mr. Desautels.

Mr. L. Denis Desautels (Auditor General of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I do have an opening statement, which should take me less than ten minutes to deliver, and then my colleagues and I would be quite happy to answer the committee's questions.

I am accompanied today by Serge Gaudet and Richard Flageole. Both Mr. Flageole and Mr. Gaudet had the first hand in the writing of this chapter and in all of the work that led up to that chapter.

As members of the committee very well know, the purpose of the economic component of this program is to recruit skilled workers, entrepreneurs, investors, and self-employed workers. In 1999, of approximately 190,000 immigrants admitted to Canada, more than half were immigrants under the economic component.

We conducted an in-depth audit in order to obtain a detailed analysis of the problems related to the immigration selection process for the economic component. We visited several immigration offices abroad, and our observations and conclusions deal primarily with Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

However, other federal partners are involved in attaining the objectives of the economic component. They include the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Health Canada. For this reason, some of our recommendations apply to them as well.

Our last audit of the delivery of immigration services abroad was reported back in 1990. Since then, there have been many significant changes in the department, both organizationally and in terms of budget, and initiatives have been taken to rectify some situations. However, it's disappointing to see the similarity between many of the problems raised in this report and those we identified back in 1990. Therefore, in my view, the department will have to put significant effort into dealing with these longstanding problems.

[Translation]

At present, Mr. Chairman, immigration offices abroad cannot cope with the task. First of all, immigration levels have not been met for the past two years. Furthermore, there were almost 175,000 applications at various stages of processing in late 1999 - 38 per cent more than there were three years ago. Average processing times for applications doubled over the same period. In some offices, skilled workers have to wait about three years for their applications to be finalized. These long delays can compromise the arrival of highly skilled immigrants into Canada.

The officers responsible for processing applications are deeply concerned about the present state of affairs, and I share their concerns. We had an opportunity to interview a number of visa officers and program managers when we visited their offices. We also conducted a survey of these employees in all offices abroad. We draw very positive conclusions on their calibre and commitment. However, what they revealed concerns us deeply. They have a great deal of difficulty handling their workload and responsibilities. They also feel they are making decisions that could carry risks that are too high and that could entail significant costs for Canadian society.

• 1540

In our view, the Department has neither the resources nor the operational capacity to process the number of applications required to reach the immigration levels set by the government. We found that the department needs much better information to accurately determine the level of resources required to process applications in offices abroad.

[English]

We also noted problems of operational efficiency and effectiveness and a lack of rigour that has a bearing on the system's ability to meet expectations in four main areas.

First, some weaknesses leave Citizenship and Immigration Canada open to criticism on the quality and consistency of its decisions in selecting immigrants. Visa officers need better selection criteria, better training, and better tools. The department does not sufficiently monitor the quality of their decisions. It's also important to minimize the negative impact of offshore applications.

Second, we identified significant weaknesses in the management of the medical assessments of prospective immigrants. We found that the terms “danger to public health and public safety” and “excessive demand” had not been defined, even though we stressed the importance of doing so in 1990. We are also very concerned about the lack of rigour and consistency in the overall management of medical assessment activities.

Third, there are serious constraints in establishing the criminality and security admissibility of prospective immigrants. Visa officers have little information and support to ensure that applicants are not likely to engage in criminal activities or endanger the safety of Canadians.

Finally, we found that the department is particularly vulnerable to fraud and abuse. It has no effective measures in place to discourage people from submitting fraudulent applications, and visa officers often resort to detection methods that are costly. In addition, we found inadequate control over revenues, visa forms, and computer systems.

[Translation]

Overall, immigration services abroad are faced with serious problems. The deficiencies we observed limit Canada's ability to gain the economic and social benefits that immigration affords. These also seriously weaken the level of protection for Canadians that was intended in the Immigration Act.

On April 6 last, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tabled Bill C-31 amending the Immigration Act. The amendments may make it possible to address some of our concerns if the bill is passed. Your committee, Mr. Chairman, has a key role to play to ensure that any necessary legislative amendments are made in a timely manner. However, most of the problems we have raised cannot be corrected through legislative changes. Additional funds have also been allocated to improve some areas related to management of the economic component of the immigration program, particularly an increase in the number of visa officers abroad and implementation of the global case management system. These additional funds will help the department to reduce the application processing time and perhaps to improve efficiency in the longer term. However, administrative measures will also have to be taken to solve the current problems.

[English]

First of all, it's essential that an appropriate balance be maintained between the resources allocated to the department and its federal partners and the workload needed to attain the annual immigration levels set by government while assuring the integrity of the program. Your committee may want to review the annual immigration plan to ensure a proper balance between established immigration levels and the department's capacity to attain them.

The department also needs to be more rigorous in managing its activities abroad. It will have to take effective measures to ensure sound management of risk, particularly in health, criminality, and security checks. It will have to monitor more closely the quality of decisions and improve controls over revenue, visa forms, and computer systems.

Finally, it will have to clarify roles and responsibilities within the department and those of its federal partners such as Health Canada, the RCMP, CSIS, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. This will help to define expectations, ensure adequate direction and monitoring of immigration activities abroad, and provide a complete report on the results. The department has to take administrative measures immediately.

• 1545

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the challenge is enormous and complex. In response to our 14 recommendations, the department has recently published a plan on its Internet site. We believe that the department would be well advised to develop a real action plan that clearly sets out the main tasks, timetables, and resource requirements. The plan should clearly establish responsibility for results within the department and among its various partners, and your committee may want to follow the situation closely and monitor the progress made.

That concludes my opening statement, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues and I would be very happy to answer the committee's questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Desautels, for a very full and comprehensive report. I'm sure we will want to explore further some of the questions you raised and seek your guidance and advice as we try to make some recommendations, not only on the new bill but as a result of the meetings we have here today.

So I'll go to Mr. Benoit for the first round of questions.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

I'd like to start today by questioning you on paragraph 3.54 of the introductory report. This paragraph states:

...the Department's senior management was aware of the challenges in processing applications with its present resources. In planning the 1999 immigration levels, for example, the Department indicated that it would be very difficult to maintain levels at 200,000 to 225,000 given its current resource base and delivery networks. It said that pressures on the integrity of the Program and selection process would result.

This paragraph concludes by stating that the department's efforts to obtain more resources and to review its operating method have met with little success.

This report has been dubbed one of the most damning the Auditor General has ever delivered, and the statements like the one I just read make it very clear that it isn't difficult to see why this report has received this dubious distinction.

Recently I was at the public accounts committee discussing this report. You may recall that the deputy minister, when I questioned her about her recommendations on Canada's annual immigration intake, stated that in fact there were varying levels of risk to the safety and security of Canadians involved with certain levels of immigration. I was questioning the deputy minister at that time about whether the current resources allowed these targets of 200,000 to 225,000. I think what she said—there was a distinct impression I got—was that the deputy minister likely recommended that government set lower annual immigration targets to keep the best interests of Canadians in mind, but that the department of course delivers what the government and minister says. That's their job.

I know it isn't the place of an Auditor General to comment on government policy, and I'm not asking you to. What I would like to know, given your in-depth review in this area of the immigration system, is do you feel that the safety and security of Canadians is being compromised in regard to the current immigration levels of 200,000 to 225,000 that were set for this year?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I very distinctly remember the exchange between Mr. Benoit and the deputy minister at the time, and Mr. Benoit is right: it's not our role to question government policy—and that's not what we're trying to do at all in this chapter.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm not asking you to.

Mr. Denis Desautels: The chapter basically questioned the government's capacity in this case to deliver what it was asked to deliver, and I think our message has been very clear on that front.

The results of not having that capacity have been well explained in the report, and we do quote officers we had talked to who do not feel that they are at all times making decisions that are within their acceptable range of risk. So that's one consequence of having this lack of capacity.

• 1550

Another consequence of the lack of capacity, of course, is that there's a backlog of applications, and it's taking too long to process applications. In that way, Canada is also losing out, because some immigrants with skills that we're seeking in Canada are probably not ready to wait that long and might end up going elsewhere.

So there are consequences of various kinds to the lack of capacity of the department that we've identified.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, and I agree that you had made that clear in your report. I just wanted you to repeat it and comment on it from a point of view of whether, then, in your judgment, not commenting on the policy itself, there really is a security risk to Canadians as a result of having this 200,000 or 225,000 level set for this next year.

Mr. Denis Desautels: The lack of capacity means we're taking unnecessary risks in terms of safety and security. That is something we have stated quite clearly in our report.

I just want to be clear, though, as I've also said in my opening statement, that the officers we've met in the various offices across the world are indeed very dedicated and are working very conscientiously and working quite hard. So I suppose that in itself mitigates the risk to a certain extent, but they themselves don't feel comfortable.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, and I'm glad you mention that. That's something you did say in your report, and I thought it was important to say that. There are a lot of good people doing a lot of good work. And we're certainly not pointing fingers at the department employees here, but if there is a risk, somebody has to be held accountable for putting our country at an unacceptable level of exposure to risk.

If you're looking at the risk that in fact is there, could you focus on a particular type of risk as being the greatest threat? Would it be the criminality side or the disease side, or just what type of risk would you see as the most damaging?

Mr. Denis Desautels: I don't think I can answer the question quite that way.

We have noted that the lack of capacity does cause the department to take risk beyond the range it would normally find acceptable. That applies to health issues, to criminality, to other background checks that need to be made on people, as well as, as I said before, the loss of opportunity because of the backlog that is being created.

I think the main issue here—and the committee could very well provide good advice on this—is basically to address how we can bring the targets for annual immigration levels into balance with the capacity of the department. That's an important management issue, and at the same time I agree that it's also a policy issue. We have to bring those two elements into balance.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Right.

I agree that, first, the system isn't doing what it's supposed to do. It isn't encouraging immigrants or processing rapidly enough people who have expressed an interest in coming to our country under the independent or the economic categories. If you could identify one thing within the system that could improve or help to achieve this goal of dealing better with the economic immigrants, to what would you point? What one improvement could be made by the department to accommodate better?

• 1555

Mr. Denis Desautels: Again, that's a hard question to answer, because we did point out very clearly in our report that there's no single magic solution to these problems.

The department and government need to work on three fronts to solve these problems. One is a legislative front. A second front is the funding level. There is funding problem to be addressed, and I think to a certain extent it is being addressed. A third component, a third level, is administrative remedies that have to be taken immediately, including a better computer system, better training of the people, better direction on issues of security and health checks, and so on. As far as I'm concerned, this third component can be dealt with pretty quickly. It doesn't necessarily have to wait too long for legislative changes, for one thing, or for additional funding.

I think we have to work on all three fronts at the same time to really get at the issue we're raising in this chapter.

The Chair: Jean...while we're waiting for Sophia.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to welcome Mr. Desautels and his colleagues here this afternoon.

You've raised a good number of issues in which the Canadian public is really interested, and the general motivation is that we can make the system better.

It seems to me that in the concluding remarks you indicate that some of the response you've seen at the present time by the department is insufficient to meet what you consider to be the suggestions or the implementation of some things you've brought up in your recommendations.

I want to ask if you can speak in a little clearer language as to the department's response at this point in time and what you would definitely like to see.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Yes, I can clarify my remarks on that.

Let me say first that overall we've received a very positive response from the department on our observations. They're not arguing with our observations; they accept them. So we're not disagreeing on the fundamental conclusions of this chapter.

The department also responds, though, that they are seeking legislative changes, seeking additional funding, and will undertake a number of issues, such as introducing a new computer system. As we've said, it has published on its Internet site a response to our observations, but we feel that this response is not necessarily an action plan as such that would lay out the responsibility for certain actions, timeframes, the source of the resources to address the problem, and so on. We are hoping that the department will produce before long a more detailed action plan to deal with all the issues here, and that detailed action plan could be used by your committee or the public accounts committee as a way of keeping track of the progress made by the department in addressing the issues that they all agree need to be addressed.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Do you have a role in assisting the department to meet what you consider to be some requirements to satisfy you?

Mr. Denis Desautels: We can help the department basically translate their intentions into a more specific action plan. We can offer comments on proposed action plans, for one thing. We can even react to the adequacy of their action plan if they so wish, and we're quite willing to do that.

In addition to that, for the benefit of members of Parliament, we will be revisiting those issues in about two years' time. So whether the department has an action plan or not, we will be coming back and reporting to Parliament on the progress made in the meantime.

So we can work with the department and put to good use the knowledge we've accumulated in doing this work, because a lot of our own people have developed a good understanding of these problems, and make that available to the department, if they so wish, to improve their action plan, but we will also come back within two years.

• 1600

Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Chairman, I'd like also to ask about recommendation 3.80:

The Department should review its overall training strategy and take the necessary steps to ensure that all those responsible...receive appropriate training.

How do you go about assessing that in terms of the practical way in which you arrive at saying that people seem not to have the appropriate training? Is it a set of skills you look at or is it a questionnaire? How do you assess that?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Mr. Flageole to answer that question.

Mr. Richard Flageole (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Mr. Chairman, that observation is mainly based on discussions we had with employees in immigration offices abroad. As we mention in the report, we also conducted a survey of all the employees working in all of the missions of the Canadian government. That need for training was really highlighted in their comments and in the results of the survey. We also observed some weaknesses that I guess we can probably link to a need for better training of employees, but it's mainly coming from them.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I'm just trying, Mr. Chairman, to get to.... When we say “training”, do we mean in terms of the legislation, in terms of the day-to-day dealings with individuals who come before them, in terms of the ability to assess the documentation? What exactly do we mean by training in that area?

Mr. Richard Flageole: I think we're really talking about training on two sides. Most of the immigration officers have various backgrounds. Those people have mainly master's degrees from universities in all different types of programs. They don't come with a knowledge of immigration. They have to learn it based on their basic skills. The legislative aspect is very important and they have to be fully aware of all the legislative requirements, but they also need training to assess the quality of an application.

I'll give you a very specific example—business people. Immigration officers need to have a good understanding, for example, of a business plan that the prospective immigrant will propose to the government, so they need to be quite proficient in those things. They also need training on the identification of false documents. They need a very good understanding of the local conditions in the country where they are. So we're really talking about a fairly comprehensive package of training.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Sekora, in the remaining time, two and a half minutes, go ahead.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm new to the committee today, but I'd like to ask a couple of questions.

When you put this report together, do you ever make comments on how, if it were to be more efficient, they would need 50% more help, 25% more help, or 15%, or 10%, something that we as a committee can get a handle on?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, we did not, in this case, quantify the amount of funding or additional resources that the department would need. On the other hand, we did say that the department needs to do more work in terms of analysing the workloads of its various missions, therefore coming forward with a more specific plan as to how much they would need to meet the workload being asked of them.

So no, we didn't quantify it, but we recommended that the department itself follow certain a certain process in order to be able to arrive at a well-informed estimate of what they really need. I don't think we can solve this problem simply by throwing a lot of money at it. I think it has to be targeted and I think we have to know where the resources are needed and how many are needed.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Have you ever recommended an efficiency study in any department while you were the Auditor General?

• 1605

Mr. Denis Desautels: We are constantly making recommendations on efficiency. Part of our mandate is to look at economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. We are not necessarily recommending efficiency studies, as Mr. Sekora worded it, but we are in fact making recommendations that deal with efficiency, year in, year out.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I have one last question. A lot of these people who work in different offices as far as immigration is concerned are consultants, are they not? They're not employees of the federal government. They work as consultants, do they not?

Mr. Denis Desautels: All the immigration officers are employees of the Canadian government. Some of them are Canadians. Others are locally engaged employees. Maybe the member is making reference to the various consultants who are helping applicants—

Mr. Lou Sekora: Yes.

Mr. Denis Desautels: —in preparing their applications. The department deals with the consultants' applicants, but again, all the employees are employees of the Canadian government.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Bernard.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): I join with my colleagues in welcoming you to our committee. As you likely know, Quebec is setting increasingly higher immigration objectives. It wants to attract over 35,000 new immigrants. However, we keep encountering the same problems and constraints in terms of application processing times. You alluded quite clearly to this problem in your report. We have observed that processing times are often very lengthy, in particular in offices abroad that process applications from potential immigrants from francophone countries. These lengthy delays are a fact of life in Montreal and in Quebec, and particularly in the Paris office which you visited and examined in the course of your study.

Basically, my question is very simple. What's causing these processing delays? Is the problem due to medical assessments or security investigations? What is the reason for the processing delays at the Paris office which primarily handles applications from potential immigrants from francophone countries?

Mr. Richard Flageole: Mr. Chairman, exhibit 3.6 in our report is a table showing the average processing time for immigration applications in the various offices, including the Paris office. As we can see, processing times for business class immigrant applications are within the average, whereas processing times are somewhat shorter in the case of skilled workers. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact reason for this. However, the cause could well be the shortage of resources to handle the volume of applications. Processing times vary greatly. Sometimes, it can take from six to eight months before an applicant is called for an interview. Medical assessments and security investigations are also other reasons for longer processing times.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I realize that average processing times given are for the entire process, that is up until the application is finalized. Are major problems being encountered at the Paris office or at some particular stage in the process, because things appear to be quite different there than they are at other offices?

Mr. Serge Gaudet (Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General): I don't think the problem is related to anything specific that is done at this office. It should be noted, however, that pursuant to the Canada-Quebec Agreement, applications by individuals who wish to immigrate to Quebec under the economic component are reviewed by Quebec Immigration Service officials.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I realize that, but often, the Quebec Government issues a certificate of selection and still the process is delayed.

Mr. Serge Gaudet: In most cases, the problem is the time applicants must wait before they are granted an interview. Offices must find a way to strike a balance between available resources and the number of applications for visitors' visas as well as applications by potential economic immigrants. Officers deal first with visitors' visas and then focus on potential family class immigrants. Naturally, these offices may process a high number of family class applications which may be given a higher priority that economic class applications.

• 1610

According to exhibit 3.6 in our report, the average processing time for immigrant applications from skilled workers at the Paris office is 14 months, and for business class applications, 24 months. I don't think these processing times are any longer than they are in other offices. In my view, the real problem here is a shortage of resources and the fact that officers give priority consideration to other types of applications.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you.

I'm not too happy about having to bring this up, but I must say that Mr. Benoit's questions were very relevant. You noted in paragraph 5 of your statement that visa officers feel they are making decisions that carry overly high risks. No doubt this is what the officers themselves or other persons told you. In your opinion and in the opinion of officers, what is a risk that is too high?

Mr. Richard Flageole: Mr. Chairman, we have had many discussions with the officers and we sounded them out. Several of them informed us that they had approved a person's application to immigrate to Canada without having reasonable assurances that that individual met the program selection criteria, including medical and security criteria. The officers are extremely uncomfortable with this situation.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: You state the following in paragraph 10:

Visa officers have little information and support to ensure that applicants are not likely to engage in criminal activities or endanger the safety of Canadians.

Based on this information and in light of the testimony you heard, do you feel that our national security is threatened to some extent? I am not trying to extrapolate. That's not at all my intention.

Mr. Richard Flageole: Mr. Chairman, in terms of security, we must contend with two major problems and we discuss these in 3.96 and in subsequent paragraphs. In some cases, it's impossible to gather the information we want. For example, immigrant applicants from a number of countries are required to provide a document showing that they do not have a criminal record, whereas applicants from other countries are under no such obligation, given the problems in their country. As I recall, 23 per cent of immigrants are admitted without such supporting documents. Therefore, obtaining information can be a problem.

In other cases, officers may have information, but cannot use it because the department would be hard pressed to justify its decision in light of the information it has. In such instances, they may be obliged to approve a person's application despite the fact that they may have some serious concerns in light of the information received.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

One of the first things I'd like to ask about is section 3.92. There it says:

Submitting false information results in the refusal of an application at worst, and nothing prevents the applicant from submitting another application the next day.

What I take from that is that the immigration department should have the ability to have refusal periods, so that if somebody submits false documentation they can't come in the very next day and resubmit, whether it be good documentation or false documentation.

You note here that there's nothing that's “practically” enforceable in other countries, so our immigration officers at least need to have the ability to go ahead and refuse people the right to apply again if they've handed in a fraudulent document. Is that what I take from 3.92?

Mr. Serge Gaudet: Yes, I guess that's a fair assessment.

• 1615

I would like to add that under the new bill, Bill C-31, there is a provision to penalize those who submit false applications. That's a step in the right direction. Having a piece of legislation on that is a good exercise, but on top of that you need the information. You need to know the individual has applied somewhere. If he tries to apply in Paris, for example, and his first application was in Beijing, you want to know that fact. So it's not just a matter of having something against that, but it's also a matter of being able to detect it.

Mr. Rob Anders: My understanding is that only applies to refugees and not to the other classes it could be dealing with.

The Chair: Just to correct you, Bill C-31 addresses all immigrants and refugees.

Mr. Rob Anders: Well, I guess we'll have to check into it, but that's my understanding.

The Chair: Trust me; it's no problem.

Mr. Rob Anders: Oh, why do I doubt that?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rob Anders: In 3.96 is a very interesting indictment of the system. It says in 1998 we had 153 permits issued to medically inadmissible persons, and 1,352 permits were issued to people with criminal convictions of varying degrees of severity.

In 3.98 you also point out that since 1994, fewer than 2% of applicants have been turned down for reasons of health, criminality, or security. I guess that would mean they're not being turned down, because they're just being let in. There doesn't seem to be any screen there.

Mr. Richard Flageole: Mr. Chairman, as to the sentence we have at 3.98, those are the facts. It's only 2%. It is low. We noticed some weaknesses in the process, and certainly improvements can be made. Whether that figure should be higher it's impossible to know. Those are the results.

In relation to the permits that were issued, there are different ways to look at this. I'll give you a practical example. Sometimes a permit can be issued for a child to come to Canada for a special treatment. It's case by case, and the department has the authority under the legislation to let—

[Translation]

A voice: On humanitarian grounds.

[English]

Mr. Richard Flageole: Yes, there are some humanitarian grounds. There are various reasons those permits are issued.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'd like, if I could, to move on to a couple of parts that are quite worrying. At 3.103 and carrying on to 3.105, 3.106, and 3.107, those all have to do with the medical nature of the examinations or the lack thereof.

Under 3.103, at the very end it mentions medical surveillance after arriving in Canada. That fits with the idea the opposition was putting forward with regard to holding centres or something like that, because right now there's no adequate provision, it seems, for surveillance of medical conditions after arriving in Canada.

It goes on in 3.105 to say examinations are performed by designated local physicians, but it also goes on to say the supervision of designated local physicians is insufficient. So as a result, you could literally have doctors overseas who doctor their reports, and there's no adequate supervision of whether or not those reports are valid.

In 3.106 it says even though we have the ability now to test for HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, we don't have testing for that. We haven't changed our criteria, really, in forty years, so we're posing a danger to public health that is going to entail some pretty heavy costs for the health care system. Do you have any idea what it would cost us to update that so that we are testing for HIV and hepatitis B and C?

Mr. Richard Flageole: We don't have any information on that, and whether it will be done is a decision the department has to make.

• 1620

Overall, if you look at that section, you'll see we have some very serious concerns about medical examinations on two fronts. First, on the standards for the testing, it's past time for the department and Health Canada to make a decision on whether revisions are required to those routine tests.

On the other side, we have serious concerns about the level of resources devoted to the monitoring of the medical examinations abroad. As you mentioned, those examinations are made by local designated medical officers. In the last decade, the department reduced the number of doctors abroad by half, and if you look at section 3.110, we give some additional information that presently we have eleven doctors abroad who are making 200,000 medical assessments and overseeing 800 doctors in 160 countries.

The Chair: So they must spend most of their time in airplanes.

Sophia.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your report. I find it very useful, especially since just last month Minister Caplan and I did visit Australia, China, and Hong Kong. Some of the problems you pointed out are all very closely identified.

But I have to say one thing. In China, to use an example, applications have jumped threefold. I'm not trying to defend the department, just present the facts. So in the process, they have to enlarge the staff to meet the needs. Also, they are in the process of trying to move to have a bigger office in Beijing, and they also expanded another visa application in Shanghai. This is all good news.

Related to the medical side, in Beijing they're going to have a built-in clinic to follow our Canadian standard. That's very important.

My question is this. You did indicate a lot of difficulties with the offshore process. Do you have any suggestions for a different way of processing, maybe centralized, maybe in Canada, to standardize the application? That's one I wanted to ask you.

Also, what measures can you suggest to minimize the abuse of the process? Even business practices and educational systems, cultural difference, such grey compared to ours....

Then about the medical, it is quite a concern, just to respond to my colleague. Do you have any suggestions? You did say there is a concern. Can you give me more detail about the unevenness of the medical assessments?

Thank you.

Mr. Richard Flageole: On the first question, the department presently is in the process of looking at various scenarios for processing applications. A pilot project has been launched to see whether some types of applications can be processed in Canada.

There are various alternatives to do that. The main message we have in here is, we found the knowledge of the conditions in a specific country is a key element in making those assessments and ensuring the integrity of the program. How to balance this basic requirement with processing applications in Canada is certainly quite a challenge. Information systems are a key element in this. We make some comments in here about the need to modify, make some major changes, to the information systems the department has, and I think they have the intention of doing it. Those two things are really linked.

• 1625

In terms of the medical, as I mentioned before, it's very important that Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Health Canada make a decision on whether there should be any changes to routine testing. We point out in the report that we've been doing the same tests for over 40 years, and there have been a lot of changes in medical situations, so this is a key one. I also think the department really has to revisit the level of resources they are devoting to the overall management of the medical assessments abroad.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, could we add a further comment on offshore processing?

The Chair: Yes, please.

Mr. Serge Gaudet: Part of our report says that offshore application really had difficulties. Through our survey, 90% of the people in the department, the officers, said they believe it has a significant negative impact on the quality of the decision, not only on the quality but also on the workload.

We were in Beijing and we saw that they were building a new accommodation. That's going to be needed for sure. But despite all that, when you look at our exhibit 3.10, where we show the various offices around the world, and you look at where the offshore comes from, it mainly comes from China.

So it's going to need a lot there, even if you have a big office. You have to look at the entire process. How much can be processed here? Maybe the decision can be taken abroad. There are various scenarios, but the offshore application definitely creates a lot of difficulties from the point of view of workload, quality of decision, uniformity of decision, and also controlling all that.

That's all I had to add.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Gentlemen, I'll try to focus a little more quickly; I didn't succeed last time.

You've commented on the need for changes to be made in terms of resources allocated, in terms of legislative changes, and in terms of administration. I think you've indicated this, but I want you to answer. Is it fair to say that the quickest and possibly the most effective changes would come from changes in administration and management, areas that wouldn't necessarily cost?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Well, Mr. Chairman, I did say that the department could go ahead fairly quickly and attack the lists of administrative issues that need to be dealt with, without waiting for changes in legislation or waiting for changes in the level of resources. Admittedly, additional resources would help address a number of the administrative issues, but not all administrative issues are really resource dependent. So yes, they could move ahead I think quite quickly and address these administrative problems without waiting for everything else to fall in place.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Gaudet, you referred to Bill C-31. Have you analysed Bill C-31 to some extent as to the impact it might have in solving these problems?

Mr. Serge Gaudet: We have looked at Bill C-31.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What's your conclusion? Is it going to solve most of the problems, is it going to help in most of the areas, or is it going to have a very selected and limited impact in terms of positive impact?

Mr. Serge Gaudet: It's going to be limited for this chapter here. As we mentioned earlier, most of the problems come from administrative issues and resource issues. We were able to identify two specific areas in the new legislation where it would help a lot to address some of our issues.

One of them is.... I'll speak in French on that one, because it's technical.

[Translation]

Information obtained by Canadian sources with the promise of confidentiality must be protected. Problems will arise if information or the source of such information cannot be revealed to a federal court if that information would show that a person has a criminal record or is a national security threat. This is one of the issues addressed in Bill C-31.

[English]

The other one is the one I talked about earlier, that had been discussed earlier, about the false statements and those who present false statements. That's definitely one that will be helpful.

• 1630

In addition to that, there is something about application for leave in order to have access to the Federal Court. There is an increase in the number of people who have access to the federal court. This is another issue that has been discussed in the new legislation.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you think that may actually cut down on the number of people who gain access to the Federal Court?

Mr. Serge Gaudet: I'm not sure what impact it's going to have. The problem is maybe bigger than that. The question is one of having a quality control system in the department that will give sufficient conclusion or assurance that the decisions are well supported and defendable in front of the Federal Court. If you appear weak in taking your decision, then of course people will try to challenge it all the ways they can.

Mr. Leon Benoit: On the other question, we've talked a little bit about administration and management and about the legislative impact. That leaves resources. You did say in your report that more resources would help solve the problem. If we doubled the budget of the department next year, would that solve most of the problems you've pointed to in your report?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I think I said earlier that you can't simply throw money at the problem. Whatever additional funds are identified and given to the department, those funds have to be targeted properly. I think the department itself has to do some homework in order to be able to answer that properly. It has to know exactly where it needs the resources, in which offices, and for what purposes. The action plan we're talking about should be sufficiently detailed to allow the committee and others to be able to relate additional funds to specific tasks so that we then have assurance that it's been used to correct the problems we've all agreed on.

The Chair: Bernard.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: In paragraph 11 of your statement, where mention is made of fraudulent applications, you seem to place the burden squarely on applicants. You appear far more conciliatory toward the people who provide services or who are responsible for administering a certain number of travel documents. Yet, in reality, the situation is very different.

Certainly, some applicants are guilty of fraud, but the staff working in immigration offices abroad may also be perpetrating fraud. Are you being more tolerant because you have witnessed certain irregularities, notably at the Beijing office, in the handling of passports and visas? It is rumored that 2,000 visas disappeared from the Beijing office. Have you in fact observed some irregularities or is this nothing more than an urban legend, so to speak?

Mr. Serge Gaudet: We are fairly harsh in our criticism of the situation. We note in paragraph 3.170 that revenue control is inadequate. A fairly detailed audit must be conducted in order to detect fraud and we did not do one. However, we did examine internal audit reports. We reviewed what had been said by the media and looked at the basic controls in place in offices abroad.

We observed that at times, there have been problems with the system for reconciling accounts. Officers with revenue collection responsibilities experience coordination and control problems because they lack the proper training to detect fraud. We concluded that there is therefore a high risk of fraud and that indeed fraud does occasionally occur.

• 1635

We're familiar with the media reports or with the outcomes of investigations. Our concern is that not enough internal audits are conducted. In fact, I think we have five internal auditors to cover all of the activities carried out at our offices abroad and at border crossings. We need to be concerned about the lack of control mechanisms in place, not only to detect, but also to prevent fraud.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Therefore, if I understand correctly, based on your audit, you cannot conclude that fraud is occurring at some immigration offices abroad. Is that correct?

Mr. Serge Gaudet: Our audit did not reveal any fraud as such, but judging from internal reports, this does appear to be a problem. We point to the fact that the department's Office of Professional Conduct looks into allegations and complaints and that each year, it uncovers cases of fraud or missing visas or cash.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I believe the fraud cases to which Mr. Bigras is referring have been well documented by the department and that new cases are identified on a regular basis by the department. We did not redo the work of the internal auditors because we found their findings to be fairly conclusive.

Control problems were noted, along with inadequate systems and practices, for example, the lack of uniform visa control procedures which leave the department more vulnerable than it should be. Therefore, getting back to what we were saying earlier, cases of internal fraud must be dealt with as severely as cases of fraud perpetrated by applicants.

[English]

The Chair: Steve Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Desautels, you did something you don't often do. You went away from your text a little bit when you were presenting originally and added one word, which struck me as a rather significant word. The word you added was “real”. Your text reads, “We believe that the department would be well advised to develop an action plan...” and you added the word “real” before “action plan”.

I'm sorry to be picky, but it kind of struck me that there's some implication there that you're not satisfied with either the action plan that you mentioned was placed on the Intranet or the action plan that we have in front of us, which comes with at least some form of timeline. Is that fair? Is that why you added that word, or do you want to retract that?

Mr. Denis Desautels: No. That word was not an accident. I wanted to make sure that what we have eventually from the department is an action plan that has sufficient detail as to who's responsible, what the specific steps are, how long it will take, what the timelines are, and which resources will be allocated to each task that has to be done. I was referring mostly to the department's document that they published on their Intranet site. I didn't think that really qualified as a detailed action plan, such as I would normally expect. This is why I wanted to insist that what we need is something more detailed than that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The document I have, dated April 11, is what's on the Intranet?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Yes, basically.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay.

You also mention in paragraph 2 of your report to us that a number of federal partners are involved in obtaining the objectives, as you put it, of the economic component. They are the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, CSIS, RCMP, and Health Canada. Have they responded to your recommendations as to an action plan they might use, or is all of this really the responsibility of CIC?

• 1640

Mr. Denis Desautels: So far only the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has responded to our recommendations. We would basically expect them to coordinate their response with other departments, other agencies involved.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do you want to add something to that?

Mr. Richard Flageole: We have responses to some of the comments in the chapter. But as the Auditor General said, in terms of the action plan, I think we would really expect the departments to coordinate. They're the ones who are leading all of that program.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It would be reasonable, though, for this committee to maybe have someone from those departments come and talk to us about how they're responding to the recommendations and how it affects them.

Clearly, if you're talking security problems, CSIS should play a major role. In the foreign offices that I've been in, CSIS is right there. I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect a visa officer to deal with a serious breach of security, as opposed to someone trained under the CSIS.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Mahoney that it would have been interesting to have these other organizations alongside the Department of Citizenship and Immigration when they came before the committee.

The Chair: Maybe I could be helpful and thank you for the suggestions, Steve and Mr. Desautels.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are you assuming I'm done?

The Chair: No. I'm just following up that in fact this committee will not only have the department, but other people—in fact by June 14, perhaps even with your assistance—to develop that, because this committee is very interested in developing that action plan and a tracking system to make sure that it's done. It may very well be, Steve, that we shall want to bring in CSIS and the RCMP to assist us, and be able to find out from them what resources and/or other things, if any, they may need to help to lead, obviously, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say that I certainly agree with the statement about the dedication and the quality of the individuals I've met in our foreign offices. But something as serious—and some of your statements are extremely serious, frankly—as danger to the public and things of that nature.... I think it's unrealistic of us to expect that we can provide that particular level of training to someone working with literally hundreds of applicants on a timed schedule that often is very difficult, and they're not necessarily trained in security.

Are the statements you've made with regard to the potential for danger to Canada—health safety, public safety, and that kind of thing—based on actual evidence of cases where people were allowed in and caused some problems, either in terms of infectious disease or in terms of criminal activity? Or is it based on—and I'm talking about cases that you actually saw—the evidence given to you from our staff abroad?

Mr. Richard Flageole: We really looked at the way the department is managing those risks, because I think we're really talking about risk management here. The process that is followed by the department we consider to be insufficient to obtain the level of assurance they should have.

As we mentioned before, the immigration officers we met and the results of the survey clearly show that the people who are making the decisions have serious concerns about the level of risk they're making those decisions on, both on the medical and on the criminality and security side.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: On the medical side, are their concerns based around the quality or the quantity, in terms of examinations? Do they feel they're not getting to examine enough people and enough cases? Do they feel, for example, that AIDS testing should be mandatory, coming from certain countries in Africa or anywhere else in the world? What is it? What are their real concerns?

• 1645

Mr. Richard Flageole: Mr. Chairman, the concerns are on both sides, on the quality and on the quantity. The Immigration Act is very clear in terms of excessive demand or risk to the security of Canadians. I think the people are asking for a very clear definition of what that means. Once that is done, a decision can be made on what we will test.

We made the same recommendation, word for word, to the department in 1990, and ten years later we're still waiting for a position on it. I think we have some expectations on that. The other one is related to the monitoring of the quality of the examinations. Again, the Canadian doctors really consider that they don't have the time or the resources to obtain the level of assurance they would have on the quality of examinations, which are done by the various locally engaged medical practitioners.

The Chair: Thank you.

Rob.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I notice that under 3.82 in your report, which is on page 3-20, you talk about standardized language tests, and that right now people are just going on a rough judgment to evaluate an applicant's ability to communicate in English or French.

I know that Australia has just put through a test whereby they judge people based on their ability to read, write, speak, and understand the official language of Australia. I recognize that if we had a test that did all four of those things, it would probably also save us a lot of cost on interpreters as well, because we provide interpreters at other stages in the process and in a sense we incur all sorts of extra costs.

If we had a system like Australia's, where we judged their ability to read, write, speak, and understand one of the official languages, it would save us the cost of the interpreters, and also deal with the problem that we don't have standardized language tests right now.

Mr. Richard Flageole: You might want to discuss it further with the department tomorrow. My understanding is that they are in the process of looking at some very significant changes to the way they will do that. They have been talking to their Australian colleagues. I think there are also some projects with the British embassy in terms of language testing. So that would be an interesting point to pursue with them tomorrow.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, I have to catch a plane, so I apologize. I wonder if Mr. Benoit could pick up on my question.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thanks, Rob and Mr. Chair.

I'd just like to follow up on my line of questioning from before, on the relative importance of having more resources, legislative change, and administrative change. I know it's a really difficult thing to narrow down and for you to give me answers on, but I've received an answer already that this new legislation certainly isn't going to solve a lot of these problems. Administrative changes and management changes could be made quite quickly. But you've also made it very clear we need more resources, although you did say in your last response that it's important that the department focus those resources, as well.

I would have to say that is quite apparent. If you look at what's happened over the last five years, the department has had an increase in spending of 52%—36% in the last three years alone. These massive increases in funding and resources haven't solved the problems.

My question about what would happen if you could double the spending right away is a bit far out, but we've had a 50% increase in spending in the last five years—not insignificant. I'm just wondering if throwing more money at the problem will really do much at all.

Mr. Richard Flageole: I think we saw very clear needs for resources. A case in point is the new computer system. We're talking about major investments in technology. We have a section where we deal with the efficiency notions. That organization is just buried in paperwork. I had the opportunity to visit some missions abroad, and it's unbelievable to see that in 2000.

• 1650

The department has made a very significant investment in technology. We're probably talking about hundreds of millions of dollars for those projects, which will probably go on for two or three years.

If I can just make an additional point, this department has some major fundamental decisions to make on the organization of its network. For example, where are we going to locate those offices, taking into account other projects, like possibly processing some in Canada? That's why it is so key to have a very clear vision of where they are going. We have the risk of making major investments in a given country, for example, and deciding later that we'll use a different processing approach.

So everything has to be very well coordinated, with clear mid-term and long-term visions on how we will, as a country, process applications from the immigrants.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's an interesting point. It sounds to me like a focusing of spending is necessary, rather than an increase in spending. Even if a new computer network costs $500 million, compared to the increase in spending that's already taken place over the past five years of over $300 million per year, it sounds like it could be a good investment. So isn't that a matter of spending reallocation, rather than an increase in spending?

If resources were better reallocated generally with the front-end people in overseas offices who make decisions, people in enforcement here, and people who could save a lot of problems from building, wouldn't that be more important than just having an increase in spending as such?

Mr. Richard Flageole: As you know, the department has various programs. We haven't looked at the allocation of resources on a department-wide basis. When we did the audit of the selection abroad, we really focused on that. Whether resources could be reallocated from other sectors of the department, I honestly cannot comment on. That's a question you might want to pursue with the department tomorrow.

The Chair: Jean.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.

You mentioned that the staff shared with you their concerns, answered your questionnaire, etc. Is there an established mechanism through which they can convey their concerns and transmit them back to Ottawa to people who are making decisions and making the policy decisions that affect them or their workload?

Mr. Denis Desautels: The survey that was conducted was quite an unusual step. It's not something we do in every audit. I don't think the department itself does that as a routine matter.

Obviously the department has its own information systems. It has its own ways of finding out what managers out there are experiencing in terms of difficulties. As far as I know, there isn't a system in place for people from all the ranks to feed up their frustrations, if you wish, or their concerns, the way they have done to us in this survey.

Ms. Jean Augustine: So they wait until the audit comes around, and then they tell the auditors.

Mr. Denis Desautels: I hope that's not the case. I think it's possible for organizations to do that themselves, and some organizations actually do—some departments do. But we weren't aware of a recent exercise of that nature in the department.

The Chair: I wonder, Mr. Desautels, if I could ask you a couple of questions.

Obviously your report points to a department that needs to solve some of these challenges, as you say, especially since there have been very few improvements in the past ten years. That concerns me, and I'm sure it concerns this committee and the minister. The attempt, obviously, is to try to rectify these things.

I'm just trying to get to the meat of the issue. If legislation, in your estimation, is probably not the problem, and Bill C-31 and some of the other things we're going to do will help, then as you said, more resources and administrative and management functions will have to be put in place.

• 1655

If that's 80% of the problem, and as auditors you were trying to design a system on how one can process this paperwork that's coming from a whole bunch of offices all over the world and also in Canada.... Have you looked at it in some real depth? I think you indicated that in the next year or two you'll probably be doing some additional work. We're trying to get a handle on how to fix the problem so that we'll be able to give our best advice to the minister. Could you categorize and prioritize for us what are some of those administrative things that need to be done and the dollar value that has to be targeted? What kinds of resources are we looking at? Specifically, what are some of those administrative priorities?

Let me give you an example. You highlight throughout the report the problem with the offshore applications. As I look at the document, I see applications coming from Russia that will go to Poland, and yet we have an office in Russia. Are the consultants diverting all kinds of applications to Buffalo because it might be quicker or easier to get a decision in Buffalo than in Poland or Russia? If you look at where these applications are coming from, they're coming from all over the place. That seems like a rather ridiculous way to run a system. I'm in business, but you wouldn't start accepting applications in Poland from Russians if in fact you have an office in Russia, or in Buffalo for that matter.

If the offshore problem is of significant magnitude, would one of the administrative and/or management decisions—and I think the minister is looking at this—be to process those kinds of things centrally? Are there significant efficiencies to be gained if in fact one were to centralize a lot of this stuff?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Let me try to answer those questions, and my colleagues will be able to help me out here. You've raised a number of very important questions.

First of all, on the issue of offshore applications, I don't think it's strictly a management decision that the department can make. I think beneath that there's a fundamental policy intent here. This was brought in a few years ago because there were backlogs in certain countries, and in fact there were accusations of controlling the inflow of immigrants from certain countries by allowing backlogs in countries. So there's a fundamental policy intent behind this particular approach.

Back to your more fundamental questions as to what can be done with what kind of priority, let me say that this particular chapter is a fairly severe one. In terms of Auditor General reports, I think this would rank as one of the more critical reports we've issued in the last while. So I think the conclusions here have to be taken quite seriously.

I think that throughout the chapter we did point to a number of management and administrative improvements that could be made. I think you mentioned yourself, after hearing what we had to say, that perhaps 80% of the solution resides in administrative and management improvements and the rest in funding and legislative improvements. I think that's generally a fairly close approximation. I think the department can work fairly quickly on the administrative and management improvements that would deal with those issues without waiting for everything else to fall into place.

In terms of the priorities, it's difficult for me to answer that on the spot right now. If you wish, we could reflect on that and perhaps give you an additional communiqué from us that would basically suggest what needs to be dealt with first. Hopefully, that would be helpful to the committee. I hesitate to give you a detailed answer on that right now, as there is such a long list of issues that have to be addressed. If you would allow us, we could reflect on that and get back to you later.

• 1700

The Chair: Thank you for that offer, and we will take you up on it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

On the same line of questioning, the fact is that between 1992 and 1998 the number of offshore applications increased from 7,600 to 39,000, more than 48% of all immigration applications received in 1998. So it's a very significant issue. Why do you think this increase happened?

Mr. Richard Flageole: I think there are two main reasons, and we made some reference to it. First, some people are applying to other offices because the waiting time is lower. Even if you're a resident of Russia, you'll apply in Buffalo because it's going to be quicker. I think the other main reason is that probably some of those people want to avoid a very thorough review of their application by an officer who has a very good knowledge of the specific country.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Wouldn't the logical way of dealing with that be to require that applications are made in specified offices, either the office in that country or a specified office if you're a resident of that country? Wouldn't that go an awful long way toward dealing with the backlog? It's huge.

Mr. Richard Flageole: I think it is a fundamental question that the department has to answer. If I'm not mistaken, the minister has the authority to decide that application should be processed in a given office. It was used for some of the business-class applicants. They have what they call the business centres, and they can apply to any business centre. So it partly addresses the issue. But it is a fundamental question to be answered.

Mr. Leon Benoit: A lot of people, particularly independent immigrants, use immigration consultants. If they're worth their salt at all, they will shop around, and they do, not only for backlogs but for offices that are more likely to accept an applicant in the particular category of their client. So it may be more than just the backlog. It would be the decisions and the percentage of acceptance or the process in a particular office that would be shopped for.

Mr. Richard Flageole: I agree, and I think it's related to the thoroughness of the application. One of the issues we're raising in here is that we in fact observed some very significant differences in rates of acceptance in different offices for applicants of the same country. I think it went up to 40%. So that could bring the situation you were referring to.

Mr. Leon Benoit: One possible solution to the problem is centralizing more of the applications, as the chair suggests. Another would be to designate the office that people might apply to. It would seem to me that this is a decision that should be made before new legislation is put in place, particularly since the new legislation isn't going to deal with that. Some of the regulations might. How do we really know? A lot is left to regulation. But the legislation isn't going to deal with that.

Mr. Richard Flageole: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether legislative changes would be required for this. You might want to explore that.

If I might respond to your comment, I think it's extremely important that those decisions be made before we make a significant investment of resources. Some things have to come first.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Thank you very much. I'll leave it at that.

The Chair: Thank you.

With regard to the backlog, I would agree with your statement that perhaps before significant resources.... I think the legislation will help in terms of predictability and getting some stuff. We will probably deal with the legislation in the fall. In fact, we will have some of the regulations, which in fact will help standardize, I think, some of that decision-making so that there isn't any more subjectivity assigned, but more objectivity, to that person if the regulations are pretty clear as to what those things are. Hopefully we'll get some answers with regard to medical admissibility and security and criminality, which obviously will be addressed in the new system that the bill intends to bring forward.

• 1705

Perhaps I can ask you a question with regard to the backlog. You see, some people might be so cynical as to think that there are a heck of a lot of criminals, or unhealthy people, coming into this country. But if one looks at the statistics....

I would agree that one needs to be very vigilant in terms of making sure, but the statistics show that 180,000 or 190,000 immigrants are being allowed in this country and the fact that we may be deporting 1,000 based on criminality. That's less than 0.5%.

I understand that we need to focus a lot on security and criminality to make sure that Canadians are safe, but the fact remains, while that is a concern, I don't want to give the impression after this meeting that this country is vulnerable to a lot of unhealthy people, that a lot of criminals are coming into this country. There seems to be in there a balance, with those safety checks. I would hope that while you are concerned...and while some questions were directed in that area, they seemed to focus a lot more on I think blowing it out of proportion.

Might I be right in suggesting that perhaps the emphasis is not so much on criminality and security and the health admissibility as...? The statistics on the other side don't point out that we're that vulnerable. But we have to be vigilant, and we have to improve it.

So perhaps you can comment on that. I don't want to give Canadians the impression that the system is so weak and vulnerable that they should be worried about their security and their safety.

Secondly, Mr. Desautels, you indicated in your opening comments that the fact that we have a system that's not working, that's broken, is costing us economically. In fact, when we're not able to achieve our objectives—and the numbers we've put forward show that people are having to wait six and eight months, or maybe, for certain skilled workers, three years—it means there's an economic impact on the country by virtue of the fact that we're probably not attracting or not getting the people we need so that our economy can function much better.

I'm concerned more about that, perhaps, to tell you the truth, than I am about the risk factor in criminality. I'm more concerned about the fact that we're not attracting.... We should, and need to, process applicants much more quickly so that the businesses and the communities... We need the people.

So I wonder if you could just address the economic costs of a system that's so overburdened it's not been able to process the applications, and address the economic drag that might have on the economy, if you have any views on that one, as well as the risk factors, as I indicated, on criminality and health.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, in terms of your first question, trying to put the security and health issues in perspective, it's a difficult thing to do.

I mean, in all government programs I think it's essential to have what we would call “intelligent” risk management. You cannot prevent 100% of incidents. I think you have to have a certain level of tolerance, and you have to decide what that level of tolerance might be.

In the case of immigration, I think it's an area that is ripe for a good risk management system. I think the department should work on clarifying what its risk management system is and what level of tolerance it has or is ready to accept.

Now, at the current time, as we said, the officers are not comfortable with what's happening. They would like, on the one hand, more clarification of the risks they're supposed to be taking. They also point to areas where we're not doing as good a job as we should be. For instance, the surveillance of medical examinations is not adequate.

• 1710

What is the result of that? Well, nobody has a handle on that. We can say that while people are quite vigilant and dedicated, they're not satisfied that they're catching all the cases. So I think we need to plug some of those holes as quickly as possible but we also need to develop a proper risk management system.

In terms of your second question, indeed, one of the themes of this chapter is that immigration is important to Canada. We need immigration to sustain our growth. It's important, therefore, that this department be able to process applicants in an efficient manner so that those who want to come here and the people we want to come here get accepted as quickly as possible. The backlog we have does carry economic costs.

In addition to the backlog, there may have been people who just didn't bother because they know there's a long waiting period and they didn't get onto the backlog. These could be people with the skills we need in our country.

Immigration is important, and therefore the lack of efficiency in that area is costing us, I think, significant opportunities for our economic growth.

The Chair: Thank you.

Leon, one final question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

In your report you refer to the issue of accountability to Parliament and a working relationship with Parliament, including this committee. I too am concerned about that.

In your opening comment you said:

In 1999, of approximately 190,000 immigrants admitted to Canada, more than half were immigrants under the economic component.

Yet we know—and the deputy minister, I believe, confirmed this—that in fact only about 20% of all immigrants are actually tested in terms of whether they will add to the economy as economic immigrants. That means the figure you've used, “more than half” of approximately 190,000, is misleading, because only 20% are actually tested, in fact, based on their ability to add to the economy.

That seems to me like the kind of thing that has to change. The reporting of the department is I think misleading in this case, and that kind of thing has to change so that there is more accountability to Parliament and a better working relationship with this committee and Parliament.

I'd like your general comment on whether that type of reporting and the action plan, that type of thing, does give you some concern in terms of the relationship between Parliament and the department.

Mr. Denis Desautels: The figure we quote in our opening paragraph is in fact the official number of people who come through that particular component of the immigration program.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Right.

Mr. Denis Desautels: So those are official departmental figures. But we do, in paragraph 3.190, talk about the need for information to Parliament. We suggest additional indicators that the department could publish, including, for instance, such things as the eventual integration in Canadian society and the extent to which these so-called economic immigrants do find employment quickly.

I think it would be quite feasible to add, in the information supplied to Parliament, indicators like that to give you a better handle on the success of the program.

The Chair: Mr. Desautels, Mr. Flageole, and Mr. Gaudet, thank you very much for a great report. Obviously you've given us an awful lot of food for thought. This committee in this next week and a half intends to take your report very seriously. In fact, we have the department tomorrow and next week we have a number of people who are going to give us some insight.

• 1715

I want to thank you for your offer to perhaps prioritize some of those administrative matters, which we could look at. One of the things we'd like to do before we leave here on June 14 or whatever is have a discussion a little bit on that action plan and that tracking system. So it may very well be that the committee may come back to you with some questions in a formal way.

This committee is serious about trying to help immigration people do their job. As we all indicated, there are some darn good reasons why we need to improve the system not only economically but also socially, and from a safety, security, and health standpoint as well. We hope we can count on you to give us some additional thoughts that we can perhaps incorporate in some future work we intend to do not only on Bill C-31 but also with regard to a study we're doing on immigration, on the story behind the numbers, so to speak. I think that might be very useful.

Again, thank you very much for your input.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I'd be pleased to send you that additional information. If the committee research staff would like to talk to our people, who have lots of information, we'd be happy to share that information.

The Chair: Fantastic. Thank you.

We're adjourned until tomorrow at 9 a.m.