;

CIMM Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

0810

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.))

Mr. Brian Tsuji (Chairman, Canadian Bar Association (BC Immigration Section))

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

0820

The Chair

Dr. Joseph Molnar (President, Hungarian Cultural Society of Greater Vancouver)

0825

The Chair

Dr. Joseph Molnar

The Chair

Mr. Richard Kurland (Editor-in-Chief, LEXBASE)

The Chair

Mr. W. Wesley Pue (Professor of Law, Law Faculty, University of British Columbia)

The Chair

Mr. W. Wesley Pue

0830

The Chair

Mr. W. Wesley Pue

The Chair

0835

Mr. Kelly Ip (Individual Presentation)

The Chair

Mr. Kelly Ip

The Chair

Mr. Kelly Ip

0840

The Chair

Mr. Zale Tanner (Individual Presentation)

0845

The Chair

Mr. Zale Tanner

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)

0850

The Chair

Mr. W. Wesley Pue

0855

The Chair

Mr. W. Wesley Pue

The Chair

Mr. Richard Kurland

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

The Chair

0900

Mr. Kelly Ip

The Chair

Mr. Kelly Ip

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

The Chair

Mr. Kelly Ip

0905

Ms. Sophia Leung

The Chair

Mr. Zale Tanner

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Brian Tsuji

The Chair

Mr. Zale Tanner

The Chair

Mr. Zale Tanner

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ)

0910

M. Richard Kurland

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Richard Kurland

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Richard Kurland

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.)

0915

Mr. Kelly Ip

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Richard Kurland

0920

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon

0925

The Chair

Mr. Zale Tanner

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

0930

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

The Chair

Dr. Joseph Molnar

The Chair

Mr. W. Wesley Pue

The Chair

Mr. W. Wesley Pue

The Chair

Mr. Kelly Ip

0935

The Chair

Mr. Kelly Ip

The Chair

Mr. Kelly Ip

The Chair

Mr. Richard Kurland

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

The Chair

Dr. Joseph Molnar

The Chair

Mr. Zale Tanner

The Chair

Mr. Kelly Ip

The Chair

Mr. Kelly Ip

Dr. Joseph Molnar

The Chair

1005

The Chair

Mr. Frank Work (Commissioner, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta)

The Chair

1010

Mr. Frank Work

1020

The Chair

Mr. Frank Work

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

1025

The Chair

Mr. Frank Work

1030

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Frank Work

1035

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

1040

Mr. Frank Work

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Frank Work

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Frank Work

Ms. Sophia Leung

The Chair

1045

Mr. Frank Work

The Chair

1050

Mr. Frank Work

The Chair

Mr. Frank Work

The Chair

Mr. Frank Work

The Chair

Mr. Frank Work

1055

The Chair

Mr. Frank Work

The Chair

Mr. Frank Work

The Chair

Mr. Frank Work

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Frank Work

1100

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Frank Work

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Frank Work

The Chair

Mr. Frank Work

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

1105

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

1110

The Chair

Mr. Richard Kurland

The Chair

Mr. Kenneth Tung (Vice-Chairman, Success)

The Chair

Mr. Kenneth Tung

1115

Ms. Lillian To (Executive Director, Success)

1120

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Richard Kurland

1125

The Chair

Mr. Richard Kurland

The Chair

Mr. Richard Kurland

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon

1130

Mr. Richard Kurland

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Richard Kurland

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Richard Kurland

Ms. Sophia Leung

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Richard Kurland

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Brian Tsuji

1135

Mr. Richard Kurland

Ms. Lillian To

The Chair

Ms. Lillian To

The Chair

1140

Mr. Brian Tsuji

1145

Mr. Richard Kurland

The Chair

Ms. Lillian To

The Chair

1150

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Richard Kurland

The Chair

Mr. Richard Kurland

The Chair

Mr. Richard Kurland

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Brian Tsuji

The Chair

Mr. Richard Kurland

The Chair

1155

Mr. Brian Tsuji

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

The Chair

Mr. Brian Tsuji

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 045

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0810)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)) Good morning, colleagues and guests. We are continuing our discussions on Bill C-18, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, and we are happy to have another full contingent of witnesses here in Vancouver.

We have until about 9:30 or 9:45. We are running a few minutes late and we have a number of people to hear from.

Since we have your briefs, I will ask you to take five to seven minutes to summarize your briefs and the recommendations you want us to cover and the issues, obviously, that are most important to you, so that we have some time left to ask you the questions we need to ask.

I will start with the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. Immigration Section, and recognize Brian Tsuji.

Welcome, Brian.

Mr. Brian Tsuji (Chairman, Canadian Bar Association (BC Immigration Section)): Thank you.

Do you all have a copy of our paper?

The Chair: Yes, we do.

Mr. Brian Tsuji: Basically, then, I will quickly run through the points here. There are a number of points and recommendations.

The first point is children adopted by Canadians. Clause 9 of the new legislation allows Canadian citizens to apply directly for citizenship for adopted children. The recommendations we have are, number one, you allow refusal of citizenship applications to be first reviewed by the Immigration Appeal Division. And number two, when a child is sponsored for permanent residence the validity of the adoption reviewed and at citizenship application should not be revisited. In other words, if you look at it once, you shouldn't go back and reopen it.

Number two is the residency test. The new bill requires three years out of six years of physical presence in Canada. At first blush, this seems very reasonable. However, there are a few--

The Chair: I am trying to identify which one you.... I have so many papers on my desk.

Mr. Brian Tsuji: I have extra copies here. Why don't I pass these around? It will make it a lot easier.

For the residency test, point two, we recommend that when a business person is abroad for employment with a Canadian employer he be deemed a resident of Canada, and that the spouse accompanying this Canadian citizen abroad also be deemed a resident of Canada. This would be the same as section 20 of IRPA.

We would recommend that deemed residence is capped to require the minimum necessary physical presence in Canada in addition to deemed residence, because you don't want the situation where someone hasn't lived in Canada and has been abroad the whole time. We want a minimum of that to be set.

We also recommend that there be authority for the minister to exempt applicants from strict compliance with the residency requirement in compelling ordinarily resident cases, such as students temporarily abroad, who have a family with a history of residence in Canada. We want this limited to persons ordinarily resident in Canada as permanent residents for at least five years. Once again, we are setting bare minimums.

¾ (0820)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Brian.

Now we'll go to the Hungarian Cultural Society of Greater Vancouver, Dr. Joseph Molnar and Susan Pali. Welcome.

Dr. Joseph Molnar (President, Hungarian Cultural Society of Greater Vancouver): Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Joseph Molnar. I am the president of the Hungarian Cultural Society of Greater Vancouver, which represents the largest Hungarian community in the region.

As I and most of our members are naturalized Canadian citizens, the issues outlined in Bill C-18 are of great interest to us.

I wish to stress the important fact that as naturalized Hungarian-Canadian citizens, we chose Canada as our new homeland over all other countries because of Canada's fair and equitable laws and democratic principles and traditions.

Until recently we were all secure in the knowledge that as naturalized Canadian citizens we had equal rights and freedoms with citizens born in Canada. Therefore, it came as a shock to realize that under the proposed citizenship act we could be stripped of our legal rights as citizens as guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In actual fact, it renders us second-class citizens.

We support the motion that, one, the revocation process be taken out of the jurisdiction of the cabinet, where no representation is possible for the person whose citizenship is being revoked; two, in the case of criminal charges guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and three, political interference be eliminated from this process by divesting cabinet of its role and putting it in the hands of the courts to be dealt with under the due process of law in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, as provided for in section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Furthermore, we support, one, that all citizens have equal status no matter how they become citizens; two, requiring a strong attachment to Canada for the acquisition of citizenship; three, ensuring equality of citizens and non-citizens in the courts; and four, requiring a working knowledge of one of the official languages.

We are in agreement with the proposed new power to permit the Governor in Council, upon a report of the minister, to deny a person citizenship where there are reasonable grounds to believe the person has engaged or will engage in an activity that is a threat to the security of Canada or that is related to organized crime, provided they get a fair hearing in a court of law. We also support the provision whereby a person be declared inadmissible on security grounds, for violating human or international rights, or for organized criminality, pursuant to the recently enacted Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

However, we wish to express our concern with regard to clause 21, which would empower the cabinet to refuse citizenship if “a person has demonstrated a flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”. We feel that the phrase “principles and values underlying a free and democratic society” is a broad concept and one that could leave room for a multitude of interpretations and misinterpretations. We submit that this clause should be replaced with a more specific definition.

The other clause we wish to address is clause 14, automatic loss of citizenship. With regard to the new residency requirement as set out in the clause--namely, that second-generation Canadians born abroad after 1977 would have to be physically present in Canada for at least three years during the six years before applying to retain their Canadian citizenship--we find it to be too harsh, unpractical, unfair, and discriminatory. In actual fact, this would create a new class of citizenship and would also infringe on the rights guaranteed under subsection 6.(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

¾ (0825)

The Chair: Thank you, Joseph. I don't believe we have a copy of your brief.

Dr. Joseph Molnar: I gave one to the interpreter, but I think I have an extra copy if you want one.

The Chair: The committee would like one. Thank you very much.

Next we have Lexbase, represented by Richard Kurland, editor-in-chief.

Welcome, Richard.

Mr. Richard Kurland (Editor-in-Chief, LEXBASE): Welcome, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.

Knowing the valuable time for questions, we'll keep this brief. We have one specific recommendation covering the transportation industry.

The proposed law covers incidents of births occurring in the course of contracts with the transportation industry. Ironically, there is a gap when it comes to the significant numbers of full-time employees who work in Canada's transportation industry in the maritime and aviation sectors.

Our recommendation is that a full-time employee in the transportation industry who cannot meet the physical presence requirements should be allowed to access Canadian citizenship where the person has no residence in the world other than Canada and, importantly, within the ten-year period preceding the disposition of an application for Canadian citizenship the person has filed seven Canadian tax returns as a resident of Canada.

This would address the literally thousands of permanent full-time employees who are left in citizenship limbo as a direct consequence of the nature of their work. That's our primary recommendation.

Our analysis, just an overview, from our non-partisan policy think-tank is in connection with the statements heard earlier that the bill is in keeping with the overall trend to diminish individual rights and liberties. The proposed law that will potentially affect one-third of our population will actually maintain a climate of fear for a generation of new Canadians, who at any time will be potentially subject to procedures currently illegal in the criminal courts.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Richard.

Now we have Wesley Pue, professor of law from the University of British Columbia.

Welcome, Wesley.

Mr. W. Wesley Pue (Professor of Law, Law Faculty, University of British Columbia): Thank you very much.

Just to be clear, Mr. Chair, I'm not actually representing the University of British Columbia. I wouldn't deign to do that. But I do work there.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. W. Wesley Pue: I am delighted to be here to present to you very briefly on clauses 21 and 22 of the new bill.

Every once in a while an idea comes along that is really very bad, and I think we have one or two such ideas here. The revocation provisions have been addressed by the Canadian Bar Association. I'm going to talk about the discretionary refusal of grants of citizenship.

Clauses 21 and 22 of the bill are conceptually wrong and poorly defined. There are entirely inadequate procedural protections for the victims of this new power. They substitute ministerial whim for the rule of law. Finally, they seem to be entirely unnecessary.

¾ (0830)

The Chair: I like that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. W. Wesley Pue: There are lots of questions as to who we would exclude under these criteria if we were engaged in subjective assessments, which is all the statute provides us with.

If there is a particular evil to be cured by this clause, it's unclear what it might be. Parliament should insist on narrow and precise statutory language to deprive people of rights they otherwise would have under Canadian law.

The procedural protections are entirely inadequate when this new power is to be used. The targeted parties are to receive only a summary of allegations against them, which compounds the vagueness of the standard itself. There is a very limited time for response of only 30 days. There is only a limited right to respond; it's only to be in writing, and you can't examine or introduce witnesses, and so on. Finally, the Governor in Council may ignore even these limited protections, when it so desires.

When this extraordinary power is used against somebody, it will be rendered as un-reviewable by the various provisions in the clause designed to oust the jurisdiction of the courts. The legislative summary points out accurately—but I think ultimately misleadingly—that ordinary principles of administrative law, including the doctrine of fairness, apply. But fairness is a legal term of art; it doesn't mean substantive fairness. It doesn't mean that the individual wishing to raise a legal challenge to what's happened to them will actually have access to the evidence, the information, the material, or the knowledge they need to mount an acceptable challenge to it.

Finally, there is no obvious public policy reason motivating this extraordinary provision. Existing or proposed citizenship law already denies citizenship to people who pose a security risk, and it already denies or would deny citizenship to people who face serious criminal charges or who have sustained criminal records. People who are undesirable on anything but an ideological litmus test are already excluded from the right to citizenship, and this unnecessary and vaguely defined power would be highly undesirable for this reason.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Wesley. I'm sure we will have some questions for you on your good brief. Thank you.

We now have two individuals, Kelly Ip and Zale Tanner, who will make submissions.

¾ (0835)

Mr. Kelly Ip (Individual Presentation): I only made one copy for the record and I have a copy for myself. I can leave this one behind. With a limited budget, I didn't make copies for other members.

The Chair: Our photocopying is free. It's not a problem.

Mr. Kelly Ip: I gave one to Sharon.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Kelly Ip: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Kelly Ip. I am one of the vice-presidents of SUCCESS, the acronym for the United Chinese Committee Enrichment Services Society, which made a formal presentation here yesterday morning. We also organized a very close, successful forum last night. About twenty people came. Lynne and Andrew also came from the committee. A number of the participants are here this morning.

I'm also the past president of the Canadian Club of Vancouver, as well as on the board of many organizations in town. I took early retirement from public service five years ago. I have since been appointed a marriage commissioner by the Province of British Columbia. I have attached a copy of my résumé with my presentation.

Today I am speaking on behalf of myself as a former federal public servant having served as a citizenship court manager for 18 years.

I would like to address the proposed change of the title and the role of citizenship judges as proposed in part 5, clause 31, under the title “Citizenship Commissioners”.

First of all, it is my view that the title “citizenship judge” should be retained. The title of “citizenship commissioner” does not adequately convey the importance of the person who confers citizenship to candidates on behalf of the minister.

The venue where permanent residents become Canadian citizens is commonly known as the Court of Canadian Citizenship. It should be retained. The presiding officer, who is known as the citizenship judge and who is addressed as his or her honour, should also be kept.

I agree that the ceremonial and ambassadorial role normally carried out by a citizenship judge should be continued and be given an even greater role to play in the citizenship promotional responsibilities, strengthening the value of citizenship participation in the community.

Secondly, citizenship judges should continue with their decision-making duties in approving or not approving complicated and complex cases that require judicious discretion and are not merely based on objective criteria to be assessed by the citizenship officers.

They should have the discretionary power to review citizenship applications that are non-approved by citizenship officers, thereby acting as the first step in the citizenship appeal process so that the Federal Court trial division will not have to deal with some frivolous appeal cases.

The appointment of citizenship judges--also known as commissioners, if it's going to be changed--should be non-political and based on merit as outlined in part 5, subclause 31(6). “To be eligible for employment as, and to serve as, a Citizenship Commissioner, a person must be a citizen,”--I assume it's a Canadian citizen--“have demonstrated an understanding of the values of good citizenship and be recognized for their valuable civic contribution.” It's not political patronage.

I agree with all the duties of citizenship commissioners as outlined in the same section, subclause 31(7). However, I found it strange that paragraph 31(7)(c) actually retains all the present duties of the citizenship judges

to provide, on the Minister's request, advice and recommendations about (i) citizenship applications, (ii) appropriate methods to evaluate citizenship applicants about their knowledge of an official language, of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, and (iii) the exercise of the Minister's discretion.

¾ (0840)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Kelly. I know you come with an awful lot of experience that we might want to dwell upon during our questions.

I should tell you that some of us would have liked to have been there last night, but we were also meeting with citizenship judges to get their perspective on the new bill and their roles and functions. I think the committee thought it was necessary to do so and I'm happy that you addressed the issue. Thank you.

We'll go now to Zale Tanner.

Mr. Zale Tanner (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm also a member of the Hungarian community, and I have served in the past as president of the Hungarian Cultural Society, various Hungarian organizations, including Hungarian-language television producing here in Vancouver, and also an English-language Hungarian publication. I've been very active in the community in the past, as I am right now.

I will not go into details of the legislation, because the Hungarian Cultural Society's president, Doctor Molnar, expressed our community's concerns. I'm simply here to reinforce and express our overwhelming concerns over this particular bill that we are reviewing right now.

I left Hungary in 1956. I left a country where there was no law protecting the citizens and politicians made all the decisions. I came into the land of freedom, where I felt I would be protected by law and where I would have my human rights. I was therefore shocked to find out that in the present citizenship act there are traces of the similar situations I left in Hungary. I could not believe that is possible within Canada.

I was surprised at how it is possible that in the first place our politicians brought in and allowed such an act to come into being. Secondly, I'm very concerned about the fact that it takes such a difficult process for some of our politicians to realize how unjust this is and why we have to go through this rigorous process in order to make this change.

I know there are various difficulties. I know there are various situations that require specific study, but the basic principle of the human rights issue is not handled. I feel, really, that Canada, as a multicultural society where we're really proud of being multicultural, can create a situation in which people we are trying to attract to Canada, people we are trying to become a family with, can create two classes of citizens. This was a basic concern wherever I went, not only in the Hungarian community but also other nationalities we come into contact with. Everyone was shocked that it has just come out now, that it has been in existence for such a long time, not knowing, finding out that we're really facing possible similar situations.

I'd like to mention one fact. It wasn't quite clear to me...and this is my personal question, really. When naturalized Canadian citizens have a Canadian-born child, if they are affected by this situation...in either case, if the child has to leave with the parents or gets into the same judgment, it creates a problem because the child does not want to go anywhere else.

On the other hand, if it doesn't create a problem, then it could separate families and it could create a very, very serious problem within the family. So either way, the act is totally wrong. This is basically what I wanted to say, just to reinforce the general feelings and to let you know that it's a real concern.

Thank you very much.

¾ (0845)

The Chair: Thank you, Zale.

Let me just say a couple of things. One is that we've discussed this citizenship act three times over the course of three or four years, and the debate over bad laws or good laws is the essence of democracy. Yes, you might be frustrated and can't believe that certain things are put forward, but having committees of the Commons and the Senate discuss good laws and bad laws is what democracy is all about. As frustrating and distasteful as certain laws might be, that's democracy; that's what we're doing and that's what we're standing up for.

Second, there's been an awful lot of talk about what it means to be a citizen. Well, you know what? Maybe we should write in the citizenship bill that citizens also have an obligation to the country, and that's to become informed and that is to exercise the greatest freedom this world has to offer, to be informed, to speak out, and essentially to know or find out what the laws of their country are.

It's a two-way street with respect to government. Citizens have a responsibility to their country too, and that's to be informed as much as possible about their government and their laws. It's a two-way street, and hopefully we can also address that in the bill too. I just didn't like what you said, that you don't like having to go through this. This is what democracy is all about, Zale, I'm sorry.

Mr. Zale Tanner: I do understand that, if I may reply. As far as that is concerned, I'm not a lawyer; I'm not someone who is familiar with all the processes and procedures. But the simple fact is, if all matters relating to citizenship could be dealt with in a court of law, that would take care of most of the problems.

The Chair: Oh, no; we agree with you. I'm talking about the fact that you had made the statement that you didn't even know why we were dealing with this. And I said to you, this is what democracy is all about and that's what our Parliament is doing. It was not about the principles you believe in; I'm sure we'll have some questions on that. I just took from your comments that you didn't understand how this exercise could be going on or how governments could pass such bad legislation or good legislation. I'm just trying to tell you that this is what democracy is all about.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll have a lot of questions from everybody here, and we'll start with Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me say that I didn't know I was a second-class citizen until I became a member of Parliament. I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister, and on top of that we were reviewing legislation, Bill C-63 and Bill C-16. I had always assumed that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied to all Canadians, so it was a shock to me, especially as I think of myself as reasonably well informed.

As I look around the table, I see that about half of us were at that meeting last night, and it was interesting to see the various groups come together. As I look around the table I see Brian; his parents are in Toronto, but they used to live in Vancouver. Their property was seized for a nickel on the dollar. They were interned and many were sent back to Japan after the war, people born in Canada.

I look at you, Mr. Chairman, and I know we have colleagues in the House who have relatives of Italian ancestry who were interned. Hungarians who were here could have been interned as well.

I met a Chinese-Canadian veteran yesterday who told me that at the time those soldiers went to fight in the Second World War, they were not allowed to vote. They weren't given the vote. It was after Paul Martin Senior saw the tombstones of Canadian soldiers buried in Europe that he pushed for giving Chinese Canadians the vote because they had fought for this country.

I say all that because that's why we have the charter. The spirit of the charter is supposed to redress all the inequalities we had, all the things we had and are ashamed of as a country, and rightfully so, things we were supposed to avoid.

When I look at the Citizenship Act.... And I think the professor said it quite well. Look at clause 21. We're going to deny citizenship, and I have a question. Clause 21 says “a flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”. Well, to me that describes the charter, and to have this thing in there that so denies the most fundamental principles of the charter....

¾ (0850)

The Chair: Perhaps you might address the question of the charter that Andrew talked about, putting it in somewhere in the bill in terms of that being the structural, philosophical, and rights-based concept of the bill.

Mr. W. Wesley Pue: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this. I think there are two or three questions regarding the charter here.

For the first one, I think the member put it very well. It is charter values that should be motivating parliamentarians, not the same kind of finely tuned legal analysis that the Supreme Court of Canada will apply at the end of the day. The Supreme Court of Canada wishes to defer to Parliament wherever it can when it's interpreting the charter.

I think parliamentarians have a primary duty, a duty that's greater than that of the courts, to respect and give full meaning to the values in every possible way, shape, and form.

I think it's important for members of the committee to note that, because the language coming out of Ottawa in the last few years has talked about “charter proof” bills. There is a gap between a “charter proof” bill and one that's desirable from the point of view of reflecting fully the charter values, the values of a free and democratic society, the values of a society governed by the rule of law that Canadians wish to live under and aspire to.

I think it's a very important starting point. The emphasis should be on the values, not the finely tuned analysis of the charter. The idea of enunciating charter values somewhere in a statute seems to me to be a good thing. You can never have too many charter values, in my view.

The danger would be if that were presented as a cure-all for hugely defective provisions because then the enunciation of charter values in a preamble, or somewhere else, would be taken as “charter proofing”. It would lead to exactly the finely tuned, careful, highly priced legal analysis in the Supreme Court of Canada that I think members of Parliament would want to avoid in order to protect the rights of Canadian citizens and aspiring Canadian citizens.

The larger point about the values, I think, is quite interesting. I happen to teach a course in administrative law at the University of British Columbia. Before I had looked at this bill, I drafted a course guide for my students that was intended to communicate all of the things that are important to know about administrative law. I tell them that administrative law is the common-law constitution of Canada.

It was absurd. It had no legal standards, no procedural protections, no review, and no way to challenge bad decisions. I gave it to myself as the course rules my power over them.

¾ (0855)

The Chair: Secondly, what would you do with clause 17?

Mr. W. Wesley Pue: I tend to agree with these proposals. Revocation should be based on firm legal standards established in the ordinary way.

I also have a question as to why we would have revocation on certain grounds for new Canadians if all Canadian citizenship rights are not to be rendered suspect in some way, for example, by failing the ideological litmus test that section 21 applies.

The Chair: Richard.

Mr. Richard Kurland: I'd like to express profound agreement with your comments earlier regarding the democratic process from a non-partisan point of view. I think the portions of the bill that are currently controversial are what Canadians want. A democratic process is here to provide for venting or reflection on the needs or wants the Canadians as espoused in the proposed of bill.

But as a witness I want to offer the committee my own experience over the years in dealing with retired personnel of information agencies, intelligence agencies, from within Canada, Canada's friends, and countries that are not Canada's friends.

My concern is this. Intelligence agencies provide accurate and intentionally inaccurate information regarding individuals. The bill in its current form, with its inadequate provision to safeguard the rights of an accused person and to test information source and credibility, is wrong. Injustice will be done. I hope some judge in the future will take note that Canada and other countries have provided, in specific cases, information that is knowingly false.

Here in Canada last year $75,000 was paid to an Ontario family because CSIS knowingly provided false information to the immigration department. That was a settlement out of court that was widely reported in our Canadian media. If this bill had been in effect and if this had been a situation where there was citizenship revocation, no defence would have been possible for this family.

Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any other comments on Andrew's question?

Brian.

Mr. Brian Tsuji: In a perfect world we would get exactly what Wesley has been asking for, but in a practical world we may not be able to get things pulled out. Andrew's advocating that we might want to get things pulled out. But if we have to come to a compromise, negotiate, and deal with some of the things that are there, there are some changes we can put in there. That is the position CBA national has adopted.

The new regulations have been proposed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada and they have sent their proposal to CBA national. I have been given the dubious honour of responding to that and have prepared the first draft of our comments. CBA national is reviewing it before it goes back to Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

In the regulations we have a much broader piece of paper to work with because there isn't as much detail as there is in the actual statute for Bill C-18. There is the act, which will be Bill C-18, and then there are the regulations, which are much more vague. There's a lot less coverage of things. You can take a much more aggressive stance there as to what you are going to try to talk about and include because there is not that much there to begin with.

If we could take the things we were talking about out of the act that would be great, but the fact is we have the stuff in the present form, and if we have to work with it we've provided you with what we think the position of the CBA and the CBA B.C. would be on how you could work with it.

The Chair: That was spoken like a good lawyer.

The CBA has been very good in helping this committee in other ways, but a right is a right, and whether or not you start to negotiate rights you are starting to bug me.

But you know, Brian, thanks for telling me that the damn department gave you a copy of the regulations in advance of the frigging bill that hasn't been passed yet, and didn't even have the common courtesy to tell us and start getting our damn thing.

¿ (0900)

Mr. Kelly Ip: Could I make a comment?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Kelly Ip: During my tenure as the manager of citizenship court, we did revoke a number of people's citizenship, but it was because they committed fraud in obtaining citizenship, not afterwards. So prior to becoming Canadian, if they obtained citizenship by fraudulent means, then it's a case for revocation, but not if they were an abiding citizen and then they became a Canadian citizen legally. Then whatever crime they committed afterwards, that shouldn't be held against them. So revocation usually didn't come after the legal process of becoming a Canadian citizen.

The Chair: Thank you.

Sophia.

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

I want to welcome you all. I'm very happy to see so many friends, and our community is well represented.

Just for your information, last Thursday I had a half-hour television discussion with the minister. Actually, I posed a number of questions, which was interesting. And at these hearings yesterday and today I heard a lot of echos of it. I want to thank you all for your very eloquent presentations.

Also, I want to really take the chance to pay tribute to Kelly Ip for his long service and contribution to our community as a public servant, and now he remains still a very active community leader, and then I want to respond to his question.

When your presentation touched on the issue of citizenship judges I think you gave a very strong, good argument on that, and I was delighted to hear you're also trying to advise us not to have patronage appointments. I think we all, as good Liberals, strongly try to avoid that.

You obviously support recipients of the Order of Canada taking part. As I understand it, right now they try to appoint recipients of the Order of Canada as judges, and even if they are not Liberals. That's very important. So we're trying to be not involved that.

The question is--

The Chair: I wonder, though, for the purpose of this committee, and I know all Liberals are good--

Ms. Sophia Leung: Yes.

The Chair: But this is a non-partisan committee, and I wouldn't want to offend my friends Louis and Lynne, who are great members, but not Liberal. So keep the word “Liberal” out of the comments.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I know, but I want to clear the air on that.

The Chair: I know.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Because I'm pleased to hear we're encouraging Order of Canada recipients. So I may have another career later. No, I'm kidding.

I have a number of friends in that position part-time. I really don't think part-time is suitable, because for any important job one has to be devoted to it. We cannot be part-time MPs. So now it's part-time and they also tend to be pensioners. Do you have any comment on this? Should we be ruling out certain age groups, or perhaps have full-time judges? That's my question number one.

I have a question for--

The Chair: You brought this whole subject up in the first place, and asked some comments of the others who may or may not have addressed it in their briefs as to whether or not we want to keep a decision-making, independent body with regard to the issuing of citizenship as opposed to administration people. So why don't we start with you, Kelly?

Mr. Kelly Ip: As far as I can remember, we always had part-time and full-time judges. Full-time judges are paid a reasonable salary. The part-time judges were paid on a per diem basis.

¿ (0905)

Ms. Sophia Leung: May I ask a question?

The Chair: No, hang on. Let other people answer that same question, please. Pardon?

Mr. Zale Tanner: Not to this.

The Chair: Does anybody else want to comment on the judges' responsibilities, so on and so forth? Done.

Go ahead, Sophia.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I have a question for Brian. You were very articulate about number three, children born abroad to Canadian citizens. I think that was very thoughtful, and some of us--including myself--were really not aware of such problems until recently. And you recommend that clause 14 be completely deleted. It's very complicated. I just said children born abroad to the Canadian citizen, but actually many facets are different. So I was wondering to completely delete.... Maybe it's lack of a thoughtfulness to address some of the problems present. And then you also questioned about the three to six years residency requirements.

I feel we certainly have to come to a consensus for a better treatment for them, but I'm not sure that to completely delete the whole section would be the answer.

Mr. Brian Tsuji: No. I think the word there is “alternatively”. It's like my discussion about what the professor is recommending. He is saying you can delete it, but somebody has put it in here, so somebody's thought it should go in there, and it's a lot harder to take something out than to maybe adjust it.

So in the best case, we're saying yes, fine, take it out; but somebody's worked hard to put that in, and they may not react that well to it. So if you have to work with what's there and compromise, then you might say alternatively we might say that if they can at least show that there's a substantial connection to Canada before they're 28 years old and a decision has to be made, then that might be good enough to keep them as citizens of Canada.

We're giving you the two scenarios because likely the first one will not be accepted. So if you can't get number one, then number two is something that might be a little more acceptable. And it may not give you 100%; it may not be an A, but at least it's a B solution to the situation.

The Chair: Zale, I'm sorry, did you have a comment on a question?

Mr. Zale Tanner: I want to come back to the democratic question for a moment.

The Chair: You can do that later. Right now, we're doing--

Mr. Zale Tanner: Yes.

The Chair: That's fine.

Louis?

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) I have a short question to you, Mr. Kurland, about your item 3, on page 4 of your report. Will you explain more?

¿ (0910)

[Translation]

M. Richard Kurland: Not really, because we are presently considering citizenship... [Technical difficulties: Editor]

[English]

The Chair: I think we'll be discussing this later this afternoon.

Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I would like to thank Kelly for the invitation last night to your function. I couldn't believe the cross-section of people who were there and the many immigrants from different backgrounds. I would have had to have thought twice to think that I was in a Chinese community, because it was really well represented by all concerned people. So I really thought it was good. I thought it was an excellent forum.

I only have one question. I did enjoy hearing about citizenship judges because I believe they should stay. My question will be to Richard on item 2, revenue-neutral provincial immigration systems. Would you just like to expand a little bit on that? How did you arrive at $150 per sponsorship? What is in the constitution that would even make $150 the correct amount?

Also, I know that you had a comment on Sophia's citizenship judge, and I would like to hear your comments on that as well.

Mr. Richard Kurland: Yes, I will address Sophia's observations immediately.

The item 2 would be for I think our next session's provincial nominee. I made a document one-size-fits-all for the day. So with permission, I would like to--

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I would like any background you have where you arrived at that. Also, I'm for the Canadian tax return used as part of the requirement for residency. So I'd like any background you have on that as well, on how you arrived at these two--

Mr. Richard Kurland: Let's do both.

In reply to Sophia, the prospect of citizenship judges as a full-time employment fits well with our Canadian political system. I'm on record before this committee in 1993 as saying I have no objection to political patronage as long as the patronage goes to qualified individuals. That's what makes our system go. That's a political-neutral statement.

So by all means, as a second career, as it were, to reward service to Canada in one's declining years it's no problem at all. I may be sailing on that vessel one day, so I should be cautious on pronouncements in 2003.

Regarding the provincial nominee--

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: The taxes--

Mr. Richard Kurland: We'll do provincial nominee, but the recommendation concerning linking citizenship to tax returns is a gosh-darn good one. It's simple. It can be done by computer. It's efficient in terms of the extremely low number of full-time federal public servants required to accomplish that task. It addresses concerns that this committee has heard across Canada regarding the physical presence requirement.

We are not primarily an agricultural society in Canada in the year 2003. We are an information society, and our skilled labour workforce at the highest levels and downwards migrate globally. So it is entirely normal for Canada and Canadian citizens to be outside this country for more than half of the required period.

What counts? Is this your home and only home in the world? Are you paying your taxes on global revenues? If so, and you truthfully declare to our government your income, you should be granted citizenship after a decade where you filed at least seven tax returns. That's an acceptable compromise to address this global mobility issue in connection with Canadian values in citizenship.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

David.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is to Mr. Kelly Ip. I found your presentation very interesting on the citizenship judges. As we mentioned yesterday, unfortunately, we haven't heard that much about it in the bill, and I think it's an important part of the bill. The other parts are absolutely very common, what we've heard right around, but the judge part has not been brought up very much, and I think it's extremely important. I think it's the way that....

¿ (0915)

Mr. Kelly Ip: To answer your last question, I think it would be a very welcome gesture on behalf of the government.

But if people can't become Canadian after they have been here for ages because they don't fulfil the residency requirement, how can they become Canadian citizens?

The government has been trying to do outreach programs to reach out to people, sending officers and judges out to speak and encourage people to apply for citizenship. At least that was done when I was there. I think we want to do the ceremonies more outside the court, outside the offices, the government buildings, and more in the schools, the community centres, anywhere.

So to answer your first question, the court of Canadian citizenship is just a name, a venue. In Vancouver we have a place that used to be called the citizenship court. Now they've tried to change it to a citizenship hall or meeting place. If you went down there and took a look, you would be ashamed of the place. It doesn't have the proper decorum. It doesn't have the proper decorations. It just doesn't look like a place where people would proudly become Canadian citizens.

So the venue is important and the proceedings are important--for example, the judge with a robe and the Mountie calling the court to order, saying “Order in the court. All rise, please.” It adds solemnity to the occasion when people--permanent residents, landed immigrants--finally take the last step to becoming Canadian citizens and joining the Canadian family. So that's important--the optics of the location, the optics of the people involved in the ceremony.

If we change the title to commissioner, I think we are trying to figure out what we're going to call that person--not your honour, definitely, and not judge...just Mr. Fontana or Mrs. Yelich? So I think sometimes for new Canadians it's important to have those kinds of optics in the room.

The Chair: Okay.

Louis, I know you wanted to ask a question of Richard because you won't be here this afternoon, and recommendation 3, increasing francophone immigration to the heartland of our country, is of great interest to you. Maybe you can ask the question, and Richard, you can just take a minute or two to answer it for him.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I want a little more precision on this.

Mr. Richard Kurland It is clear that increasing francophone immigration to Canada's heartland is a sound policy in the national interest that will build a stronger united Canada. We canvassed the heartland francophone settlement facilities in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario. What is required is a one-time expenditure, up-front seed money from the federal level to dramatically improve francophone settlement facilities that are outside Canada's major cities.

This would accomplish this government's commitment to furthering immigration to the hinterland, and importantly, increasing francophone immigration to Canada, not just to the province of Quebec. Without this up-front seed money as a one-time expenditure, frankly, there will be a barrier to higher levels of francophone settlement outside our major cities in Canada.

Build it and they will come. That's at the heart of what we're discussing. I verified with our provincial government, and there is money available at that level; there's just not enough to put it over the top. So my message to the committee is to carry back this important message that it's in the long-term interest of the development of our francophone communities across this country.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: We may have some questions on it later, but I just wanted Louis to hear it.

Louis, do you have a particular question of Richard at this point?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Peut-être un commentaire...

[NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, the following translation has been derived from a recording of the simultaneous interpretation]

This will give you the opportunity to use our system. My comment is the following.

Thank you for wanting to increase the number of francophones outside Quebec, but it's very hard to survive in French outside Quebec. The assimilation rate, for example, in western Canada is 71%. In Ms. Copps' riding, it's 81% of assimilation every year.

I don't want to go back over Canada's history, but I would remind you that when the western provinces were founded, francophones were in the majority. When Canada was created in 1837, francophones were in the majority.

There have been laws that prohibited studying in French, for example, and that banned French schools. There were laws that forbade people to practise one religion or another. So these were all very harmful laws that we've tried to correct. Efforts have been made.

I have always argued that the survival of French requires Quebec sovereignty. But I also recognize that Canada, especially in the last ten years, has made huge efforts with the school system. Will this produce anything? I'm doubtful. Because I think here in B.C., francophones are the sixth minority. So even if there were to be francophone immigration of some thousands of francophones a year, the problem is that the children of those francophones immediately assimilate. They forget their language.

For example, look at Ms. Yelich's colleague, Leon Benoit, he is called. His grandfather was born in Trois-Rivières. Trois-Rivières is a city in Quebec, which is 100% francophone. So his grandfather was francophone, but Leon doesn't know a single word of French. He even pronounces his name in English--Leon Benoit, not Léon Benoît.

Even after one generation in western Canada, it just takes one generation for francophones to disappear and become anglophones. That's the trend, and it's hard to fight it.

That's the comment I wanted to make, because I was surprised. But I do appreciate your good intentions, this goodwill that you have, this generosity to increase francophone immigration and your admiration for the francophone reality in Canada. So thank you, even though I think you're dreaming.

[End of translation]

¿ (0925)

The Chair: If we want to discuss this, we'll discuss it this afternoon. I just wanted to give my colleague an opportunity.

Zale, I will give you an opportunity too. I think you wanted to address a particular question or point.

[Translation]

Louis, my grandmother also is from Trois-Rivières.

[English]

Mr. Zale Tanner: Yes, I just wanted to mention that when we talk about the democratic process I know the need for it and I agree with it. The only thing is that I am simply expressing some of the overwhelming response from the people I have talked to about why the citizenship act does not just state the rights and obligations of a citizen and ensure that anybody accused of doing anything against it would be dealt with by a court of law.

This is the general, basic, simple fact that comes from the people who could be and would be affected.

The Chair: That's exactly what we are doing: we are listening to the people, and hopefully our job is to listen to the people and try to improve legislation. With your intervention and your discussions with us, that's what the democratic process is all about. Hopefully, this committee will be able to make the amendments that are necessary to improve the bill.

I have some questions, just because I need some explanations.

Brian, with regard to the CBA, on clause 17 you suggested limiting the use of the secret evidence to the second stage of the hearing, which is the inadmissibility part of the hearing. What if such evidence relates to the first stage--for example, knowing and concealing involvement with a terrorist group? What would you do in that regard? Have you given it any thought?

Some people have indicated we need a stage, and maybe this SIRC committee might be the vehicle by which to have that information kept quasi-confidential, but at least have some sort of representation there for the person who is being accused of such-and-such. They have indicated the SIRC might be the vehicle by which to do it. I'm just wondering what your thinking is, because you talked about the second stage and not necessarily the first stage of it.

Mr. Brian Tsuji: Yes, what I was thinking of was more when a misrepresentation is not on such a serious, national-security type of issue. If you have a situation where the misrepresentation does impact on something serious, such as national security or a terrorist organization, then this probably would be a good mechanism to have the information heard by the person, allowing them to react to it while still keeping it...well, secret is the wrong word, but in that vein.

The Chair: Okay. The other question I want to address perhaps relates to a couple of matters. One is this probationary citizenship. We have heard from people so far that they don't like “probationary” Canadians. Either you're a Canadian or you're not, and after waiting five years—or you suggested two years.... If the administration doesn't have enough time after you have been here in this country as a permanent resident three years, four years, five years, or six years, does all of a sudden somebody need another five years to find out whether you are a good person or not? You seem to be buying into this notion that we should have probationary Canadians for two years or five years, and I'm wondering where you are coming from on this.

Mr. Brian Tsuji: Well, ideally, we wouldn't have it in there.

The Chair: Listen, I don't want a compromise a position from you all the time. I'm trying to ask you some basic fundamental issues. I know lawyers like to play both sides of the fence, but Jesus, you have to give me an answer based on some principles.

I'm not here to compromise or negotiate what might be palatable or not. I want a straight answer from you guys.

Mr. Brian Tsuji: All right. I will give you.... For the national position, we had this big discussion: should we have it; should we not have it; what will be more acceptable?

¿ (0930)

The Chair: How do you know that?

Mr. Brian Tsuji: We got that reaction when I gave you the two alternatives. She just looked at the first one and said “Hey, he wants the whole thing out.” She didn't say “Oh, look at the second one, they're willing to be—”

The Chair: Okay. Fine.

Wesley or Joseph, do you have any comments on the probationary period?

Dr. Joseph Molnar: I really can't see the need for it, quite frankly. I would take the probationary citizenship out.

The Chair: Okay.

Wesley?

Mr. W. Wesley Pue: I read all the time how members of Parliament never do anything, but I want to say this has not been my experience with parliamentary committees. People seem extraordinarily well briefed.

The one thing I'd like to urge you as a committee is that if the whole thing needs to be thrown out, say it.

The Chair: Except that some of us believe the existing law needs improvement.

I have a last question for you, Professor. You spoke about citizenship as a fundamental right, yet we've heard from the department that loss of citizenship may not really invoke section 7 of the charter on “life, liberty and security of the person”.

What are your thoughts on someone losing their citizenship, which I believe you've defined more as a right than a privilege? If you lose that right, are you in fact losing it under the charter?

Mr. W. Wesley Pue: I can't begin to second-guess the lawyers who advise departments in Ottawa, but I want to put this on a common-sense ground.

What is more important to a Canadian than being a Canadian? What happens to somebody when they are stripped of their citizenship? Almost all of their other legal rights disappear. While I exaggerate for the purpose of effect, you lose a whole lot. If losing that foundational legal entitlement to be called a citizen of Canada isn't a fundamental interference with everything Canadians hold valuable, I simply don't know what is.

The Chair: Okay.

By the way, we're going to question some of those so-called lawyers in terms of charter-proofing this thing.

Lastly, if I could, Kelly, I'd like to ask you a question with regard to judges. Right now, judges represent a quasi-judicial independent person who has to do a number of things. One, after a person has been here for a good number of years, the judges have to determine whether or not the person's language skills and knowledge of the country are sufficient, and in fact whether they have met residency requirements. You have indicated that all of these should be flexible enough, taking into account the new global economy, families, businesses, and so on.

If you have the totally objective criteria that the administration wants.... They want to get rid of judges because they don't want them to judge. They want to be able to assess people in a very dehumanizing way, as if, “Here's the point system. Do you qualify? Yes or no?” And if you don't qualify, “Thank you very much; you don't get your citizenship”, whereas judges now fulfill the function of judging and of talking to and interviewing people and making some discretionary sorts of decisions based on a person's language.

Let's face it, some people may not be able to talk English or French as well as we would like, but does this mean they're any less a citizen? Or should they be penalized for the fact that they may have spent six months looking after their mother-in-law overseas, or whatever? Or thirdly, they are judged on whether they have a knowledge of the country.

So my point is that judges serve an independent and discretionary role that would be taken away from them by the bill, with the administration essentially left to this. I think you've already indicated that in your experience we need a discretionary human face sitting across from a potential Canadian citizen to determine whether or not they would qualify.

Mr. Kelly Ip: I think there's nothing worse than the introduction of this written test. If you answer 12 questions out of 20, then you pass the knowledge test. But very often, people say eenie, meenie, miney, mo, and then they get 12, 14, or 16 answers correct.

My feeling is there should be some kind of interaction between the judge and the applicant, with them facing each other.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Just quickly on the same point, is it going to save money? Is it going to be more efficient? We have a waiting list now of eight to ten months to deal with citizenship. You used to be a manager. Is it going to be much more efficient or more costly to run an administrative system, as opposed to what we have now?

Mr. Kelly Ip: If John Manley has all kinds of money to give out, I'm sure we can give some more money to the citizenship courts and citizenship services.

The Chair: I don't think he did that last night. He gave some to immigration, refugees, and so on.

Mr. Kelly Ip: Don't forget if we raise the qualifications of the civil servants that handle these cases, instead of being PM-1s and PM-2s they will become PM-3s and PM-5s.

The Chair: Just before you all go, we're also looking at a national ID card. I think Wesley was talking about it this afternoon. Does anybody have a viewpoint? We wouldn't mind receiving your input at some other time. Should Canada embark on looking at having a national ID card? What's your view on that?

Richard, do you have any comments? If not, just pass and write to us.

Mr. Richard Kurland: I'll pass.

The Chair: Wesley, you'll talk about that after Brian.

Mr. Brian Tsuji: I'll pass.

The Chair: Joseph.

Dr. Joseph Molnar: Well, we have a social insurance card. Can that be considered to be an ID card?

The Chair: That's a good point.

Zale.

Mr. Zale Tanner: That's just another bureaucratic process, if you put it that way.

The Chair: Kelly.

Mr. Kelly Ip: I'd love to have cards for all Canadians. That was raised many years ago but was turned down by Parliament because it would be like a police state.

The Chair: We're debating it again.

Mr. Kelly Ip: I don't see any reason why we should not have a card to carry. I carry all kinds of cards. It would be a safeguard. I'd like to see a card.

Dr. Joseph Molnar: You'd have a citizenship card in your wallet.

The Chair: That's the next thing. We are going to be debating it or discussing it this afternoon, but if you have some information....

Listen, I appreciate your comments, your input, and your insight, which is much more important to us as we review this bill and hopefully improve it as best we possibly can. I want to thank each and every one of you for taking the time. Thank you.

We're going to take a break, and we will be right back.

À (1005)

The Chair: Mr. Work, I apologize for the little delay. I want to welcome you to our hearings on the national ID card.

We look forward to your submission. We have a copy of it, but if you will take the opportunity to go through it I'm sure we will have some questions for you.

Welcome, Frank.

Mr. Frank Work (Commissioner, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel a little lonely back here. I should have brought an entourage or something to impress you with my presence. I guess I'll have to wing it myself here.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for affording me the time to make my submission to you on the issue of the national identification card.

I missed you in Edmonton. Ironically, when you were in Edmonton I was in Victoria at a conference on privacy and security, but I'm pleased to have been able to catch up with you here in Vancouver.

I have read the submissions of my colleagues, Loukadelis, Cavoukian and Radwanski, and I commend them to you not only for their analysis but also for the compelling philosophical argument they contain. My submission to you will perhaps be a little more on the emotional side than theirs.

I'm not sure of the details of the proposal, and I understand from the material the committee put out that this is a concept that is in the sort of nascent stage, so details are hazy. I will therefore take the liberty of speculating a little bit on what it might be about.

In principle, the proposal, in my view, is a bad idea. A mandatory identification card for Canadians is a very bad idea, and I urge you to bury it at this stage. I don't view this only as a matter of privacy, although it certainly is that; it's an issue that goes to the heart of our civil liberty.

I'm sure the committee has heard the argument a dozen times before that a mandatory card, in order to be effective, would have to be enforced in some ways, even if it were enforced in the more minimal ways that some of the European countries have done. Nevertheless, if it's mandatory it's mandatory: it has to be obtained, and it may have to be carried to a greater or lesser extent.

This very fact in and of itself I think is something that's quite alien to Canadian society. It's not something we've ever had to deal with before. Although in these troubled times we are all more used to having to produce identification from time to time, the notion of having to have one and being called upon to produce it on certain demands is very chilling, very frightening, and, as I said, very alien to our society.

It's as simple as “you don't leave home without it” kind of notion. That very simple notion, in my view, changes everything. Don't forget your ID card before you go out. If the kids go to school, if the kids go to play hockey, don't forget your ID card. And what if you do forget it?

The Chair: You may have to pay American Express some royalties on that phrase.

À (1010)

Mr. Frank Work: Yes. I'm going to argue fair comment on that.

It's true. You would have to become cognizant of the need to have the card. Even if it wasn't needed all the time, every time, you would still have to be aware whenever you ventured out from your home, if you did need the thing.

It's the simple notion that you can't go onto the street or walk the dog without going through the decision of having to take an ID card. Are you going somewhere where it might be demanded or where you might need it to get something?

That very simple little fact, in my view, changes so much about Canada and about our society, if only because it places the onus on the individual to show an entitlement to be here. I have a right to be here. This isn't Canada.

Why is such a measure necessary? Is our society so infiltrated with terrorists and enemies of the state that everyone is a suspect? It is clearly not. Countries like the U.K. and the United States, which have had far worse experiences of this kind, have so far resisted the urge to bring in national identification cards. I appreciate that it remains an issue even now in the United Kingdom.

If the objective of the card is to introduce identity theft, then I submit to you that the solution is to improve existing means of identification with both foundation and entitlement documents, passports, driver's licences, birth certificates, and so on. I am aware, if only recently, that such measures are being pursued nationally.

There is a working group, the name of which eludes me from time to time. It's one of those long names. There is a federal-provincial-territorial group working on foundation documents over which the provinces have jurisdiction. In my view, with respect to the identity theft issue, this is the way to go. I think this can be done. The infrastructure is there.

Provincial vital statistics have the resources and the basis for issuing identity documents or foundation documents. I think at this point the way to attack identity theft is by beefing up the foundation documents and the issuance of those. I think this can probably be done for a fraction of the cost that a national ID card would require.

From my point of view as the provincial information and privacy commissioner, I think it has the added advantage of bringing offices like mine into the equation. My office, like most information and privacy commissioners' offices, is a separate arm's-length body, like the Auditor General. We are working with the Government of Alberta on several initiatives, including an improved, more secure driver's licence and better foundation documents, birth certificates, death certificates, and so on.

In fact, we are also working with the Government of Alberta on a “non-driver” driver's licence. People who don't drive, seniors for example, still need reliable photo ID in order to be able to travel. We're addressing this. We're working with the provincial government on developing an ID that will do the job for these people but at the same time will guarantee them some autonomy and security in terms of privacy.

I would urge that solution to the identity theft issue on the committee. A mandatory identification card in fact, I would suggest to you, actually renders both the individual and the society more vulnerable in some respects. If a national ID card is 100% secure, foolproof, and bulletproof, it comes to be relied on as such. Nothing is 100% secure, foolproof, or bulletproof.

À (1020)

The Chair: Well, thank you very much, Frank, for a well-thought-out submission based on a number of different premises that we would like to, with your experience as Alberta's privacy commissioner, be able to probe and ask you. Thank you very much, Frank.

Mr. Frank Work: Thank you.

The Chair: Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much.

À (1025)

The Chair: If you want it to stay dumb that's fine too, but...

Mr. Frank Work: I'm very much in agreement with a number of the points you made, sir. I hadn't thought of this before, but you remind me. What's very instructive in this exercise is some of the work that's been done on health cards, particularly in Quebec. The Government of Quebec ran a pilot project on a health smart card in Rimouski, or some such place, maybe five years ago. They were looking to see if it was reasonable to embed health information in a card so that people could get better health service. Not a bad objective. On the point you made, what they found with the information embedded in the card was that people lose the darn things. They forget them, they misplace them.

À (1030)

Mr. Louis Plamondon: [NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, the following translation has been derived from a recording of the simultaneous interpretation]

I have a question. Yesterday there was a woman here and I think she was a Swiss citizen and she had a Swiss ID card. She said it works very well. Have you checked with other countries to see if they have ID cards?

[End of translation]

Mr. Frank Work: Of course, a lot of them do. A lot of countries do. Most of the European countries have ID cards that are required in limited circumstances, some more than others. For example, in some European countries, if you check into a hotel you have to produce the ID card.

À (1035)

The Chair: Thank you.

The committee obviously does have information from other countries, including on those that have, those that don't, and those who have gone through the debate. The committee may decide to find out what's happening in other countries, specifically in the United States, which seems to want everyone else to carry a particular card that they can accept, while not wanting one themselves because it would be contrary to their privacy.

So the committee is starting this debate, and it may very well be that it wants to look at a number of international experiences to see the whys and wherefores of this. We have heard that certain countries, such as the Philippines, have thrown this out constitutionally, whereas other countries have embraced it very well, such as the Netherlands.

Sophia.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Work, for your presentation.

À (1040)

Mr. Frank Work: I'd be pleased to.

I think Mr. Fontana's perception of what's going on south of the border was very profound. I honestly don't think a card, no matter how good it is, nor do I think a passport, no matter how good it is, is going to be enough to satisfy the Americans, quite frankly. I know we're improving our passport issuance process. I don't think there is any way to satisfy the Americans right now.

I was actually quite annoyed, shortly after September 11, that there was so much ado about people moving into the States from Canada. However, most of the perpetrators were in the States to begin with. They'd taken flight training in the States and were Saudi nationals. Yet the Americans look at us, shake their finger, and say that we're not doing our part. Quite frankly, I think that's baloney.

I think American society, in the state that it's in right now, is frightened and confused. I think they've had a horrific, tremendous shock. Something that they never thought could happen to them has happened. I think they're almost flailing for solutions and for security.

There's an old expression, “act in haste, repent at leisure”. I think the Americans are going to be very sorry for a number of the things they've done. It's happening already.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Can I interject?

We can't carry on our criticism of other countries. How would you protect Canadians to not go through the inquisition process when we have to cross?

Let's be very practical and very factual. I'm saying that this is the rationale. We have to protect our citizens with a simple card with fingerprint ID, an iris scan, and all that. They even have to be put in jail sometimes because the answers do not satisfy.

This is probably another reason why we have to think. How we feel about another country is irrelevant at this point. We have to be practical to see how we can help our citizens to protect themselves when involved in the other obstacles.

Mr. Frank Work: My point was, in answer to your question, that you cannot satisfy the Americans.

Ms. Sophia Leung: We're not intending to satisfy them. We want to protect our citizens.

Mr. Frank Work: No, but, with respect, you're asking me how to protect our citizens going into the States. I'm saying that you cannot do it. It's not possible to do it. I can't think of anything you can give a Canadian that will protect them and guarantee them smooth entry into the States every time. The mood of the Americans is not such to allow for that.

There is no silver bullet, I would suggest to you, for Canadian citizens to make us acceptable to the Americans.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Then are we not going to do anything about it?

The Chair Part of the debate is that once you establish—and this is what the debate is all about—a card, if that's what you want to do, obviously international acceptance of such a device is key. If the Americans aren't going to accept it—they may require it, but they aren't going to accept it—let's face it, when you're travelling, people will still demand to see a passport, of course, because that's the internationally accepted document by which people travel. The Americans have questioned even our own passport, because they want to profile those who were born in Canada and those who may not have been born in Canada.

The other thing too is that if a passport and a national ID card is what people start to demand, I think I'd take the view of both you, Frank, and Sophia, wanting to find out what is the very purpose of this particular card. We have to get to the essential question: why do we need this card? Is it to protect Canadians? From whom--themselves, or from outside people? Who's demanding that such a card exist, given that some countries have it and some countries don't? I think that's the essence.

Can I ask you a question or two, Frank? You're rather unique, in that you have both the information and privacy portfolios, whereas in Ottawa, of course, we have an information commissioner and a privacy commissioner as well. Can you tell me, do the two have a lot in common? Obviously that's why they put it.... In ours, of course, we've separated the information from the privacy commissioner. We have invited the information commissioner--who may or may not come, based on whether or not he sees that there is a connection between the information side of things and a national ID card--as opposed to Mr. Radwanski, who will be appearing before the committee on the privacy issues.

Maybe you can tell us a little about your experience, as both an information and privacy commissioner, as to whether the two are consistent with one another and how a national ID card would play into such information. As you said, most countries have not information commissioners, but data commissioners and data protection. Maybe you can tell us how that might work.

À (1045)

Mr. Frank Work: Sure, I'd be pleased to.

Most of the provinces and territories now have information and privacy commissioners; it's a combined function. I think the logic of it is that there are—and I'm sure you as a committee are finding this—very few absolutes when it comes to privacy and when it comes to access to information, which is the opposite of privacy.

People have very different views of how private they want to be. In a small town—rural towns such as in Alberta—people know everything about each other, and they have a smaller expectation of privacy. In cities, we sometimes like to be more anonymous. In that sense, I think it's logical to combine the functions, because there is not always a clear line between access and privacy.

Of course the Access to Information Act allows anyone to ask for government information, and one of the main reasons why they would not have to give you the information is if it's personal information to someone. In the case of a national ID card, if there were such a thing, if it were an Alberta ID card someone could make an access to information application to the government, say, to have information about my Alberta ID card. They wouldn't get it, because the access part of the law says you don't give out personal information about someone.

What they could get under the access law is some information about how the card operates, or administrative information about the budget or the structure of the bureaucracy that manages the card, but under the access and privacy law they would not get personal information.

The Chair I'd like to put it in the same context, though. I just want some details about whether or not you feel the federal government would be trampling on any provincial jurisdiction by requiring an actual ID card that would supercede the foundation documents that, say, Alberta has with regard to birth, driver's licences, and health, or something like that. Do you see any of those kinds of issues raising their...?

À (1050)

Mr. Frank Work: I don't think, Mr. Chairman, it would be an incursion into provincial areas. Obviously the federal card would operate for the things the federal government controls: immigration, passports, federal entitlements, what have you—criminal law is a federal jurisdiction. Assuming such a card wouldn't also be used as a driver's licence or a birth certificate, I can't see too much overlap there, no.

The Chair: Let me just ask you, then, with respect to the issue of fixing our foundation documents: if in fact one wants to protect against identity theft.... The minister even raised this. It's a big business; let's face it. I know the viewpoint centres on whether we would make it easier to steal one's identity if there were only one card everyone relied on, rather than the situation right now, where Joe Fontana is defined by a passport, a citizenship card, eight or ten Visa cards, a driver's licence, and so on, with information scattered all over the place. I think you make the point that if in fact you consolidate all of those things and get it nationally accepted and therefore have one card that would be a prerequisite to cashing a cheque, to walking on the streets, and so on, then all of a sudden this one little card is everything about me: if you lose it, or if someone gains access to that database, how much information would they have?

I was intrigued by the reverse: that in our zeal in wanting to protect and identify ourselves—in order, as Sophia says, to protect our identity by vesting so much information in one little card—would we be doing the reverse? That, I think, is what you were saying.

Mr. Frank Work: Yes, I think it's likely we would.

I think working on the foundation documents is, as I said, the way to go.

It's interesting, and this is probably the case with the computers that the House of Commons provides members of Parliament, that the security key is such that usually you have to have two things to enter a system: something you have in your possession—a physical thing—and something you alone know. If you phone a credit card company and want to check your balance or report a lost card, they ask you your mother's maiden name or your oldest son's or your daughter's name, or somebody's. In a sense, that's almost more secure than the perfect card, even with a biometric, because it's something that you alone have possession of, unless you're foolish enough to tell people.

So yes, I think you have to have many arrows in your quiver, in the sense that identification by and total reliance on one card does make an Achiles heel for you.

The Chair: Okay. The more I think about losing that one card or something like that.... I'm going to be facetious, but our clerk has suggested that maybe the ultimate identifier, which is now being used to protect kids in some cases or protect dogs, is that we all be embedded with a chip at birth and therefore be totally identifiable, because I'm sure it would have GPS and would have everything else. That would be the ultimate.

Do you think that's where it's going?

Mr. Frank Work: Even that, Mr. Chairman, could be forged. My dog has a chip—I think it's between his shoulder blades—and if you can insert a chip, you can certainly take it out and put a different one in.

The Chair: The last thing I want to be is Bill Farrell; that I can tell you right now.

Mr. Frank Work: I think my little dog would like to be a Great Dane if he could get a chip to say so.

That's a very interesting point.

Of course, the ultimate identifier is genetics. If you wanted to identify everyone as close to foolproof as you could, it would be through genetics.

À (1055)

The Chair: Do you mean have your DNA as one of the biometrics?

Mr. Frank Work: You wouldn't even have to carry a card. Have you seen the commercial where the guy is bald because in order to get access to his office computer he has to pull out a hair every time and give it to the system operator? He's looking for one more hair so that he can get access to the system. It's a funny commercial.

The Chair: Frank, you might have just hit on the fact that, forget about a national ID card, we'll just start carrying our own DNA. We all do, anyway. It's a matter of supplying it, I suppose. That becomes a big privacy issue.

Mr. Frank Work: We're really struggling with the whole genome thing. As a society we're looking at creating a ghetto of genetic have-nots right now. No society on the planet has come to grips with the implications of the human genome, so to embark upon any extensive use of it would be foolish. But, ultimately, that's where someone is going to start looking. I just don't think that as a society we're ready for that at all. We're going to create people who are less genetically good than others.

The Chair: We won't go there.

Mr. Frank Work: No.

The Chair: Andrew, do you have a final question or point?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: We all have a great responsibility to let Canadians know that there's no, as you put it, silver bullet.

I tend to agree with you that the Americans are going through a high level of anxiety right now, and the very thought that we would go to a national ID card, they would start relying on them, and then somebody would actually use that as an exodus.... It would be a challenge for people to get their hands on it because it would be a passage to the United States. The first time that thing failed, the whole thing would be thrown out.

When it comes to our American colleagues, and I hope you meet with them at times, I can think of two perfect quotes to describe the situation. One is by Thomas Jefferson, who said “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” The other is by George Washington, who said that eternal vigilance is the price we pay for freedom. That's important.

Mr. Chairman, I would rather have your ten Visa cards along with your passport, parliamentary ID, and driver's licence than one of those cards, because that provides a lot more security, and you have to be a little more vigilant about it.

I think you said it very well: if you can put in a chip, you can remove a chip.

But our biggest challenge is going to be with the DNA. It's to make sure that insurance companies don't get their fingers on your DNA. Whole classes of people will not be able to buy insurance because they are too much of a risk. Insurance companies would insure based on the DNA, and the whole concept of insurance, where we share risk as a society, is going to be lost. Some horrific scenarios can be played out unless we work very hard to protect private information as much as possible.

Mr. Frank Work: I couldn't have said any of that better. I especially liked the Jefferson quote about liberty. I should probably have that put above the door.

Á (1100)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: But if you go into your insurance agent's office and they bring you a cup of coffee, they have your DNA.

Mr. Frank Work: Yes.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: So we have to make sure we have effective laws that stop that from happening.

Now, Mr. Chairman, you used to be in the insurance industry.

The Chair: But I'm not sure you can take someone's DNA without their permission, without their knowledge. That gets to the whole issue of privacy and so on.

Mr. Frank Work: It actually did happen in the States. A company took an employee's DNA without her knowledge and tested it for cancer and for drug use. She sued them and she won a significant amount of money from them.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I'm very impressed. Like your colleagues, you've obviously given a lot of these issues much thought, especially this one. We appreciate your experience and your insight in helping the committee debate this issue and find out whether or not we ought to go any further.

I want to thank you very much for taking the time and for doing this. Thank you very much, Frank.

Mr. Frank Work: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I enjoyed the exchange. It was very good for me as well.

The Chair: Colleagues, we're going to go right into the next and last session of the morning, which is to discuss the provincial and territorial nominee programs. We have three witnesses, and we'll get them to come in right now so we can move to that part of it right away.

Welcome, guests, again. This time we're talking about provincial nominee agreements. We're waiting for Lillian To from SUCCESS to join us, but I think we can begin with the submissions. Both Brian and Richard have given us submissions on the provincial nominee agreements.

Why don't we start with you, Brian, and take it from there.

Mr. Brian Tsuji: My submissions here are fairly brief.

The B.C. provincial nominee program, the provincial immigration program, has been very successful. It's been very useful and it's a tremendous program.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Are you saying you want 500 more than what's there now, or do you want a total of 500 per year?

Mr. Brian Tsuji: I want a total of 500.

The Chair: What are you getting now? I thought you said it was 1,000 over five years.

Mr. Brian Tsuji: They have 1,000 over five years and they're using 200 a year. They've allocated 150 to the skilled workers and 50 to the businesses.

The Chair: So you're getting 200 a year and you want to move it up to 500.

Mr. Brian Tsuji: Exactly.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Brian Tsuji: The skilled worker program right now doesn't have the power to give out work visas or deal with work visas, but the business program does. In many cases a person who meets B.C. needs will be granted a B.C. PNP skilled worker permanent resident nomination. It only takes about two weeks for B.C. to say they want this person. Then they send it off to the feds, who basically just check the police certificates and the medicals, but that still takes six to eight months.

In the intervening period B.C. has already identified that this person would be useful and helpful for B.C.'s needs. If they had the power to issue work visas this person could be working during that six- to eight-month period.

There are other situations where a person meets B.C. needs to the point where you might want to give them a work visa, but not to the point where you would give them a landed nomination. In those cases you might want to allow B.C. PNP to give them a work visa as well.

Recently B.C. PNP has come up with an international student program. This is the first one of its kind in Canada and is basically for graduates of B.C. universities who have certain areas of expertise such as science, applied science, high tech, etc. If these people get job offers in B.C. they can apply under this program, and even though they don't have any experience and the job might not be at the salary that a more experienced person will get, they can still be nominated under the landed immigration program for B.C. PNP.

This is a new program, so it's kind of vague as to whether it's just going to be for B.C. graduates, but I think it would useful if it included graduates from all Canadian universities who got good job offers in B.C. International students who will be of benefit to Canada and B.C., even if they've been educated at McGill, U of T, or Western, or come from Waterloo with an engineering degree, if they get a good job offer in B.C. and can help B.C. out they should perhaps be included in the program. We want to widen where the students can come from and the areas of education.

The next three things are complementary to what B.C. PNP is doing. We would like to maintain the fast turnaround time at B.C. PNP for initial decisions. Right now part of the advantage of using the B.C. PNP program is the fast turnaround time. For example, the B.C. PNP skilled worker program can provide an initial decision in only ten working days. We want to be able to maintain that, and one of the ways is by maintaining the levels of workers and the excellent training they have. They have very good staff, and that allows them to turn things around quickly.

We also want to maintain the fast-track service levels from the federal government on the B.C. PNP files. Right now, once the B.C. government okays a position and nominates them, the turnaround time is six to eight months on a B.C. PNP skilled worker file from the federal government. This has to be maintained in order for B.C. PNP to be value-added. If this starts drifting to ten or twelve months or longer, you're going to lose the value-added feature of using B.C. PNP.

Also, the four-month turnaround time on a B.C. PMP business project file after the applicants comply with the B.C. requirements is excellent and has to be maintained if you want to keep this as a value-added program.

Those are my comments.

Á (1110)

The Chair: That was a great presentation with some good ideas we might want to explore with you, Brian. Thank you very much.

Richard, welcome again.

Mr. Richard Kurland: Indeed, it's my pleasure, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief.

The key recommendation to the committee is to push for revenue-neutral provincial immigration systems. We have examined the budgets for all immigration activities undertaken by the provinces and we have calculated that a fee of $150 per sponsorship, collected federally and remitted directly to the province, would allow the province to run entirely revenue-neutral immigration systems, enabling the province to meet its constitutional responsibilities in the field of immigration. So we recommend a fee of $150 per sponsorship, collected federally and remitted directly to the province.

The second aspect of our recommendation is to underscore the importance today of the provincial nominee program. Perhaps during questions we'll have an opportunity to illustrate a federal failure, the Bental family.

The Chair: Richard, you've raised an interesting point. We'll delve into that when we get some questions.

We have the people from SUCCESS, Lillian To and....

Mr. Kenneth Tung (Vice-Chairman, Success): Ken Tung.

The Chair: Ken, it's a pleasure.

You have a great organization. You've been with us for two days in various areas, and I want to applaud your great work.

Welcome.

Mr. Kenneth Tung: My name is Kenneth Tung, the fourth member of SUCCESS, and this is Lillian To, chief executive officer. We were here yesterday, so I will start the feedback on the nominee program.

We are indeed encouraged by the partnership between the federal and the provincial governments of Canada to add a new component, the British Columbia provincial nominee program, to the Canadian immigration program. We believe this initiative is a step closer to recruiting highly skilled and qualified individuals to fill current and future critical shortages, thereby providing a positive economic benefit to the B.C. economy.

However, we would also like to address our concerns and recommendations toward the development of a successful nominee program in several major areas, including strong infrastructure and a welcoming community for immigrants, eligibility, application procedures, and revision of the point system under the immigration regulations.

With regard to a strong infrastructure and welcoming community for immigrants, while the British Columbia provincial nominees program is a step forward in attracting skilled and qualified individuals from abroad to fill shortages, the province must also develop measures to retain these immigrants, especially if they reside outside the lower mainland. Without these measures the program may be able only to attract but not maintain many immigrants, as the cost of isolation may be too high.

The government should invest in the infrastructure and programming to include health services and housing and social supports so the community is welcoming and accepting of these newcomers. The success experienced in the city of Winnipeg attests to the importance of the investment in such infrastructure.

Our recommendation is that all levels of government work together in building and funding a strong infrastructure and welcoming community for immigrants. The infrastructure should include employment, housing, and appropriate social and health services, as well as a supportive community free of discrimination.

Á (1115)

Ms. Lillian To (Executive Director, Success): Thank you.

The third point I want to make about the provincial nominee program is on application procedures. British Columbia's provincial nominee program process has demonstrated improvements by allowing faster processing that reduces the duration of the immigration process from several years. In the case of visa applicants from China, it actually takes about six or seven years. It reduces that duration to approximately six months.

However, with looming skill shortages and increasing demands for skilled professionals, we require more skilled workers than the provincial nominee program can provide. Currently, many applicants for independent immigrant status may have to wait many years for processing in certain countries. As I mentioned, in China, for example, they may have to wait six to seven years.

This may seriously jeopardize the building of an adequate labour force and economic development in our province. It is imperative to expedite the federal immigration application process in order to resolve the increasing demand for a skilled workforce.

We recommend that Citizenship and Immigration Canada shorten the processing and waiting period for immigration applications overseas. The government should also be proactive in identifying and prioritizing sectors with skilled shortages to address labour force demand.

The last point we want to make about the provincial nominee program, which basically tried to address labour market shortages and business development needs in this province, is about the need to revise our point system under the current new immigration regulations.

Under this new immigration regulation, Canada has a much tougher standard for independent immigrants. This has already resulted in a reduced number of applicants in this category. Actually, this category of immigrants will help relieve our labour market shortages.

The new point system, of course, raises the passing mark to 75, with very high requirements on education and work experience. It is very difficult for many immigrants to attain. This is too narrow and discriminatory to properly address Canada's economic and social needs.

In the most recent data collected by Census Canada, the population goal in Canada of 4% was found to match the smallest five-year population growth rate in the country's history. Immigration outpaced natural population increases for the first time since World War II. As a result, immigrants have larger implications on Canada's labour force growth, as well as on the growth of the population.

Á (1120)

The Chair: Thank you, Lillian and Ken.

I may ask you a little bit about our immigration policy and our new points system. It's only two months' old.... In fact, I think we wanted more immigrants. Even though the committee is going to review how well it's working or not working inside of a year, I'd be interested in asking you some questions. Even though this is not part of the overall discussion, as you said, this may very well impact immigration levels in B.C.

Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Richard, if I could go back to my question of this morning, how did you arrive at the $150 per sponsorship in your revenue-neutral provincial immigration system? In enabling us to meet our constitutional responsibilities, what would the $150 cover, and why is it so important?

Mr. Richard Kurland: During the twenty minutes between sessions, I was able to obtain the figures for family class by category with distribution by census area, for the years 1999, 2000, 2001. I hope the total numbers are indicated on the charts.

For example, British Columbia received 11,706 family class immigrants in 2001, including principal applicants and dependants. In calculating the total number of FTEs provincially, taking into account the number of employees and their salaries, $150 per sponsorship would generate over $1.2 million, and up to about $1.5 million, for British Columia. The budget or public servant compensation for this in British Columbia is a little over $1.1 million.

Note that a family of four applicants with three adults must pay in excess of $4,000 in all federally. The $150 is a one-time payment for the same family, or once in a lifetime. Upon entering Canada, it's a fair trade for the family to contribute to a revenue-neutral system on a user-pay basis. This is a judgment call.

Only one province has it right, the province of Quebec. They are at the forefront of requiring that not just family class but all classes of immigrants, other than the finacially exempt categories, contribute to the processing of their applications.

I road-tested this $150 proposal with the significant external stakeholders in the target communities. At the grassroots level and at the higher echelons, there was total support--total support.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Who probably play curling like you wouldn't believe. You should get at least four more points for that.

Mr. Richard Kurland: Mrs. Bental, when they found out they were refused in March, as a lawyer wrote a letter to this Minister Coderre: no answer to date—no answer.

If you want to see failure under the new point system, there it is. That's the trash we don't want in this country.

The gap in the provincial nominee system is this. The provinces don't pick up people like this because they don't have the money to provide interviews; they don't have the money to make the selection. That's why, first of all, we should resource the province with a direct $150 payment per sponsorship to allow the province to do its job.

This is certainly not a couple we want to exclude. This is precisely the brightest and the best we want to build Canada.

Anyway, I don't want to wax prolific. That's a start.

The Chair: I'll take them in London, Ontario.

Mr. Richard Kurland: Thank you, Mr. Chair. They'll be happy to go.

The Chair: You're going to be in competition here. Lynne wants you in Saskatchewan.

Louis.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Sur le même sujet....

[NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, the following translation has been derived from a recording of the simultaneous interpretation]

Yes, on the same matter, you quoted the example of Quebec, but you didn't give enough detail for my taste.

I noticed, when I went around the federal buildings when we did recruitment in China and other countries, that in every location where Canada had a building, Quebec has a representative, and it pays for that. That is costing money to Quebec, but it is paying for it, and cases like this one do not happen.

The representative of Quebec, who was of Chinese origin, could speak French and represents the government. As far as recruitment is concerned, the representative told me that over the last three years recruitment brought $2.5 billion in investment to Quebec. They recruited people not only because they had money but also because they were skilled. They were qualified. I don't know if this was being done outside of the point system. I think that might be the case, because back then Quebec had negotiated with the federal agreement and the federal had said “If you do the selection, we will accept them.”

The role is very important in Quebec. It's not only a matter of recruitment according to language; it's a matter of making sure that people will come to Quebec. So Quebec is making sure that there is immigration to Quebec.

[End of translation]

Á (1130)

Mr. Richard Kurland: C'est exactement ça...

[NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, the following translation has been derived from a recording of the simultaneous interpretation]]

I think Quebec exercises some discretion here and picks the best. It's not very complicated. There are face-to-face interviews. We see the person and we make the decision. Quebec is getting significant resources from Ottawa to do its job, so this is a message to other provinces and to Canada. They should follow the example of Quebec. It's the best model that exists. Quebec is exercising its power, and it has to do so.

[End of translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: [NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, the following translation has been derived from a recording of the simultaneous interpretation]

As far as immigration from Asia is concerned, Quebec almost has to do that, because I think that in 95% of the cases, people who come from Asia want to settle either in Vancouver or Toronto. A few might go to Calgary. It's very difficult to get them to come to Montreal.

Out of 100 who are recruited and come to Montreal, only 30 will remain there over the following three or four years, and 70 will go back to Toronto. This is one of the reasons why Quebec insists it has somebody there to be able to explain what it has to offer. But 30 is better than none at all.

[End of translation]

Mr. Richard Kurland: Oui, absolument...

[NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, the following translation has been derived from a recording of the simultaneous interpretation]

Yes, I totally agree. We need these skills.

[End of translation]

The Chair: Sophia.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the panel raised a couple of very important questions, and number one is about the points system. It's very basic. I'm really very disappointed to hear about the Bentals' case. I appreciate Lillian and Ken raising it.

I think we had a discussion about this before. I'm not officially on this committee, but I think a few years ago, because selection was based on the question of language there was a great concern in B.C. about a lot of applicants who were not English-speaking being handicapped.

I'm so surprised about the Bentals. They are obviously very fluent with the language, and I'm a little bit surprised that they scored so low. That's my question. You can appeal, can't you? That's what I'm getting at.

Mr. Richard Kurland: You cannot appeal. You can have a judicial review. And the score is not inaccurate: they passed under the old system; they fail under this system.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Then I think we should see—

The Chair: A good MP like Sophia I'm sure can look into it.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

I don't want to accelerate expectations, but we certainly hear you clear and loud. I think our chair, Joe, is very good at instigating changes, as a chair.

I want to comment, because it's very obvious that there is a question. I even heard the joke that maybe Bill Gates would not pass; I don't know. I want to also comment that I think we should look at this really not very good or correct way to decide the selection.

Now, I'm surprised about the provincial nominee program. It's only 1,000 within five years? Who decides the number? I think it's provincial. If this is provincial, we are not going to interfere with it.

Mr. Richard Kurland: It's a negotiated number.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Oh, it's negotiated.

[Inaudible—Editor]

How can we open up? Because we are talking about encouraging more skilled immigrants, and that's what we need in the Canadian population, so you hit right on. Do you have any suggestion how we could encourage enlargement of this number?

Mr. Brian Tsuji: Right now B.C. and the feds are negotiating the number. I've been invited to some of the meetings. I was representing the Canadian Bar. They talked about what they need and where they'd like to go.

It's clear that the B.C. immigration program fills a gap. Unfortunately, the Bentals slipped through one of the cracks.

In order to increase the benefits to B.C., we need more spaces. If you increase the number of spaces, then you increase not just giving them permanent landing power, but also giving them temporary work visa power. That will help B.C. meet the local needs, which are different from the federal needs.

Á (1135)

Mr. Richard Kurland: A cost-effective measure is to immediately provide the provinces with access to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration information technology system database, called the data warehouse cubes. The province can then generate its own profiling statistics on the best for that region.

Here's the cherry-picking solution. A province can then do what Quebec has been doing behind the scenes for 18 months. They send a human being into Canadian consulates in the United States and elsewhere to go behind the immigration desk and cherry-pick the very best files and allow them to go forward either on work permits or permanent resident visas. It's cheap and cost-effective.

Wake up, talk to Quebec--that's my message to the provinces.

To the federal level--I don't know how to put it politely--stop holding on to or guarding the information. Don't keep secret the key information the provinces need to make the policy decisions and to further their responsibility.

Ms. Lillian To: In response to Sophia's question, I think we need both. We need an expanded provincial nominee program. It's under negotiation right now. We need that kind of program expanded to fill some of the gaps. In fact, the current B.C. nominee program, as I briefly outlined, is rather restrictive because the application has to come from employers. When employers see a need for skilled professionals, they can apply to the province to have these people apply to come over. It's not for the province to actually select immigrants from overseas. So in some ways it's limited and too restrictive.

On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, we have about 40,000 people coming into B.C. every year, and with the provincial nominee program, it's 1,000 over five years, which is a really limited number.

If we are looking at the need to fill the skilled labour shortage, we really have to revisit the whole point system. As Richard was saying, it's not even an issue of language now. With the new point system, it's very tough for many people to pass. Even if they speak English fluently, they may not be able to come. You lose ten points off the mark if you don't have a job lined up, for example, and then you lose eight points if you don't speak French. If your spouse is not a university graduate, you lose another five or so points. It's just so difficult for very qualified people to meet the 75 points required under this new point system. It scared away a number of very qualified professionals in Beijing, and that's why we have witnessed a drastic reduction in the number of applications from skilled professionals in China, as well as the difficulty in getting professional jobs here.

The Chair: Lillian, you should know that this committee recommended an entirely different grid system, with a pass mark of 70, which meant that--

Ms. Lillian To: We totally support your recommendation.

The Chair: We will do that.

Can I just follow up on a couple of questions? I think, Richard, all of you have hit on it.

Provincial nominee agreements obviously are a work-in-progress between the federal and provincial government to meet a specific need based on negotiations of numbers and the categories--whether or not it's occupation-based or whether or not it's the kinds of skilled worker shortages you feel you need. Obviously I would encourage you to do that. There's no reason why.... I think the federal government and the minister have demonstrated with Manitoba and Alberta to increase those numbers.

But I'll tell you what we found out. I think, Richard, you may have hit upon something, and it's this. When we passed a new immigration law and travelled the world to find out what our offices were doing, what we heard about provincial nominee agreements, save and except Quebec, was that the provinces weren't putting any money into it. They weren't doing the promotion, the marketing, both overseas and here, in terms of getting colleges, universities, employers, and so on. Manitoba was doing an absolutely fantastic job. They were out there being aggressive.

The other problem you should know about is that the same case worker who's assessing immigration applications is assessing on the basis of family, Canadian skilled workers, provincial nominee agreements, visas, and so on. We don't have enough resources, and that's why it's taking us six or seven years, or even eight or ten months to do provincial nominee stuff. It's a question of resources.

Now, Richard, you've come up with a unique idea. I think I proposed before that it is something one should negotiate with the federal government and/or the private sector. If B.C. wants more, then maybe you should negotiate putting your own counsellor overseas in particular targeted areas, where in fact you can do the work. Right now we have a resource problem. I see the budget didn't give us a heck of a lot more money overseas in order to do some of the work we need to. This means if B.C. wants more, they should not only negotiate more, but you can uniquely put a person wherever you want in order to process that paperwork as quickly as possible. I think that's something you should look at or be innovative and creative about. As to the question of whether or not it's $150 and who should pay for that, maybe it's an investment that B.C. wants to make--or certain communities, certain employers--in order to process and do the work. I'm wondering, what do you think about that idea?

Secondly, you know the committee also was very concerned that immigrants are only going to Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto. There are other parts of the country that would like to receive immigrants too, because they have skilled worker shortages and so on. One of the things we had proposed was an incentive-based system for points, so if people were prepared to locate in other than the major centres, there should be a positive incentive to do so.

I know the minister has been discussing a dispersion policy. Some people have indicated they don't want it to be mandatory, that maybe we should use the provincial nominee program as the vehicle by which to achieve some sort of incentive-based system--not mandatory, not punitive, because we believe in mobility rights--as a way of being able to add to what B.C. wants.

I'm just wondering if you could talk a little bit about what policy you believe we could implement to essentially get people to locate in B.C. but not necessarily all in Vancouver.

We can start with Brian.

Á (1140)

Mr. Brian Tsuji: First of all, B.C. in their PNP program does have something like that. At the national CBA conferences, I chair the provincial nominee panel, so I have to look at all the different programs across the country.

In B.C. the way they try to do that is they have certain types of jobs. They're not a list, but certain areas like high tech or medical sciences or whatever are the preferred kinds of occupations they're looking for. The criteria, if you go to live and work in Victoria or Vancouver, are at a certain level, but if you go outside the two major centres, then what they're looking for may be more lenient.

Á (1145)

Mr. Richard Kurland: On a totally different tack, I don't think it's an issue of what do we want. I think it's an issue of finding the needle in the haystack.

Now you have, Mr. Chair, sitting beside you Mr. Bill Farrell, who single-handedly in his career in Vegreville, Alberta, saved the Canadian taxpayer tens of millions of dollars through his work.

I want to point out this. There's something called the CAPES management system. This is a management information system at the control of every immigration program manager in our Canadian overseas system. With that simple system you can say give me a list of all files with the following characteristics--by occupation and city of destination. You can bring out all the applications destined to the Okanagan or hinterland in Saskatchewan. There are not that many files like that in Seattle or Detroit or Buffalo being processed. You then take that small group of files and cherry-pick one by one. You send them off to Vancouver from the consulate or you send a person from B.C. immigration services to look at 20, 30 files.

Two hundred numbers, or 500 numbers, spread across four or five consulates over a year means two files a month per consulate meets your quota for the province. It is not a discovery exercise on who we want. It's how do you pick the needle out of the inventory haystack. So I'd focus there.

The Chair: Lillian.

Ms. Lillian To: We serve quite a number of new immigrants every year, many of them actually looking for work. In fact we have quite a number of them come to us and ask us questions. They said they've heard how our Minister Coderre talked about wanting immigrants to move to outlining areas, less populated areas, and they were asking us how can we go about going there--what's the process?

I think they believe if they move up to those areas, they will be able to get jobs, because they can't find jobs here. So we have people motivated to move. I think what's important is it's not a mandatory requirement. What's important, as you say, is incentive. And one of the biggest incentives is whether they can get a job, and in fact jobs that are related to their occupation. As we discussed earlier, now you have engineers cleaning floors and washing dishes. If an engineer will be able to find an engineering job and will be able to continue their career and occupation, they will be willing to move.

But of course what we need is more than that. We talk about the need for some kind of infrastructure and support system in order to sustain, to help them continue to stay in that place. We have to prepare the community, so they'll be able to accept all these new immigrants, so they will not be discriminated against. We need to build that kind of infrastructure.

We have to be able to offer jobs, incentives. We have to be able to offer a supporting environment, an infrastructure, and there also needs to be a mechanism in place in terms of credential recognition and some kind of language or job training.

We've heard from the new budget that some funding is provided for employment training centres in some outlying areas. Well, we're hoping that would be an incentive to attract immigrants to move there, where they can get language upgrading and some employment training. Then they will be able to get a job. Their credentials will be recognized, and with the infrastructure built in, then it will be sustainable.

The Chair Louis.

Á (1150)

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Peut-être que...

[NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, the following translation has been derived from a recording of the simultaneous interpretation]

Perhaps we haven't insisted enough on the flow process. When I looked into it, I realized that there were very qualified people, engineers, architects and the like, who were on a waiting list for an interview for a period of two years. Now, when these people are called in....

I'll make a parallel with Australia. Australia had already interviewed this person and this person had chosen to go to Australia. So we want to meet our counterparts in Australia and see the ease with which they can play around with the principles with which they have staffed. Their framework is much less rigorous. For us, we have ten months per province, and we have family issues. For Australia, there is one person dealing with family issues. One person is dealing with professional employment. They divide the work, and when they find the perfect candidate, things happen really quickly.

The first priority of this person was to come to Canada, but he went to Australia because they were interviewed earlier. To go to Australia and come back to Canada is much harder than going to Toronto and going to Montreal later. I don't know how to overcome that obstacle.

There is too much bureaucracy, too much red tape around this. I don't think it's only my personal view. I think a lot of people share it.

[End of translation]

Mr. Richard Kurland: It is the intention of the policy-makers at CIC to create four-year processing lines for economic class applicants in order to drive the demand for provincial nominees and to drive the demand for increasing numbers of temporary status documents, either work permits or student permits. So it's the intent to make it longer. Whether it's fair or not I don't know, but that's the design.

The Chair: I'm sure they would disagree with you, because we asked them that very question.

Mr. Richard Kurland: Should they disagree, under the Access to Information Act I received the internal memos from CIC at the highest levels.

The Chair: You might want to share them with the committee.

Mr. Richard Kurland: Sure.

The Chair: Thank you, Richard.

Andrew, do you have any questions?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I want to praise you for your quick work. The regulations appeared shortly after you said what you did.

The Chair: Well, if it weren't for Brian tipping us off that it happened.... Thank you, Brian.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Brian, how long have you had that material in your possession?

Mr. Brian Tsuji: It's been a few days.

The Chair: We're talking about the provincial nominee regulations, by the way.

Mr. Richard Kurland: Exactly. But in fairness, sometimes the committee doesn't ask the right questions of CIC. One should ask for the latest version or the proposed version rather than the regulations.

Also be aware that in law--and as a Quebec lawyer I can tell you this--the convention of parliamentary privilege for not disclosing a document to the committee extends only to statutes, not regulations. From time to time CIC should be reminded of that.

The Chair: They might change that tune now, in light of this new democratic deficit we've been talking about an awful lot. We've opened that Pandora's box. MPs might now need eight days a week to do their work.

Are there any further questions? If not, there has been tremendous work done by these four people from three organizations, who seem to know their stuff.

On provincial nominee agreements, we agree that a stronger partnership can exist. That's what we've heard across the country: refine the policies and do a better job of processing paperwork. Let's face it, would-be Canadians don't want to wait four or five years, seven years, or two years. I think we have an awful lot to offer and a fair system.

Á (1155)

Mr. Brian Tsuji: I wanted to say, Sophia, thank you for mentioning the comment about the article on whether Bill Gates would qualify under the new system.

I was the one who wrote the editorial for both The Vancouver Sun and The Province when the new act came out. I wrote the article that said that under the new skilled worker system, Bill Gates and George Bush, who has an MBA from Harvard and another undergraduate degree--

The Chair: Let's not go there. I wouldn't mind stopping him at the border too.

Mr. Brian Tsuji: I wrote the article for effect and to get that kind of attention. Obviously, it turned into something that people raised. It caught your eye.

The Chair: That's one time when I might use the “flagrant” about democratic principles.

Mr. Brian Tsuji: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

We're going to lunch. We'll be back at 1:30.

We're adjourned.