CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, April 30, 2001

• 0901

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning colleagues, and ladies and gentlemen. Let me first of all say it's a privilege and a pleasure to be here in Vancouver in the province of British Columbia. I was expecting a bit warmer weather, seeing that the east has been a little cool, but it's nice to be here anyway.

I want to thank the people of British Columbia for having such a welcoming province with regard to immigration and refugees. As you know, Bill C-11 is before Parliament and before this committee, so we want to take this opportunity to thank everyone in advance for wanting to make their submissions. We started our process a few weeks back and hope to wrap up our cross-country travel sometime this week. Hopefully, next week we'll get into discussion on the clause-by-clause review.

I know we had starts and stops—we were supposed to be here sometime back, so I want to thank you also for your patience. We're finally here and we want to hear your views, your suggestions, and your recommendations on how we can improve our bill and how we can fashion, I hope and believe, the best immigration policy this country has seen. I know our present policy has served this country fairly well, but as we move into the new century and look to the dynamics and the challenges, not only for this country but for the world, Canada believes it's time for a new immigration and refugee bill, and that's what Bill C-11 is all about. We look forward to your participation and input.

We have received all of your submissions, with the exception of the MOSAIC one, which we received just this morning. We ask that you not read your submissions, but give us an overview of what's in your submission, and more importantly, some of the recommendations you are putting forward. What I'd like to do is ask each group in this segment between 9 and 10 to take five to six minutes, and you'll know that I try to be a very generous chair.

We want the opportunity to ask you some questions with regard to your brief, so I would ask that each and every one of you give us an overview of what your submissions are all about and some of your recommendations. We have your briefs; some of us have already read them. We ask for them in advance so we can have them translated, and all of them have been translated with the exception of the MOSAIC one, which we will have translated in the next little while. I know you all have executive summaries, so I would ask you to give us five minutes, then we can start asking some questions.

Having set those ground rules, I'll begin.

In the segment between 9 and 10, we have the West Coast Women's Legal Education Action Fund, and Jennifer Khor and Judith Lee are here. From MOSAIC we have Elizabeth Briemberg and Chilwin Cheng. From S.U.C.E.S.S. we have Mason Loh and Lilian To. From the West Coast Domestic Workers' Association we have Tami Friesen and Cynthia Javier. From the Canadian Association of Police Boards, we have Florence Wong and Beth Nielsen. From the Lower Mainland Sustainable Population Group, we have Dan Murray.

• 0905

Let's start with the West Coast Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, and Jennifer Khor and Judith Lee. Who will take us through their brief?

Ms. Jennifer Khor (Co-Chair, Law and Government Liaison Committee, West Coast Women's Legal Education and Action Fund): I will.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Jennifer.

Ms. Jennifer Khor: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. West Coast LEAF thanks you for this opportunity to discuss Bill C-11.

My name is Jennifer Khor and I am co-chair of the law and government liaison committee for West Coast LEAF. With me is my co-chair, Judith Lee.

West Coast LEAF is the British Columbia branch of the National Women's Legal Education Action Fund, or LEAF. LEAF is a federally incorporated, non-profit organization started in 1985 to secure equality rights for Canadian women, as guaranteed by the charter. To this end, LEAF engages in test-case litigation, equality research, law reform advocacy, and public legal education.

Our written brief represents the view of West Coast LEAF and has been reviewed by LEAF National. Our brief is limited to an analysis of the applications for permanent resident status on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds under the proposed act.

In addition to developing our own brief, West Coast LEAF participated in the development of the brief submitted by the National Association of Women and the Law, and several other organizations, in which gender analysis of Bill C-11 in its entirety is conducted. We understand that the committee will be hearing from NAWL at a future meeting; therefore we'll limit our comments today to the West Coast LEAF brief.

Today we will focus on three submissions that we make in our brief: one, the need for a legislated definition of “humanitarian and compassionate grounds”; two, that the regulations include a non-exhaustive list of factors to be used in the evaluation of humanitarian and compassionate applications; and three, that financial self-sufficiency should not be a consideration for permanent residency in an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

We begin with a recognition that humanitarian and compassionate applications allow women to obtain landing in Canada who might not otherwise achieve permanent resident status. Agency applications recognize that in some situations Canada's values relating to humanitarian considerations override the strict applications of the established immigrant classes.

The power to grant permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds is discretionary. We all know that immigration officers are guided by a policy manual. As a result of this extensive discretion, it is difficult to ensure consistency in the assessment of agency applications. Furthermore, a failure to define agency grounds within the act means there is no legislative recognition of the need for landing to be granted to specific groups, such as women who are escaping situations of domestic violence and sponsored relationships.

West Coast LEAF proposes that clause 25 of the bill contain reference to violence against women as consideration, just as it contains a reference to the best interests of the child, and that women's socio-economic circumstances be acknowledged as an important consideration in making humanitarian and compassionate decisions.

We recommend that a definition of humanitarian and compassionate grounds be set out in the bill and that definition recognize as primary considerations for granting permanent resident status: (a) threats of violence; (b) rehabilitation of victims of trafficking; and (c) the best interests of any child affected. We recommend that Canada's international obligations be specifically recognized in that definition.

We would further submit that factors for consideration in agency determination should be included in the regulations in a non-exhaustive list. Including factors in the regulations will lead to more transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.

We submit that the list should include the following factors: threat to personal safety and security of a victim of violence occurring in Canada or abroad; the best interests of any children; the objective of family reunification; and the protection of persons trafficked or smuggled to Canada under the threat of physical, emotional, or financial harm or under false pretences.

• 0910

On the requirement for self-sufficiency, women may lack the work experience to meet the financial requirements, or they may be in low-paying, low-skilled jobs that make them ineligible. A woman may have child care responsibilities that presently preclude her being able to meet the self-sufficiency criterion. None of these circumstances preclude a woman from achieving self-sufficiency in the future.

Failure to take these factors into consideration means that women may be denied landing even though their situation is one that would otherwise warrant a humanitarian and compassionate response. Particularly in situations of violence against women and of trafficking of women, the requirement of self-sufficiency is completely inconsistent with humanitarian and compassionate values.

Often the very factor that warrants humanitarian relief, such as abuse or trafficking, is what prevents women from being economically self-sufficient. We therefore submit that financial self-sufficiency should not be a factor for consideration in humanitarian and compassionate applications either to assess the degree of establishment or as a ground for admissibility. The regulations should specifically and clearly eliminate this requirement.

We request that this committee refer our brief to legislative authorities for drafting consideration. Many groups have expressed concerns about the ongoing reduction of appeal rights and procedural protections in Bill C-11, and incorporating humanitarian and compassionate definitions and factors would go some way towards helping to ensure that applicants receive a fair hearing.

We would welcome any questions you may have regarding our brief.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Jennifer, for your submission and your executive summary, so to speak. I'm sure we'll have some questions.

We're going to go to the MOSAIC group now and Elizabeth and Chilwin.

Ms. Elizabeth Briemberg (President, Board of Directors, MOSAIC): Good morning, and thank you very much, Chairman and commissioners, for inviting us to this session.

My name is Elizabeth Briemberg. I am the president of the board of directors of MOSAIC, and my colleague, Chilwin Cheng, is the vice-president of the board of directors.

MOSAIC has been a very important organization in the city of Vancouver since 1972. It's a multicultural, multilingual non-profit organization whose goal is to assist immigrants and refugees in settlement, and it provides services in language, settlement, employment, and the like.

We are very happy to be able to present this brief. We are sorry it is a little late, and I hope that won't cause any disservice to the committee.

We like some things about Bill C-11, and we are glad to see them, although many of them are in regulations, and we have some concerns about that. The way we're going to do this is that I'm going to present just a short part of it and then Chilwin Cheng will continue.

We feel that some of the bill's provisions will impose unfair and unnecessary hardship on refugees in particular. First, the bill places unnecessary identification requirements and security checks on refugees, requirements that impose real economic hardship. You will find in our brief that a lot of our concerns are with the well-being of refugees and immigrants when they get to this country because that is what we deal with in our organization.

Second, under the bill a refugee claimant's overseas economic and social viability is relevant in determining his or her refugee status. We don't think this should be so. Furthermore, the bill creates different procedures and standards for overseas and inland refugee applications.

Finally, the bill creates a system in which most of the policies and processes that will affect how refugees are processed and how their applications will be ruled on will be determined by regulation and administrative policy, a situation about which we have grave concerns.

• 0915

In speaking about the identification of problems, Citizenship and Immigration Canada has acknowledged that refugees frequently have to flee their countries without identification documents. This is particularly true for refugees from most disintegrated countries, where state systems have broken down and it is impossible for parties to get these documents. We feel this should not be a barrier in any way for these people to be accepted into this country. Indeed, it should go further. Clause 106 should be eliminated so the lack of identity documentation should not be considered in determining the credibility of a refugee claimant.

We would like to see refugees accepted as landed on arrival in this country. If after there have been security and identity checks there is indeed some concern, there are provisions in the bill that can deal with that. Because refugees often do not have appropriate standing and status in this country, it creates incredible hardships for them when getting employment and when settling. We are constantly dealing with refugees who simply don't have the basis on which we can work with them to provide good settlement. There's so much tied up in the system as they try to get landed. That's something we feel very strongly about.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Cheng to continue with some of the other issues we're concerned with.

Mr. Chilwin Cheng (Vice-President, Board of Directors, MOSAIC): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you.

One thing I'd like to add with respect to this identification issue is that under provincial social services legislation, refugee claimants are only entitled to hardship assistance instead of full benefits under the social services system. I realize that's a provincial problem, but there is this interplay between the provincial and federal governments. Without status, many of these people cannot get the right kinds of benefits they may otherwise be entitled to, nor can they get employment training and all those benefits. That status is more than just a piece of paper. It's a real factor to consider.

I'm also here to talk to you about the economic considerations we have mentioned in our brief. Most of them are found in part 5, page 10, paragraph 25. I don't propose to go too much into detail, but you can perhaps read along as I go there. The issue is that economic consideration should play no role in determining whether someone is a convention refugee and therefore admissible into Canada. The difficulty is that clause 39 of the bill says that economic considerations can bar a foreign national. The way the bill now defines “foreign national” includes refugees, and it prevents a foreign national from being admissible if that person has to rely on social services.

The difficulty of course is that now claimants are caught in a catch-22. They can't get real social services or employment until they get status, but they can't get status because of course they can't work.

The overly inclusive language in clause 39 catches refugees unduly. Additionally, there is a dissonance between clauses 30 and 39 of the bill. Clause 38 makes foreign nationals inadmissible if they will become excessive burdens on Canada's health or social services. Clause 38 relieves convention refugees of this stricture, but notice that it doesn't refer to refugee claimants. It doesn't refer to statuses other than that of convention refugee. While there's a recognition that there should be some allowance made with respect to health and social services, there's no exemption under clause 39 for economic considerations, so health and social services can be exempted but not the ability to provide for oneself and one's family.

MOSAIC submits that if this clause is going to remain, convention refugees and convention refugee applicants should both be exempt from clause 39. If not, that clause should be deleted altogether.

There's also a difficulty in clause 106. I'm sorry, let me back up for a second. The difficulty is overseas refugees are governed by part 1 of the bill, which puts them within the purview of all the restrictions that are in place, in terms of social status, economic considerations, and the like, that are not applied to refugees who apply inland.

• 0920

First of all, as I mentioned earlier, economic considerations should be irrelevant.

Secondly, once the refugee sees there is a distinction where he or she will in fact get preferential treatment if they're able to come to Canada, it creates incentives for people to choose a means of perhaps arriving in Canada outside of the purview of the act.

Not only will they have the benefit of legal counsel, Canadian housing, and some care and support, compared to the countries they are leaving, but it creates real incentives to travel to Canada in that manner. In that way they'll be vilified.

We submit that refugee and inland claims both be treated equally and, specifically, that economic considerations should not play a role.

Finally, by doing this, MOSAIC submits the act will more properly reflect the humanitarian and compassionate grounds that it must uphold under international law. There's no reason under international law to make economic factors a role in the bill. It panders to the worst part of our country in seeing refugees as deadbeats. They're not. MOSAIC sees them as real sources of vitality in our community.

In that regard, I'll leave my submission at that and rely on the rest of my written brief, with respect to identification and some of the other issues we've raised.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll now go to S.U.C.C.E.S.S. We have Mason Loh and Lilian To.

Mr. Mason Loh (Past Chair, S.U.C.C.E.S.S.): Honourable chairman and members, I am Mason Loh, representing S.U.C.C.E.S.S. With me is Lilian To, our executive director.

S.U.C.C.E.S.S. is an acronym for United Chinese Community Enrichment Services Society. It was established 28 years ago and we're one of the largest community and social service organizations in Canada. Our mandate is to assist new Canadians in overcoming language and cultural barriers and to become self-reliant, participating, and contributing members of Canadian society. We have over 190,000 registered members, 300 professional staff, and 12 offices in the lower mainland. Last year, we served over 300,000 clients.

With respect to Bill C-11, in general, we are quite encouraged by the government's determination to reform and improve Canada's immigration and refugee protection legislation and policies. Specifically, we welcome proposals in the bill designed to deter human smuggling, bar serious criminals, streamline the refugee determination process, expand family classes, and attract skilled workers, among many others.

However, we do have five issues we'd like to bring to your attention. I'll do the first two and let Lilian cover the next three.

Firstly, we are very concerned with clause 72 of the bill, which requires leave to appeal to the Federal Court for judicial review of a rejected visa application. We believe the proposal is unnecessary. It would further expand immigration officers' already broad discretionary power, probably resulting in more unfair decisions without redress.

According to the news releases we have read, the intention of this particular provision is to equalize the treatment of decisions made inland and decisions made overseas. However, we'd like to challenge that particular rationale because the number of cases inland annually is about 8,000, whereas overseas we're talking only about 800 cases. It's a one versus ten ratio. We can't really see the rationale for that particular argument.

Secondly, we are very concerned about this provision because the success rate on a leave application to Federal Court is only about 10%.

• 0925

If you put on top of that the results of cases that have actually gone to Federal Court appeals, over 50% of those cases are either reversed by the court or withdrawn by the department, with their own decision to reverse their earlier decision. Combining those two factors, we are very concerned that if we take away this particular redress, we would end up with a lot of meritorious cases with no right of appeal and no recourse. A lot of families with genuine cases won't be able to get together in Canada.

However, if we do have a concern about the backlog and the caseload in our court system, and we want to do something about that, we're not opposed to some other creative ideas, in terms of perhaps an independent, alternate dispute-resolution mechanism or the setting up of an independent immigration appeal tribunal to deal with these kinds of appeals so that we take those cases off the caseloads of the court system.

The second issue I'd like to briefly address is the issue of how legislation in general deals with permanent residents. Does one part of it deal with the image of permanent residents and the other part with access to justice? I'm not going to go into all this detail about it because we don't have a lot of time. We want to allow everybody a chance to talk.

With respect to the image, I have been privy to the transcripts of your hearing back east last week. I read about the discussions about foreign nationals, and we have to say that we completely agree with some of the members of the committee's concerns about including permanent residents in the definition of foreign nationals.

As we said, at S.U.C.C.E.S.S. our mandate is to help new Canadians integrate into Canada and contribute. So we see immigrants as real assets to this country, and we see immigrants as closer to citizens than to foreign nationals like visitors and foreign workers. So we're very concerned about including permanent residents in the definition of foreign nationals.

With respect to the second aspect of the treatment of permanent residents, we are very supportive of the Canadian Bar Association's concern about some of the provisions in the bill dealing with access to justice. I'm sure you have heard some of them, and I believe the bar association representative will be speaking to you later on this morning.

So I don't need to go into a lot of detail about that, but generally we're concerned about sweeping powers of arrest and compelled examination by immigration officers. There's no right to silence and no right to counsel for the immigrants. We're also very concerned about the removal of appeals division jurisdiction to review the loss of status and deportation of permanent residents.

So I won't be going into a lot of detail. I'm going to turn the microphone over now to my colleague, Ms. Lilian To.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Lilian To (Executive Director, S.U.C.C.E.S.S.): Thank you.

I'm pleased about this opportunity to be able to present our views. I'd like to especially address the issue of family reunification. We appreciate the government's responsiveness to public input and welcome the inclusion of parents in the family class definition in Bill C-11, as recommended in our previous deliberation.

We also welcome the government's expanded definition of family to facilitate the reunification of families. As you're aware, in the culture of many of our immigrants, the importance of the parent-child relationship is not only comparable to but in many cases actually surpasses that of spousal relationships.

However, under the current family sponsorship category, over-age children or siblings, even if they're the last member of the family to remain overseas, are permanently separated from the rest of their families in Canada. For humanitarian and compassionate reasons, we can recommend that the government reinstate its earlier provisions for permanent residents or citizens to be able to sponsor the last member of their immediate family—namely, parents, children, or siblings. In that way, that would facilitate their family's reunification.

• 0930

The second point I want to address is the issue of the new requirements of permanent residents for two years of physical presence in Canada during five years to retain their permanent resident status. We believe the introduction of some objective criteria for maintaining permanent resident status is welcome, and we also welcome a special provision for persons who are employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business, or in the public service of Canada or of the provinces, and for these people to be deemed physically present in Canada. We also appreciate provisions on humanitarian grounds. However, we are concerned that this provision does not provide sufficient flexibility for business immigrants or students studying abroad.

We are now in a global environment. To restrict or disallow these talented residents, who do not constitute great numbers but could contribute significantly to Canada over time from their endeavours overseas, might not be in the best interests of this country. We have recommended to the minister before to make discretionary allowance for people who have to spend time overseas for very genuine reasons, and we would like to reiterate that concern.

The third point I want to address is the recognition of foreign credentials. There is nothing in the bill that tries to ensure that the skilled immigrants we admit to this country are integrated into the Canadian workforce. From our experience, many highly skilled immigrants, such as nurses and engineers, are unable to use their skills, business knowledge, and technology in Canada. This is a sad outcome for the immigrants and their families and is a serious failure of the immigration system. There is a need for recognition of foreign credentials and professional accreditation processes for skilled immigrants.

We recommend that in attracting the best and the brightest to Canada, the government should adopt a two-pronged approach by allowing pre-immigration accreditation of qualifications overseas and accreditation of overseas qualifications in Canada.

Judging from our constituents, the community generally perceives most of the bill favourably, but there are real concerns over some of the issues you've raised. We hope the committee will carefully consider our observations and help modify the draft legislation. We believe a good immigration policy is vital to the interests of Canada, and we will be glad to submit the full report on our position later on.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you.

West Coast Domestic Workers' Association, Tami Friesen and Cynthia Javier. Welcome.

Ms. Tami Friesen (Advocate, West Coast Domestic Workers' Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.

My name is Tami Friesen, and I am the staff lawyer at the West Coast Domestic Workers' Association. With me today is Cynthia Javier, who is a staff member. She works as a legal support worker and is a former domestic worker.

I'm going to make some general introductory comments and some general comments about Bill C-11, and then I'll turn things over to Cynthia to talk about some specific recommendations for the live-in caregiver program.

We'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak briefly about our concerns relating to Bill C-11, and in particular about the live-in caregiver program, which I will be referring to as the LCP.

For those of you who are not familiar with our organization, the West Coast Domestic Workers' Association is a non-profit organization that has provided education and legal assistance to domestic workers and caregivers in British Columbia on immigration and employment issues for the past 13 years. We are an organization run by domestic workers and caregivers for domestic workers and caregivers. We have over 370 members and see firsthand the problems of the LCP in the current immigration system.

I would like to make one general comment on the uncertainty in the future form of the live-in caregiver program. Bill C-11 does not make any reference to the LCP, and inquiries of government officials have elicited no comment regarding the future of the program. We believe the reluctance of government officials to comment on what manner the LCP will continue in is not an adequate response.

I'll now turn my comments to a few general comments about Bill C-11.

The framework legislation of Bill C-11 leaves many of the key rules to the regulations, and the LCP is no exception. There is no mention of the LCP in Bill C-11, as I've said, and therefore we assume this means it will be left to the regulations. We submit that the LCP should be provided for in the framework of the bill to ensure supervision of the development and implementation of the program.

• 0935

We welcome the fact that Bill C-11 makes more reference than the current act to Canada's human rights obligations, such as the right to equality and the best interests of the child. However, the bill fails to make reference to Canada's international obligations, except the convention on refugees, or to explicitly recognize the value Canadian society places on human rights and dignity.

The gender bias inherent in Canada's immigration system causes women with a background in traditional women's work and/or economically disadvantaged women to immigrate to Canada only as domestic workers under the LCP. We urge the government to amend Bill C-11 to include human rights principles as part of the evaluation of potential immigrants and in particular to include full recognition of gender equality, the economic inequality of women, and the value of women's traditional work, including domestic work.

I'll make one short comment about the introduction of inadmissibility for misrepresentation into Bill C-11. Paragraph 40(2)(a) provides that a foreign national is inadmissible for a period of two years for making a misrepresentation. We consider this time limitation to be arbitrary and unduly restrictive. The legislation should not establish a time period for an applicant to remain inadmissible following a misrepresentation. However, in the alternative, should the government mandate a specified time period for inadmissibility after a misrepresentation is made, we would submit that the minister should be required to be satisfied that the facts of the case justify the inadmissibility in all cases, as currently provided for in the specific sponsorship situation in paragraph 40(2)(b).

Now I'll turn things over to Cynthia to make some specific comments on the LCP.

Ms. Cynthia Javier (Legal Support Worker, West Coast Domestic Workers' Association): Thank you, Tami.

Good morning, everyone. I'm Cynthia, and I'd really like to mention that I am a former domestic worker. In total I have 13 years of experience, 8 years in Canada and 4 in Singapore. I have personally experienced all of the things that domestic workers do. So I've seen everything we will be talking about here. I've been there, done that, that kind of thing.

To make specific comments on the LCP, the live-in caregiver program, we feel that in its current form it is slow and unconscionable. If a specialized program for domestic workers is to continue to exist, it must undergo substantial changes.

We recommend special changes in our brief, but we'll highlight four of the key ones. The first point is automatic landing for domestic workers on arrival. Domestic workers should have the option to come to Canada either as immigrants with permanent resident status or as temporary workers. Those who wish to come to Canada as domestic workers on a temporary basis should only have access to special work permits for that purpose. No person who wishes to come to Canada permanently should be forced to accept a special work permit instead of permanent resident status.

The government also needs to take a long-term view of domestic workers' integration into Canadian society. The first step is to give them permanent resident status on arrival, along with all of the rights inherent in that status, including the ability to study, access to immigrant settlement services, and the ability to arrive with spouse and children.

Immigration policy must stop discriminating against this class of immigrants, who are almost exclusively women of colour. Domestic workers make an invaluable contribution to society by taking care of Canada's children and elderly parents and fulfilling a labour need. We deserve fair and equal treatment under the Canadian immigration system.

Further, in fear of not being able to qualify for landing, domestic workers often endure unbearable working and living conditions. To prevent this abuse and in recognition of the value of domestic work and domestic workers' dignity, domestic workers should be able to qualify for landed immigrant status when they first arrive.

• 0940

The second point would be to eliminate the live-in and single-employer requirements. Domestic workers should have the freedom to live in or out of their employer's home. The government has continued to say there is a need for live-in work only, but it has repeatedly failed to provide any proof of this. This not only violates our human rights but also creates a great power imbalance between the employer and the employee. It is the main cause of the exploitation and abuse of caregivers on the LCP. Domestic workers are reluctant to change employers as their legal status may be jeopardized if they leave the employment and do not find another position immediately. You should remember that they have to complete two years within the three years. Domestic workers should have the option to work for more than one employer, and the live-in requirement should be abolished.

The third point would be eligibility to study while on the LCP. We come in and our degrees are not recognized. With the domestic workers it's a double whammy because we are not allowed to study while we are on a work permit. Many domestic workers were nurses, teachers, and midwives before coming to Canada under the LCP. I myself had a bachelor's degree in sociology when I came to Canada, but I've never practised because it's not recognized here.

The combination of an inability to study while on the LCP and the lack of acceptance of foreign credentials leads to the deskilling of domestic workers. Domestic workers should be eligible to participate in part-time studies to upgrade their professional skills, one, to minimize the deskilling and, two, to allow them to contribute to Canada's economy in their profession of choice immediately following the completion of the LCP.

The fourth point would be that the requirement to work as a domestic worker should not exceed one year. There appears to be no rationale for the two-year work requirement.

In conclusion, Canada has continued to perpetuate a discriminatory, exploitative, foreign domestic workers program with no true justification. We repeat that Bill C-11 and the LCP in its current form are inconsistent with Canadian values and must be amended to uphold human rights principles.

I like to close this way every time I speak. Based on my own experience, I would like to tell you that a happy nanny is always a better nanny.

Thank you.

The Chair: I wanted to keep my grandmother very happy, too.

Ms. Cynthia Javier: Oh, I can.

The Chair: Thank you.

Next is the Canadian Association of Police Boards, Florence Wong and Beth Nielsen. Welcome.

Ms. Florence Wong (Director, Vancouver Police Board, Canadian Association of Police Boards): Good morning.

The Canadian Association of Police Boards welcomes this opportunity to present its view to the standing committee. We stand in a slightly different position from the other people who are making submissions. We stand on the back end where we have to do a lot of enforcement, so our view will be from that angle.

I would also like to preface my comments by saying that our view speaks of a very small percentage of new immigrants, refugee claimants, and non-immigrants. I hope the impression will not be left with this committee that I'm tainting the entire system with just a very small percentage of individuals who we hear about.

The Chair: If we could get the news media to agree with you, that would be great.

Ms. Florence Wong: We always have to deal with the news media.

The Chair: Tell us about it.

Ms. Florence Wong: I'd like to say a couple of words about who we are. I am a member of the Vancouver Police Board, but I am also on the Canadian Association of Police Boards. We're an association of civilian oversight bodies for our municipal police forces. There are about 55 of us all across the country, and in this submission I'm speaking on behalf of the CAPB.

• 0945

Generally speaking, we are very supportive of the new bill. We are pleased to see that there are changes on the front-end security screening, pre-removal risk assessment, and new offences for human trafficking. We're very pleased with the barring of access to serious criminals and the suspicion of a refugee claim until the courts have rendered a decision on the claimant's criminal case, exclusion from day parole for incarcerated foreign criminals, and also extending the period of repeated claims.

What I would like to do is paint a backdrop as to why we're supporting the new legislation. When non-immigrants arrive in Canada, most of the time they're not allowed to work, and there is a lengthy delay in processing the refugee or immigrant claim. With nothing to do seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and no or little family support, some of these individuals are vulnerable to criminal elements.

A refugee claimant on social assistance is not provided with sufficient funds to live on, and they, too, turn to criminal activities. The types of illegal activities include drug dealing, pimping, and property crime. It is predominantly young men who become involved in these crimes, but increasingly our police forces are finding girls as young as 11 being drawn into sexual acts and prostitution by non-immigrants.

The CAPB considers the current immigration and refugee policy to have the propensity of increasing the likelihood of non-immigrants to engage in criminal activities. A more timely and effective way of determining the refugee's status is needed. There should be clear advice given to the applicants that if they do engage in criminal activities, they will be held in custody pending the hearing, with the potential of deportation.

There is also a concern that there are insufficient immigration officers to properly screen immigration applicants, to identify those with a history of criminal activities, and to enforce the deportation orders. When a non-immigrant is charged with a crime, they are usually released from custody on bail pending trial. Many times these people quickly return to crime. If they are convicted they can be deported, but, again, they may disappear, making it hard and costly to locate them. Custodial arrangements also depend on the presence of a deportation protocol with the country of origin.

Our Vancouver experience particularly highlights what I'm speaking about. At the street level, many arrests have recently been made in the non-immigrant groups from Latin America. These include arrests for drug trafficking, prostitution, robberies, and assault. There are also Asian, Vietnamese, and Chinese gangs targeting non-immigrants for recruitment in marijuana cultivation—“grow-ops”, as it's commonly known on the west coast.

In the fall of 1999, the Vancouver police department conducted Project Libra and, over a one-month period, made 81 drug buys and laid charges against 81 individuals involving 108 counts. Of these, almost 40 were non-immigrants.

On September 25, 2000, the New Westminster police service report said:

Most of the non-English speaking dealers were refugee claimants and receiving multiple social assistance claims based on falsified documents. Immigration and social assistance investigators discovered that many dealers were in possession of two or more refugee claimant forms bearing different names and dates of birth. As a result of the intra-agency project, immigration and welfare investigators were able to gather intelligence and close several outstanding cases involving misuse of immigration or social service agencies.

While the police can work cooperatively with immigration officers on the investigation, the police are not able to address the underlying issues leading to the problem. In the fall of 2000, our Vancouver Growbuster team initiated 413 marijuana grower operations over a six-month period. Unfortunately, we were again alarmed by the large number of new immigrants and refugee claimants who were involved in these activities.

• 0950

We are very supportive of the new bill because we recognize that it tries to address a lot of the enforcement issues that the police forces across the country are dealing with. Hopefully, most of these measures will have a positive impact on the issues and concerns identified by us. The CAPB looks forward to these changes being enacted, thus stemming the frustration and the concerns voiced by our police membership. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. I have two observations before I go to questions. One, I am very, very impressed with the quality of the briefs, the information, and the recommendations given so far.

Secondly, I'm very impressed with the amount of work you do for your community at the community level in creating that social infrastructure. If the government had to do it, it would cost us, I'm sure, mega-billions. So again, on behalf of the people of Canada, thank you very much for the work you do on a day-to-day basis helping new people coming to this country. I'm very, very impressed, and I'm very, very impressed with your submissions so far.

I see that our last guests from the Lower Mainland Sustainable Population Group are here. I was just about to move to questions because we're running out of time.

Mr. Dan Murray (Lower Mainland Sustainable Population Group): We've been here all the time.

The Chair: Oh? We just didn't have you at the table?

Mr. Dan Murray: I was sitting back there.

The Chair: Well, I'm happy to have you at the table, Dan. Perhaps you can give us your five-minute submission, if we could. Thank you.

Mr. Dan Murray: I trust that everybody has read the brief that we submitted.

The Chair: Of course. We spent all last night reading these.

Mr. Dan Murray: Good. I'm sure you stayed up all night.

The Chair: We had an extra three hours, as you know.

Mr. Dan Murray: Okay. What I'm going to say is different from what everybody else has said. I'd just like to start by looking at two of the main issues that we think are the most important. One is, why does Canada have the immigration policy that it does have right now? I know a lot of it seems to be based on the assumption that immigration is a stimulus to the economy, and also that Canada has an aging and dependency problem, and that it has to look at those two things and try to solve that problem.

What we're doing when we come here is questioning the two issues. We're questioning all the assumptions that have been made about the economic benefits of immigration; we're questioning the assumptions that have been made about aging and dependency, and we're questioning the very, very great numbers of people who are being allowed in.

You asked before that we give some recommendations rather than go through everything that we had said in the briefs, so I'll just go through five recommendations. The first one is that the numbers that are coming in at the moment have to be reduced dramatically. The assumption seems to be that Canada, and in particular I speak for this particular area, the lower mainland... that the lower mainland is some partially filled hole that's waiting to be filled with people, and it is not.

The second recommendation is that some real attention has to be paid to environmental consideration. This area has been seriously degraded. It really does not need any more people. We have control over immigration. We don't have control over migration between provinces, but we do have control over immigration. We can do something about the numbers of people who are coming in.

Might I just remind people on the committee that, for example, in the brief I mentioned that 225,000 new people arrived here between 1991 and 1996. Of that number, about 83% of them were people from offshore. So when I talk about numbers here, the numbers are mostly immigrant numbers. They're a very significant number.

• 0955

Third recommendation: Real attention has to be paid to the wishes of residents in the area, and an informed consultation has to be conducted. Hundreds of thousands of people have been imposed on the area and really there's been no asking at all of whether we want them or not. I mentioned in my brief that about 700,000 people have been added to this area in the last dozen or so years, an amount equal to the population of New Brunswick.

I say that if the question had been asked a dozen years ago, do you want the population of New Brunswick transplanted to the lower mainland of B.C., you would have had riots in the streets here. So in other words we wouldn't have tolerated a migration within the country, yet the federal government has achieved the same effect by moving people in from offshore.

Fourth recommendation: This is something that appears at the end of the brief. We recommend that significant amounts of money now spent on immigration and refugees be spent on international aid. The idea that we're going to solve the problems for the whole world and that anybody who wants to come to Canada can come here is naive and it does not make any sense.

The fifth recommendation is that we think the reasons for immigration have to be completely re-examined and the physical and social science research that has been accumulated has to be paid attention to. There's a large body of research, much of it by the way that has been paid for and commissioned by the federal government, which says the government should not be following the policies it's following right now. But it's going ahead and doing just the opposite of what's been told to do.

So that's what I have to say.

The Chair: Mr. Murray, can you tell me a little bit about your organization? How many people are in it? Are you registered as a charity or as a non-profit? Give me some background on yourself. I only have a single sheet of paper. And I'm happy, as I said, that I was very impressed with the briefs before you actually spoke, but that's beside the point. But perhaps you can tell me a little about your organization.

Mr. Dan Murray: Yes. We're an organization of academics, professionals, and ordinary citizens in the lower mainland. We probably have about 100 people who are signed up with us. We're looking for new people, and I'm sure there are thousands out there who are sympathetic to the cause and just have to be told a little bit more about it.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll move to questions. Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to take this time to thank our witnesses on the excellent presentations they brought this morning. They certainly have a broad range of concerns.

Let me reiterate as the chief opposition critic at this time that immigration has been a backbone of this country in the past and will continue to be the backbone in the future. I want to comment on Mr. Murray's presentation. We do want the best that other countries have to offer. They are an asset to this country. I think the concerns you're bringing up are more about problems of integration, problems of people placement across this country.

I come from the province of Manitoba. We need immigration to Manitoba. I understand the frustrations when people are all lumped into major centres, and this is a concern that can be dealt with. We don't want to see everyone move into Vancouver or Toronto or Montreal; we want them spread across this country. But to make the assumption that immigration should be reduced in numbers, I don't know where you get the data or statistics to make those kinds of comments.

Mr. Dan Murray: I'd be glad to give you the information. There's all kinds of information.

Mr. Inky Mark: I know I agree with our chair that unfortunately the recent headlines in the media basically present the wrong image for the legal migrant or immigrant to this country, because their numbers are very small, but unfortunately they capture all the headlines when it does occur.

• 1000

We, as a committee, have been sitting for almost a month listening to witnesses. My question on this particular piece of legislation always has been to ensure that there is a sense of balance between keeping out the undesirables and making sure the migrants to this country are treated fairly. My question to you is, do you believe this bill has that sense of balance, so that we don't jeopardize the rights of the legal immigrants of this country for the sake of security?

The Chair: Inky, who was the question to?

Mr. Inky Mark: If they could just briefly—

The Chair: All of them?

Mr. Inky Mark: If all of them could quickly make a statement as to whether they see the bill... I know you have a lot of concerns, but do you think the bill generally is balanced, or does it jeopardize the right of due process?

The Chair: Be quick if you could. Dan, please respond in 30 seconds or less.

Mr. Dan Murray: Yes. I think as long as the numbers are where they are, then the bill is not a good bill. That's my brief answer to this.

The Chair: Florence or Beth.

Ms. Florence Wong: I had a look at the entire bill. I think it is a good bill particularly on the enforcement. I think a lot of our concerns as a department, as well as those of the other boards across the country, have been addressed. So we do look forward to it being enacted.

The Chair: Tami.

Ms. Tami Friesen: I have a couple of comments. In a couple of things we think there needs to be a little bit more fairness. We would echo the concerns of, I believe, S.U.C.C.E.S.S., that there is now a requirement to seek leave for judiciary review, which we think should be looked at.

Secondly, there is the comment we made that the introduction of the two-year inadmissibility for misrepresentation is a little bit too heavily on the side of enforcement. We think there is room to make a better balance in Bill C-11.

The Chair: Mason.

Mr. Mason Loh: Yes. We agree with the intent to strengthen the enforcement provisions to screen out undesirables, but we are concerned with quite a few of the provisions taking out due process in the system. We urge you to consider those. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Elizabeth.

Ms. Elizabeth Briemberg: The balance of the bill I think is far too much on the enforcement aspects of the problems Canada has. There are considered to be about 21 million displaced persons and refugees in the whole wide world. I don't think we're taking in nearly as many as we need and as many as we ought to morally.

My concern, which I mentioned before and which I think was also partly what the domestic workers' representative was speaking about, is the problems our immigrants have in settling because of all the administrative barriers that are put in their way. We would have far fewer problems for these people if those were addressed. I don't see them being addressed in the bill. I see too many of the good aspects of the bill being in regulations, which means they could be just empty promises.

The Chair: Jennifer.

Ms. Judith Lee (Co-Chair, Law and Government Liaison Committee, West Coast Women's Legal Education and Action Fund): I'll speak for our organization.

It's our concern that not only the bill but the system itself, although it's one of the best in the world, is not balanced and fair. The universal concern we see about the reduction of procedural protections and appeal rights is what prompted us to ask you to put humanitarian and compassionate concerns into the legislation.

Even as a lawyer I can't afford to go to Federal Court, so I don't know how anybody else can. We have to look at making the act itself substantially fairer, particularly on humanitarian and compassionate matters.

The Chair: John McCallum.

Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to make one comment about Mr. Murray's statements, and then I have a couple of questions for Mr. Loh.

I'm an economist, or at least I was an economist before I went into politics, or maybe I still am. You said the economic arguments favour lower immigration...

I wrote an article in the Toronto Star last week entitled “Canada Needs More Immigrants”. The argument is mainly economic. I would be happy to provide you with a copy of that afterwards, if you wish.

• 1005

My question is to Mr. Loh. You speak of the sweeping powers of immigration officers. We've heard that from the lawyers who have used words like draconian, Stalinist, un-Canadian. I'd like to raise two hypothetical questions with you, because clearly it's not the intent of the government to be draconian or to give sweeping powers. Both of these questions involve permanent residents. I don't think it was the intent of the government to have immigration officers be allowed to deport permanent residents. I think it was the intent that these people have a hearing before the IRB adjudicator.

So would it go some way to alleviating your concerns if the bill were changed to make that point clear?

Mr. Mason Loh: Very much so. The concern is it's taking away that appeal right and the power is put into just one immigration officer being able to make that decision, be the judge and executioner. That's what we're concerned about.

Mr. John McCallum: The second and related question is on examinations.

The impression, again, might have been given that someone could be woken up in the middle of the night and examined, as it were. But I think the intent, and maybe this could be clarified, would be that this power to conduct examinations only exists where the person has made an application to the department, not that a permanent resident could be picked up randomly off the street and brought in for examination.

So perhaps that as well can go some way to alleviating your concerns.

Mr. Mason Loh: Yes, it would. The compelled examination power is one thing, but there are other aspects of it in terms of the right to counsel and the right to stay silent and the right not to self-incriminate. There are those rights that are enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We're a little concerned that some of those are not being captured in the bill.

Mr. John McCallum: Thank you.

Certainly, again, it is the intent that the current bill be compatible with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we've received advice from the justice department that it is. But of course opinions on that may differ and it may well come out in the courts.

Can I ask one more quick question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, you have one minute left.

Mr. John McCallum: Ms. To, on this question of siblings, I think a lot of us are philosophically in favour of allowing siblings to come in. But I heard from people who've worked in immigration for many years out in the field that, especially if you go to some countries where there are typically six siblings or more, depending on the country, if we were to allow unlimited access to all siblings, we might be going the American route where you have 20-year waiting lists, or we might have so many siblings that they just dominate and leave no room for the economic immigrant category.

I think in some years there might be room for some limited number of siblings, but not an open season for all siblings, or else our system would be swamped.

I'm not quite sure how you would do the rationing of places. But are you suggesting that we should have unlimited total free entry for all siblings, or that there could be, depending on the numbers, additional room created?

Ms. Lilian To: Actually what we're saying is that in terms of the current definition of the family class, it includes spouse and children under age 22 with the new bill and parents and grandparents. It does not include siblings.

Our proposal is not to extend that part to include siblings, but we're seeing that in many cases we have the last member of the family who is overseas and everybody else is here in Canada. There are some specific cases where we have just one last member of the family who is say in China. That's the only sibling. Everybody else is in Canada. The sister or brother is really ill. In fact, the parents are now getting ill. But they cannot even get a travel document to come, because they were told that being the last member of the family their intention is to settle in Canada, and so they're not allowed to even travel or visit ailing parents or ailing siblings.

So we're saying that on compassionate and humanitarian grounds there was a provision of quite a few years ago, I think in the 1980s, where the last member of the family is allowed to be sponsored by their parents or siblings. But that's not longer in force. So we're asking for that to be reinstated.

• 1010

Mr. John McCallum: Thank you.

Certainly the last member of a family would be one way of rationing the number of possible applicants.

Ms. Lilian To: But that doesn't mean the last member of a family is not expanding huge numbers.

Mr. John McCallum: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I will wait a moment so that everyone has time to put on their headset.

Thank you for having come.

As I listened to you, I got the feeling that the most important thing you would like to see in the bill we are presently studying is the recognition of fairness as the number one value. In this context, I have two things to ask. Do you believe that the definitions, that are contained in the bill rather than in the regulations, might be an important element towards ensuring a certain degree of fairness? When people know what they are talking about, it is easier to understand one another.

The second thing I would like to speak to you about... in the course of the hearings we held last month, we heard a lot of talk about certain reservations people have with regard to the great latitude that immigration officers have. Some witnesses have eluded to this, but I would like to hear your views. Do you believe that they really have a lot of latitude? Would you have any suggestions to make to us with regard to the avoidance of any slippages?

[English]

The Chair: Madeleine, are you asking that question to all of them?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Make it quick.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: My questions are addressed to anyone who wishes to answer.

[English]

The Chair: Oui. Thirty seconds, please.

We'll start over there with Jennifer.

[Translation]

Ms. Judith Lee: Forgive me for speaking English.

[English]

Again, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The more definitions we could put into the act or the regulations, the more consistent and fair application of the act we will see throughout this country, without people having to go to multiple appeals, which are time-consuming and expensive.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Judith or Chilwin.

[Translation]

Mr. Chilwin Cheng: With regard to the first question, the definition of who is a refugee is very important for MOSAIC, because the ideas are very different as they relate to

[English]

immigrants and refugees. Refugees are humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

[Translation]

But the economic conditions for immigrants are a different matter. There should therefore be more than one definition of the term "foreign national". That is my opinion.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I was very impressed with the way you were able to move between English and French like that. You had our translators going crazy. But very good, Chilwin.

Mason.

Mr. Mason Loh: On the first question, the framework legislation, in terms of fairness and equity in the act and the regulations, I think they should be in both. Fairness and equity is important in both.

We have more safeguards in terms of the act, because it has to go through Parliament before any amendments, and less so with the respective regulations. That's why I'm quite heartened with the committee's suggestion to staff last week that future regulations be vetted by the committee. So I think that's a very good idea.

In terms of discretionary power of immigration officers, I believe officers need some discretion in the execution of their duties. However, that discretion has to be reviewable and it has to be supervised. Otherwise, we will have much injustice on our hands.

Thank you.

The Chair: Tami.

Ms. Tami Friesen: I have a couple of brief comments. First, we would definitely support further definitions going in the bill rather than in the regulations or policy manuals, specifically the definition of the live-in caregiver program and also specific references to Canada's international obligations under several international instruments. Doing so, first, will allow for more supervision of these programs and, second, having recognition of these principles in the bill will also bring home the importance of these considerations and allow immigration officers to take these considerations into account when making their decisions.

• 1015

That leads me to the second question. Again, we would agree that there is a lot of broad discussion right now, but having terms defined in the act could clarify immigration officers' discretion somewhat and again bring home to them the important considerations they must make when they're making their decision.

The Chair: Thank you.

Florence.

Ms. Florence Wong: I won't repeat everything that most people have already said, but I do agree with what Mason had to say in terms of the definition having some clarity in the act and being reviewable under the regulations as well. With respect to the discretionary powers given to the officers, we don't want this country to become a police state, and certainly review is a good thing. Perhaps with that, there can be an ongoing working relationship with a local law enforcement agency, so that where these immigration officers' powers stop, those can—in a seamless fashion ideally—be taken over by the local law enforcement agency so that the continuation can be executed to the conclusion.

The Chair: Dan.

Mr. Dan Murray: All I have to say is that, again, I just repeat what I said before. We have questioned all the reasons for continuing the present policy—

The Chair: I wish you would just answer the specific question. We know what your philosophy and principles are. But if you would answer the specific question of Madeleine, it would be helpful.

Mr. Dan Murray: Well, what I'd like to do is just get a bit of fair treatment on the whole issue.

The Chair: Oh, you've received a lot of fair treatment. Thank you for your answer, Dan.

Do you have any further questions, Madeleine? Okay, we'll go to John.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions, which I'd like to be able to touch on on behalf of the Progressive Conservatives. First, we've heard from a myriad of witnesses with respect to the appeal process and that it seems to be quite counter to our judicial system not to provide a right to be able to appeal a given decision. I guess my short question is how would you envision the process that would be, in your view, more just and indeed more workable? I'll try to ask my first question to LEAF itself.

Ms. Judith Lee: Any appeal system, again, should, as your amendment suggests, protect procedural protections, right to counsel, right to access to all information, and that would include funding of counsel. Of course, legal aid systems across the country are totally under siege, so that's something I'm not sure is within your mandate. But enshrining the right to procedural protection is the basis, I think, for a fair hearing as well as putting some definition to the act, so that there is a basis for looking at whether a particular decision is reasonable and fair.

Mr. John Herron: My second question is to S.U.C.C.E.S.S. You've almost branched out into something I think is even more important for us, as we modernize our citizenship in this country, that is, for permanent residents who are Canadians by choice, because they want to come to this particular country, not to be put in the same envelope as full citizenry is somewhat shameful. So your comment with respect to adding permanent residents to the same envelope as foreign nationals in that regard fits our thinking as well.

The question that I did want to touch upon is the time spent issue in terms of the investor-entrepreneur situation. There is some flexibility in terms of the amount of time that needs to be maintained in order to fulfil that requirement. What would you propose we do instead that would maintain the spirit of what they're trying to do in this particular part of the bill versus your legitimate concern?

• 1020

Ms. Lilian To: We've stated that there are some people, such as students, who could be permanent residents who have migrated here and who, for example, might have received a scholarship from Harvard to do post-graduate studies, which could take up to five years. There's no provision in the bill to allow them to remain permanent residents. They would lose their status as a result.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, in this age of globalization, there are people who have international businesses and frequently have to travel abroad. Even with accumulated days, their physical presence might not amount to two years out of the five, and that's out of necessity because of business reasons. These people would still have their families here. They would still be paying taxes and contributing to Canada. Again, because of this rigidity, they will not be able to maintain their status.

What we're suggesting is that there be more flexibility and that the minister be given the discretion to allow these kinds of residents to keep their status. It's not even recognizing their contributions to this country.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, in order to give some more balance to Mr. Murray's words, I just want to say categorically that the Progressive Conservatives don't subscribe to your particular brief, in the essence that was detailed in that particular documentation. I serve as the immigration critic for our party, but I also serve as the environmental critic for the party as well. I would say that within an urbanized environment you're utilizing the ecological argument to justify downturning what every demographer in this country, for the most part, has said, that Canada needs to augment our population en masse and not actually put anything in decline. So from an ecological perspective I'm quite uncomfortable with you adding that aspect to your brief. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Libby—

A voice: Can I respond to that?

The Chair: I'm not sure there was a question there. I thought it was a comment by John. I'm sorry.

Libby Davies, do you have a question?

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much.

First of all, I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming.

The thing that really frightens me is that you all represent organizations that work very closely with immigrants and refugees. It's evident in and of itself as to how complex the system is. I know if S.U.C.C.E.S.S., MOSAIC, West Coast LEAF, Domestic Workers' weren't there, people would be just so tied up in uncertainty and anxiety, and people are anyway. So I think it's evident of how difficult things have become.

Even for members of Parliament, I know being from Vancouver East, where we do a lot of case work with Citizenship and Immigration, the greatest concern that I and our party have is that the system is now so complex and so difficult for people to get through. We're very worried that we're now moving over into further discretion and further enforcement. The common thread that I've picked up from a number of the presentations was the fact that this bill is not adequately rooted in human rights principles. This new bill is a major initiative and probably is going to represent the only changes we're going to see for maybe one or two decades, so it's really important that we get it right in terms of the balance that you've all spoken of.

I have a couple of questions. One is in terms of the humanitarian and compassionate grounds in spelling out what those criteria are. I think this was raised by West Coast LEAF. How can we actually spell out the kinds of criteria that should be used? Maybe you can speak about that some more.

• 1025

As to my second question, it strikes me that, again, a number of the comments that were made raised the question as to whether or not there has been any gender analysis of the changes to the bill. A number of you made references to the need to look at international conventions Canada is a signatory to. If we're looking at humanitarian and compassionate grounds, are we doing it in an unbiased way that takes into account gender?

The Chair: Libby, if I could, it's five-minute questions and answers, and if you take the whole five minutes to ask the question, unfortunately, nobody's going to be able to answer.

Ms. Libby Davies: I'll try to wrap up really fast.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Libby Davies: I would direct my comments to West Coast LEAF, MOSAIC, S.U.C.C.E.S.S., and the Domestic Workers' Association, if they could speak to both of those issues.

The Chair: Thank you.

Jennifer.

Ms. Jennifer Khor: With respect to how we would suggest Parliament go about trying to define humanitarian and compassionate grounds, we do have a recommendation on the wording on page 13 of our brief. What we are recommending is basically a recognition of those particular factors we have seen that have affected women particularly, being victims of violence, either domestic violence, exploitation from their employer, or as a trafficked person to Canada, also considering the best interests of children, something that is already incorporated in Bill C-11, which we do recognize and appreciate. With respect to smuggling and trafficking, we single out the particular problems women and children face in those situations.

So in our definition we refer to those as primary factors to consider and to the conventions on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, the declaration on the elimination of violence against women, and the newly signed protocol to prevent, suppress, and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations convention against transnational organized crime, which Canada signed in December. We feel that including them by reference is an important way to ensure that the visa officers take them into consideration in making their evaluations, and again, by listing the factors in a regulation, to ensure that they do review the different issues.

The Chair: Thank you, Jennifer.

Chilwin.

Mr. Chilwin Cheng: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are two points I want to address. One is with respect to how to make it more consistent with our values. As a lawyer myself, I know the courts have been moving in the past ten years to interpreting legislation as a whole. They don't just look to specific sections. Increasingly they are looking towards the purpose and objectives sections of legislation to ascertain how to interpret legislation. In that regard, I see there is no reference at all in clauses 3 and 4 of the bill to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—none of it—or to Canada's humanitarian and compassionate grounds. So the act is devoid of the very values that drive the factors of this bill. As a simple measure, I would submit that a reference to the charter and to Canada's international legal obligations, humanitarian and compassionate grounds, should be put in clauses 3 and 4.

The Chair: Chilwin, for your own further reference, you would want to review paragraph 3(3)(d) of the bill. That speaks of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Chilwin Cheng: There's no explicit reference, though, with respect to the manner in which the act is to be construed later on in the bill. My submission, with respect to you, is that international obligations still stand.

With respect to how this affects women and children in particular, we've already made some reference to our brief. The issue is that there's a conceptual flaw in the bill. There is no distinction made between refugees and permanent residents who come in through the economic class or other issues. The issues—I was trying to be bilingual earlier on, it got lost in the translation—are different. With refugees, we're talking about people coming from war-torn countries, famine conditions, poverty-stricken areas, where economic consideration just is not in the game. Rather, when these people come to Canada, they're escaping a bad situation. What we've highlighted in our brief is that women and children, by and large, are affected the most, because in many countries they have no legal standing. There are no identification documents for them. They haven't had the money to save, because they depend on other sources of income. So the very putting in of economic factors as part of the refugee determination process immediately affects women and children that way.

• 1030

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Unfortunately, we're running out of time and I have another 15 people ready to make their presentations.

Mr. Mason Loh: Sure. Thank you, Chair. I have just a brief comment.

We are generally of the opinion that the bill itself is not problematic, except for specific provisions that try to go a little too far in respect of screening out undesirables, maybe sacrificing some due process in the system. That we are concerned about.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Quickly, Yolande.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, with regard to the term “foreign national”, this is a remark that we have several times heard here. I find you much more generous than the other group because you speak of not including permanent immigrants in this category. I assure you that from what we have heard here up until now with regard to the term “foreign national”, Anglophones want nothing to do with it whatsoever. They find it pejorative.

Two of the groups, MOSAIC and the Canadian Association of Police Boards, have alluded to the fact that probably because of the provisions in place in the province we find ourselves in, a refugee would not receive the same benefits as a permanent immigration in, let us say, a difficult financial situation. Both groups it seems tie that into the fact that there appear to be a certain number of refugees who turn to criminal activities. First of all, I wonder if this situation exists only in this province. As to the bill we are presently studying, would you have any suggestions to make in view of correcting this problem?

[English]

The Chair: Elizabeth.

Ms. Elizabeth Briemberg: I personally find the term “foreign national” offensive. The issue of status is extraordinarily important in this country. It doesn't just come through provincial legislation, it also comes by way of attitudes of employers. Indeed, people who are struggling to get their status clarified have to spend so much time focusing on that. They also are unable to sponsor family members. Many of them would be in a much better position to be able to work, get settled, and become very productive citizens here if they were given status earlier. One of the major problems MOSAIC has with your bill is that it doesn't get rid of any of those barriers. If anything, it introduces more barriers. Our organization is constantly having tremendous difficulty helping people who don't have status, who are struggling to get their status clarified.

In our brief we give examples of two. One person for seven years has been trying to get some kind of recognition of status. How we can expect those people to settle, when they don't even have the most minimal status in this country, I don't know. It's not that our people are becoming criminals. I would very much like to stress that the vast majority of people I've met, particularly in MOSAIC, are not going the criminal route at all. But what they're doing is having to live off very, very meagre earnings. They are often exploited by their employers because they're so vulnerable. They don't have the kind of support of family that can, for instance, provide child care, because they can't even get their mother in to do that.

• 1035

So I would strongly suggest that from MOSAIC's point of view, it's the barriers that this has not removed that so disappoint us.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'm going to quickly have one comment or question from Inky and one from Anita, and then we'll have to wrap this session up. Thank you.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You're certainly correct, having status is important. But equally important, if status doesn't mean anything, it's even more futile.

My question relates to the way the bill deals with permanent residents and that it's going to issue an ID card as a residential requirement. Do you think that's the way the country should be going, that the bill should be changing the current system, which requires permanent residents to show intent if they're going to leave the country? Do we need to force permanent residents to have IDs and have a residency requirement over a period of five years?

The Chair: To one person, please. Who would that be? Who's the lucky person?

Mr. Inky Mark: One of the lawyers, I guess.

The Chair: Either Mason or Chilwin or whoever, but one...

Mr. Mason Loh: I'll try, Mr. Mark.

I think there's something to be said about the objective standard in terms of a two-year over five years physical presence in Canada. It gives certainty to the act's definition in terms of whether one maintains the status or not. However, we have presented opposition in terms of that. A typical provision should have some flexibility built in. I know that in the progression from the earlier bill to Bill C-11, we have incorporated some flexibility. We just feel that it hasn't gone far enough to take into account students and some business people. So I think if we put in a bit more flexibility, it could work.

The Chair: Thank you.

Anita, quickly.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Very briefly, I'd like to add my comments to the high quality of the briefs we've heard today. They really have been quite splendid. Thank you for coming forward.

I guess my overall concern is what Inky addressed earlier, which is the question of balance, and I've listened carefully to your responses.

I also must briefly say that I do not agree with Mr. Murray's presentation at all. Accordingly, I'm going to put forward a recommendation that item 3 in the objectives include “respecting the federal and bilingual character of Canada and the multicultural character of Canada”—have that enshrined in the brief. I think that is as important as the others that we've heard stated.

Just a very brief comment to the—

The Chair: I guess you'll do that at the formal part.

Ms. Anita Neville: I'll do that when we go through clause by clause.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Anita Neville: But just quickly to those who were concerned about the live-in caregivers, I understand that in the Philippines they are currently looking at doing a pilot project with those coming in through the live-in caregiver program whereby they can determine educational study requirements that they would like to do as live-in caregivers coming into the country. Would that help prior to their arrival to identify some studies and sign up and do that, as well as an effort to advise those who are coming as to their rights and responsibilities and that they do not in fact have to be objects of abuse and taken advantage of? If that were done in the pre-orientation to their arrival in the country, I'm assuming that would make a significant difference.

The Chair: Thank you.

Cynthia, do you want to... Very briefly, please.

Ms. Cynthia Javier: Yes, that would be really helpful.

When I came to Canada, I did not get any kind of information about my rights here, as to where to go or any resources to go to if I had troubles or problems or even questions regarding my employment and regarding Canada. It's still going on. Even though lots of hard work has been put in, there's still no information package given to domestic workers or caregivers who come in through the live-in caregiver program.

• 1040

It would be really helpful if the government could help in that area. Countries—or even embassies in different countries—could provide information about Canada and about the live-in caregiver program.

The Chair: Thank you.

Let me thank you all very much for some very excellent briefs. You can tell that you've already started to make a difference, because I've heard some suggestions already from members who want to start to move toward changing the bill. I think that's indicative of the kind of quality stuff that we heard today.

Again, let me thank you on behalf of the people of Canada for doing some of the hard work and for taking the time to give us your gems of wisdom, as you work the work, so to speak. Thank you so much.

To our next guests, my apologies that we're about 35 minutes late, but that's because, as I said, we've had some very good quality presentations, and the members of the committee obviously have had some questions.

I would ask our next witnesses—City of Vancouver, Canadian Bar Association, CIC Advisory Committee/B.C. and Yukon, the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies, as well as the Working Group on Poverty—to come forward, please. Thank you.

I would ask the City of Vancouver to start. I want to welcome a good friend and former colleague of mine when I was on city council way back when in the City of London—someone I've admired for a long time, Phil Owen from the City of Vancouver. Perhaps, Phil, you might start with your opening remarks.

Mr. Philip W. Owen (Mayor of Vancouver): Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here.

I want to introduce Mr. Baldwin Wong, who is a senior member of the staff at Vancouver City Hall. I've been called to an examination for discovery, which I can't get out of, and I have an 11 o'clock briefing, so I'm sorry I'll have to leave the tough questions, Mr. Chair, to my... He can answer them better than anyone anyway, because he's written the staff report—

The Chair: Does he have to get elected, though?

• 1045

Mr. Philip Owen: No, he just does a good job to make me look good so that I get re-elected.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Philip Owen: That's what Baldwin does.

But there has been a City of Vancouver report, which was presented to council in mid-March, and it's there for the committee to review.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Philip Owen: The notes that I have are also available.

Very briefly, I'd like to thank you for inviting us here today. Vancouver City Council has reviewed the proposed bill and adopted several resolutions, which I'd like to tell you about. The same resolutions have also been adopted by GVRD municipalities, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. As well, we've presented it to the federal Minister of Citizen and Immigration.

We have letters from some municipalities, and the City of Burnaby passed a resolution that supports what we are saying.

As a little bit of background, the city has participated in the federal legislative review processes since the mid-1990s, and 45% of the total population in Vancouver are of immigrant and refugee backgrounds. The type of immigrants who came in the late 1980s and 1990s are different today, and the diversity of newcomers makes it a big challenge for the City of Vancouver.

There are three areas of concern: that civic services are culturally and linguistically accessible to newcomers; that newcomers are informed about civic services; and that newcomers are welcomed and encouraged to participate in civic affairs.

As to some initiatives that the city has undertaken, in 1989 it established the Hastings Institute, which Libby Davies is very familiar with. It provides training for municipal and other government staff, and we also put on seminars in the private sector. We've created a city equal employment opportunity office, which has been in effect for more than 10 years, and we review the city's communication strategy with minority linguistic groups and implement more responsive language services. We have a full program in that entire area so that people can communicate with us in their language of choice. We provide community grants to organizations that provide services to newcomers. A lot of these organizations lack other government support.

We have a full budget of about $10 million. We feel very strongly that we put in some seed money that gives them some legitimacy and they're able to carry on under other funding sources.

We'd like to stress that all these initiatives were undertaken without much support from other levels of government. Many more initiatives could have been undertaken if the city had more resources. For example, the city is currently developing a city-wide translation and interpretation policy that requires potentially significant implementation resources.

City Council agreed that Bill C-11 proposed many significant and timely changes to the current Immigration Act. Some of the new provisions of the bill that are highly recommendable are the provisions to expand the admission of workers; modernize the definition of “family”; including “parents” in the definition of “family class”; strengthening sponsorship obligations; pursuing agreements with non-government organizations; processing overseas families as a unit; and creating a new offence for human trafficking.

However—there's always a “however” in these things—city council has noted that Bill C-11 has deleted a stated objective in the current act regarding the cooperation between the Government of Canada and other levels of government. Bill C-11 requires the minister to consult only with provincial and other stakeholders. It doesn't specifically refer to cities, even though we have a major impact and are closest to the problem, particularly in the larger cities that are attracting so many new residents to this country.

With the increasing expectations that cities need to support and deliver services to all community members, including immigrants and refugees, and with high concentration of immigrants and refugees in large urban centres like Vancouver, it is imperative that the new act recognize the role of and have provisions for local government input in addressing immigrant and refugee-related issues and the cost pressures placed on local governments.

Therefore, the City of Vancouver would urge the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to consider the following amendments to Bill C-11: first, to revise the bill to make provision for the Government of Canada to consult with municipal governments; second, to add to the bill clauses recognizing that the City of Vancouver and other municipal governments have a key role to play in supporting the integration of immigrants and refugees, and that the federal government would provide resources and funding for the delivery of programs and services to immigrants and refugees; and third, to add to the bill that the federal government should reimburse municipal governments for services rendered to immigrants and refugees.

• 1050

Bill C-11 is an important and modern bit of legislation that will have profound impact on how Canada is going to choose her future citizenry from around the world amidst a rapidly changing global environment. Local governments are the closest to the people and provide diverse services that meet the needs of newcomers, regardless of their culture, race, or language.

Continued partnership and collaboration among all levels of governments, whether through established channels across the nation or the sharing of costs in developing responsive services and programs for newcomers, is therefore essential to the well-being of all the citizens of this great country.

I've done that briefly in the interests of time. Thank you. That's the end of my presentation.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mayor Owen.

We'll now move to the Canadian Bar Association, both the B.C. branch and the Canadian Bar Association, with Renée... and welcome back, Gordon; we've seen you before, of course. I wonder if you could split your time with regard to your presentation.

Renée, let's hear from you first, and then we'll go to Gordon.

Ms. Renée Miller (Chair, Immigration Subsection, B.C. Branch, Canadian Bar Association): I'm Renée Miller, an immigration lawyer, and I'm here as the chair of the B.C. section of the Canadian Bar Association immigration lawyers.

With me today is Gordon Maynard, who is the past B.C. chair and is presently the secretary of the national immigration lawyers executive of the Canadian Bar Association. He also is a senior immigration lawyer.

I also have with me today Andrew Wlodyka, who is a senior immigration lawyer here in B.C. and a previous assistant deputy chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board. He's here as a resource person in case there are any questions about the appeal division. He's intimately knowledgeable about those areas.

The Chair: You brought in the big shooters.

Ms. Renée Miller: Yes, we brought in the big guns.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Renée Miller: I want to make sure that you have the Canadian Bar Association briefs that were submitted last week—

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Renée Miller: —and also the one-page summary that we sent in on what we'd like to talk about today.

The Chair: We're very organized here.

Ms. Renée Miller: Okay, great.

You are going to be hearing from people from the Canadian Bar Association across the country, so we've tried to split up our presentations to each take a particular issue. Today Gordon and I would like to talk to you about the issue of appeal rights in Bill C-11.

We are intimately aware of how the present act works. We work every day within immigration matters. We are dealing with the front-line people at the immigration department who are actually trying to implement the bill. We know how the system works, and we know what problems it has. We see these problems every day in our practice, and because of that experience, we can also see very clearly what's going to work in Bill C-11 and what is not.

We fundamentally believe the elimination of appeal rights within Bill C-11 is a problem, and it's not going to work. Under the present system, the removal of a permanent resident is a two-step process. The first step is that the department makes an application, a report, to an immigration adjudicator, who is an independent person who actually decides whether a removal order would be issued. Then the permanent resident has the opportunity to make an appeal to the Immigration and Refugee Board, an independent tribunal, which will review all the circumstances of the case. Only after that full appeal where all the circumstances of the case have been been considered will the removal order actually be put into effect.

There are a variety of circumstances under which a removal order can be issued, for what's called serious criminality, misrepresentations, sponsorship appeals, and in all those cases, the Immigration Appeal Division will look at all the factors.

For example, if it's a case of serious criminality, how many offences has this person committed? What is their record? What kind of family do they have here? What is the risk of reoffending? What is the danger to society? How long have they been out of their country of origin?

They really consider the full case and decide, is this really the kind of case where we want to remove these very fundamental rights, or is it not? Is it something where we don't want to remove this person from Canada?

We feel that this system works quite well. It's a very independent body that provides that analysis, and it's quite efficient. In fact, those appeals at the Immigration Appeal Division are actually conducted in about four to six months, so they're done very swiftly. We feel that the system works quite well.

Gordon is going to speak to you about what Bill C-ll is proposing to do.

• 1055

Mr. Gordon H. Maynard (Executive Member, National Citizenship and Immigration Law Section; Chair, British Columbia Branch Section, Canadian Bar Association): Clause 64 of Bill C-11 takes away the appeal right of certain categories of permanent residents. Clause 64 defines four groups of inadmissibility: organized criminality, security, violation of human rights, and serious criminality.

For these people—for permanent residents found inadmissible on these grounds—the appeal to the appeal division is just simply taken away. It does not exist. Now, those terms are scary words. They sound serious. Some of them can be serious, but not all of them. We want you to appreciate that these are broad grounds of inadmissibility.

For instance, somebody who's inadmissible on security grounds or organized criminality grounds—that's the definition in the act—need not have any conviction for any offence anywhere. They need not have committed any offence anywhere, yet they may still fall within the definition. Membership in organizations or political groups can lead to a finding of inadmissibility.

The serious criminality definition does involve a conviction. It requires the permanent resident to have committed an offence that carries a potential penalty of ten years or more, and an actual sentence of two years incarceration. That's the threshold for taking away the appeal right under Bill C-11.

That definition does not take into account how long the individual has actually resided in Canada as a permanent resident, whether they came here as a child and have lived here for 20 years, or whether they came here two months ago. It does not take into account whether this is an isolated conviction, or a conviction that is part of a pattern of criminal behaviour or lifestyle. It doesn't take into account the presence of family members in Canada—brothers, sisters, parents, spouses, children. It doesn't take into account the possibility of rehabilitation.

Those are the issues the appeal division would normally concern themselves with—is it appropriate to remove this individual? But this legislation takes away that appeal right and that consideration based purely on the single fact of the two-year sentence.

The department does not deny at all that these are broad definitions. The department, I think, acknowledges in its statements to this committee that these definitions are going to capture people, some of whom should be deported, and some of whom should not.

We have read through the transcripts of the department presentation to the committee and we note that the department is placing a great deal of comment on the fact that there's still going to be judicial review in front of the Federal Court, that everything is in compliance with the charter, that the person can still make a complaint that they've been treated unfairly in accordance with the charter, and that there's going to be officer discretion notwithstanding the loss of the appeal division review.

Those are the three responses that the department has given great weight to. We want to comment on those.

First of all, regarding the Federal Court judicial review, there is no Federal Court judicial review for an individual who has lost their appeal right and is not having their circumstances considered. Technically there is. The person can file for judicial review. They can ask for leave to go to the court. The reality is that they will be deported before they ever get there. Even if they do get to the court, the judicial review cannot look at the circumstances of the case. They can only look at the bare law.

If your name is Bob, you're a permanent resident, and you have a two-year sentence, that's all the law says. The court cannot read into the law what is not already put there by Parliament. The court does not have the jurisdiction to look into the circumstances of the case. No matter how sympathetic the case, no matter how much a judge of the Federal Court might think that this person shouldn't be deported in all the circumstances, the court cannot interfere—not in judicial review.

So technically, yes, it's there. In reality, the decision by the officer to go ahead with removal is untouchable in judicial review.

Secondly, regarding charter issues, the department has said that this law is in compliance with the charter. The department has said that an individual who thinks they've been treated unfairly can try to go to the court and ask for relief through the charter. The reality is that eight years ago the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision in a case called Chiarelli. It's a very strong decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. What the Supreme Court said was that no permanent resident facing removal has a charter right to a review of their circumstances. Only one body can give them that review. That's the Parliament of Canada. The charter will not grant it to them. They cannot get it from the charter. Only Parliament can give it. This is a very important point for all of you to appreciate.

• 1100

If Parliament takes away, by law, the right of equitable review—review of the circumstances by an independent tribunal—it cannot be restored by the court; it cannot be restored by the charter; it's gone. So when the department says to you that this law is in compliance with the charter, technically they're correct. The charter said they don't need to give it, so they're not giving it. I don't want you to be under any illusion that there is a safety net, once this review of circumstances is taken away. There is no safety net. If it's gone, it's gone. If the department officer decides that removal is appropriate, no court will intervene.

The third issue is officer discretion. What the department is telling you is that at the front end of the department looking at these cases and deciding whether or not to proceed with removal, they will exercise discretion. I find it remarkable that in their statements to this committee, the department says these are serious issues, which they don't take lightly. They look at the circumstances of the case, and they will make a decision as to whether or not removal—enforcement—is appropriate. Fine.

Why isn't that in the act? Why is it not in the bill? There is nothing in Bill C-11 that requires that there be an examination of compassionate circumstances or all the circumstances of the case before removing a permanent resident who is described in clause 64. That's deliberate. Why is that done? Because if it's not in the bill, if it's not in the act, then nobody can legally complain that it wasn't done, or it wasn't done properly. The department is very deliberately insulating its officers from any review of this decision. If I'm a permanent resident...

I'm sorry, I'll move on. I see the wind-up and I understand you are caught short on time.

Those of us who work in the field who deal with the appeal division, and I include in that officers of the department who work in hearings and appeals, have a great deal of respect for the job the appeal division does. These cases can be very difficult, very challenging. The appeal division, using the appeal review process, does a darned good job. We have a good deal of respect for it. This legislation—a scheme that's put in place—would put that decision entirely in the hands of officers, without any process, without any legal obligation, and without any review. It's not a procedure nor a scheme that we take any pride in. Mistakes will be made.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you both.

I'm sorry, Renée and Gordon, I'm sure there will be some questions for you.

We'll go to Alexandra Charlton of the CIC Advisory Committee. Welcome, Alexandra.

Ms. Alexandra Charlton (Past-President, CIC Advisory Committee): Thank you.

Good morning, everybody.

I would just like to preface my remarks by explaining very briefly what the advisory committee is, because we are quite a varied group. In fact Gordon was one of our previous members, so we can claim him too.

The advisory committee represents regional representatives throughout the province of B.C. We have about four of those. We have the service line representatives, of whom I am one for the refugee section, and we also have sectoral representatives—for example, municipal, legal, education, that type of representative as well. There are 16 of us altogether, so we have quite varied views on most things.

When we discussed our original draft as a response to this bill, we were quite surprised that we were very much in agreement. I just want to point that out. Although we only have one representative here at the moment, it does represent a very broad range of opinion. Also, apologies on behalf of my colleague from the legal section, Joshua Sohn, who had to appear in court this morning, so at the last minute he was unable to come.

I'm actually going to reverse my presentation so that I can follow on from some of the comments made by Gordon. Since the act itself is concerned with both immigration and refugee protection, which we are pleased to see is now given separate emphasis, we'd like to address those same points.

On the immigration points, we were pleased to see that initially there was a response to many of the concerns about foreign national and that the bill had reinstated the term “permanent resident”. However, when we started looking at it, we decided it was essentially just a nicety of nomenclature. It didn't actually have any weight behind it.

• 1105

In practice, there's a considerable erosion of the rights of permanent residents—as many of the other speakers have pointed out to you. So I'll be very brief about this part.

We feel that the bill is essentially acting as a shield against accountability for the department. Gordon has already brought up some of those issues. Particularly of concern to all members of the committee was the idea of a person being compelled to give evidence or information under oath. As far as we are aware, these are far greater powers than police departments have. I believe this issue was addressed by your previous session, so I know you have gone over some of those points. But we want to make sure you're aware that this is not just a concern to a small section of the groups here—it's a very wide-based concern.

The need for a warrant, which we are told is necessary in the case of a permanent resident, seems to be illusory, because there's no need for recourse to any kind of a third person or tribunal to acquire this warrant. Apparently it can simply be a blank piece of paper the immigration officer could just fill in. So all this warrant means is that a piece of paper is completed—but there's no real weight behind it, as far as we can see.

Mostly, we've talked about the internal appeals and decision process. We were also concerned about the lack of consistency in overseas visa officer decisions. This was mentioned, I believe, in the Auditor General's report. But rather than look for ways to improve that decision-making with extra resources, this act seems to only require leave—which will only shield the decision-making. As we understand it, the application for leave is made to the same body against which the complaint is directed in the first place. It seems a very circular process.

Currently, in the case of an H and C—a humanitarian and compassionate application—the minister is obliged to consider the application and give a decision. But in Bill C-11, the wording is the minister may consider it. In that case, the minister doesn't have to give a decision. It would be very difficult to appeal something on which a decision was not given, so that cuts out a whole area of activity. Where there's no decision, there's no basis for review—and hence no accountability.

Those are our concerns about accountability in the immigration section. This is especially a concern given that one of the earlier incarnations—I think it was the foundation for the 21st century, whatever the previous one was—emphasized transparency very, very strongly. But we see no evidence of that kind of transparency here.

Passing on to the refugee protection section, I should add that I, as a refugee representative in Vancouver, work with refugees and refugee claimants, and this is of considerable concern to our clients. The main topic I'd like to present to you is the idea of no second claim for refugees—no second hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I know the department's response has been that this is to avoid the “revolving door syndrome”. Many of us share that concern. But at the same time, this does not provide any kind of fairness and consistency, because in effect it cuts out many people who are not going to have had that first hearing.

As to the kind of case I'm talking about, Ms. Davies asked earlier about any gender analysis of the bill. In fact I do have some notes, and I'll give them to you before I go. But we feel this bill would very much affect women and children, because they are often dependent or secondary claimants, shall we say, on a main application. If their husband or father makes the main claim, the family can be included with that.

But suppose that family is split up later. Perhaps the wife might want to make a claim independently; or perhaps many years later one of the children might be involved in political activity of some kind, and might fear persecution on that account. Suppose the family was denied or deported from Canada. Regardless of the number of years that have passed, the child or wife would never be able to make a claim before the IRB, because theoretically they've already had a claim.

So that system would cut out all those people. All they would be entitled to is a paper review by a CIC officer. There would not be consistency in considering that claim.

• 1110

This might be somewhat understandable if the system were completely infallible, but it isn't. So people whose cases are declared abandoned would also not be entitled to a second hearing—regardless of the fact that they had not had the first one.

Why would they be abandoned? Well, they may have decided to marry a Canadian citizen, and it might not work out. So they would have abandoned their refugee claim, on advice that turned out to be wrong. Or they may have had a bad interpreter, or not realized the importance of always letting CIC and the IRB know when they have a change of address. Given the welter of information refugees get when they arrive, it would be very easy to miss that. Although we realize how important it is, they may not.

Even when claimants do comply, sometimes the information goes missing within the department. So they don't turn up for the hearing, through no fault of their own, and they're declared abandoned. They too would not be able to get that second claim.

We feel that the bill is based so much on a worst-case scenario that it's not really looking at protection needs—which is what it sets out to do. We would like that to be looked at again. We recommend that people who have not in fact had a first hearing definitely be allowed to go ahead and have a second attempt.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Alexandra.

Now to Jason Lee. Welcome, Jason.

Mr. Jason Lee (Program Coordinator, Affiliation of Multicultural Societies & Service Agencies (B.C.)): Thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to share our perspectives and concerns regarding Bill C-11, the new immigration bill.

As a province-wide coalition of over 80 agencies and associations providing multicultural services in B.C., our mission is to promote a harmonious, just, and equitable society that values the diverse mix of the many cultures and people who call Canada their home.

Our brief has been developed by two working committees on access: the integration coordinating committee, which represents many of the immigrant settlement agencies in the province; and our anti-racism and human rights committee, which acts as the advocacy arm of AMSSA.

We are impressed by the many excellent briefs we've seen on different aspects of Bill C-11. Unfortunately, our brief only touches on a few of these topics. However, for the record I'd also like to say that of the briefs we've had an opportunity to review, we do endorse the Canadian Bar Association's position, as stated in a letter to the parliamentary committee on March 2, 2001; and the Canadian Council for Refugees' brief, dated March 25, 2001.

We also agree with Mayor Owen's position that municipalities should be more involved in immigration processes, particularly since these bodies will be hosting the immigrants when they arrive.

We realize there has been a lot of consultation on Bill C-11 because of its predecessor, Bill C-31. However, we want to stress that legislation that will affect thousands of potential immigrants and refugees cannot be rushed. Canada must ensure that this legislation adheres to both our domestic and international human rights obligations.

We want to ensure that the rights of immigrants and refugees are upheld, and that this legislation reflects the welcoming and accepting nation that Canada and its citizens believe themselves to be.

The rhetoric in this bill is troubling, and may play upon the many public fears of immigration. For example, I know you've all had the opportunity to comment on Mr. Murray's presentation, and the people in the back also want to comment. A lot of the rhetoric around public fears of immigration...

There are two ways to look at immigration: as a threat, or as a challenge. Take the environmental movement. It can be a challenge to work with immigrants, to provide them with education on environmentalism. You can look at immigration patterns, and how we can redistribute immigrants and encourage them to settle in all parts of the country.

This is the reason why, in 1999, the Sierra Club rejected a proposal for a moratorium on immigration. The club stated that it believed you could promote Canadian values of human rights, dignity, respect, and diversity, while at the same time promoting environmental goals. The club also saw the moratorium as an opening for intolerance and racist rhetoric, by scapegoating immigrants for the problems we face around the world.

• 1115

Because of this, we definitely recommend that the provisions and application of the act adhere to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and our international obligations.

Our brief overall on Bill C-11 is not that much different from our brief on Bill C-31. There have been some positive changes from our current immigration legislation, such as the emphasis on family reunification and the move to extend the period during which refugees are expected to establish themselves in Canada. There've also been positive changes from Bill C-31 to Bill C-11, such as the consideration of politically trumped up charges by the IRB and access to the IRB determination system by people who have been refused overseas. However, our main concerns regarding Bill C-31 still remain in regard to this new bill, the focus on criminality and security, which compounds the backlash we have seen towards immigrants and refugees that I've just talked about. We are still concerned with the term “foreign nationals” being used, which we believe exacerbates public feelings of “them versus us”.

For the most part, Bill C-11 is framework legislation. We very much recommend that there be a community consultation process in developing the regulations for the new act that will ensure that concepts on social justice, equity, and human rights are integrated into all components of this act and corresponding regulations. We know that unless these things are spelled out, often they can be very much overlooked. For example, there have been some discussions that this bill allows for the sponsorship of common-law partners, particularly of the same sex, but from our experience in human rights work, unless this is spelled out, the chances are still very high that same sex common-law partners will be excluded in this interpretation. I'm not sure if there has been any more discussion on this topic, but it's something we very much would like to see.

In closing, once again thank you very much for this opportunity. We do hope you take the many recommendations presented by our colleagues at this table into consideration for Bill C-11.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Jason.

We move now to the Working Group on Poverty, John Argue.

Mr. John Argue (Program Director, Working Group on Poverty): I should explain first that the Working Group on Poverty was formed just three and a half years ago or so in response to the social and economic difficulties faced by immigrants and refugees that have become clear in the last decade or so. We're a network or coalition sharing information and engaging in advocacy to try to work towards the elimination of that poverty, therefore being concerned with a bill such as you have before you today.

Our first point would be in regard to public consultations. I would second what Jason just said as to the importance of public consideration of this bill, given that the last bill was passed in 1976 and that it's so crucial. It's a bill that affects thousands of people in this land, not just immigrants and refugees directly, but all sorts of family members, friends. We just urge the public importance of this bill. We compliment this committee for crossing the country and taking the time to hear various people across the country. We think the committee and Parliament can learn from this public input. I think we ourselves and the many groups that are part of our coalition or network in the community have benefited from the discussions spurred by the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Council on Refugees in response to the earlier bill. I think the public discussion of the earlier bill actually has shown how Bill C-11 has been improved, and so we hope your recommendations are further discussed.

Further to the importance of that public consultation, I'd like to affirm our working group's agreement with the points made by Mayor Owen about the vital importance of cities' being involved, certainly around our table. We have about 160 smaller and larger organizations in our network, and it's very clear in Vancouver how individual agencies or parts of the city, the board of education, and even the parks and recreation board have to deal with questions that are raised by the huge increase in immigrants and refugees living in a city. Therefore, decisions at the national level in regard to immigration affect the administration of particular programs run by the city.

• 1120

Therefore, our working group would really urge you to consider the points Mayor Owen made that cities, and particularly large centres like Vancouver or Toronto or Montreal, be part of the consideration of the implementation of immigration legislation and that those cities have funding to help them out in regard to programs that are affected by immigrants.

Our next point would be the unfortunate public emphasis—not your fault necessarily, but certainly reflections in the media—about being tough on refugees. I'd merely note the comments made earlier by the Canadian Bar Association about foreign nationals, and by other groups as well. It's something to which we're really sympathetic. Groups around the table of the working group are really very concerned about the negative aspects of the public discussion about immigrants and refugees, and we would really emphasize the positive contributions that immigrants and refugees would make. I'm sure you would agree with that.

We also would state our agreement with points made by various groups in regard to the vital importance of human rights obligations to which Canada has stated its agreement. And those human rights obligations should be stated in the bill; they should be considered. Again, I'm not going to go into length because other people have mentioned this. I'll just mention a couple, though.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child places the importance of children's rights, where they are involved, as being of vital concern, and yet it's not mentioned in the bill. We would hope that would be stated in the bill. And related is the torture convention.

This isn't concerned with poverty, but certainly around the table various groups meeting in the Working Group on Poverty are concerned with immigrants or refugees who might be sent back if they face the risk of torture. Even though Canada has agreed with the international convention on agreeing that nobody should be sent back to a country where a person would face that risk, it's not clearly mentioned in the bill. So we would urge that this kind of human rights obligation be stated clearly in the bill so that Canada lives up to its own obligations, to which it's agreed by agreeing with those international conventions. And I think many people in Canada would agree that nobody should be sent back to be tortured.

The working group is concerned with the issue of detention. Clearly here in Vancouver there are all sorts of groups who are aware of the problems two years ago of the number of Chinese people arriving by boat. And while sympathetic to fair process in dealing with those people's claims and concerns, our group, the Working Group on Poverty, has great difficulty with people being detained so long, making their lives so difficult without their considerations and their hopes and desires being fairly considered.

I believe it's the Canadian Council for Refugees who recommend a particular thing that we agree with, certainly, and it is that the extensive powers of detention in the bill be reformed so that the only grounds for detention be danger to the public, or the risk of flight, so the process can be followed of determining what the concerns of those persons really are.

Our next point is gender analysis. Various groups have stated this strongly. Probably as a male I should bow to the women who have spoken strongly of the concern for women and children. Around our table of the Working Group on Poverty there are many people who are really concerned about the unfair situation that women and children find themselves in, as has been expressed by other groups. I don't think it's really necessary to repeat the points that have been made already.

The last point we would make is a point about convention refugees. We realize that this committee isn't directly in charge, but it's related, we think. In other words, the existing legislation states that only Canadian citizens and permanent residents have the right to Canada student loans. Yet in the process of consideration of citizenship convention refugees are very likely to become Canadian citizens after a certain point, and they can't apply for Canada student loans. We would make the obvious point that their ability to do so would help assist their settlement, which is extremely likely down the way. We would urge you to consider that favourably.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: John, again, let me say I'm very impressed with the briefs this morning, and your suggestions and recommendations, and I'm sure committee members have some questions. We'll move to Inky Mark.

• 1125

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank you for coming before the committee and welcome you here.

We've been hearing people from Ottawa and throughout the country who have sent in briefs. The message they're conveying to us is very consistent. They basically say that the bill has strengthened the enforcement side, but at the same time they're concerned about the human rights and justice for the individual. I know that this country has had many bleak moments in its history. Hopefully we've learned something from them so that if we were to err, at least in my personal opinion, we should err on the side of the legitimate immigrant. I said to the last group of presenters that's what this country's all about. It's about immigration, and anyone who doesn't realize that had better give their head a shake. Our future is certainly going to be about immigration.

The issues that are brought up by all the witnesses we've heard basically are about the due process of law, referring to permanent residents as foreign nationals and the new system of ID cards. Perhaps I could focus on one area, this whole issue of giving permanent residents ID cards and having a residence requirement. How does that put the permanent resident at risk? Could you, in plain English, let our viewers and listeners understand that whole concept? I asked the same question to the former group. Do we even need to do this? I'm not sure myself. Do we need to take this approach?

The Chair: Inky, are you asking every one of them? Because if you do, it'll be the first and last question that you get this round. Or are you directing it to one specific person? All of them?

The question was to all, so would you all respond in 30 seconds or less, please.

Mr. John Argue: I would defer to Gordon.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: What they're planning under regulation is that the card have a five-year span. That's new. Currently, people get one and it lasts forever.

The difficulty with it is if you're a permanent resident who is overseas when that card expires, or is lost or is stolen, whatever happens, if you're overseas and you don't have a valid card, you're not going to be let back on an airplane. You're going to be told that you have to go to a mission abroad and renew that card. That may mean travel a thousand miles to get there. When you get there, if an officer's having a bad day and just doesn't like you, whether or not he's satisfied you've met the residency requirements, your card's not going to be renewed and you're stranded overseas.

The government has amended the legislation to say if you've only been gone for less than a year, it's okay, you can come back. That's a change from the initial draft. But for other permanent residents, you're overseas and you're not allowed back to Canada. And that's your right of entry. You're still a permanent resident. They just won't let you back. We have issue with that.

The Chair: Federal Express will deliver those traveller's cheques that you have lost overseas.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: That's right.

The Chair: Alexandra.

Ms. Alexandra Charlton: I'd like to add to that as well.

I think it's likely this will go ahead, because I know all the hardware and everything is in place. But we would ask that there be an adaptation so that the five years, which is not practicable, be extended to ten years. I believe this is the U.S. system. The reason for this is that by the time somebody's gone through the citizenship requirement, applied, and been processed through security, it's going to usually take longer than five years. So everybody is going to have their cards expire. That seems to be an inordinate amount of administration when it's not really necessary.

The Chair: Thank you.

Who has the question over here? Quickly.

Mr. John McCallum: My question is directed mainly to the Canadian Bar Association.

I'm a liberal on immigration, but it seems to me that we have to take seriously this idea of making it harder to get in the back door to let more people in the front door, because there is public opinion, and no matter how generous we want to be, if we're perceived to be too lax, there will be a public backlash against what I want, which is a liberal immigration policy.

I'll just quote, if I may, two sentences from a letter. It doesn't sound at all like Inky, but it's a letter by Darrel Stinson to the CBA:

What is most alarming is that this Bill also offers full Charter of Rights protection to all refugee applicants. This is ludicrous. No other country in the world does this.

This was March 29, 2001.

• 1130

Then later on he writes:

Thus, Canada becomes a haven for lawbreakers from around the world. Once here, Canada cannot deport them if it risks the individual suffering personal harm by returning to their country of origin. This is nonsense.

The Chair: Thank God we have Inky here, and not Darrel Stinson.

Mr. John McCallum: I fully agree with that. But there is that point of view out there in the country, and I think that therefore we need this sense of balance.

This letter is dated March 29, 2001, so it's not ancient history.

I suggested in an earlier session that I personally would like to make a couple of amendments, one that would make it clear that no permanent resident could be sent back to his former country without an IRB review. It couldn't simply be done by an immigration officer, which the present bill could be interpreted to allow. The second possibility is that examinations would occur only if the person had made an application to the department for something, and not at the whim of some officer. This would not go all the way you want to go.

Given that we have to consider public opinion if we're going to succeed in the longer term with a liberal immigration policy, might those two amendments go far enough?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: If the examination is not simply for investigative purposes but to determine applications that are submitted by anybody, permanent resident or otherwise, we can understand that kind of provision. The problem with clause 15 is that it's an investigative examination to determine inadmissibility of an individual by an officer who may have the power to issue a removal order without any right of appeal.

As far as your second suggestion is concerned, that a permanent resident always have a right of review to the appeal division, that's appropriate. It's what we recommend, as long as that's a review of all of the circumstances of a case.

The Chair: John, how quickly can you draft those amendments? That will probably save us a whole bunch of discussions over the next three or four days. Thank you very much for that.

Mr. Andrew Wlodyka (Resource Person, B.C. Branch, Canadian Bar Association): Mr. Chairman, I concur with that.

I've served on the board for several years. The board is just an institution that Parliament created where members of the public from different backgrounds sit in a very open and transparent system. When you talk about that balance, this is the perfect example of a public institution consisting of Canadians chosen from all walks of life looking at all of the circumstances of the particular case and making these decisions. We want that to be fair and balanced so that the Canadian public will support it. It's open, it's transparent, the decisions are in writing, and it's reviewed by the court.

You're substituting for that many areas where there is no transparency. It's hidden, and there's no review. Do you think the public is going to support that? In the long run, I would say no, it's not. So I think that as parliamentarians you should always err on the side of openness and transparency, because that's the way you get public support.

The Chair: Quickly.

Mr. John McCallum: Mr. Chairman, I have just one more comment, which may or may not require an answer. After listening to these presentations, first of all, I agree with the mayor that it would be nice if we could consult cities. I think cities are crucial to our success. I think the federal government is working on that. There is a constitutional impediment to too much of that because cities are deemed to be the creatures of the province. But maybe we can get around that somehow.

Second, I also—

The Chair: Get rid of the provinces. That would do it.

Mr. John McCallum: That would be one way to do it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John McCallum: I agree that the term “foreign national” is unfortunate and that it has a bad odour to it. I hope we can come up with something better.

Finally, speaking as an individual and a former professor, it strikes me that it would be a good idea for refugees to be able to get Canada student loans. The police representatives mentioned that they tended to get involved in crime. If their education is facilitated, that might help.

Thank you.

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have two questions.

The first is about the elimination of the right to appeal in the bill before us. If we returned to what was in the previous act, would this satisfy your concern about the right of individuals to be heard?

• 1135

As to my second question, I do not know if it will be in order, Mr. Chairman, you be the judge. We heard from many people, in particular the mayor of Vancouver and other organizations, calling for consultation. You are right on the front lines and you know what the problems of immigrants are when they arrive in a new country.

It is quite clear to us, on the Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, that the bill will be passed before the summer. In all likelihood it will be passed before summer and this act will be there for a long time. Do you think the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration should be responsible to go out and consult, say yearly, the stakeholders in the community who could tell us how things are going with the new legislation and what the needs are? It is obvious that things will change. A new legislation inevitably changes situations.

I would like to have your views on this, Mr. Maynard or Mrs. Miller.

[English]

Ms. Renée Miller: We agree with what you're saying in your first question. The present system works quite well. It's efficient and fair. It complies with our legal requirements around the world, and it should be retained.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: I'm sorry, excuse my English.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I will not excuse you.

The Chair: You should take your earphones off while you're speaking. You can get confused listening to yourself in French.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: If you didn't excuse my English, you would have to excuse my French.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gordon Maynard: The present bill also has in it something called the minister's danger opinion, which was an effort by the department in 1995 to intrude on the jurisdiction of the board. We've never agreed with that. So when we say we like the way the current system is operating in terms of the board's jurisdiction, that's subject to the minister's opinion process, which we've always opposed and which has had tremendous problems in the courts. It's one of the reasons the government is getting rid of it in this legislation.

With regard to your second comment on consultations regularly with stakeholders, I think that's a great idea. Immigration has a huge impact on many segments of society. In a way, maybe what we need is something like a watchdog, such as the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which is a watchdog over CSIS. Maybe we need a watchdog committee over immigration. I don't know.

The Chair: Alexandra.

Ms. Alexandra Charlton: I won't comment on the first one so much, but I think your second suggestion is brilliant. Partly that's what we try to do on an ongoing basis through our advisory committee, but that's very regional. I think that on a national level it would be wonderful to have feedback from the cities, particularly the ones that are the main immigration centres. It would certainly help in Vancouver.

The Chair: Jason.

Mr. Jason Lee: We'd also agree that consultation would be a very good thing, particularly because, as we said before, it's the bigness of the regulations that concerns us. Once we start to implement the act, there may be a few concerns about some of the interpretations and how it will regularly be used. So we very much support that.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Monsieur—

The Chair: Madeleine, you asked the question of everybody, so they all want to answer.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Okay.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Argue: I also agree with the idea of the consultation for the reasons stated.

With regard to Mr. McCallum's point on the constitutional problem about cities being involved in immigration, I suggest that the Vancouver agreement may not be the perfect agreement, but it's an illustration of the kind of partnership that is increasingly being used among different levels of government. So maybe that's a way to go.

The Chair: Is the Vancouver agreement a specific agreement, Baldwin? Perhaps you could give some information to the committee so that we could look at that model. It's the first time I've heard about this Vancouver agreement. I must admit that I don't know much about it.

Mr. Baldwin Wong (Social Planning Development, City of Vancouver): I believe the Vancouver agreement is one of the very first trilateral government agreements for cooperating in working on specific issues in the city of Vancouver. It has been signed by all three levels of government, and they also put in resources together.

The Chair: Perhaps, if you wouldn't mind, you could table that information with us. That's an interesting way of doing what I think all of us might want to do.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I am happy to see you think this a good idea. Would you be in favour or writing this consultation into the act or, at least, into the regulations? The committee is free to do what it wants, albeit with some limits, but would you wish this to be institutionalized?

• 1140

[English]

The Chair: Quickly, then, everybody—yes or no?

Ms. Alexandra Charlton: Yes.

Mr. John Argue: Yes.

Mr. Jason Lee: Yes.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: More or less, as far as the jurisdiction allows.

Mr. Baldwin Wong: Yes.

The Chair: You're all in agreement.

Thank you, Madeleine. We got consensus on that side of the table anyway.

John.

Mr. John Herron: John, with respect to providing assistance to, particularly, convention refugees, there is a private member's bill in the House right now that advocates that same position, led by a very learned member of Parliament, Mr. Graham. Perhaps you and like-minded organizations might want to rally behind that piece of legislation, which the Progressive Conservatives are supporting as well.

One of the comments I wanted to make concerns the issue that we do find it to be quite inconsistent with how we manage this democracy in Canada, not having a right to appeal, particularly with permanent residents. There is an amendment that I've seen, which I don't subscribe to—I'd rather have a better appeal process, but let's test it with the CBA—that if one were a permanent resident for five years or more, one would have automatic appeal rights if found inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human rights, international rights, serious criminality, organized criminality. That makes it a compromise amendment. I'd like to do more than that, but could I test that amendment?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: Sure. We actually recommend that.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: It was one of our recommendations as a middle ground. In the great scheme of things, our first and foremost position is that the appeals belong in the appeal division and nowhere else. If you are going to take away appeal rights, at least minimize the damage as much as possible—and that was a minimizing damage recommendation. People who have been here five years are more likely to have circumstances and considerations that are relevant to listen to. But the first position is to keep the appeal at all times in the appeal division.

Mr. John Herron: So CBA is still of the opinion that it would prefer to actually delete clause 64 altogether?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: Yes.

Mr. Andrew Wlodyka: This domicile provision we're talking about was in previous legislation before the 1976 act came into place and it was taken away. It's a very strange barrier, drawing a line between some on one side, some on the other. That's why the CBA has taken the position, in the end, that you should just have a consistent approach, with appeal rights given to everyone, and let the tribunal deal with each particular case on its merits.

The Chair: Finally, just one short comment, if you could.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

I was quite taken with the fact that you found the bill almost a shield against accountability within the department. Moreover, in an era where political accountability seems to be quite far removed—if the chair would permit some time—are there any other issues where you think it has been quite protectionist with respect to humanitarian and compassionate applications? Are there some other ones that you might think are available?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: Several. There are appeal rights taken away from from sponsors, with regard to applications that are refused on misrepresentation. Only certain appeals can be heard. There's a suggestion in the bill—and it's a very strong suggestion—that sponsors will not have the right to appeal refusal of family class applications where the problem is the sponsor not meeting sponsorship requirements. Under the current act, you can appeal because your family member is admissible or because you don't meet the sponsorship requirements. This legislation suggests that second appeal will be taken away. It's a suggestion. It's very clever language. It doesn't state it explicitly.

• 1145

The authority of the minister to ignore humanitarian and compassionate applications is a new one, and we suggest that in the use of that provision the minister can simply take an application and set it aside; there's no obligation to look at it. So there are all sorts of areas where we believe the intent of the bill is to make the department non-accountable.

The Chair: I'm sorry, but I can't have three people speaking on the same issue. I'm pressed for time, as you can understand.

Are there further comments?

Okay, you're done. You're on a roll, John, so we're going to let you take a breather.

We'll go to Libby, obviously with some good ideas too.

Ms. Libby Davies: There's so much to be said.

I'm becoming more and more concerned about the so-called balance within this bill, and particularly the comments from the CBA that the department is insulating its offices from any requirement to consider things like humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I wonder if you have other examples of where that is being done, which I think is very relevant to your comments about lack of transparency.

I gather that what we really need to do is to make sure that what's in regulations is moved into the bill as much as possible so that it becomes a requirement. That's one point.

The second point is to Baldwin from the City of Vancouver. We had mentioned the Vancouver agreement, but the mayor also made reference to financial assistance to municipalities that's required. Are there any more details on how you see that consultation taking place in terms of putting it in the bill, and secondly, in terms of the financial compensation, which I think the mayor mentioned?

Mr. Baldwin Wong: On the financial aspect, there is actually a Canada-B.C. agreement signed as well, which means that the federal government has devolved some of the settlement services responsibilities to provincial-level government. We have been talking to provincial-level government as well in terms of how we can better share or cooperate in some of the delivery of programs and services.

As a case in point on particular language difficulties and access, it is really tremendously challenging for the city in terms of providing services to newcomers. Statistically, between 1986 and 1998, half the newcomers in the city indicated that they had either limited or no language ability in either of the official languages. The city is currently looking at how to better implement a language policy that will assist those newcomers, but we really don't have the financial resources. If it can be somehow reflected either through the current agreement with the province or in some other ways that will be helpful for the city to access some resources, I think that would be extremely helpful.

The Chair: Who wants to address the accountability issue?

Ms. Libby Davies: So much being in the regulations versus the actual act itself is really what I'm getting at, which is part of the accountability.

Ms. Renée Miller: If I could address that briefly, parts of the regulations do need to be put in the act. It's not right to download the rights of people who are coming to Canada through regulation, which can be changed without any sort of parliamentary review or accountability. But it's more than that. There also has to be specific designation in the act for the kind of humanitarian and compassionate decision-making that we're talking about. You have to have this kind of review, these appeals, the kind of humanitarian and compassionate decision-making that Alexandra talked about. It's not enough to refer to regulations or to not have it specified in the act.

The Chair: Great.

Thank you all, colleagues, witnesses, and previous witnesses. I'm most impressed with not only the submissions, but your ideas and the fact that we've been able to test one another's little concepts. I think that goes a long way to help build a better bill. So thank you very much.

We're running about 45 minutes late, so my apologies to the next round of witnesses. We will get to them right now.

If I could ask the Canadian Education Centre Network, the Canadian Association of Private Language Schools, Vancouver Status of Women, the Canadian Association for Immigration Reform, and the ESL Consortium to come forward, I would appreciate that, please. Thank you.

• 1150

• 1154

The Chair: Thank you, witnesses, for being patient.

• 1155

I'm sure a lot of you were here for the previous discussions, so I think you know what the game plan is for submissions, so that we can ask some questions. We have a copy of your submissions. We ask you to give us an overview.

We will immediately start with Canadian Education Centre Network, Gardiner Wilson. Gardiner, do you want to start?

Mr. Gardiner Wilson (Director, Public Policy and Research, Canadian Education Centre Network): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank you for an opportunity to appear as a witness during the deliberations on Bill C-11.

As we heard in earlier testimony, the bill focuses almost exclusively on immigration and refugee protection. This is clearly the major priority for Citizenship and Immigration Canada, but that department is also responsible for the legislative framework and the operational control of the movement of visitors, workers, and international students. It's on the question of international students that I want to concentrate my introductory remarks.

We are an organization that works closely with some 260 educational institutions in every province across Canada, universities, colleges, and CÉGEPs, private and public sector secondary schools, career colleges, private and publicly funded ESL and FSL schools, all of which have excellent and competitively priced education programs to offer to international students.

We were established six years ago with the objective of marketing and promoting Canada as an education destination, quite frankly because international education has become a huge export service industry. We now also promote Canada as a destination for specialized training. We have 20 small education offices abroad, which offer counselling advice free of charge to students. These offices also act as a base of operations for Canadian education clients and provide local market intelligence and other services.

We've already provided a submission to the standing committee. I'd just like to review a couple of aspects of that and add a personal perspective. I've just completed a long and enjoyable career with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, with a number of postings overseas, most recently in the Sultanate of Brunei and southeast Asia. I've now begun a second career with the CECN because I believe very strongly in what the organization is doing, i.e. marketing and promoting our country as a world-class education destination for foreign students. It is estimated that revenues from international education contribute in the order of $4 billion a year to the Canadian economy.

But it is not only an economic dimension that characterizes international education. I believe strongly in the benefits that derive to all the participants in this area, and these are outlined in our submission. The overseas student gets access to one of the world's best educational systems at an affordable price. The Canadian fee structures are among the lowest in the major destination countries. The graduate carries back to his or her home country insights, information, and a range of future contacts that benefit the student and the home country. The Canadian classroom is enriched by the presence of young people from countries around the world. This is important for our own youth as they graduate and become citizens of Canada and the world. It is called globalization, and whatever trepidation we may have about it, our youth have to be prepared for it.

Canadian education institutions benefit because they are able to use excess capacity to provide places to full-fee-paying international students, thus maintaining and expanding programs for Canadian students. There is an important revenue generation aspect here.

Canada benefits. The young men and women who return to their home countries become effective ambassadors for Canada. They are familiar with the country. They understand who we are. From years of personal experience, I know what a tremendous additional advantage it is to have your government, commercial, parliamentary, or academic contact familiar with our country. International education creates what I like to call a Canadian constituency in that overseas country.

The CECN can market and promote Canada as a destination until we are blue in the face, but if the intending student has difficulty getting the visa, has to wait too long, is not meant to feel welcome at the immigration office, or cannot get a part-time job after his or her arrival, then he or she can easily make a decision to go to the U.S.A., or Australia, or France, or Ireland, or New Zealand, or Germany, or the U.K., or the Netherlands. There are many alternatives out there, and these other countries are very active in the education marketplace.

In June of last year the CECN, working with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, from whom I think you've already heard in Ottawa, produced a report comparing Canada to other major education destinations. The report concluded that as far as immigration policies and procedures are concerned, on international students Canada has not kept pace with major competitor countries.

• 1200

The recommendations made in our submission are designed to try to put Canada on a level playing field with the countries I just mentioned. If they can be introduced by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, either in the act or in the accompanying regulations, that will go a long way to positioning Canada more competitively. Specifically, we would like the text of the new act to acknowledge the importance of international students to Canada, which it does not do at the moment.

We would like CIC to introduce procedures which would make it easier for applicants from low-risk countries to enter Canada easily, so that more CIC resources could be focused on countries where there may be a higher element of risk.

We would like to see it possible for visitors to Canada to apply and receive student status without going to the U.S.A. or returning to their home country, which is the situation at the moment.

We would like to see international students being able to work part-time off campus, as they can in Australia and Britain. We would like to see students attending private institutions being able to take employment on a part-time basis in the same manner they can do so at publicly funded institutions. Currently they are prohibited from doing so.

We would like to see the establishment of a training visa category to ease visa issuance.

I hope the committee will appreciate the tremendous benefits to Canada from having a more welcoming and facilitative student visa policy. The slogan of the Canadian Education Centre Network is “Canada, where the world comes to study”, “Le Canada pour les études à la portée du monde”. With your help in modernizing the Immigration Act and regulations respecting international students, we can ensure that Canada continues to be a destination of choice for international students.

If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.

The Chair: Thank you, Gardiner.

We'll go now to the Canadian Association of Private Language Schools, Sharon Curl, past president. Welcome, Sharon.

Ms. Sharon Curl (Past President, Canadian Association of Private Language Schools): Thank you.

First, I want to thank the standing committee on behalf of CAPLS for allowing me to present the views of our association on Bill C-11. There is going to be some duplication between what I say and what Mr. Wilson has just said, and I would state that our association supports the comments and recommendations made by the CEC Network.

CAPLS was formed in 1997 and is the growing voice of private language training in Canada. We represent over 50 institutions in nearly 100 locations across Canada, from Victoria to Charlottetown. Our mandate is broad, including promotion of our member schools, quality assurance, and advocacy on behalf of our members. One of the most important missions of our organization is to promote Canada as a marquee destination for international students. CAPLS members and our industry as a whole do an outstanding job of representing and promoting the virtues of Canada. Naturally, we have a vested interest in the well-being of this industry, but I must emphasize, as Mr. Wilson has, that international students are good for Canada and generate additional revenue for all Canadians in Canada.

International education is a major commodity with a major effect. The World Bank estimates it at about $100 billlion annually, and the CEC Network has indicated in their report that they're seeing a $4 billion value of this industry to Canada alone. We're talking about one of Canada's largest exports, with millions of dollars of spin-off revenue annually—retail businesses, teaching jobs, administration jobs, homeowners taking in students, the tourist industry. All their successes are directly related to the thousands of international students coming to our country each year. In addition, there are the social benefits to Canada, Canadian ambassadorships developed from students who study in Canada and become Canadian business and political partners in the future.

The research conducted by the CEC Network and AUCC clearly demonstrates how Canada's main international competitors have adopted a coherent, government-wide approach to international student recruitment, and consequently, how the importance of this objective is reflected in their respective immigration policies and practices. Canada is falling behind and losing our marketplace, because we are lacking in such an approach, and we will continue to fall behind unless we improve Canadian immigration policies and practices in our missions overseas. In the CAPLS position paper on immigration included in the brief we are recommending changes we believe will allow members of our industry to work together with government to actively promote Canada as an ideal destination for international students.

Our number one priority has been and remains to extend the exemption for student authorizations from three months to six months, which we understand it is intended to include in the regulations for Bill C-11. This change will further enhance the economic benefits of this industry and the benefits to Canada.

• 1205

Secondly, for increased efficiency, we recommend streamlining the process for visa applications in Canadian embassies and missions. Many problems arise from the cumbersome and ineffectual process for medical exams. As a result of these slow and bureaucratic procedures, students are choosing other destinations with friendlier and more efficient systems.

Also of significant concern to our members are the inconsistency between our own missions and the lack of transparency in our procedures. Officials in Canadian missions must be accountable to the public for their decisions regarding visa applications.

Our competitor countries, such as Australia, allow unsuccessful applicants to make formal inquiries about the nature of their rejection. Canada does not. Canada is turning away millions of dollars in business and depriving our country of that revenue because of how we process visas overseas.

Our third point is that many students come to Canada as visitors for short-term courses and come to love our country and want to stay to pursue their studies and in fact they're great assets to our country, but these students are forced to leave because they're unable to apply for a student authorization from within Canada, and many don't return. We recommend that immigration officers within Canada be allowed to handle changes of status, from visitor to student authorization.

The final recommendation in our paper is that international students attending private language schools be permitted to work for up to 20 hours per week. All our key international competitors allow students to work part-time, recognizing that this is an important area when the students are deciding on destinations for study abroad. We are concerned that a policy change in this area may only benefit the public sector, and not the private sector. We ask for parity between our respective sectors in this industry.

As small private businesses contributing at every level to our respective communities, what we would like to see—in return for our contributions—is treatment equal to that received by our counterparts in the public sector.

I've already indicated the problems we're having in our attempts to compete with other countries, because of our immigration policy. In our sector, this is compounded by an additional factor: many missions give priority to students applying to public institutions rather than to private ones. Considering our value as private businesses, we believe it is not much to ask for a level playing field with the public sector, on issues such as visa issuances and student employment provisions.

We support facilitating the entry of bona fide students to Canada and safeguarding Canada against fraud and abuse. We strongly believe that the current system does not achieve this goal. We are willing to work together to create a system that's more efficient, effective, and better for all Canadians.

Our needs are great, and it's essential they be met if we hope to have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field with the other players in this industry. We ask this committee to recognize the significance and the magnitude of the student file, and to realize the importance to Canada of our industry and of the international students.

The changes we at CAPLS recommend, which are completely attainable through more consideration of the student file in Bill C-11 and its related regulations, will ensure that the international education industry flourishes and also that jobs in Canada are protected and new ones created.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

The Chair: Thank you, Sharon.

We'll now move to Vancouver Status of Women, Olatz Sagarduy.

Ms. Olatz Sagarduy (Research Coordinator, Vancouver Status of Women): I want to thank you for the opportunity to talk on behalf of Vancouver Status of Women.

First of all, I am a landed immigrant myself for the last five months. I am very much troubled by the idea that according to the proposed act I am going to be called a foreign national. I don't know if that means my opinion is less important than anybody else's.

The Vancouver Status of Women is a non-profit feminist organization working for and with women to achieve women's equality. We have a three-year participatory action research on women and Canadian policy litigation and practice and its implications for women.

• 1210

We want to start by acknowledging that a new act is needed that will protect those in need and guarantee the basic rights of immigrants. But we don't think that's the case with Bill C-11. We think Bill C-11 is an open invitation to the best and brightest men to come to Canada, but it's a challenge for even educated and skilled women to apply as independents. I myself had to be sponsored, even though I had the education and skills necessary to apply as an independent. All the requirements seem to focus on men.

I want to say that overall, the bill lacks any analysis of gender, race, and class. I explained this specifically in my brief, but I want to quickly discuss some points on lack of gender analysis.

For instance, although there are some proposals made to improve the sponsorship category, there is no attempt to question the nature of the dependency created by it. Changes have reduced the length of sponsorship from ten years to three; forbidden people convicted of violence against women to sponsor; and recognized common-law and same-sex couples for sponsorship. These are steps in the right direction, but the sponsorship requirements still maintain, reinforce, and perpetuate the traditional role of women.

We ask for the abolishment of sponsorship. But if it has to be maintained, we ask that it be more flexible to women's needs, and that it give access to social programs and any other access that will promote the successful integration of permanent residents.

We are troubled by the fact that there is no mention of the live-in caregiver program. We assume that it's still going to be in effect, as it currently is. This program exists because there is a demand for domestic workers, and we believe that it should be included under the independent category: the domestic workers can apply as independent immigrants.

Another example of the lack of gender analysis, as the other table suggested, is the elimination of the second refugee claim for women. In a case when a man with a family is the main applicant, the man might be abusing the woman—and the woman doesn't have a chance to apply for a second claim, even though she would be eligible to be a refugee in Canada.

In regard to the lack of class analysis in this proposed Bill C-11, we don't see any reference to a change in the right-of-landing fees. We know it might take a lifetime for most immigrants to save that amount of money. If this doesn't change, we think it excludes a lot of people who are seeking to come to Canada.

We are troubled as well by the points system. Even though it's claimed to be more flexible, we still see that education and higher-skilled work are considered more important. There is no mention of domestic work, child care work, or any other care work—the traditional work for women. We think, again, that this excludes lots of women from coming to Canada.

With regard to the lack of race analysis, we welcome the idea of a landing class for family members of permanent residents or refugees, but we think it doesn't go far enough to consider that some people who would apply as inland need a visa to come to Canada. We don't see that the bill addresses that. So again, that's excluding communities, excluding people who require a visitor's visa to come to Canada. We would like to see that in place.

There is also a lack of race analysis when defining family members. Even though this is claimed to be a more extensive definition, the only difference we see is that parents are now included. It's still a wealthy family view that doesn't necessarily apply to lots of standard family members. We know that most of the people who come to Canada are from countries where extended family is the main source of support for those people.

• 1215

I want to end by saying that we explain in detail the lack of gender, race, and class analysis in our brief submitted to the standing committee, and that we hope our voices will be heard in reviewing this bill and improving the lives of many women who seek or are forced to come to Canada.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Olatz, very much for your presentation.

Now we will move to Mr. Alan Hackett and Mr. Davies from the Canadian Association for Immigration Reform.

Alan.

Mr. Alan Hackett (President, Canadian Association for Immigration Reform): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before this important committee.

We put it in a brief earlier, but this is a very quick summary of our observations in the brief.

Our organization is an organization of volunteers. There's no professional staff or government funding. It exists because our members and supporters possess strongly felt concerns regarding Canada's immigration refugee programs.

The perception that Canada is being shaped in ways we had never contemplated is very evident among those we represent. We consider immigration to be highly important, bearing significantly on the future of Canada, and affecting who we are as a people and what kind of nation we shall leave to generations ahead.

We maintain that before all else, immigration's policy must truly reflect the national interest of all Canada's citizens. This suggests adopting a consensus approach to establish suitable premises upon which a policy should be based. The objectives derived therefrom must be clearly stated and implemented within a tight operating structure. Policy developed and executed in this manner would enjoy a high level of public approval, which is very important.

Bill C-11, as our brief indicates, contains improvements versus previous legislation, but we view it as not designed to deal satisfactorily with important policy formulation on an ongoing basis.

We feel that clause 3, on objectives and application, is deficient and should be restated:

to determine an optimum number of immigrants that can be absorbed and will simultaneously contribute to economic growth and cultural stability within a time-based program subject to predetermined periodic public reviews in accordance with an agreed upon population policy.

This opening statement of objectives is bolstered by a further requirement that widespread public input in the policy-making process be made an enshrined element. We believe, therefore, that the responsibility for immigration policy development must be shared by the public.

Policy for a number of years has been handed down by government with scarcely any debate, particularly during elections. Policy formulation has been marked by a distinct lack of consultation, except as we observe in government press releases with groups called stakeholders—a tell-tale admission, which speaks volumes about government intentions. Stakeholders, we observe, are organizations developed to pursue a special interest, and many did not exist before immigration became an industry.

Organizations aggressively pursuing their interest can be economic, ideological, political, educational, legal, labour, gender specific, lifestyle, religious, ethnocultural, and even international. The Canadian majority, the real stakeholders who must accept the consequences of policies without having participated in their formulation, apparently rank behind those interests mentioned, and not surprisingly are highly skeptical of government programs, as indicated in all the public opinion polls.

To base a policy on the objectives stated in Bill C-11 allows for undisciplined program flexibility. This could take us anywhere the government chooses to go. That is why we prefer clear objectives, which define parameters within which policy-makers must work, coupled with public debate and periodic in-depth public reviews.

• 1220

The nebulous framework of objectives in Bill C-11 and its predecessor bills have given us policies that have drawn continuing criticism despite government efforts to impart a favourable spin. With a disciplined approach based on national interest, immigration would not have become the out-of-control colossus it is today, presenting us with the following problems, which need to be addressed:

—Numbers: world's highest, relative to population. How can this be justified? Studies and polls are needed, and Parliament should decide the final numbers.

—Entry qualifications: expansion of family class versus skilled cannot be supported.

—Source countries: radically changing and very unbalanced.

—Uneven settlement patterns: puts stress on urban centres.

—Health care system: heavily impacted.

—Environmental impact: neglected.

—New criminal groups abound.

—Official corruption: domestic and abroad.

—Many deficiencies listed in the Auditor General's report.

—Refugee determination system riddled with deficiencies, and seeming lack of political will to take real corrective action.

We consider these and others to be serious problems. We would hope Bill C-11 could confront them, but are not encouraged that it is designed to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hackett.

The chair will now move to ESL Consortium. We have Mary Pollack, trustee, and Catharine Eddy, Vancouver School Board. Welcome.

Ms. Mary Pollack (Representative, ESL Consortium): Thank you.

My name is Mary Pollack and I am an elected trustee representing the Surrey School District. Catharine Eddy, beside me, is manager of the District Reception and Placement Centre for the Vancouver School Board. We are here speaking on behalf of the ESL Consortium.

Probably everybody here is aware that ESL refers to English as a second language. The ESL Consortium consists of six lower mainland British Columbia public school districts in which nearly 90% of British Columbia's English-as-a-second-language students are enrolled. Consortium districts work with students from homes in which more than 140 different languages are spoken. Members of the ESL Consortium have been working in close collaboration since 1991. Membership includes elected school trustees, district administrators, and teachers. We work to provide effective settlement services for children and youth through the school system, including reception services, social support for inclusion and integration, and language training.

School districts are a major reception centre for new Canadian families. Students with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds must be assisted in acquiring English and supported in difficult and sometimes traumatic adjustments to new schools, a new society, and a new culture. Effective support for students often requires work with their families, who must also understand and participate in an unfamiliar system and in an unfamiliar language.

Districts provide a myriad of services to immigrant and refugee children and their families, including student acculturation, home and school liaison, and assistance for parents to participate in school, counselling—both emotional and post-traumatic stress—communication with families in other languages, services in other languages, multicultural and anti-racism programs in school, participation on community committees, and work with non-governmental agencies serving immigrants.

Several features of the proposed act potentially affect our provision of effective settlement services for our students and their families. My initial comments are with respect to changes that in our opinion are quite positive. The act would make it easier for children of refugee claimants to attend school. Shortening the time between arrival in Canada and school attendance is important so that children and youth experience minimal delays in beginning their Canadian education. Not only will the stability of the school environment assist them in becoming accustomed to Canada, but through schools they will have easier access to many necessary services for a successful transition.

The act would also expand the family class and facilitate family reunification. Provisions that reduce the likelihood or duration of traumas caused by family separation and increase the potential for a personal support system for new Canadians are definitely welcome. Increased stability in their personal lives assists students in adjusting to school.

We do have a couple of concerns. The act would assign more weight to education and increase the relative weight of having knowledge of an official language. Although it is important to reinforce the need for knowledge of either or both of Canada's official languages, these provisions are aimed at heads of families. The language ability of the head of a household does not necessarily guarantee that of his or her dependants. The language and learning needs of children can be quite different from their parents, and these differences have a substantial effect on the services that school districts must provide to immigrants and refugees. Recognition and support for district settlement services is needed.

• 1225

The second concern is that the act would enable more children to attend school earlier in their residence in their new country. With this increased involvement of education in supporting immigrants and refugees, it is essential that the broad variety of services and support that schools provide to new Canadians be recognized through improved funding and communication between the federal government and school districts.

For example, asking immigration officers to encourage immigrants with school-age dependants to plan for a summer entry to Canada, so that school districts could receive and place their children prior to the beginning of the school year, would strengthen our provision of services for immigrants.

Finally, the pervasive effects of large-scale immigration have changed the context within which public school districts in urban receiving centres operate. Though school districts are levels of government within provinces, federal initiatives create localized pressures and needs. Planning for immigration is a national concern and requires national leadership in recognizing the consequences of large-scale immigration at provincial and local levels.

In our opinion, school districts need recognition for the settlement support in addition to language instruction that districts provide; effective communication with government agencies processing immigrants and refugees so that districts can work effectively; and finally, support for settlement services that districts provide to assist families in becoming accustomed to and thriving in their new country.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll move to questions. Inky, you have five minutes for questions and answers.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome all our witnesses to this meeting. For those who presented briefs on education, I share your concern. Unfortunately, we as a country sell short on the whole business of students who come here to study. We talk about finding a resource for immigration to occur so that they bring either their brains or their money, I guess, to this country. Yet we have a resource right in the country with the international student who studies here.

That was brought before us. That point was made known to us in Ottawa last week. I appreciate that, and I think we need to concentrate and make provisions in the act to make sure that we don't end up on the bottom of the ladder when it comes to competing for the brains of the international students.

Regarding the concern brought by Mr. Hackett, I agree with a lot of the things you said. Again, the governance model that we have today requires reform. There no doubt about it. Most Canadians would probably agree. But until we change it, I guess we have to work through the system.

My point has always been that even on the security side, with a lot of security issues that are brought before the committee regarding the whole issue of allowing the criminal element to enter this country, a lot of things can take place without legislation. We can put in front-end screens to make sure that illegal people don't come here.

I agree with you that people who put their foot on our Canadian soil shouldn't necessarily be accorded charter rights protection. First we have to determine what their status is. It doesn't make any sense that just because you put your foot on our Canadian soil you should receive charter rights protection. It's just not reasonable without determining what your status is.

You talk about consultation. Let me say to you that I'm not happy with even this process that we're going through today. Just this morning we will have heard almost 20 groups come before us with briefs that we've never seen, by and large, until we sat down this morning.

• 1230

I know the government has this urgency. This is the fourth bill that I've shepherded through Parliament myself as a chief critic, and it's a very convoluted process. There's a lot of will out there, and honestly, people do want to make changes to all legislation. That's why you spend hours putting briefs together and coming before the committee, even in this particular process, I've been told.

I've been submitting amendments to this legislation for over two weeks. I'm already told that they're starting to get backed up, because the government of the day wants to do the clause-by-clause next week when we go back to Ottawa after this week's hearings, and the proposed agenda is to report to the House. Well, there you have it. I'm sorry, but it's just not a good process.

The Chair: Is there a question, Inky?

Mr. Inky Mark: I feel your frustrations. I know there are a lot of things we have yet to do, and I appreciate you coming here at this point in time.

The Chair: Does anybody want to respond to that commentary? No? Okay, we'll go to Yolande for the next question.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on the comments of the Canadian Association for Immigration Reform. Gentlemen, you expressed the desire to have a greater proportion of immigrants coming to our country in the economic class rather than the family reunification class. Let me tell you that according to the most recent statistics, 40% of immigrants are coming here for reasons of family reunification, which means that 60%, a vast majority, are in the economic class, while in the United States, 90% of immigrants are family reunification cases and 10% only are coming for economic reasons. So I would like to ask you, gentlemen, what would be a fair proportion in your view?

[English]

The Chair: Did I hear you say that you want amend that question?

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: It's for the gentlemen representing the Canadian Association for Immigration Reform.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Hackett and Mr. Davies.

Mr. Alan Hackett: Madame, first of all, I believe the minister said in some of her press releases and speeches that the intent is to raise the proportion of family class from that which presently exists. I think if you break down the figures a little bit more and say that all the rest of them are economic, that probably isn't quite true, because I believe you have refugees in that total, and that accounts for a certain percentage of it.

What we find when we look at the United States, which you've brought into this conversation to make your point, is that their immigration rate is only about a third of ours. Our rate is the highest in the world, proportionate to population.

In the family class, I'm afraid a lot of the family class members are older than the host population, on average. What we are concerned about there is that these people could be a burden on the health system. I think that's probably already evident from stories that you hear. That would be one of the negatives that we express.

The second thing is that in recent years I think it can be shown through statistics that the incomes of those immigrants who are now coming into this country are less than they used to be in former times. That's because of the relative decline in the number of people in the skilled class. I think when you go back over, say, the post-World War II period, pretty well all the people who came in were skilled in some way. In fact, many of those people were probably better skilled and more qualified to participate in the economy than many of the people who lived here. So we see that this creeping change in emphasis on the family class can only be interpreted as a negative under present policy considerations.

• 1235

The Chair: Mr. Hackett, for the benefit of the committee, where are you getting all this information and statistics you keep spouting off about there being a drag on the health care system and all these things? I'm interested in whether it's just opinion or whether it's based on facts and studies.

Mr. Alan Hackett: Well, Mr. Chairman, at the back of the brief we presented I had a number of research sources, which you'll see there. I don't have all those with me right now, so I can't cite specific sources regarding my points, but they are there and we have read and processed them.

The Chair: Thank you. Olatz, I believe you wanted to respond to the question too.

Ms. Olatz Sagarduy: I want to comment on his comments. I want to say that while I agree this will work towards improving the Canadian economic situation, I don't think it's right and fair. I think it's even discriminatory to expect immigrants to do so. What I mean to say is that we almost have to prove things twice, and we have to work harder than other Canadians. When looking at the statistics—and I don't know, I haven't had an opportunity to look at the research, your paper, or whatever—we would do better to compare immigrants with Canadian society. How much do they contribute, and what are the differences?

I think when we talk about family reunification, any immigrant organization would agree with me that the immigrant—and it's been proved and written about—needs their family as much as any other person needs their family with her or him to feel more integrated, supported, and successful. This will affect his or her work performance. Anyway, that's my comment.

The Chair: No, this is not going to be a debate between you and Olatz. The questions have to come through the chair, and I'm going to move to Madeleine, if I may.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have two specific questions. But beforehand, I want to say to the witnesses who talked about international students that I share their concerns.

My first question is to the representative of Vancouver Status of Women. You talk, in your recommendation number 19, about defining explicitly the public interest in order to allow the entry of people who otherwise do not meet the criteria. Could you help me with this? I understand what you are getting at, but I would have difficulty spelling this out.

My second question is to Mr. Hackett. I will put it now so he can prepare his answer. I will not express my personal opinion regarding the positions contained in your brief. I respect what you say. However, I would like to ask a question along the same lines as that of Ms. Thibeault. Do you believe that family reunification is part of the values of Canadian society and, if so, how could you call for health criteria when we know that a family can be made up of members whose age varies from one day to 100 years?

[English]

The Chair: Premièrement, Olatz, do you have any comments to that?

After that, we'll have Mr. Hackett.

Ms. Olatz Sagarduy: When I explain about women who might otherwise be ineligible because there are legal restrictions or because of the restricted options they have... I guess I meant to say... A live-in caregiver is a good for example. Lots of women are forced to come in under that category instead of coming as independent immigrants because as domestics they are not recognized as workers as such. An example would be myself. I had to come as sponsored instead of as an independent even though I had enough qualifications. It seems that we're looking at the white male professional as the ideal candidate, someone who will contribute to the Canadian economy. But not as much... even I had the qualifications... there is a huge gap in recognizing professional qualifications from other countries. There is a huge gap in recognizing jobs women do. I don't know if I'm being clear enough.

• 1240

The Chair: Mr. Hackett, you may speak on the second question, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: May I make a brief comment, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, I have to move on, and I have to get to Mr. Hackett on the second question.

Mr. Alan Hackett: Madam, in answer to your question, I really do believe that it is important for families to be able to unite. When this is initiated by an immigrant who comes here and wants some of his family to come, it's very logical to assume that's quite just.

However, the family class is getting a wider definition as time goes on. I don't know just how wide it is now, but it's going to increase under this bill, and there's a multiplier effect to this that I don't think is justifiable. In other words, if you start bringing in members of what might perhaps be termed an extended family as compared to what it used to be, a narrow definition, that can increase, increase, and increase the numbers arriving because of this multiplier effect.

The family class is also something that can be applicable under the refugee category that will come in. That's another area where the emphasis on family class intake can be magnified out of proportion with respect to what is really beneficial to the Canadian social system.

The Chair: Okay.

John.

Mr. John Herron: I would like to pursue—

The Chair: You have one question, please.

Mr. John Herron: One question?

The Chair: Yes. Thank you, John.

Mr. John Herron: I'd like to pursue the issue that was brought forward earlier with respect to tracking foreign students and trying to make this a welcoming place for them to reside.

Can you elaborate a bit on your previous set of numbers—it's on page 4 of your brief—concerning facilitating the flow with respect to the differentiated student visa regime the Aussies are experimenting with? Could you give us some input in terms of what effect that might have on any potential discrimination against students, whether they reside here or come from other countries? Can you talk about that regime?

Mr. Gardiner Wilson: Yes. In many cases what the Australians have done has been a kind of model for what we would like to see at least studied in Canada. The Australians have been in the international education game for a long time. I had the honour of serving in Australia for a number of years and tracked what they were doing very closely.

What they have decided to do relates to the fact that in any student movement there are going to be different elements of risk, as in fact there are in any movement of visitors to Canada. We require visitor visas for certain countries, and we don't require visitor visas for other countries, so there's an assumed level of risk in looking at that particular category. The same could be said for students.

What the Australians have done is to say that students from particular countries where there's a low level of risk will basically be fast-tracked. The whole visa procedure for students will be made very much easier. So if you're a student from say Singapore, Malaysia, or Hong Kong, where there's a low level of risk, you get your student authorization very much more quickly. What the Australians do is devote their resources to the more difficult countries, where there is a higher level of risk—China is one obviously, Pakistan is another—so you can concentrate your resources on them and make it easier for students from low-risk countries. It's called “differentiation”.

I know it raises some question in some peoples' minds, but the very fact that we in Canada already differentiate between countries, where we require a visitor visa for some countries and for other countries we don't, obviously constitutes differentiation of the same sort.

That's what we'd really like to see. It's a kind of a practical approach to trying to facilitate the movement to Canada of students from countries where there's a low risk and, by the savings in people power as it were, to devote those savings to processing students from other countries where there's a higher level of risk.

The Chair: Libby.

Ms. Libby Davies: I support family reunification very much. I think as far as the bill goes in expanding that, it's a good measure. I really take exception to the comments that have been made by CAIR. I think they have a sort of xenophobic view, saying that we don't want to let people in even based on family ties. It's a sort of them-and-us thing, so I really reject that.

• 1245

I wanted to go back to a comment made by Olatz from the Vancouver Status of Women. You said that we actually lack a race analysis on the definition of family.

There has been some expansion. I take it you think it does not go far enough. How would you like to see that conducted in terms of looking at the definition of family? Do you think it should be wide open, or is there some kind of definition you work from?

Ms. Olatz Sagarduy: As I drafted it in the recommendation, we look for a member who the sponsor has a relationship of interdependence with, multi-generational, and a strong connection. To me it's pretty narrow definition. We agree the definition is good. I don't mean to exclude those family members, but it doesn't go far enough into integrating all the family members who would be actually more supportive to the immigrant. We could recommend that the sponsor self-define who is a family member.

The Chair: Thank you. I have Anita, John, and Inky, who has one final question.

Ms. Anita Neville: I have a brief point. I'm interested in directing my question to the areas of education at the moment. You made some comments, Mr. Wilson, while I was out of the room. I read your brief. You have some important recommendations here.

We were just in Korea, where we were informed of their processing of 12,000 students with a turnaround time of two to three days. I'm assuming that most jurisdictions don't do it that quickly. I've been familiar with post-secondary education and the support of post-secondary education students and some movement into secondary education students. I also saw the phenomenon there of parents of very young children choosing now to come to Canada to buy their education for their children here. I listened to the representation by the public school boards from the Vancouver area. I'm very familiar with the settlement issues of ESL children.

How would we reconcile the promotion of that with the settlement issues that public schools are having to integrate very young children not only with language but with settlement? As I say, I saw first-hand mothers buying camp experiences for their children as a prelude to coming in and moving their children into the public education system.

Mr. Gardiner Wilson: I have a couple of comments there. First of all, the vast majority of international students coming to Canada are not at that very young level.

Ms. Anita Neville: I realize that.

Mr. Gardiner Wilson: It's a very small number. And while the immigration regulations require that younger students be treated the same way, as it were, as secondary or post-secondary students, I think in fact there is a tendency within immigration to look very closely at those kinds of applications. It's very unlikely for an eight-year-old or nine-year-old student to be admitted to Canada as an international student unless the family is somehow coming along to provide home support.

Ms. Anita Neville: They are.

Mr. Gardiner Wilson: But if the immigration officer does decide to issue an authorization and the individual student, the young student, finds a place in a lower mainland school board, or elsewhere in Canada, they are of course paying at a full international rate for that study. It may be $11,000, $12,000, or $13,000 a year, and presumably they will be eligible for any kind of ESL—or in some cases FSL—programming that might be available at the school board.

I understand that they are probably treated as ESL students, but as I say, they've bought an educational service, and if they've paid for that educational service presumably they deserve that kind of educational support.

The Chair: I believe Catherine Eddy from the public side wants to say something.

• 1250

Ms. Catherine Eddy (Representative, ESL Consortium): Thank you very much.

Those school boards throughout the province, and certainly those within the lower mainland, do have very strict guidelines about the age eligibility of students to come from wherever in the world without their family. So an elementary age child who may indeed be accepted into a school system would be accepted on the stipulation that he or she is accompanied by a parent who will then stay here. And that's happening. That is happening.

Ms. Anita Neville: I was surprised by this phenomenon. That's why I'm raising it.

Ms. Catherine Eddy: While I think in this instance it's one issue to ask that the immigration department look at it from the point of view of visas, I think a more critical question is how school boards themselves are handling it in terms of what they define as being economically good but also as realistic and viable for young children.

The Chair: Thank you, Anita.

We'll go to John.

Mr. John McCallum: Maybe it's because I've been in education most of my career, but I agree with everything the education people have said. And I think it will be good to have in-Canada access, 20-hour working, etc.

[Translation]

My question if for Mr. Hackett. You talked in a positive fashion about the concept of cultural stability, stabilité culturelle. Could you define this term for us?

[English]

Can you say what you mean by cultural stability as a desirable feature of immigration?

Mr. Alan Hackett: Cultural stability is certainly a desirable feature of society. If by introducing a number of new cultures into it in a hasty way it does disrupt the culture of the host society, then we might be running into problems that would require severe laws to deal with. And this is my concern, that a number of cultures together would be competing for the ascendancy of their own culture perhaps. In that way, we have to always be putting in laws that will prevent this sort of thing. You could call them racist laws, or other types of laws that are anti-racist laws or other types of laws that are put in. And it must be dealt with fairly slowly, in my opinion.

Mr. John McCallum: I think that's a good answer.

Time is running short. I'd like to have one last question.

It's clear from what you've said that you want immigrants to be small in number, skilled in nature, as opposed to family joiners, young and not too many of them. But given your attachment to this term of “cultural stability”, and given your preference to switch back to Europe as a source country, can one also infer that you'd rather these immigrants be white like you and me, rather than black or East Indian or anything else?

Mr. Alan Hackett: I hope you aren't trying to embarrass me by that question, but I think that—

The Chair: I think you've already done it yourself, but that's beside the point.

Mr. Alan Hackett: Perhaps, but I think that—

The Chair: Is 500 years long enough for you?

Mr. Alan Hackett: Can I just continue for a second, sir?

The Chair: Sure. Yes.

Mr. Alan Hackett: I think I reflect, or our organization reflects, concerns that a lot of people have had that our host society here did get its immigration from European countries to begin with.

In the dissertation we put forward, we didn't say we had to return to that exactly. I think that's a bit of a misstatement. What we did say was that it was getting unbalanced.

As we know now, over 90% of immigration intake into Canada comes from what we would call non-traditional sources. And that seems to be a bit of a culture shock when you get back to your cultural stability situation.

• 1255

We seem to have found in our conversations with people that it's been made rather difficult for people to come here from the old traditional areas. A number of offices were closed in those areas, making it difficult for people to travel to put in their applications. We wondered why that was the case. We feel an effort should have been made to help those people come here, because they came into the society and adapted to it very well after World War II. We think that's an area on which we can concentrate, because these people are all from cultures that are similar to ours.

The Chair: Inky and then John, quickly.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me say that I'm a third generation immigrant. My grandfather came here to work on the railroad. But even more important than that, I think we need to take a reality check. The world is shrinking. Canada is one country in the community of the world. John mentioned going back to tradition, which is European. The Europeans don't want to come here. That's a fact of life. In fact, they have the same problem we have of sustaining a population. They're competing in the world marketplace for good migration to their countries.

Today Europeans make up 23%; the western hemisphere 21%; Africa and the Middle East 15%; and Asia-Pacific 41%. The world changes. We're into a new millennium. That's the reality we have to face. If we don't adapt to that attitude and that approach and make it...

The multicultural nature of this country is a reality, however difficult it is for some people to adjust to it. That's their personal challenge. But that's the nature. In fact, I can see this country not being bilingual, but probably everyone speaking three or four languages, like they do on the continent. That's an evolving society. The continent is a model of the way the world is going.

I have a hard time understanding when we want to talk about tradition. If we look at history, at the turn of the century the Ukrainians came to this country. Did they welcome them? They really didn't. They threw them into concentration camps. It's called the internment of the Ukrainians. They were from continental Europe. We don't want to repeat that kind of history in this country. Hopefully, we will learn.

What are the numbers? When we look at our population base in the world, we are a drop in the bucket. If you ask the business community in this country, they'll say that our biggest challenge always has been a lack of markets. We are just too efficient in producing goods and services. So what is the kind of population you're talking about?

Mr. Alan Hackett: You were asking about our view on numbers. All we're saying is where is the proof that the numbers we're bringing in constitute the optimum numbers we want? I haven't really seen that. I think—

The Chair: Studies have been carried out ad nauseam over the past 10 or 20 years, Mr. Hackett, which I'd be happy to send to you on behalf of the Government of Canada. I'll make sure that our clerk provides you with the mounds and mounds of documentary evidence to support what Inky and others have said, if you'd like to have that information.

Mr. Alan Hackett: Actually, sir, I've read some of those government reports. For example, the Economic Council of Canada made a statement that they didn't really see what the value of immigration was to the economy. But they then went on to recommend that we take about 1% of population. There was no proof there. There's no proof there at all.

I've seen reports from other countries where they've done a considerable amount of economic studying and come up with the conclusion that they would take fewer relative to population than we do. Australia and the United States feel it is necessary to have fewer people as a percentage of population come in than we do.

So all we're saying is where is the real proof? Where are the studies that say it's necessary to have 1%?

• 1300

The Chair: I'll be happy to send them to you, Mr. Hackett.

John.

Mr. John Herron: Some witnesses that came before the committee earlier said that they didn't want to refer to immigration as a difficulty; they prefer to see it as a challenge. I think the way I would rather look at it is as more of an opportunity.

When we talk about having immigration from non-traditional sources, as an Irishman, I suspect that in 1850 some individuals would have referred to the Irish as being a non-traditional source.

I'm going to use your brief to emphasize how valuable an opportunity immigration has been. On page six of your brief you say:

In the aftermath of WWII Canada accepted large numbers of immigrants who assimilated very easily into Canadian society and made strong contributions to growth and stability due to their origination from cultures just like ours...

I'm not sure what “ours” means.

The point I want to illustrate is that since that period, the large economic growth we've seen has been in cities such as Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, or even Montreal. Those are areas that have actually benefited from immigration en masse. That's where our country has grown the most. In areas that haven't had influxes of population through immigration from so-called non-traditional sources, such as Atlantic Canada and the prairie provinces, their economies have actually gone flat or stagnated. I would say that would be the most tangible example of how our country has grown.

I say that we should be flipping the tables the other way and bringing more folks in.

That's my comment, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Davies.

Mr. Robert Davies (Past President, Canadian Association for Immigration Reform): May I speak to Mr. Mark with regard to the myth that Europeans are not interested in Canada?

I've recently been to Europe. Our group put two small advertisements in a newspaper. Immediately, we had dozens of applications from the U.K. The figures over the years from Italy, for instance, have dropped tremendously, to less than 500 people. In Beijing an office was opened, and we now import 29,000 people from China. Wales can only get 300 or 400 people into Canada. So it's a myth that people do not want to come from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Inky Mark: What's the reason we're keeping them out?

Mr. Robert Davies: The reason is that in 1968 we closed eight of the nine U.K. immigration offices. There's only one part-time office in London, and that even takes in people from Saudi Arabia. It's open only part-time.

The Chair: Mr. Davies, I'm not sure that's correct. We have a full high commission office there. I can tell you that as members of Parliament, we work with our offices in a lot of countries all over the world. I think we'd better start getting you some information. To suggest that we have a part-time person in London, England, to look after all—

Mr. Robert Davies: I didn't say a half-time person; I said an office in London that is open half-time.

The Lisbon office was closed in 1998. Why was the Lisbon office closed?

The Chair: Europeans, Chinese, Vietnamese, east Europeans, and Asians all want to come to this country, and in my opinion they all can come to this country. That's what this whole debate is about. I won't get into a discussion that you'd rather have them come from Europe as opposed to Southeast Asia and something else. The fact is that people from all over the world want to come to the greatest country on earth.

With that comment, we're going to break for lunch.

I want to thank each and every one of you for your presentation.

The meeting is adjourned.