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

• 1405

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Colleagues and guests, ladies and gentlemen, I wonder if we could commence with our afternoon session.

Let me apologize first to our witnesses that we're running about half an hour to 45 minutes behind schedule. That's because we had such great presentations, and I'm sure we'll hear this afternoon from our earlier witnesses.

Our witnesses this afternoon during this segment will be LEGIT Vancouver, Canadian Lutheran World Relief, Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians, Direct Action Against Refugee Exploitation, and, as an individual, Mr. Fred Peet.

We'll move to LEGIT, and we have Deb LeRose and Chris Morrissey, co-founder. Welcome.

Ms. Chris Morrissey (Co-Founder, LEGIT Vancouver): I'm Chris, and this is Deb.

The Chair: I don't know if you were here this morning when I indicated to the witnesses that we have your submissions, and we thank you in advance for those. We would like you to summarize those submissions within a five- to seven-minute timeframe so that we can ask you some questions, if we could. Thank you.

Ms. Chris Morrissey: Thank you.

We're grateful to have this opportunity. LEGIT is the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Task Force. We have been an organization for nine years, and during that time we have been waiting for an opportunity to address this parliamentary standing committee on immigration. We have made several inquiries, and we're glad that we're able to be here this afternoon.

LEGIT, the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Task Force, has been in existence for nine years. Those of us who are members of this organization are all people who have been personally affected by immigration, mostly because we're Canadians with partners who were not Canadians and who under the current act were not recognized as members of the family class and therefore were not eligible for immigration into Canada. We're not lobbyists; we're not lawyers; we're a community-based organization.

We began in Vancouver nine years ago, and since that time we've spread across the country and have representatives in the major cities and also in some of the smaller ones. It's the work that LEGIT has done over the course of the last nine years that has actually resulted in the current methodology that is used in practice to process same-sex partners of Canadians or of other eligible immigrants into Canada. This practice is currently being used under the humanitarian and compassionate clause, and it's used both by immigration and visa officers in as many countries as there are Canadian processing offices.

We believe that we have something significant to contribute to this process because we have been instrumental in developing the practice. We have spoken to and assisted thousands of gays and lesbians in the course of the last nine years, and we have worked, done research, and developed practices to enable the current immigration and visa officers to be able to review people's applications, determine the bona fides of the relationship, and process those partners for landed immigrant status and to become permanent residents of Canada.

We understand that today the jurisdiction of this committee is the act and not the regulations. However, we have a concern that without the regulations, the act may not be able to deliver an effective end to the discrimination that is current in the practice.

• 1410

While we recognize what the jurisdiction is here and what we are to address here, it's really important for us to acknowledge upfront that there's so much that is relegated to the regulations that we're not clear, in fact, as to how the act is going to be interpreted and implemented, and what impact that's going to have on the lives of individuals—Canadians and their partners.

We want to basically focus our comments around two areas, the first one being family class and the second one being refugees. The first point, I know, has already been made to you in a previous presentation. However, LEGIT, which is the national organization that speaks for gays and lesbians with respect to immigration, needs to say the same as has previously been presented; that is, while we recognize and appreciate the fact that the act is extending family class to include common-law relationships, we don't believe that the way it is phrased and worded in the act currently is adequate and sufficient.

Historically, “common law” has always meant heterosexual common-law partners. We, as gays and lesbians, have not ever used that term for ourselves. We have not historically recognized ourselves as common-law partners in this country, and certainly not in other countries and in other jurisdictions. So it's of significant concern to us that the act now, while it includes common-law partners, does not specify those. Our recommendation is that the act should in fact specify same-sex and opposite-sex common-law partners so that it is clear and transparent, and we know that this is one of the objectives of immigration in actually doing the update of the act.

It's really important for us that it actually be spelled out and use those words in the act. We recognize that with the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, the phrase has been used. We also recognize that under the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act the defining criterion for common-law relationships is one year of cohabitation. While this is not specified in the act, this is something that presumably falls under the jurisdiction of the regulations.

We cannot speak here today without addressing our concern that one year of cohabitation will be the defining criterion in the context of immigration. This is a major concern for us because in fact for the majority of couples immigration is the barrier to cohabitation. So for people who cannot live together because they are in two separate countries, and without the processing of visitors' visas or any other means for the partner to come and join their Canadian partner in Canada, there's no way that we're going to be able to meet the criterion of one year's cohabitation.

What we want to present to you today is that you strongly urge the minister to recognize the uniqueness that immigration plays in this particular aspect—that if we're left with a one-year defining criterion of cohabitation, in fact the vast majority of couples who have been reunited under the current process of H&C would in fact not qualify. It would only be a small minority of couples that would qualify. We'd be happy to provide you with more information and to answer questions on that later on if that's something that you are particularly interested in.

The other point that I'd like to make under family class or with respect to partnerships is that we support the addition of an in-Canada landing class in the act. We all know that the majority of inland applications that are processed and have been processed in the course of the last number of years are heterosexual spouses. We also know that common-law partners and same-sex partners are currently being processed in Canada.

• 1415

So we believe, again for the purposes of transparency and to normalize the current process and what currently is happening, that in fact there should be in the act itself an in-Canada landing class. This is particularly important for partners of gays and lesbians. And I want to go a step further and say not only do we want to have an in-Canada landing class, but we also believe it is important that the pilot project currently established whereby people applying in London, Hong Kong, and Manila have their applications put into an in-Canada processing office should continue.

We would like to see this continue and to be normalized, because one of the major concerns for gays and lesbians and transgendered people living around the world is that when they go to a Canadian consulate, high commission, or visa office internationally, their first contact is almost always with a designated visa officer who is someone from their own community from their own country. This presents an enormous and a major problem for them. So it's really important for us, given the homophobia that exists around the world, the fears people have, that there be a process that at least gives people choices. So having an in-Canada processing centre would alleviate the enormous amount of fear of being outed, of persecution, of being cut off from family.

I also want to say that our concern is particularly for those people who come from countries other than those that do not need visas to enter Canada—those who are able to enter Canada without a visa waiver. So if someone has a partner from India, from Pakistan, from Colombia, from Venezuela, from many of the countries that are traditionally non-white, non-European countries, in fact those people cannot be joined together because they're not able to get a visitor's visa in order to enter Canada. So they must be apart from their partners for an extended period of time.

I would like to make three observations with respect to refugees. We have formed a committee that's a bit of an offshoot from LEGIT called the Rainbow Refugee Committee, which looks at the issues of refugees for queer refugees. And our concerns are threefold.

One concern is we would like to see added in paragraph 96(a), where there is the list of grounds, sexual orientation and gender identity. The reason for this is specifically to make it clear that there is visibility, that there's transparency, and because for many gays and lesbians and transgendered people it does not even cross their minds that this might be a possibility for them. So it's really important there be something that spells this out in the act to make it clear that if they have a reasonable fear of persecution based on their sexual orientation or gender identity in fact they are eligible to apply for refugee status in Canada.

With respect to that same point, paragraph 112(2)(d) talks about the doubling of the length of time before which a person can make a second claim. It's not uncommon for families to come here... I know of a situation for example where there are two brothers and they came from the same country. They came together. They made a claim, and if their claim was denied the one brother who was gay would be able to make another application but he couldn't unless it was six months later.

The third point under refugees is we would like to see in subclause 102(2) the elimination of the designated country list, because this actually keeps invisible gays, lesbians, transgendered, and HIV-positive refugees. Sexual orientation and gender identify are not limited to specific countries but rather cross all country and national and religious bounds.

The Chair: Thank you, Chris.

My apologies for mispronouncing the name of the organization, LEGIT. Sorry.

• 1420

There's one thing I should point out to Chris and others, which is that this committee has done something very unique, in that we've asked the minister to give us the discussion paper as to how those regulations will be formatted so that we can understand the intent, because you're absolutely right, the devil is always in the detail. That discussion paper and potential regulations are in fact available to the public.

The other thing this committee will do that is rather unique is that before the regulations are actually implemented after the bill is passed, we in fact will be fully involved in making sure that those regulations are as we would hope they would be. So this committee will be very involved in the regulations.

We're going to go to the Canadian Lutheran World Relief and Mr. Fikre Tsehai. Welcome.

Mr. Fikre Tsehai (Canadian Lutheran World Relief): Thank you very much.

I'm Fikre Tsehai from the Canadian Lutheran World Relief, and I'm speaking on behalf of the NGO joint committee on the private sponsorship of refugees.

The so-called NGO committee on sponsorship is made up of six elected representatives representing 81 sponsorship agreement holders in Canada. On their behalf I thank you and I welcome the opportunity to comment on Bill C-11. We have participated in the legislative review process in the past and we have made oral and written briefs.

As organizations involved in the private sponsorship of refugees, our main concern is the resettlement of refugees coming to Canada. There are about 10,000 refugees for whom resettlement is the only durable solution and who come to Canada every year. That includes the 7,000 or so who come through the government and another about 3,000 who come through the private sponsorship program and joint assistance program.

Recalling the legislative review process, the report that came out of that process, entitled Building a Strong Foundation, proposed four policy directives that we believe strengthened the resettlement program in Canada. One was relaxing the requirement that refugees settle successfully within the first year. Second was making a concerted effort to facilitate speedy family reunion. Third was developing a closer relationship with NGOs. And fourth was ensuring urgent protection to refugees who need urgent solutions to their problems.

While we applaud those major policy directives, much of what is proposed in that report, Building a Strong Foundation, is not contained in Bill C-11; rather, it will be brought in through regulations. And I'm glad to hear what you mentioned just now, that you will be involved in developing the regulations. We would like them to be reflected in the regulations, and it's very difficult to discuss those now because we don't see them as we speak.

That being said, there are sections in the proposed bill that can impact refugees applying for resettlement to Canada. And much of it arises from the fact that there isn't a well-pronounced distinction between immigrants and refugees. Of paramount importance for refugees is protection. The concern is humanitarian, and the focus should be humanitarian. Due to the short time I have I'll just highlight two areas of concern for us.

• 1425

The first area of concern is paragaph 14(2)(c), which talks about the number of visas issued every year. There is nothing in the bill that suggests this restriction will be applied only to immigrants. Now, the private sponsorship program is founded on the principle of additionality. It's refugees who come over and above the government program. If we allow ceilings to be put on refugees, it will be contrary to the government's program of promoting private sponsorship. It will also undermine efforts by sponsoring groups, constituent groups, and individuals to offer sponsorship. So we have problems with that section on ceilings. I think putting a ceiling on the number of refugees to be admitted to Canada will undermine very seriously the minister's proposal and goal to revitalize private sponsorship, to increase the number of refugees coming under the private program.

Another area of concern is in clause 40 in Bill C-11, which creates a new inadmissible class, those who have misrepresented themselves on an immigration application. This is very problematic for refugees. Again, I think there is a nuance and there is a problem. Due to issues beyond their control, refugees are in remote places. They do not have access to service-providing agencies. They have language barriers. So errors in application forms should not be considered as misrepresentation. This will defeat the whole idea of providing protection to helpless refugees who need to be resettled.

So I want to make the comment that the emphasis on protection for refugees should be spelled out very clearly and it must be an overriding issue while talking about legislative amendments.

I want to conclude by saying that the very first issue I read, eliminating the successful establishment requirement, will be the single most significant step Canada could take to focus its resettlement program on protection.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will now go to the Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians. Victor Wong, welcome.

Mr. Victor Wong (Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians): Good afternoon, everyone. I am Victor Wong with the Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians. Bienvenue à Vancouver.

I'd like to begin by first acknowledging the Coast Salish peoples on whose territories and lands we are gathered today. Thank you for granting us this opportunity to present our views on Bill C-11.

The ACC is an anti-racism and human rights organization. We sponsor a front-line service for immigrants, refugees, refugee claimants, migrants, and undocumented persons. We remain one of the lead organizations and have worked collaboratively with our colleagues at DAARE in advocating the rights of the Chinese boat refugees and other vulnerable groups.

The ACC has opposed the $975 landing fee. We opposed many of the recommendations in the ILRAG report. We opposed Bill C-31. We opposed Bill C-16. Now we oppose Bill C-11 and condemn its criminalizing tone. We are committed to the principle of fundamental fairness—I believe everyone in this room is—and the right to be treated with dignity. We believe that Canada as a wealthy nation must do more to welcome immigrants and refugees, to provide adequate settlement resources to newcomers and to non-governmental groups assisting newcomers, and to recognize the link between globalization and contemporary migration.

As for the process, we're very appreciative of the fact that you are taking the time to conduct cross-country hearings, but I think you need to slow down the process a little bit. There are a lot of people who want to make presentations. There is the enormous impact of this new bill—and it's a new act—on the lives of hundreds of thousands, millions actually, of prospective new Canadians. We urge you to take the time to conduct a full review of the legislation and the regulations and to fully consider the concerns you're hearing from the sector and from witnesses.

• 1430

As for the general tone of Bill C-11, Minister Caplan in her news release on Bill C-11 mentions criminals before immigrants. She mentions traffickers and smugglers before immigrants and refugees. Bill C-11 has a criminalizing tone to it. It's heavy with enforcement instruments. It's hostile to immigrants and refugees.

You've received submissions from experts such as David Matas, groups such as the Coalition for a Just Immigration and Refugee Policy, Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International. These are experts in the sector. We submitted our brief to your committee on April 21.

We believe this bill serves to strengthen the authority of the immigration department to detain and to detain, in practicality, on a continuous basis. There's an absoluteness to this legislation just like the ILRAG report. The legislation totally fails to provide mechanisms for a compassionate option for the victims of trafficking and for long-time residents.

Bill C-11 serves to undermine the charter and the universal rights of immigrants and refugees to a full, fair, and impartial hearing. It's our submission that Bill C-11 is un-Canadian.

With regard to the regulations, we urge the committee to, at the very least, review all regulatory aspects of Bill C-11 and to actively engage the sector before these regulations are gazetted.

With regard to human rights obligations, Canada has been a signatory to numerous international conventions and we would urge Canada to be a signatory to the international convention on migrant rights.

ACC has assisted the boat refugees who arrived in 1999. We've established a resource website and advocated for the right to a full, fair, and impartial hearing. You may be aware that the immigration department in fact tried to prevent some 110 people from even making a refugee claim when they arrived. This was illegal, but they tried to do it.

The immigration department finally referred these claims when the appeal was about to be heard in the Federal Court. And in Kafka-esque style, some five young adults as of today still remain in detention some 20 months after they arrived, some $60 million later in public resources.

I just want to maybe touch on our recommendations. You have them. We would recommend that the legislation make a link between globalization and migration. Specifically, we make this recommendation to you for an amendment under clause 2. I will pass this to you later. Clause 2 should have a subclause to read “to recognize that globalization and free trade initiatives serve to displace vulnerable peoples and cause their migration”.

With regard to protection for victims of trafficking, we urge you to consider putting into place a new class to protect victims of trafficking so that there are ministerial permits to vulnerable people. We specifically propose an amendment to subclause 107(1), that you rewrite it to include a victim of trafficking after the phrase “a person in need of protection”. It should read “a person in need of protection, or a victim of trafficking”.

Thirdly, with regard to detention, the ACC opposes detention. We've always opposed detention. Even when the boat people arrived, we opposed detention. We still oppose detention. But if you're going to have detention, there's a problem with this act, because it allows for continuous detention. Sure, you have a review every 30 days. How is it possible that there are still people here today who landed on August 31, 1999, and who are still in jail? How's that possible? It is possible because there is no cap on detention in the act. You should cap the detention at six months, because I think under our charter everyone has a right to liberty. I think that after six months the balance should shift in favour of the person who's being detained.

• 1435

So we propose the following amendment in section 60 to read: “It is affirmed that everyone's right to liberty prevents the term of detention under this act to extend past six months”.

With regard to valuing immigration, I think other people have talked about the concept of foreign national. I don't want to repeat everyone's comments around that, but I would urge the committee to recommend removing this concept. It reinforces otherness by creating yet another class—a third class, actually—of people in Canada.

On repatriation, we'd ask that you look at the way people are being repatriated, especially to countries that abuse human rights. Instead of facilitating these large group deportations that we saw in year 2000, we should look at voluntary individual anonymous repatriation, and also migration to a third country as opposed to going back to the country they are fleeing from.

With regard to NGO funding, my colleague mentioned that NGO funding is very important. We would urge that the ministry facilitate resources and respect the right of advocates and NGOs with proper resources.

With regard to the migration from Fujian province, we have said from the beginning that Canada should establish an outpost in Fujian province. We should be offering employment visas and accurate information with regard to immigration programs and processes. This outreach approach will serve to provide accurate information at the source so that people cannot be tricked by the traffickers and we're not dealing with a situation when people land here in Canada.

Finally, with regard to special cases, I mentioned in our written submission earlier the case of Lucy Lu. I think many of you are familiar with her case. I think there are many special cases like hers, of long-time residents who are facing deportation. They've committed a crime or have been accused of committing a crime here in Canada, but we're deporting them to a country they left many years ago. Sometimes we're talking about people who arrived here as young children, and we're sending them home. Why? Because they are permanent residents; they are not citizens.

We would ask you to consider perhaps a mechanism other than the minister's office in the case of long-time residents. Perhaps you could look at an amendment to clause 36 to read that long-time residents may make application to a tribunal of retired judges for permanent resident status or exemption under any applicable criteria or obligation in this act.

I throw that out as a suggestion, because the minister clearly is in a conflict. On the one hand, her enforcement officials really want to deport this person. She must back her staff in that initiative. But on the other hand, the only mechanism available in Bill C-11 is that she offer some kind of special dispensation to this person.

I look at the case of Lucy Lu, a person who has been in Canada for 15 years, has a clean record since she was released from prison ten years ago, yet the government moved to deport her, and she's now living at the Calvary Bible Church in Kingston, Ontario. I've visited with her.

I urge you to look at these cases. As MPs, you are aware of many of these cases in your ridings.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wong.

We'll now go to Direct Action Against Refugee Exploitation, Agnes Huang. Welcome, Agnes.

Ms. Agnes Huang (Direct Action Against Refugee Exploitation): Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to be here today.

As with Victor, I first would like to acknowledge the Coast Salish peoples, the peoples of the Musqueam, Squamish, Burrard, and Sto:Lo Nations, whose territories we are on today. It is very critical that all of us who either ourselves or with histories of our families have immigrated to this land acknowledge the first peoples of these territories.

In keeping with the time, I'd like to focus on our fundamental concerns with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in general, and more specifically, our concerns with the use of detention of asylum seekers. Many of the issues have been raised by my colleague Victor Wong, and as he mentioned, the VACC and DAARE have worked very closely and actively in support of the Chinese migrants from Fujian province who arrived in the summer and fall of 1999.

• 1440

I think it is well established and acknowledged that the history of Canada's immigration policy is discriminatory. It was very much based on racist, classist, and sexist ideologies. But not much really has changed, and that's what needs to be addressed and is never addressed in any reworkings of the Immigration Act. Our immigration and refugee policies are still racist, classist, homophobic, sexist, and so forth.

When the point system was brought in, it was an attempt to perhaps see people not based on their race or where they came from, but really it still does that. It was meant not to address people only on the basis of their gender. It was supposed to be some sort of neutral system. It is clearly not a neutral system.

What the point system does is value people on the basis of some narrow concept of economic contribution to society, or family relationship to an economic contributor to society. It does not look at the totality of a human being as to what a person can bring to our community, to our society. I think that's fundamental in reworking an Immigration Act that also acknowledges that all of us are much more complex than just an economic component of our being.

So what results from the point system is that many women of course have extreme difficulty in immigrating on their own. Much of their contributions, whether as caregivers of children or family members, or in building communities, volunteering, supporting the growth of their communities and their family members, are not recognized under a point system under the Immigration Act. This results in them having to rely only on some sort of notion of family class, which leaves them dependent very much on the person who is considered an economic contributor to our society.

One other problem with the point system, of course, is that it doesn't actually ask what the person's values are. Canada has had a history more recently of recognizing, for example, the rights of aboriginal people in our constitution, equality rights of women, people of colour, people of different ages, people with different disabilities, and so on. In our Immigration Act, our current point system doesn't say, what do you consider important in your value system? Do you consider the rights of lesbians and gays to be important? Do you acknowledge the rights of lesbians and gays? Do you acknowledge that we should end violence against women in our society? Do you acknowledge the history of first peoples in our society?

Currently our Immigration Act doesn't ask those questions. It doesn't seem to be important. Again, we reduce everyone to an economic being.

So what has also resulted from that is that Canada has opened its arms and welcomed, for example, white South Afrikaners to Canada. Why? Because they often bring some professional skills, whether they're doctors, accountants, lawyers, or whatever, something they can gain points for, even though they come from a system that profited from the oppression of black people, African people, people of colour, for generations and generations. Much of their success is based on the white supremacist policies of that nation. We value them because they come with some supposed economic contribution that we want to have in this country.

What also results is that our policies discriminate and shut down women from the Philippines or other countries who come into Canada as living caregivers. It is an economic contribution that we do value in our society, but we don't allow them to come here with equal status. My colleagues from the Philippine Women Centre will certainly address that.

We also don't look at that they're here to contribute to society. They probably contribute more than just an economic being, but we don't recognize that as important in our society.

Our Immigration Act as it stands makes it almost impossible for people who can't get points to come in. My colleague Rita Wong of DAARE did a point system for a couple of the women who came from China in the summer and fall of 1999, and they got very few points. These are women who are convention refugees. They are in our community. They are working in our community. They contribute a lot to our community. But under our point system, they would never be allowed to get here.

Our refugee policy, as well, is so outdated that it does not acknowledge the complex, multiple, simultaneous reasons people are forced to leave their communities. I use the word “forced” not just as a gun behind your back, but also in the context of the economic and political situations that cause people to leave because they can't survive.

• 1445

Survival has to be grounds to be granted asylum in Canada. People have a right to survive. Our current policies don't allow for that. In fact, what we are doing with our current policies and the ones proposed in Bill C-11, as my colleague Victor Wong says, is to increase the criminalization of people who migrate. We are illegalizing people. It's not that people come illegally. It is not illegal to land in Canada and seek asylum. It's that we are illegalizing so many people. Whether they're already here, like Lucy Lu, or like Malca Salvador, a Filipino woman who came in on a live-in caregiver program and who is being ordered deported, we illegalize them. Those are fundamental issues that aren't addressed in Bill C-11.

I know my time is almost done, but I just want quickly to talk about the detention of asylum seekers. We are absolutely opposed to the detention of asylum seekers. If in fact there is detention, it must be in exceptional circumstances. Immigration Canada, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Immigration and Refugee Board all say that detention is an extraordinary measure.

If you have watched the way the Chinese migrants from Fujian province have been treated, it is so ordinary. Every 30 days, no lawyer, no nothing. Within 20 minutes they're sent back to jail for another 30 days, 19 months later. This is prison. It's not, “I won't let you play on my swing set”; it is “We are jailing you”. The psychological and physical impact of prison on the people has not been acknowledged. It is very significant. I have watched women who are strong break down to the point where they've attempted suicide. This is the reality of what is happening.

There are no guidelines to detention in the facilities in which they're incarcerated. People have been moved to Prince George and far away from any communities of support. People have no access to their lawyers. They are shoved through the system and handcuffed everywhere. If you have to go to the hospital, you're taken in shackles. You can't imagine what this does psychologically to an asylum seeker or refugee claimant. You've already gone through so much and now you're being treated this way. They can no longer trust the system.

Despite all the barriers that have been put before the Fujianese people, I want to acknowledge that 24 of them were successful in gaining refugee status. Even though most people in this country seem not to want to acknowledge that any of them had any grounds on which to seek asylum, there were people who were successful. Our point is that more people would have been successful if they had not been incarcerated.

All they want to do is live here with us in peace, security, and freedom.

If there are to be any grounds for detention, the onus has to be on the immigration department to justify detention. Right now it isn't. The onus is on that person, whether or not they are represented by legal counsel or in a position to represent themselves, to justify why they should be released from detention. This is wrong.

Migration is the history of the world—

The Chair: I have to tell you that we have other people to hear from, and we have to move on.

Ms. Agnes Huang: To detain people will not stop the migration of people. People will move. We need to come up with a much better solution than detaining people, to acknowledge why people are moving, and to look at why Canada is complicit in causing the migration of people from China. I think that $63 billion in trade moves people.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Agnes.

Now we'll hear from Fred Peet on behalf of himself.

Mr. Fred G. Peet (Individual Presentation): Thank you all for coming to Vancouver, and thank you for the opportunity to address you.

[Translation]

I also wish to thank Mr. Lahaie and Ms. Poulin for their cooperation and assistance.

[English]

In this opening statement I wish to focus on Bill C-11 in relation to visitor visas.

I have four issues in this focal issue and a postscript. The first issue has to do with judicial review. Bill C-11 requires those who want to seek judicial review of overseas visitor visa decisions to first of all seek the leave of the court. This is a change. On June 14, 2000, Joan Atkinson, an acting assistant deputy minister in CIC, stated that the change levels the playing field. In fact, such a change tips the field even more to favour those who abuse the rules and to prejudice those who play by the rules.

• 1450

In its news release for backgrounder number two, the department states that CIC is developing an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for overseas decisions. There is no mention of this in Bill C-11 or in the discussion papers for the regulations.

These comments therefore give rise to the following two recommendations: that judicial review of visitor visa applications can be obtained without leave, and that CIC's proposed alternative dispute resolution mechanism for overseas decisions be written into the bill.

The second issue has to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In her testimony on March 1 of this year, the minister stated that it's actually the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that permits any individual who comes to Canada to make a refugee claim. Thus, somebody who comes under false pretences, for example by surreptitiously obtaining a visitor visa with the intent of declaring refugee status, gets the benefit of the charter. On the other hand, a Canadian who invites a relative in accordance with Canadian law and has a visitor visa denied has no rights under the charter.

These comments give rise to the following recommendation, which does not offend the charter: that in order to remove the charter bias in favour of non-Canadians who use visitor visas to obtain Canadian residency and in order to remove the charter bias against Canadians who follow Canadian law and are attempting to have their relatives visit legally, all visitor visa applicants be required to sign and swear a statement on their application that they will not seek refugee status in Canada, and that if they attempt to do so, (a) they will enjoy no rights under the charter, (b) they will be deported immediately without recourse, and (c) they will be denied admission to Canada in the future.

The third issue has to do with procedural fairness. Visa officers are required by Canadian legislation and jurisprudence to observe procedural fairness. This was enunciated by CIC to this committee both last year and this year. However, in my experience it's being ignored in the processing of visitor visas.

In her testimony to this committee on March 1, 2001, the minister introduced the concept of framework legislation and stated that she listened to and responded to

...the importance of including all fundamental rights and core policies in the legislation, that is, that they be made explicit in the act itself, rather than in regulations.

These comments give rise to the following recommendation: that Bill C-11 incorporate in an explicit statement the fundamental right and core policy that CIC and its visa officers be required to provide procedural fairness.

The fourth issue has to do with administrative problems in CIC. Chapter 3 of the year 2000 report of the Auditor General identified an array of problems in the operation of CIC. Many of these problems are brought to the desks of MPs by their constituents and consume their time unnecessarily.

The concerns of the Auditor General were discussed by this committee on May 31 of last year. It came out that legislative changes will fix only 20% of the problems in CIC. It was recorded that perhaps 80% of the solution resides in administrative and management improvements. That is, Bill C-11 will leave roughly 80% of the problems outstanding and in particular will not fix today's problems with visitor visas.

These comments give rise to the following recommendation: that administrative deficiencies in the operations of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, some of which were identified by the Auditor General and others of which can be identified by Canadian clients and citizens, be addressed by this committee in public hearings and that such public hearings take place before finalization of the regulations for Bill C-11.

I also have a postscript. My experience in these matters comes from the following. My mother-in-law is a Nazi victim. As a result, she was separated from her eldest daughter, who at the time was an infant of less than two years. My mother-in-law came to Canada after the war as a displaced person. After more than 45 years, as a result of perestroika, contact was re-established with the lost daughter.

My mother-in-law's granddaughter and great-granddaughter, who are presently in eastern Europe, now want to visit their grandmother and great-grandmother for the first time ever. However, they have been denied visitor visas by the visa section of the Canadian embassy in Moscow. This is shameful, and Bill C-11 as it stands will not prevent these sorts of things from happening in the future.

Thank you very much.

• 1455

The Chair: Thank you, Fred, and I agree with you. Thank you very much for bringing us your personal experience and for obviously doing some hard research looking into this matter.

I thank you all for your presentations. They're very worthwhile. We appreciate them, and now we'd like to ask you some questions on them.

We'll start with Inky.

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

Thank you for coming before us this afternoon.

Fred, I agree with you that 80% of all the problems and experiences we've see today could probably be fixed by administrative means without going through legislative channels. From the many witnesses who appeared, you perhaps know their concerns with all the changes made that touch on humanitarian considerations, and those concerns are very real.

One of the problems that exists throughout the system is the resettlement of refugees in this country. Until we get a handle on that problem, refugees will end up only in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal and nowhere else. I am told that statistics tell us that they almost always end up in these three major centres within a year of coming here.

Even with respect to consultations, the federal government needs to spend more time and effort in consulting and working with the municipalities, as it was impressed on us earlier. Further than that, they need to spend the money as well.

In Denmark they have just passed an integration act, where their focus was on exactly that, work with the municipalities. Over a three-year period they would pay the whole bill, all the costs, to ensure that the refugees would integrate properly and be supported. That's even more important, that they have language and academic help as well as career training and so forth.

What I wanted to ask was a question about this whole issue of migrants, illegal or otherwise, who appear off our coast. You know that on the west coast these are the stories that capture the press's interest, and they're the cases that are creating problems for all of us, not only the few who come here.

On the issue of detention, I agree there should be a limited amount of time in terms of determining their status and that they shouldn't be detained for up to a year or even more. Even in Australia, where they detain all illegal migrants, in six months they let them go. They make their determination within a six-month period. We don't tend to do that in this country. Instead of pointing fingers at the government, perhaps we need to look at solutions as to how to prevent these occurrences from happening.

I don't know what the solution is. Certainly one of the solutions is to work with source countries, which is currently happening. I remember that a year ago some Chinese officials came to Canada to visit, and I asked them to help. I asked how they could help us resolve this problem with migrants on the west coast, and they said—of course they were fairly extreme in their response—to turn the boats around and send them home. Their response was that if we cherry-picked them, they didn't want any of the migrants back. However, we're not that kind of country, so we have to deal with this in a humane fashion. I agree that we need to do that.

Last week the shipping people came before the committee, and I told them they were accountable. Well, everyone involved is accountable to some extent, but I was getting at what they were accountable for in terms of being in that industry. Their fear was again liability, but I say they should be be able to account for the cargo they knowingly or unknowingly carry on board.

Perhaps my question to you is, what is the solution? Who is accountable for what happens in terms of the movement of human cargo around this world? This certainly affects the west coast more than any other area right now.

The Chair: Mr. Wong.

• 1500

Mr. Victor Wong: Thank you for your question, Mr. Mark.

The short answer to that is we all are accountable for it. As we've submitted here, you've got to make the link between globalization and migration.

To give an example, one extreme was the event at Dover in June of last year. They found 60 people in a lorry, and 58 were dead. Inside the lorry was a cargo of tomatoes, a legal cargo, but the people were not legal.

We've created these systems where commodities, capital profits, and goods and services can move across borders quite quickly. If that helps in development, that's good, but we put up these walls so people cannot move across these borders. You have this right to exit your country, but you don't have a right to enter another country. You have to make this link between globalization and migration.

We buy all these goods we have here in Canada with our first world wages, yet they're produced with third world resources and wages, so we have a very comfortable situation here. We're all complicit in this.

Now, in terms of a short-term resolution to the situation in Fujian, the Fujian people have always migrated. What is the objection here? When you flew over here to Vancouver, if you looked out the window, nine times out of 10 you saw a huge, vacant space. There's lots of land here. It's not an issue of numbers of people, because 599 people is nothing. That's 3,000 refugee claimants every year. Take 36 people inside a shipping container. That's half a day's work at Pearson Airport, right? It's not the volume of people that causes problems, it's their unanticipated, irregular, spontaneous arrival. That's what I think people are a little upset about.

Well, if you're upset about that, then I think one of the solutions is to set up an outpost in Fujian province. I know that a former Liberal MP, Ted McWhinney, even proposed this when the ships arrived. Why hasn't that been done? Why haven't you gotten together with France, the U.K., Australia, and the U.S.A. to set up an outpost in Fujian province?

You'd tell them, here's the process to get into Canada. We will take 500 people. We have jobs for you in manufacturing industries in Winnipeg or in other places across Canada. We will take you, fine, but here is the process, and don't get tricked. Don't fall for any deal where, if you agree to pay this snakehead $30,000 upon arrival, he promises to get you into New York City. You'll just pay him later. Don't fall for that, because here is the process.

As my colleague Agnes Huang from DAARE mentioned, if you stick with the process of a point system, a lot of these people won't qualify, so you've pushed them into this clandestine method of migration.

The Chair: John.

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

I was moved quite a bit by what you described about detention, the conditions, and how it makes people feel. At the same time I wasn't all that much in agreement with some aspects of Mr. Wong's presentation, where he seems to imagine that the writers of this legislation are sort of heartless, un-Canadian people.

It seems to me what's lacking is some sense of balance. Yes, one would like to detain people less. One would like to be more humane and compassionate as you were suggesting, but I think one always has to balance that against a need for integrity in the system and the potential for its abuse. If we don't do that and the abuse occurs, there will be a big backlash against being compassionate. I think there always has to be that sense of balance.

I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about areas where I thought the balance was lacking. One concerns this proposal that nobody should be allowed to be detained for more than six months. Well, there might be some person who is being detained because he or she is very dangerous. If the law says you have to let that person out in six months and then the person commits a crime or does some terrible thing, you'll have the Alliance up in the House within five seconds—some members, not that one—criticizing us. You'll have a big row in the media, and it will do the cause of liberal immigration in general more harm than good.

• 1505

So there's just one example where I think your proposal is lacking a balance. I wonder if you'd comment on that.

Mr. Victor Wong: Mr. McCallum, thanks for your question.

Just to be brief, if you ask the immigration officials how many people are detained for more than six months, actually, there're not that many. There are many people deported; not that many people are detained more than six months. Of the people who are detained more than six months, what is their profile? I think you'll be hard-pressed to find serious criminals who are detained more than six months. The immigration department tries to move them out as soon as they can, if they can find them.

The issue here is detention of civilians, ordinary people like your constituents. You and me, we're just ordinary people. People who arrived on the ship are not criminals; they're just ordinary people and we put them in jail. Detention is wrong; it's morally wrong. That's why we oppose it. We absolutely oppose it. When they landed, we opposed it. We still oppose it. We oppose it in this bill. But if you must have detention, we ask you to look at what the counterweight to it is. Continuous detention is not acceptable. Right now, I have an example of five young adults who are still detained after 21 continuous months. That's allowed under the legislation as it is today. Under the legislation you propose, that could possibly happen again.

What's the limit? Certainly we're not proposing continuous forever. I don't think you're advocating continuous for more than five years. But is there not a limit? That is what we're saying. And in cases like Sahin, they've suggested 14 months. We're saying you should cap it. Put it in the legislation, no detention past six months, so there's an onus on the immigration department to be very efficient. If they are going to detain, then they must move that person within six months.

Mr. John McCallum: I guess in the case you describe, I'd probably agree with you. But I'm just using that as an example where there could be...

I just have one more question, if I may, and it's also related to balance.

You're saying that the minister's in a conflict of interest situation when she gets recommendations from security people to deport versus the humanitarian consideration not to deport. But I wouldn't call that a conflict of interest. I think the most difficult cases involve judgment where one has to balance on the one hand the risk to public security and safety, and on the other hand the humanitarian cost. And in the difficult cases like that, it seems to me it's not a conflict; it's this one person, who happens to be the democratically elected minister, who has the task of making a decision requiring that very difficult balancing act.

Mr. Victor Wong: Well, I'm suggesting another mechanism. You have the Immigration Appeal Board and all this stuff, but there are these long-time residents here in Canada, people who have arrived as children. Their parents forgot to sign them up for citizenship and they're not even aware that they're still permanent residents. They get into trouble with the law and then the government moves to deport them for that. They're permanent residents, but they've been in Canada for years. They've formed all of their values here in Canada. We're sending them back to countries they're not familiar with. And those countries aren't responsible for those people. They committed their crime here in Canada; they likely served their penalty. If they have not re-offended, if they're not a security risk, we're still trying to move some of these people out of here.

Again, Lucy Lu is an example—and you know your colleague Mr. Milliken has been advocating on her behalf. She's been in Canada for 15 years. There's some dispute as to whether she actually committed a crime, but she's been out of jail for 10 years and she has not reoffended. I think this is likely a good candidate for rehabilitation. You would not want to send somebody home who is rehabilitated. But last November immigration moved to deport her. She's been living in a church basement for the last six months with her new husband and the immigration minister has not been moved at all.

So I agree with you: you're saying have the minister—one person—who can make a judgment call. But with this specific minister, I've found that she's been a bit of a captive of her own enforcement agenda. She has failed to act with very much compassion.

• 1510

My colleague mentioned the case of Malca Salvador and others who have been deported. And for what? Working at an extra job, you get deported? Now she comes back, she has to start again. Where was the judgment there?

Mr. John McCallum: I think my time is up. I just want to say...

The Chair: No, it's up, I'm sorry.

Fikre, I believe you had a comment with regard to guns and a question.

Mr. Fikre Tsehai: Yes, I just wanted to make a very quick remark on detention and particularly with reference to the boat people from the Fujian province.

First of all, I want to echo what my colleague, Victor Wong, said. Detention is not the solution. Now first of all, if it was used to dissuade potential boat people from coming to Canada, then it has utterly failed. I remember in the summer of last year, when boat people were coming successively, detention was used. Well, they have just arrived about two weeks ago, so it has failed.

I think we need to realize that they come for a variety of reasons. It's not just persecution; it's also poverty, very difficult living conditions, and we have our hand in that. I have read reports of many Canadian transnational companies who operate in the Fujian province and they are paid remunerations.

We are involved in creating boat people who come and seek refugee status in Canada. Our politicians should step up and condemn human rights violations. I know it is difficult. I know it goes contrary to national trade relations. But if we want people to live in their homelands, then there are a number of things that we can do.

Primarily, are we for the universal respect of human rights? Then we'd better step up and condemn if there are violations. If it goes contrary to our trade relations, then that's another matter.

Remunerations—are we in search of cheap labour? And if they leave because they live in desperate living conditions, then we have a role in that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madeleine, any questions?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In its presentation, LEGIT mentioned some discrimination in matters of sponsorship. There is, to be sure, some discrimination, but the word “sponsorship” simply means, as everyone knows, making sure that people will be taken care of, that someone will be responsible for them.

How could you possibly disregard economic criteria when you see how people sometimes have to go on social assistance? Could we consider, say in cases where a sponsor has fallen on hard times, letting the sponsored person collect social assistance for a while? That is my first question.

Let us also think about reducing the period of sponsorship. Ten years is a long time considering that relationships do not necessarily last.

My other question is for Ms. Huang. In your presentation, you referred to a certain number of criteria which, you find, take no account of such values such as nonviolence or the importance of a commitment to the community. One essential requirement of criteria is that they may be easily measured. That is why I hesitate to see these included even though I must admit you are right on that point.

• 1515

How can you hope to measure the meaning that someone might find in these values? How can that be measured in a way that is fair both to the individual and to society at large?

[English]

The Chair: I believe the first question was to Chris.

Ms. Chris Morrissey: Thank you.

First, my second language is Spanish, not French, so I apologize for not being able to respond in our second official language.

The Chair: Gracias.

Ms. Chris Morrissey: De nada.

With regard to social assistance and our position with respect to the fact that someone who is a partner should in fact able to bring their partner into the country even though they are on social assistance, first of all, I think what we are saying is that one of the fundamental cornerstones of Canadian immigration has been family reunification. When we're talking about the relationships, and certainly in our western society we have talked about the nuclear family as being the basis of our society, then in fact it seems to me that there is somewhat of a contradiction. I would say again we're measuring out the economic factor rather than looking at the issues of human relationships and those being primary.

Secondly, if I look at it from an economic point of view, one of the things that LEGIT has always supported are relationships of interdependence and not dependency. Historically, women usually have been the dependant in a heterosexual relationship, and our relationships, which are between members of the same sex, obviously break that mould and look at it from a different perspective. So we support the notion of relationships of interdependency.

Therefore, when you look at it in the longer and the broader view, the fact that the Canadian is on social assistance does not necessarily mean that upon arrival of a partner that person will continue to be on social assistance and that both of them would be on social assistance in the long term. In fact, I have met with people whose partners had adequate means, and after a short period of time in the country would be able to become contributing members. But at the very beginning they can't get in because they don't meet the sponsorship criteria.

Secondly, having a person with you obviously means that you have a family relationship, and therefore there is more potential and more possibility—if the jobs are available and if the skills are there, because I don't think it's only a matter of the individuals not necessarily being capable of working, but we're also looking at a society that isn't necessarily able to provide the employment.

But for us, there are basically the two principles. One is that this is about family reunification, not about economics, and why should we penalize people who are poor in their relationships because they can't afford it?

Secondly, my understanding is that in the practice of heterosexual couples, when they have gone before the appeal board, the decisions have been overturned, so why not do it up front and say okay, if this is a primary relationship, we won't impose the sponsorship? That would also get around the issues that relate to abuse and violence against women and violence in same-sex relationships.

Thirdly, we believe the social assistance piece is a very short-term view in terms of how relationships are.

The Chair: Thank you, Chris.

Agnes, on the second question...

Ms. Agnes Huang: Thank you. Merci. I apologize as well that I am unable to respond in French.

The Chair: We have great translation devices, though—

Ms. Agnes Huang: Yes.

The Chair: —and great interpreters that help us through these things.

Ms. Agnes Huang: I appreciate your question. I was never suggesting that there's an easy solution to it. I just want to point out that there is a huge contradiction in the way our immigration policy works.

As a nation, we have many values. We don't just value people because of what they can produce and how they can be measured economically. Why do we not have other systems so our immigration system also acknowledges that people can come to our country and make many different kinds of contributions and it isn't just economic?

• 1520

I think what happens when we just use economics is it's a very narrow criterion. It may be simple, but simplicity is not necessarily always the best. I think we also deprive ourselves of a great number of people who would obviously contribute greatly. I think we also then make it difficult for people to have members of their family come over, because the only way that's left to them perhaps would be sponsorship, a dependency relation sponsorship, and not them being able to come on their own merit and support that family unit, and that family unit—however you define family—would grow and contribute to society, and so forth.

It's just that the way the Immigration Act is structured right now it is so narrowly and so simply defined to economics that it excludes more people. And it probably creates a system where there are people who are valued because of their access to wealth. Is that really who we want in our community?

The Chair: Thank you, Agnes.

I'm sorry, I have to start cutting people off on their questions and answers. We're running out of time.

John, then Libby.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Like you, I was quite concerned about the initial communiqués that came out from the Department of Immigration on this bill. I found it a little bit shocking that the party of Mike Pearson and Pierre Trudeau would choose to use language talking about criminality, as opposed to immigration, which has helped to augment and provide a lot of the growth we've had in the country.

Having said that, I also am more of an advocate of restorative justice initiatives than I am on... From a young offenders perspective, I've always said if you put young people in jails with adults, if they weren't full-fledged criminals when they were put in, they will be by the time they get out.

We've had officials come before this committee and say that in terms of trying to seek out severe criminals who are undesirables and who we wanted to be able to deport for legitimate reasons, nothing in this bill is actually going to add to that particular toolkit. So I, like Mr. McCallum, have said that we need to make sure we have a balanced bill to address the concerns of one part of our society so that we can have a liberal immigration regime.

Agnes, when you touched on your issues with respect to the individuals who came in here in 1999 and who are still in prison—I'll say in prison, as opposed to detained, because I think you've made that point quite well—the criterion we set is that we should detain if it's necessary for public safety reasons, or if there's the possibility they may flee. I'm quite hurt as a parliamentarian that in fact these individuals, who were looking for an opportunity, have now been detained that long.

What should we be doing instead of detention? I agree, detention for people of this sort, for this length of time, is wrong. But if they flee before going through the process, that's not all that right either. What can we do instead?

Ms. Agnes Huang: I think there are better community responses than detention. That's what we've tried to do as DAARE and DACC, to provide people community support. At DAARE we volunteer our time and we are the ones who are people who are in the community... And there are a lot of people in the community, not perhaps percentage-wise a great number, but there are a good 20 or 30 people who I see on a very regular basis living in the community, doing well and wanting to be here.

The problem for a lot of people who initially came is that they were told by Immigration, “We're going to get you one way or another”. They were told, “Even if we let you go, we're going to come and get you and deport you”. The whole sentiment was “You're illegal, you're bogus, we don't want you here, and we're going to get you one way or another”. So of course they flee.

• 1525

Why do we want to send people into a situation where they are now subject to very large debts to people who have profit in mind? Why don't we provide community support? If you want to actually protect people from smugglers, you land people. You give them legal status. You provide them protection.

The people who still remain in detention were never accused of being a danger to the public. In fact, that's been very clear. Every time in the detention reviews, they say no, never has there been a suggestion. These are young people, young women.

In fact, within the last couple of weeks I assisted as lay counsel two women in getting out of prison. They had an application for leave to the Federal Court to look at their hearing, so the adjudicator found that continued detention would constitute a breach of section 7 of the charter.

In my submissions to her I was very clear in making the point that they've been trustworthy and truthful throughout. They've not contradicted themselves. They haven't lied to Immigration. They've been cooperative.

The adjudicator found that they are trustworthy. They're credible. They're honest people. But they had been in jail for 19 months. This is not okay.

The Chair: Libby Davies.

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

Mr. Chairperson, I wish we actually had a lot more time to talk about the specific issue of the boat people and human trafficking, because we actually haven't had a lot of rational debate. It's been totally hysterical and through the media. So I'm glad it's taking place today.

I actually did visit the 32 women in the Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women, and I can attest to both what Victor and Agnes are saying in terms of how people were deprived of pretty basic rights in terms of translation, legal access, letter-writing, phone calls, and so on. We did correspond with the minister, and I think it's really inhumane that people have been now in jail for almost two years. This system is not working, from anybody's point of view.

I actually think you've come up with a good suggestion in terms of creating a new clause to protect victims of trafficking. I wonder if you could comment a little bit more on what they've done in the U.S. You mentioned in your brief these 5,000 visas that were offered. If you have any more info on that is one question.

Secondly, to LEGIT, I wanted to say that it's somewhat surprising that given Bill C-23, in this act we have the whole issue of same-sex relationships as it pertains to immigration still in the regulation and not in the act. You'd think it would flow through. Certainly we strongly support the notion that under the common-law provision it must be spelled out as well that it's same-sex relationships.

You point out that it's almost physically impossible to meet the one-year cohabitation, which is now the new rule, for obvious reasons, which you pointed out. So in the absence of that, what other kinds of criteria could be used to then demonstrate a genuine relationship to meet the test that it is in effect a same-sex relationship, a common-law relationship?

The Chair: Victor, could you handle the first one on the visas? Then Chris Morrisey.

Mr. Victor Wong: Thank you, Libby, for your question.

As we understand it, in the United States they have this new class, the T visa, and it was a part of anti-trafficking legislation that was introduced in the fall of last year. It was moved by Senator Wellstone of Minnesota and was passed.

The INS is offering 5,000 T visas on an annual basis to victims of trafficking. You have to look at other groups of people, vulnerable groups. Here we're talking about women and children—women perhaps working in massage parlours or in the sex trade who are being forced into those professions, or perhaps caregivers who are being enslaved by people in the United States in their homes as slave labour, or migrants, young people, who are being trafficked by their own families.

So here the U.S. is appearing to be much more compassionate than Canada in this regard.

The Chair: We can't let that happen.

Chris?

Ms. Chris Morrissey: I think that over the years LEGIT has put forward a model that if we don't talk about the one-year cohabitation because of the impossibility for most people, it would be possible to put forward something that could be called “deemed cohabitation”. So just as someone is deemed to be a resident of Canada under certain circumstances, even though they're outside the country, one could say they have met the cohabitation requirements by evidence of maintaining a relationship.

• 1530

For the last eight years people have been submitting documentation that demonstrates that. What we're suggesting is rather than have just one simple criterion that says if you can meet a one-year cohabitation requirement, that's fine, and if you can't, the second piece is that criterion is deemed to have been met under these circumstances... If you can show that you've been in this relationship for a period of time and present the documentation, that should be adequate.

The Chair: It sounds like a logical solution.

Anita, one question.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Actually, you may have just answered my question, because I understand that cohabitation for one year is not the only way of showing a bona fide relationship at common law, and deemed is in fact happening when the cohabitation is not in place because of exceptional circumstances, such as persecution.

I found your presentation to be quite singular from most of the others we've received over the last weeks. I would be interested in knowing, of the many recommendations that you have made, how would you prioritize them? What are the two or three most pressing matters you've brought forward?

Ms. Chris Morrissey: I think the first priority would be to ensure that the words “same-sex common-law partners” are incorporated into the act.

Ms. Anita Neville: Can I comment on that for a moment? I was just looking through the bill, and I know that in clause 96, on “convention refugee”, it refers to a particular social group, and that's how it has been interpreted in the past. Do you want more explicit or specific language?

Ms. Chris Morrissey: Yes. What I was referring to was with respect to the family class, but the second piece refers to that list of the particular social group. I know that currently in the Canadian charter this has been interpreted to include gays and lesbians. For these purposes, because this is an act that deals with people who are living in other countries, for them to actually have access to that information, they would not necessarily think of themselves as being a member of a particular social group. So actually listing those in the act would certainly make it clear that persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity makes you eligible for refugee status in Canada.

Ms. Anita Neville: That would be a priority.

Ms. Chris Morrissey: I think the family class one is. They're parallel. One is the section on family class and immigration, and the second one is the same issue but in the refugee section of the act.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Fred, I have one question, if the chair could be allowed. With regard to visitor's visa, I think you've hit a sympathetic cord, at least with those of us who sometimes do an awful lot of immigration work in our offices trying to convince visa officers around the world that these people just want to come and see their families, get reunited, and yes, will go back at some time.

I think you've raised an important issue. I'm wondering if there is a way—outside of the MP making a representation—to prove that they will legitimately return. Is there a mechanism or tool—perhaps a security bond—that you might find possible? What do you think might be an alternative, other than to say no from a particular country, because there might be some suspicion that they won't return? What do you think are the practical things one might be able to do?

Mr. Fred Peet: Bonds are one way. The problem is they're not accepted at the foreign posts. They're only accepted at the port of entry to Canada. So one can offer to post a bond, for example, in Moscow, but they won't accept it, because they have no mechanism to accept it.

The one thing I think can be done is related to the recommendation that there should be a statement put on the visitor visa application form that says “I hereby swear that I am going to Canada just to visit. I'm not going to declare myself as a refugee; I am coming back here. And if I change my mind on this point and declare myself a refugee, I'm forfeiting any rights under the charter that I might have when I'm in Canada.”

• 1535

The Chair: That sounds good, but you know a lawyer could have an awful lot of fun with that.

Believe me, some MPs are having to sign practically the same thing, that in fact these visitors will leave, and if they don't, the minister is not apt to give you any more minister's permits or any assistance on anything else that you might help. We're caught between a rock and a hard place too.

Mr. Fred Peet: The charter, though, doesn't apply in a Canadian embassy overseas. So although I appreciate what you're saying, that the legal business could maybe find a way around this, I don't think arguing the charter is one of them. I think that's one of the big things that is used to create all these problems.

I don't know, there may be other solutions. I've thought about this for a while, and this was the best I could come up with at the time.

The Chair: You have a couple of more weeks to think about it. Mail us any other solutions, because we'll be into the clause-by-clause. I think you've raised an important issue, Fred—as you all have.

Thank you very much for your great input and for the hard work you do in your communities. It's heartfelt to see that there are so many people committed to helping build great communities.

Colleagues, in two minutes we'll get into the last segment. As you know, we'll have to hurry to finish on time.

• 1537

• 1544

The Chair: Colleagues and witnesses, we will resume. I'm sorry about the delay, but obviously trying to get in as many people as possible in the shortest possible time is always quite the challenge.

We have a number of individuals who want to address the committee, and a few other groups. I'm going to ask again that everybody stick within the five- to seven-minute timeframe. I will stick to it, so if you don't, I'll have to cut you off. Sorry, but we're running out of time. We have copies of your briefs.

We'll move to the British Columbia Multicultural Health Services Society, with Noel Hermida. Is Noel here? No. Then we'll go to the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women—Canada, with Gunilla Ekberg.

Ms. Gunilla Ekberg (Coalition Against Trafficking in Women—Canada): The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women—Canada welcomes the opportunity to comment on Bill C-11.

• 1545

We are part of a coalition of over 500 NGOs around the world that work against violence against women and to eradicate sexual exploitation in all its forms, especially prostitution and trafficking in women and children. We do legal and policy advocacy work, education and training, and partake in international meetings and negotiations that deal with these issues.

As you know, Canada has signed and ratified numerous treaties and agreements where trafficking in women and children for prostitution and sexual exploitation has been denounced as human rights violations and as violence against women and children. I just want to mention a few: the Beijing plan of action, Beijing +5 outcomes document, the CEDAW, and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. By doing so, Canada has agreed to implement national legislation that reflects these obligations.

Most recently, in December 2000, Canada signed a convention against transnational organized crime and its supplementary protocol to prevent, suppress, and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, as well as the protocol against the smuggling of migrants. I have given to the clerk the protocols, in French and English, if you want to look at them. The trafficking protocol sets minimum standards for national legislation and includes a comprehensive definition of trafficking. It combines measures for prevention of trafficking, prosecution of traffickers with provisions that ensure that victims of trafficking are protected from further victimization.

The proposed new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is framework legislation. This leaves most of the details to be included in the regulations. It is important that the government consult with NGOs that are competent in the area of refugee protection and trafficking in women and children on the development of these regulations.

Clause 96 of Bill C-11 sets out the definition of a convention refugee. It should explicitly list gender as a reason for persecution based on recognition of the particular reality of many women and girls around the world who live in conditions of oppression and severe violence without any access to state or other protection, and also based on Canada's longstanding commitment to gender equality. We appreciate the intention in the bill to combat the international trafficking in human beings, especially the trade in women and children for prostitution and sexual exploitation. However, it is a great concern to us that the offence in clause 118 introduces a definition of trafficking that is clearly inconsistent with Canada's obligations under the newly adopted trafficking protocol. The offence provision contains a definition that only punishes trafficking when it's forced or restricted to force-like conditions.

The proposed definition will put the burden of proof on the trafficked woman to prove that she did not agree to be trafficked. It allows traffickers to use a woman's consent as a defence, which will shield most of them from prosecution and conviction. If this definition is used, the majority of victims of trafficking are left without protection under the law. It ignores the brutal reality of most women and children who are drawn into prostitution and sexual exploitation because of social, political, and economic inequalities. This omission will only benefit the global prostitution industry by allowing trafficking of women into local prostitution markets as long as they have “consented”.

The definition of trafficking should follow the trafficking protocol, which states that the consent of the victim is irrelevant. Many victims of trafficking for prostitution initially consent because they have no concept or information about what they will be subjected to during transit and when they arrive in the receiving country.

The clause 118 definition should also criminalize traffickers who abuse their position of power and/or the vulnerability of the victim, regardless of how women and children are drawn into prostitution and sexual exploitation. All victims of trafficking suffer serious violations of their human rights and severe abuse and violence from traffickers, pimps, procurers, and buyers, and should have access to protection under the law.

The definition should also include a recognition that the majority of trafficking takes place for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation. As well, gender-specific language should be used in part 3, recognizing that women and children are the most vulnerable to trafficking, in particular, to trafficking for prostitution and sexual exploitation.

• 1550

I want to mention another serious omission. The bill criminalizes the traffickers but has no provisions that set out protection mechanisms for the victims of trafficking, contrary to the UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime and both protocols. It's essential that the committee ensures that women and children who are victims of trafficking are accorded the protection in the system that is their right, whether or not they testify against the traffickers.

We are seriously concerned that women and children who are victims of trafficking to Canada may be placed in detention centres, as has happened here in B.C., supposedly to protect them from traffickers who may retaliate or may transport them to prostitution markets across Canada or in the United States.

We urge the committee to ensure that the new immigration law complies with the trafficking protocol that explicitly states that trafficked women and children are to be seen as victims and not treated as criminals and should be given access to appropriate shelter and assistance.

It is imperative that the government collaborates with women's anti-violence and other equality-seeking organizations when implementing such measures. The Coalition against Trafficking in Women strongly urges the committee to ensure that the provisions in Bill C-11 concerning international trafficking in women and children do not inhibit immigration or the freedom to travel, especially the ability of women to migrate.

It's important that Bill C-11 acknowledges that women and children who are trafficked for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation may also be refugees, as is done in the trafficking and the smuggling of migrants protocols. The bill should contain provisions that safeguard these women's rights under international law, in particular under the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol including the right of protection against refoulement.

The bill should not be improperly used to treat trafficked women as migration criminals who automatically should be deported from Canada. Restrictive immigration policies that tighten border controls and are used to harass vulnerable migrants often have little effect on traffickers.

When borders are closed, traffickers become the only ones who are able to facilitate the international migration of women and children. In many cases, these traffickers channel women and children into the global trafficking networks that supply local prostitution and cheap labour markets in the destination countries.

In conclusion, we urge the committee to ensure that Bill C-11 fully incorporates the UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime and its two supplementary protocols as well as including references to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Gunilla.

Now we'll move to the Chamber of Shipping of B.C. We have Ron Cartwright and Stephen Cutler.

I know, Ron, that you appeared before us last week or the week before and we asked you for some additional information that the committee requested. I believe you have done this, so perhaps you can briefly take us through this additional piece of information.

Captain Ron Cartwright (President, Chamber of Shipping of B.C.): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I will be brief. I would like first to introduce Captain Stephen Cutler, who will be available as well to assist with questions.

Mr. Chairman, you taxed us last week with bringing a short brief that would encapsulate some further information on the case we made for the commercial deep-sea shipping. You wanted us to mention these points: drawing a distinction between ships used by our industry and those used by smugglers; secondly, the actions taken by the commercial shipping sector to prevent the occurrence of stowaways; and thirdly, the penalties or obligations currently faced by the industry in the event of stowaways.

I would say at the outset that progress in halting human trafficking is fundamentally dependent on successful bilateral measures with the countries of origin. Preventive measures by commercial shipping, however comprehensive, cannot in themselves suffice to halt the traffic unless complementary measures are enacted outside of the vessel's jurisdiction.

• 1555

Our recommendation, just to repeat again, is that we feel that paragraph l48(1)(a) should be amended. That's on the clear understanding that clauses 117 and 118 of Bill C-11 already address anti-smuggling provisions.

If you remember our dialogue last week, we got onto the question of whether a commercial carrier knowingly carried illegal immigrants. We suggest that paragraph 143(1)(a) should be prefaced with a text to say that it would be an obligation on the transport company to ensure that any person it knowingly brings to Canada holds prescribed documents. We would delete “or does not hold a prescribed document” later in the text. That way, we would underline the knowing aspect of the carriage.

I now turn to the three areas of questions you had. One was the distinction between our industry and the smugglers' ships. Well, the difference between the commercial operator and the smuggler is very great. The industry is capital intensive. An average container vessel costs around $80 million and operates at a cost of around $25,000 U.S. a day—in excess of that actually. The industry is very time sensitive and highly competitive.

On the other hand, the ad hoc smuggling of illegal immigrants through carriage obtained outside of the regular market has none of these constraints and has apparently limitless funds at their disposal to apply to the circumvention of any preventive measures. The preventive measures, in sequence again, are part 2 here. Many of the container lines already have an established memorandum of understanding with Immigration Canada and their obligation under that is to undertake a number of precautionary steps. They're listed there in the paper. Moreover, whether they are subject or not to a memorandum of understanding, they are also subject to a number of precautions that are required by the insurers, by the marine underwriters.

Again, we list there the sorts of measures a ship is obligated to perform, within the confines of its jurisdiction.

Finally, part 3 lists the penalties under the current legislation. Again, I would just refer to the figure of $15,000 per stowaway, which is currently the fine per head. The most recent happening here in Vancouver incurred double that figure. I think the company that was unfortunate enough to carry those people was faced with a fine of in excess of $1 million Canadian.

I would invite the committee to ask any questions around the paper. Unless you would like me to go on, I think that would be about it.

The Chair: Thank you, Ron. I believe you've submitted to the committee what we asked for in terms of your present obligations and some of the things that are done bilaterally between the Shipping Federation and Immigration Canada, as well as your insurers and so forth. I think this information is very valuable. Thank you, Ron.

We'll go to the Philippine Women Centre. We have Luningning and Ms. Farrales. Welcome.

Ms. Luningning Alcuitas-Imperial (Chairperson, Philippine Women Centre): Good afternoon and thank you to the committee for this opportunity to bring our perspective from the Filipino community, particularly that of Filipino women.

I'll be taking you through the highlights of our brief, and Sheila Farrales, who is heavily involved with the organizing of Filipino nurses who are doing domestic work, will be available for questions.

I will just give you a little bit of background on our organization. We were formed in 1986 to collectively address the issues of Filipino women in Canada, and we do have networks as well across Canada, including the recently formed Philippine Women Centre of Ontario.

• 1600

When we conducted our analysis of Bill C-11, we did it primarily based on the perspective that the respect for human rights and the equality of Filipino women must be promoted. But when we analyse Bill C-11, we do not see very many changes that will fundamentally improve the situation of our community, which remains quite marginalized, occupationally segregated, and deskilled. The stated objectives of Bill C-11 do not necessarily conform to our reality. We would like to highlight this reality for four different sectors in our community.

Just to give you a bit of background on the Filipino community itself, we now number over 240,000. We are one of the top source countries of immigrants to Canada. The Philippines, in fact, is the top migrant nation in the entire world, with 10% of its population working abroad. We are a highly educated but deskilled community, and part of this relates to the impact that the live-in caregiver program has had in our community. Sixty-five percent of Filipinos in Canada are women. The majority of domestic workers coming into Canada are from the Philippines, and the children who are arriving now are usually the children of domestic workers.

The live-in caregiver program itself is not contained in the bill, as you know, but we assume it's going to be maintained in the regulations. Our organization has been one of many domestic workers' and women's organizations that has been lobbying for the end of the LCP, because we feel this is modern-day slavery for our women. It's the source of many of our communities' economic and social problems. We primarily would like the removal of the mandatory live-in requirement and the fact that the women are coming here under a temporary status.

We also look at the other restrictions that are contained in the program, which include the fact that the women are not allowed to take academic upgrading courses while under the LCP. We recommend that if the program remains, the UN convention on migrant workers' rights be incorporated as a reference into the act; domestic workers be exempt from payment of the head tax or the right-of-landing fee; that there be an end to the practice of binding the women's application for permanent resident status to that of their families; and that there be a more specific incorporation of the reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when we look at the children of domestic workers. We have known of many cases—some were mentioned earlier by DARE and the Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians—of women under the LCP facing deportation, and their children are also losing their status and their medical benefits here in Canada.

We would also ask that the humanitarian and compassionate grounds consideration be taken into account when we're looking at cases of misrepresentation for domestic workers—many of the employment agencies have actually created the source of this misrepresentation—and that the domestic workers have access to specialized immigrant settlement services.

There is one thing we'd like to highlight. We know from the minister's comments to your committee that the live-in caregiver program is actually the model for the expansion of the temporary foreign workers' program. Given our experience and the abuse that has happened under the LCP, we feel the temporary foreign workers' program also warrants your committee's closer attention.

We're also doing a lot of research and advocacy work for Filipino mail-order brides. In our report, we refer to a study that was just completed and is available from the Status of Women Canada website where we interviewed 40 of these women. We do see a trend toward increasing numbers of these women and it's part of the global phenomenon of trafficking in women, particularly from the third world, which my colleague Ms. Ekberg has talked about.

In terms of our recommendations on the regulations to deal with the mail-order bride situation, we feel the reduction of the sponsorship undertaking to three years does not go far enough in terms of preventing abuse and the dependent sponsorship that creates the mail-order brides' vulnerability. Also, the conviction of domestic violence as a bar to sponsorship is not enough to prevent the abuse of these women and to prevent the situation of serial sponsorship, which was highly publicized in Australia with Filipino mail-order brides.

• 1605

In terms of the Filipino nurses doing domestic work, we recognize that the committee has heard many times about the issue of accreditation of migrants and immigrants, but we submit that the situation we're addressing with these Filipino nurses is quite unique because some of their accreditation barriers are directly linked to their status under the live-in caregiver program. We submit that the federal government should really take a leadership role in removing the barriers for these women with whom we have been working, who have passed and met all the requirements for accreditation but are not able to practise nursing because of their status under the LCP. This is, as you know, in the midst of a very critical and nation-wide nursing shortage.

We would also like to highlight, in terms of the Filipino nurses' situation, the fact that many of the women are coming forward to us saying they are being exploited in terms of working 24 hours a day as home support for elderly, disabled, or ill people and they're not being adequately protected. They're not being adequately compensated. And some of these women are facing deportation because they're not able to meet the 24-month requirement, but we submit that when you look at the fact that they've been working 24 hours a day, they have in fact far exceeded that requirement.

The last situation we'd like to highlight for you is also a new group within our community—the Filipino doctors who are not able to practise here. We just wanted to highlight for the committee the urgent need to address this issue, because we feel it really is a tragic waste of human resources. Some of the doctors who come to our centre are working as nurse's aids, lab technicians, or research assistants. One of them described the whole process of coming to Canada as being like psychological violence, because they're unable to practise their professions, provide economic stability for their families, and achieve the human rights and equality they feel the committee and the bill should really seek to address.

Thank you.

The Chair: Now we will move to Steve Kaufmann.

Mr. Steve Kaufmann (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much.

This is my first opportunity to do this. I've taken a day off from work to be here. I've enjoyed it.

[Translation]

The translators should be advised that I will be attempting a few remarks in French, in recognition of our country's bilingual nature.

[English]

I don't represent any special interest group. I'm a citizen. I believe I represent the national interest.

Obviously, in the world, there are billions of people. Each individual is very deserving of our sympathy. There are all kinds of situations where people or their relatives, friends, or members of extended family should be allowed into Canada. But we are obviously obliged to be arbitrary in order to protect the selfish national interests of Canada, and that kind of immigration policy will have the support of the majority of people.

I think the key to a successful immigration policy is integration. Integration implies a non-racial or a multiracial society, but one that nevertheless has some unity to it—a united sense of common identity and common values.

In my own case, I was born in Sweden and came here when I was five. My wife's father was Chinese, her mother was from Costa Rica, so our children are, you know, Heinz 57, whatever. They have only one identity—it's Canadian. There's no way you can tack them back to their ancestry, and it doesn't really interest them.

Integration is the key, and it's the key to popular support for immigration. It's also the key to avoiding the disappointment that many immigrants encounter when they come here. I've met many immigrants who were expecting to be able to find work here, and in fact they can't, or they don't have the language skills, and it wasn't made very clear to them how difficult it would be to operate without these skills.

So in Bill C-11, to the extent that we improve the ability to select potential immigrants who will succeed in Canada, who will integrate, that will be a good thing—a good thing for the immigrants, a good thing for the general support level for immigration in Canada.

To the extent that we expand family class beyond the age of 18, where most people would normally put dependency, or do anything that tends to increase the number of people who don't qualify on their own merits, I think it will be negative.

I think there are a lot of myths about immigration. There has been a suggestion—and I read the article in the Toronto newspaper referred to by Mr. McCallum—of the idea that we need x number of people. We don't need any x number of people, and I think there's very little support for the idea that we need 1%, 2%, 0.5%, or 100 million people. The concept that was in that paper of the lower strip of Canada being some kind of Netherlands is obviously quite ludicrous. I mean, you can be in Holland, you can trade with the rest of the world if you're somewhere in Saskatchewan just across the border from somewhere in Iowa or wherever. Obviously you can't have the same degree of population density. So the issue is not what we need; the issue is what do we want.

• 1610

I don't think Canadians really care that much whether they're in the G7. I don't think people care whether we have 50 million people in order to maintain our membership in the G7. People care about the quality of life in this country.

The other message is the one about helping our demographics. I have been on the website of this professor of the University of Western Ontario. The average age of immigrants is two or three years younger than the average age of the Canadian population. So if it's 36 for the Canadian population and 33 or 34 for immigrants, if you brought in 30 million immigrants, you would move the average age down by one year. There have been studies done at the United Nations showing that, in countries like Europe and elsewhere, to have any impact on demographics, you would have to increase the population by quadrupling it every 25 years. It's just plain mathematics. So I think people are going to lose support for immigration if it's promoted under false pretences.

The justification for immigration has to be a positive image, a positive image that people who are skilled, who are contributors, people who want to integrate into Canada, who want to be committed to a sense of Canadian identity are the kinds of people we're bringing here.

Most of the people I talk to—and I know my views are not representative of the people who have spoken to you today—feel that a system of immigration is being promoted, which couples into a multicultural industry, where people are encouraged to maintain their identity of ancestry and they're discouraged from integrating into a new Canadian identity. I think this is going to harm in the long run the future of immigration and the future of the success of an integrated multiracial society.

[Translation]

I will be saying a few words in French to follow Quebec's example, French-speaking Quebec, I mean. The French speaking society of Quebec is faced with the same problem of integrating newcomers into a French-speaking society that must share a certain number of values in order to have a common identity. I sometimes watch French language television and see people with Greek names, or people who are obviously from Haiti originally, but who identify with Québécois society.

The same need is felt in English Canada where everyone, including my own family, must be included in the multiracial Canadian identity, but where we do not encourage people to maintain their ties to a particular racial identity, that is to say to the identity of their forbears.

[English]

So I think integration is a very important part of a successful immigration policy. So I have, in order to stay on time, a couple of proposals.

First of all, I was certainly in sympathy with the problems encountered by immigrants who cannot get accreditation for their degrees. So I think our whole immigration policy should be aimed at integration. Obstacles to integration should be removed. I think it's extremely important to address the issue of obstacles to people's finding successful work here. Accreditation is one. In my view, a person—from whatever country—who can come here under a working visa system and find work should then be fast-tracked. What happens now is that people—after, say, a lengthy process—finally get in and they find they can't find work. They're terribly disappointed and in many cases they go back.

Isn't it possible to have a more flexible system, where people are able to come here under a working visa system? If they're unable to find work, too bad. Then they go back home; nothing lost. If they are able to find work, within three months they should have their immigration status. Similarly, there should be some facility for people who have come here as students. They should be on an inside track. Because they're already familiar with Canada, they're not going to be disappointed. They know what to expect. If they can find work, that's the fast track. That would be one thing with regard to immigration.

The second thing is that one of the biggest problems with integration right now is that people from a small number of source countries are concentrated in a small number of receiving municipalities. I'm involved in a sawmill in northern Alberta. I'm sure I could get to that community and say, look, why don't we sponsor a couple of families, find them a job, offer it to them so that they can come up for two years. They may go back after two years, but at least you're encouraging people to see the rest of the country. They may eventually migrate back to where all their relatives are, but it seems to me that anything that encourages people to disperse is going to enable them to integrate more quickly. And we all know stories about Ukrainians who settled in a Ukrainian community and didn't really integrate, whereas the one fellow who went up north was the one who totally integrated and is very thankful that's what happened to him.

• 1615

So some kind of a voluntary dispersal policy... it sounds a bit like forcing people to go places. But if it's on a voluntary basis, I think it could be successful. Even when the immigrants apply, they should be given—and maybe the system exists—special additional points if they agree to spend at least x number of years away from where there are already concentrations of immigrants.

The final thing I would say is that I think you do yourself an injustice when someone, like Dan Murray this morning, raises a point that is not popular and you all pile and dump on him. That was my perception. He did not say anything except that I—my view—and my group feel there are too many immigrants. There's nothing wrong with that point of view.

I think we have to open this discussion up to all the different points of view that people have because, unfortunately today, 90% of the presenters represent the pro-immigrant lobby, or lawyers, or people of that nature. I think it's wonderful that in our country we give those people a platform. But we should not ignore or discourage people with different views from coming forward.

The way you treated Mr. Murray this morning can only discourage other people who, in his case as in mine, have to take time off from our work to come here. Maybe for some of these other people, it's kind of within the purview of their job; it's not in ours. I don't think it's fair to be as unfair as you were toward him. I think to have a successful immigration policy, you need everybody's support, including the Dan Murrays.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kaufmann. It has been our pleasure to invite you here.

As a lot of people don't get the opportunity to talk to a committee, they in fact write each and every one of the members of Parliament—thousands and thousands of letters—telling us about what kind of a bill we should have. We've invited Canadians to do so, so the average Canadian, not represented by any group, also has an opportunity of feeding into the system.

But for your intervention, and your ideas this afternoon, we thank you very much for them.

Now, Mr. Campbell, you're an immigration specialist. Tell us a little bit about yourself.

Mr. Charles M. Campbell (Individual Presentation): Well, that label has been imposed on me. I had nothing to do with it.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Charles Campbell: I simply am a fellow who worked on the Immigration Appeal Board for ten years, eight as vice-chairman, and was greatly disturbed about what I saw.

A couple of years after I was retired—I was retired at 70; that was the nature of the appointment, as you know—I settled into a situation of innocence about all these things as a result of the legislation, but I began to take an interest afterwards. I felt I had an obligation. And as you can see, I gathered the information—all official documents, and official and unofficial reports—and have written this book that you have. That, essentially, is my submission to this committee.

But I just want to emphasize that this book is a record of all the things that have happened in the last 15 or 18 years. It's not a book of opinion—of myself or anybody else. It's a straight record of what has been going on. I haven't got time to deal with all of that, but I have prepared a short statement that I can get through, I think, in about five and a half minutes, and I'll do that for you.

In the meantime, I want to welcome you all to Vancouver and say how much I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you.

It is most important to recognize that opening up the legislation with Bill C-11 provides the opportunity to examine every aspect of our immigration and refugee laws, in terms of their adequacy to meet the needs of Canada. Having missed that opportunity when framing Bill C-11, there was no hesitation in exempting sponsored family from the admission bar, related to excessive demand on health and social services, and providing for the admission of 21-year-old young men and women, without even asking them if they speak our language or how they intend to make a living.

The 1978 legislation—30 or 25 years ago—with the initiation of the family class, the assisted relative, the entrepeneurs, and later, in 1989, the Immigration and Refugee Board, all began a steady decline in the quality of our intake. The information necessary to rewrite the law is all available in government records and in valuable, independent, institutional, and academic studies. The material is all there.

• 1620

The leaking in 1994 of highly critical reports by the senior bureaucracy in Ottawa and in 1995 by a collection of B.C. and Yukon immigration officers, each report having been withheld by the minister, indicates the readiness of the bureaucracy to be helpful.

The loopholes and abuses following the 1978 legislation were reported early, by the Auditor General in his 1982 report. His findings were that family class immigrants were ill-prepared for the labour market and for adapting to life in Canada. There was also much more, yet his detailed 33-page critique was completely ignored by the politicians and got no exposure in the media. It is still valid after all that time.

The 1988 average annual earnings of independent immigrants who arrived in 1985 was $45,000, but were only $14,000 for family class immigrants. A 1990 Simon Fraser University census study found that post-1980 immigrants in the Victoria-Vancouver region—that's here—were earning only 58% of the income of pre-1981 immigrants and Canadian-born citizens. That year was used because 1981 was a census year. A later University of Toronto study pegged the figure for Canada at 60% and warned of increasing immigrant poverty. Now, among those people will be some who have made a very substantial contribution, so we have to wonder how many with lower incomes it has taken to bring the average income down 40%.

The inevitable consequences were exposed in a 1994 leaked ministry document showing annual welfare charges of $700 million for family class immigrants whose sponsors had failed to meet their commitments. Seven years later, with an increasing flow, that bill could easily be $1 billion, and there is evidence of parallel costs for the refugee component. The deepening poverty within each new wave of immigrants is therefore now well-established.

This story is no different for the assisted relatives, whose earnings are at the level of family class. Their statistical inclusion in the economic immigrant category seems to be due to a deliberate desire to enhance that statistic. The entrepreneurs were followed in 1986 by the investor class, and in 1991 a major Economic Council study found Canada already had a surplus of risk capital and a plentiful supply of entrepreneurs. Those facts were confirmed seven years later by the minister's advisory committee.

A year after that, Dr. Rosalyn Kunin of Vancouver, who was a member of that committee, described business immigrants as “poorly educated, unable to function in English or French, who tend to be passive investors and don't necessarily start a business”. Dr. Kunin was at one time an employee of the federal Department of Immigration. She was on their staff. She described “favourable public impressions of business immigrants as quite removed from actual reality”.

Now, there's some support for that position. Between 1994 and 1998, Mr. David Webber, who's attached to the World Bank as an economist, was engaged by the government to conduct investor compliance reviews. He found the claims of the program's successes by Immigration Canada were grossly exaggerated and that Canadians had given up something of real value, a visa or a passport, in return for very little.

Mr. Webber, in an act of public responsibility, held a press conference so that these facts could become available to Canadians. Now, that must have been necessary. He functioned here at the invitation of the government between 1994 and 1998. His reports must have arrived regularly on the minister's table, but they never appeared in public print. They were never recognized.

In addition to all that, there are the daily refugee news items. I'll just give you one more. The backlog of cases to be heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board at year-end was 30,000. That means 30,000 strangers free in this country with all its benefits and privileges. The costs include individual annual maintenance costs of $10,000, which adds up to $300 million a year for that lot.

• 1625

These costs extend all over the place. The real costs include administration, infrastructure expansion, welfare, medical care, law enforcement, legal and court services, and basic ESL costs for students and parents. They could exceed $4 billion annually, thus depriving many Canadians having genuine needs of necessary service.

Somebody is going to ask, how do I know that? I don't know that, but it's evident that when you think of what's going on, this is quite possible. I think it's one of the obligations of your committee to find out what it really is. That's what they have these committees for.

I've set out those few facts that together present the attitude I have and the concerns I have for our immigration program. Finally, I want to thank you for hearing me, and I want to say how privileged I believe you are to face this challenging opportunity to serve Canada. I wish you well.

The Chair: Now we'll invite a frequent visitor, Martin, to speak before our committee. He's managed to come before our committee a number of times as we studied the refugee determination system and so on. We want to welcome Martin Collacott, a former Canadian ambassador, back to the committee. Welcome, Martin.

Mr. Martin Collacott (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to members of the committee for receiving me.

I think I'm the last person to appear this afternoon, am I not? This means that either I've got all the rest of the time or you're going to have to hurry to catch your plane.

The Chair: You're partially right on both.

Mr. Martin Collacott: All right.

The Chair: One, Mr. Wong is right after—

Mr. Martin Collacott: Oh, fine. Sorry.

The Chair: —so we're all limited by time.

Mr. Martin Collacott: All right. I submitted a 14-page brief—sorry, I'm a bit hoarse—and I'm going to try to say what I can, to highlight the points in five minutes. Any that I can't touch on I can expand on in the question session. I wanted to touch on both immigration and refugees.

Let me first start by saying that, like everyone else here, I think immigration's done a great deal for Canada, not the least by enriching our society through adding to its diversity. My own family is part of this. My parents were immigrants from England, my wife's an immigrant from Asia, and just to situate myself completely, my father-in-law almost comes from Fujian province. He comes from the border area of Guangdong province, Chao Zhou, so I have a strong feeling for immigrants.

By the same token, I've reviewed the effects our immigration and refugee policies are having and could have. I find that in many respects the effects are quite distant from the interests of Canada and that the people who could suffer most if we don't get them right could be the immigrants themselves, so I want to go into some specific points.

The first question is one Mr. McCallum dealt with in his article in the Star, namely, how many immigrants do we need? I think last year we had 226,000 or thereabouts, and the minister is looking at the figure of 300,000 or 1% of population, as the red book suggests.

The most comprehensive piece of research on this was done 10 years ago by the Economic Council of Canada, which is a government-funded organization. Most of the studies I've based my conclusions on are either government research or government-funded research. The Economic Council of Canada, to their surprise, decided there was very little economic benefit for Canada in immigration. At one time there was the idea of economy of scale: the bigger your domestic market, the more economically you could produce things. With globalization and NAFTA, that's no longer the case. We may still need some doctors or nurses in some particular areas, but in terms of overall economic benefit, they were quite surprised to find it was limited. Subsequent studies have found the same thing.

Demographically, it's a little different. Our population is going to decline. The latest Statistics Canada projections released last month show that if we have no net immigration, we will peak in the year 2018. The fertility rate could vary, of course, but that's their prediction, and then we'd get back down to our present level 25 years from now. Clearly, after that, we'd need some immigration or we're going to go down.

• 1630

Those are the demographics, but immigration will not help our aging problem. All the research shows that immigrants will get just as old as Canadians. I think other people have touched on that. Nor will it help the dependency problem. We will have a bigger dependency problem. We have 18 retired Canadians for every 100 workers now. It's going to go up to 35, and we're going to have to deal with that. That is a problem.

But looking at the impact of immigration, in the case of Vancouver, for instance, we're going to expect an increase of 47% more people in the next 25 years. Many Vancouverites ask why we want this increase. An immigration expert at Simon Fraser University, Don DeVoretz, was quoted last year as saying:

[Canada] should just stabilize its population. “I have no idea why they want more people” ... “Unlike babies, [immigration] is completely under the control of the government”...

He was commenting on the fact that Stats Canada had just released a report saying 60% of our population growth was from immigration.

Now, you raised the question, Mr. McCallum, of why don't we put people in our vast, empty spaces. One of the difficulties is that right now, 93% of the immigrants, according to Stats Canada, settle in large metropolitan areas, which many people feel are already pretty crowded—40% in Toronto, 20% in Vancouver. If we hit your 100 million and you can't redistribute them to the vast, open spaces, your city has to take 28 million and mine has to take 14 million. Presumably you don't have that scenario in mind. But they are not going to the vast, empty spaces, nor are many Canadians. They're going to where their communities are already established. I'll come to that again later.

There are also some ecological questions. We'd better not get too far into them, but many ecologists say Canada already needs to protect its green space in terms of world environment and pollution. The ecological footprint of everyone in Canada is something between 20 and 100 times what it is in a developing country. If we bring several million more people here, we're going to use up a lot more of the world environment than they would use up back home.

Many people in Vancouver are concerned about the increase in population, in terms of congestion, pollution, and increased demands on medical and educational service. When it's raised, though, they're often accused of being racist, because most of our immigration is in terms of visible minorities. Usually the debate is shut down pretty quickly. While surveys show that a lot of people are quite concerned, you don't hear much from them, because they don't get much time by the time immigration advocates get hold of them. This is a concern that I feel very deeply. I've been against racism all of my adult life, and my wife is a visible minority.

There are some indications we should be worried about. There have been very few studies made on the subject. But there was one, which I have here somewhere, made two years ago released by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, which showed at that time that attitudes in Vancouver were becoming increasingly negative towards immigration. The people who did the research said, well, there isn't really a heck of a lot—there should be more research on this subject—but we think the threshold may be between 0.5% and 1% of immigrants per population per year. The levels at that time were over 2% in both Vancouver and in Toronto. They've slipped slightly below 2% since then in Vancouver; they've stayed up over 2% in Toronto.

Let's look at racism very briefly. Racism still is a problem in Canada. We do have racist difficulties, but on the whole, I think you'd have to say we've also made great strides. When I was a youngster, it was a very racist society. I think we're an example of the world so far, in terms of moving away from racism and having a multiracial and tolerant and accepting society. I take great pride in this. But I don't think we look carefully enough at how many we can absorb and how quickly, and we should be doing that.

Tom Kent, a former Deputy Minister of Immigration, and a principal adviser to Lester Pearson, was quoted last year as saying:

“Federal politicians would have to be extremists in complacent unrealism”... “to think that the present confusion in immigration policy can continue without straining, sooner rather than later, the quiet consensus of tolerant Canadianism.

I think we do a great disservice to our immigrants and our visible minorities by not keeping a tab on this question more closely. It's politically incorrect to do so, but I don't think we're doing them a favour by not monitoring this more carefully. The question of levels isn't the only one I want to raise. There is also the issue, which has been raised by other people of who should we bring in. We keep stressing we want the best and the brightest.

• 1635

Since the last act was passed in 1978 though, clearly priority is being given to family class sponsorships. The new legislation proposes to expand that further. There's nothing wrong with wanting to bring in your whole family. I was told once by Citizenship and Immigration that I was sponsoring 28 of my in-laws simultaneously, so I know what it's all about. It's one of the most gratifying things I ever did in my life. But I also think we have to look critically at where immigration is working properly.

There is a real problem with family class. This was identified by the Auditor General as long ago as 1982, who noted that it was bringing down the overall impact of immigration. No one's going to deny an immigrant bringing in their spouse and their unmarried kids. But should they be able to bring in a long chain of relatives, who don't have to meet any particular requirements in terms of qualification or language? I think we're beginning to see the first signs of the impact of this.

The earnings of immigrants, which have already been mentioned, have dropped rather dramatically down to about 60% of those of earlier immigrants, since the law was changed in 1978. Poverty levels in cities have increased dramatically. Those who came before 1980 were at the same levels as Canadians—around 19%. Canadian levels have stayed the same, but they've climbed to 35% for immigrants who came between 1986 and 1990. They're up to 52% for those who've come since 1990. They're increasing dramatically, and most of this, although not entirely, can be attributable to family class.

So while it's laudable to want to bring in your extended family, unlike refugee programs, which are designed on a humanitarian basis, we have to look critically at whether we're really helping Canada economically.

I might say one of the ironies of family class is that we are decreasing diversity. That may sound strange. What we're doing is giving preference to the communities already here to bring in their relatives. Good immigrants from places such as Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand, Egypt are independents. They have no one here to sponsor them. So the big communities are getting bigger. They're setting up critical masses of people who don't speak English and don't have marketable skills. Their chances of getting integrated into the economy and the society are being reduced. Our family class preference actually works against better diversification.

I must have taken almost all my time. I had a whole slew of things to say on refugees.

I'd like to comment on the Chinese boat people and detention. I might say I agree with some of the earlier speakers that the long detention is not good. We spent over $60 million. Australia had a boatload of people last August. They processed them all and had them back in China within one month. I'm not sure how many refugee advocates would like that, but they gave them all thorough hearings. They didn't keep them in detention for two years, and they didn't spend $60 million. I think we've got to look critically at manifestly unfounded claims.

I'll just flag three things. The Charter of Rights has sent our refugee determination system into chaos, to quote Jeffrey Simpson, who's a Globe and Mail correspondent. We're going to extend that to everyone in the world who wants to come to Canada. They can appeal to the Charter of Rights. Now ultimate justice may sound great, but it's not manageable in terms of having limited resources to process people. It's nice, as the lawyers would like to have judicial appeal at every stage along the way, but we have millions of people wanting to come to Canada. There's no way we can strike a good balance by having those judicial appeals all the way along, every time we want. In a perfect world, yes, but it's not practical.

The Auditor General flagged last year that we have a desperate shortage of resources. He said we're not maintaining checks on malfeasance admissions abroad or at home. There are larger numbers of criminals coming in. Some of this has been documented by our missions. In Moscow, there's so much pressure to deliver visas that they really can't check very thoroughly on who's a criminal. They're being deluged with representations from lawyers to the point that in many cases visa officers would rather issue a visa than have to explain why they're not giving one. The system is basically being undermined.

There are major problems with the UN convention, which is 50 years old. It's not working. Other countries such as Australia and the U.K. are looking at having it revised. We, on the one hand, say we have to stick by it and consider a claim from everyone who sets foot in our country, but we're quite prepared to intercept them overseas before they get on the plane. If they succeed in getting on and arrive with a bogus document, then we say you're here; you made it. They're in the system. But we're quite prepared to turn them back overseas. There's a discrepancy there.

• 1640

The judicial decisions are another problem. I realize that doesn't come before your committee, but it's a huge problem, because even when the department tries to deport people, they are very frequently allowed to stay.

I'll just wrap up—30 seconds. Again, I think we need a good, open, fully national and informed debate. This is going to be the first comprehensive legislation in 23 years. If it stays for another 23 years and we don't get it right, I believe—and these are strong words for a bland former ambassador—we're heading for a national disaster.

If the bill is passed in its current state, it will have a major and very negative implication for the future of Canada and for our fine immigrants.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Martin.

Mr. Wong, finally.

Mr. Lawrence Wong (President, Lawrence Wong and Associates): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you members of the committee for allowing me in on a standby basis.

Just before I begin, I'll say I believe our Immigration Act is about 16 years old. It was passed in 1985. It was the regulation that was passed in 1978.

The point I'm trying to make is that ever since the current Immigration Act was passed in 1985, there have been many changes to the act as well as the regulations. What we see is an increasing trend to restrict immigration.

This may or may not be a good trend, but Bill C-11 is making this trend official in the sense that we are saying to immigrants, the new way of looking at you is to widen the gap between how we treat citizens and immigrants. By way of an analogy, if good parenting is about loving all the children whether the children are our natural children or our adopted children, then good policy should be trying to narrow the gap between citizens and immigrants.

We have differential treatment of immigrants existing in the system. For instance, immigrants cannot vote or be voted for. Immigrants are subjected to certain deportation proceedings if they commit crimes. This kind of differentiation already exists in the system, so we can see there is a gap in the way we treat immigrants and citizens.

The new bill proposes to widen this gap. The debate we should have is whether we want to widen the gap, whether we want to treat our adopted children differently, or much differently, from our natural children. If we widen the gap too much, these adopted children will become foster children. If we keep it the way it is, then the question is, what do we have to lose?

When we think about it from the angle of inviting these newcomers in, if we are not going to treat them nicely, than why bother having them? Or is the question the other way around, that these newcomers, since they are coming to this country, ought to treat us better?

My submission is that the traditional thinking about immigration is that we are saying, okay, if people come to Canada, they should contribute to Canada. That has always been the case. But does that really work? Does that really work in the sense of, if we look at communism, we say, you have to be a good communist and you have to do one, two, three, four, five things in order to be a good communist?

Are we saying in order to be a good immigrant, you have to do one, two, three, four, five things; that it's a job, not a process? We live life as a process. We grow. We make mistakes. We move on.

But we're saying to immigrants that it's a job. They have to do it right. If they make a mistake, they're out of here. Is this the message we want to send? Is this how we want to define our new immigration policy? If so, so be it. But I think we should have more debate on this.

• 1645

I'm a lawyer. I'm going to adopt the arguments or the submissions made by the Canadian Bar Association with respect to this act. I'm not going to go into the technicalities of it again, but we've heard many stories about the inefficiency of our immigration department. This act is not about improving that. In fact, this act is about addressing the concerns we've heard, also from the public, about the problems of allowing bad immigrants into this country. My submission is that the concerns raised by the immigrant communities about delays, about inefficiencies, and about the lack of accountability are equally valid. Why are these concerns not being addressed in this new immigration bill?

Why do we only address certain concerns and not most of the concerns? When we look at immigration, after all, this is supposed to be bringing in qualified people to help Canada, to add value to Canada. We are not doing that. We are not doing that according to pro-immigration people. We are not doing it according to anti-immigration people. The anti-immigration people are saying we are bringing in the numbers, we are not bringing in the quality. The pro-immigration people are saying we are not getting anything because there is so much delay.

Why is this act not about the minister doing something about his own problems, his management problems? Instead, it's taking away certain rights or powers that immigrants or members of the public may have in overseeing the operation of the immigration department. We're taking away judicial review.

The department is saying that under the existing law in Canada, the decision is not subject to judicial review—you need to leave. But that is misleading, because under the existing law, if you are in Canada already you enjoy certain other rights of appeal. Whereas if you are trying to come into this country, you run into a roadblock, and if you have to leave, chances are you are not going to overcome that roadblock even though immigration might have made a serious mistake.

The Chair: I'll have to ask you to wrap it up, Mr. Wong. Thank you.

Mr. Lawrence Wong: Basically, these are my submissions. I'm saying it's time we look at immigration not just from the angle of the policymakers, but from the angle of the immigration communities. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wong. Okay we'll go to questions.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing today. It's been a very interesting day. We've had lots of varied comments. I agree with Martin that there are a lot of issues that, as the Auditor General indicated in his report, go back 10 years. I agree with him, a lot of these administrative issues can be resolved. But I don't think we need to use legislation to resolve them.

Mr. Kaufmann raised the question of what we want. Well, obviously we want people here who can create wealth. We all know that. I think we're doing that. I think the numbers tell the tale. You know, over two-thirds of the immigrants who come to this country are here for economic reasons, whether as investors or for the skills they provide to this country.

We talk about family reunification. Last year, only 31% of the people who came here were in a family class. So by and large, when you look at two-thirds of the numbers who come, they're here for the benefit of the people who are here.

I want to also say that the history of this country is really the history of immigration going back 300 years, when the Europeans first came here. It's all about immigration. We seem to forget that. I'm sure they've had this debate over and over again over the last 300 years as to who we should let come to this country. What are they going to do for the country, for us? As society changes, our values change.

• 1650

I think the biggest problem people have is dealing with the changes. Issues that were spoken of with regard to integration and certification of credentials are universal problems. Every country you go to could have the same problems. In terms of accreditation, we have more barriers interprovincially than we do internationally. We have doctors and lawyers who can't practice. You can't practice from province to province.

In Denmark they set up a commission, an institute, to study accreditation because they have the same problems as other countries that bring in professionals.

As members of Parliament, we get those cases all the time. Professionals who come to this country can't practice and end up driving taxis. They're doing other menial jobs, and we wonder what's the problem. This is another challenge that is before us.

But everything is relative, and I say this with seriousness, because if you're from a little village of 1,000 people, to have an onslaught of an extra 500 is difficult to deal with. It's the same thing in this city here. No one in this country would disagree with you that all the migrants shouldn't be in three cities in this country. I think we all agree they should be spread out, wherever the need is. As I said previously, Manitoba needs immigrants probably worse than anybody else, more than any other province, but how do you maintain that they're going to stay there?

Again, if you come from a large European or Asian city, what is four million or five million people? It's nothing, a drop in the bucket. So everything is relative to your experience, where you come from, and how you perceive the world. Unfortunately, change is difficult for people to grasp.

What I would say, just to close my comments—I don't have a question, Mr. Chairman—is that this debate, I'm sure, has gone on before and it's going to continue. But the reality is that as the world shrinks, as the world community gets smaller, we need to learn how to live with each other in a better frame of mind so that we don't repeat all the things we've had in the past, not only in this country but in other countries as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thanks, Inky.

John McCallum.

Mr. John McCallum: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I heard my name a couple of times, not always in high praise.

The one thing I have in common with Mr. Kaufmann and Mr. Collacott is we all have Chinese wives.

But I'd like to ask two questions, mainly to Mr. Kaufmann. The first one is about multiculturalism and his remarks about that, and the second one is about the economics.

He seems to say negative things about multiculturalism and believes we should all integrate. I've just run in Markham and I'm not from Markham; I was a parachute candidate from Oakville, which is one of the most homogeneous white places, if you want to use that expression. Markham is the opposite, where one school has 65 different first languages among the students and where I spent much time in a dozen or so different religious temples of Sikhs, etc.

I found this experience hugely positive, so I've nothing against multiculturalism. I found the people in Markham who I met, of all different races, colours and religions, very proud to maintain their old cultures and religions, but at the same time they felt just as Canadian as you or I. So to me it's like walking and chewing gum at the same time. These people can do both.

I don't know what you have against it and why you think we have to be homogenized, as you apparently do in your comment.

On the second question about the economics, I won't go into the demographics and all that because I guess we disagree, but we are in competition with the United States on every dimension. One thing in which we have a huge advantage over the Americans is that, as Inky just said, 31% only of our immigrants are family class. I thought it was 40%, but I'll let him have 31%. In the U.S. it's 90% or thereabouts. So in our system there is a huge advantage over the Americans, where we are much better able to seek out the best and the brightest than they are because they have a 90% family system. I would argue that this is something we should use to our advantage in terms of getting the skills and the human capital and all of that, which we need so much looking forward, to this country.

Those are my two question.

The Chair: We'll let Mr. Kaufmann answer the first one and maybe Martin or Charles will answer the second one.

Mr. John McCallum: Or he could answer both.

• 1655

Mr. Steve Kaufmann: With regard to multiculturalism, all I'm saying is that I do not look back insofar as my national identity is concerned. I think that with perhaps 40% of Canadians being of mixed parentage there's an increasing group of people who identify purely as Canadians, and I think this is a positive thing.

I am interested in many cultures, I speak many languages, and I have a great interest in other cultures, but where I have trouble with the government's policy is it seems to be encouraging people as the official policy to identify with the culture of their ancestry. I think the government should get out of that business. Those people who want to identify with the culture of their ancestry obviously are free to do so, and those people who do not want to, and it may be the second generation, it may be a first generation who have been here for 30 or 40 years...

In my own experience, my father and my parents would only deal with people from their background when they lived in Montreal. They looked down at other Canadians, until my father had been here for 30 or 40 years and he got to know some other Canadians and he started blending in and so on.

I'm not forcing anyone to be anything, but I say the government should not be in the business of saying diversity is good, celebrate your origins. In other words, if you look Chinese should you have to speak Chinese? I don't think so. I think it works against integration. My big kick is integration.

Very quickly on that other point, I think whatever they do in the United States... the more we can have people who can integrate successfully, the more successful our immigration policy will be. That's the point I was making. I don't know what the comparison is with the United States.

The Chair: Are there any further comments on the economic argument?

Mr. Charles Campbell: I'd like to make a comment on it.

I don't know whether if the Americans have 90% and we have 40% of something makes any difference. The fact is that in this global economy, if we're going to succeed, and we're facing challenges from all over the globe, there's only one standard that's of any value to us at all and it is excellence. When we're doing something, there's only one standard we can have if we're going to succeed, which is excellence.

The 19% and 30% or 40% argument doesn't mean anything. The fact is that the productivity of these people, whoever they are, however they get here... And it's probably just as bad for the entrepreneurs and the businessmen who come in on phony claims and bring large families. They bring larger families than anybody, but they don't come as family class. It just occurs to me that we measure the source of these people for statistical purposes in a way that's completely misleading.

In 1994, when Marchi was the minister, just before he had his summer consultations, he changed the whole basis of breaking down the immigrants and what group they belong to. He included the assisted relatives, for instance, and people who came independently and the nanny group—all those—in the economic group. Not only that, but he eliminated the statistical entry of their families and how big their families were, and as a result brought the independent group up to a very large number, which didn't represent the skilled people at all. And we're still living with that sort of thing.

Those changes were made by the minister in 1994 deliberately to mislead Canadians—

The Chair: I wouldn't go so far as to talk about ministers misleading Canadians. You're entitled to your opinion. I think you've made the facts, but let's not replicate what happened in the House of Commons here.

I think so far we've been doing rather well, so before you start getting into misleading and mistruths and everything else, and start getting everybody all excited... Charles, you were doing well until you started getting into misleading and so on.

Thank you very much. Madeleine, let's move on.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before turning to my questions, I would like to make a very brief comment.

Canada is a rich country. Whether we like it or not, we are obviously a wealthy nation. I do believe that the people of Canada have a right to expect certain things of newly-arrived persons who wish to become Canadians, but I also believe that the Canadian population must face up to a certain number of responsibilities that go beyond our own well-being.

• 1700

My first question is for the lady who spoke of immigrants from the Philippines. You mentioned that there are people, health professionals in particular, who, once in Canada, find themselves unable to work in their particular field. I have a very simple question for you. Before leaving the Philippines, were these doctors and nurses aware of the very real obstacles they would face in obtaining a work permit as a doctor or as a nurse? If they were indeed made aware of this and came anyway, I believe, then, they came of their own freewill. If, on the other hand, the information given to them was insufficient in that regard, then I believe that Canada has a responsibility to inform people in a way they can understand. That is my first question.

I direct my second question to Mr. Kaufmann who speaks excellent French. Your presentation set forth quite a comprehensive point of view. I think that when one chooses to go live in a new country, it is indeed with the intention of identifying with one's new community. You tried to show, and perhaps even succeeded, that multiculturalism is an obstacle to integration since, to a certain extent, it encourages a sort of ghettoization. That is very clear in large cities where many communities live side by side; people tend to stick together, which is natural enough.

Would it not be possible to foster the desire, in these newly- arrived people, so settle a little bit further, not a thousand kilometers from their community of origin, but elsewhere nonetheless? We have an example of this in Quebec where integration is much more easily achieved when people learn to live among those who will tomorrow be their next-door neighbors.

My third question is the following. I must admit to being quite troubled by what Mr. Campbell said. You have been dealing for a long time with immigrants and refugees. Considering your knowledge in this field, I am very much concerned when I hear you say that some of these people will never contribute to this country's goals. Very frankly, I shudder when I hear you say that. What do you suggest we do with people who do not contribute to meeting Canada's needs? Should we simply send them down the St. Lawrence or send them back across the Pacific or wherever else they might be from? I'm very very worried by what you said.

There, you have five minutes to answer.

[English]

The Chair: Charles, hang on a second. You're number three. The first one is Luningning with regard to the Filipino question. Then Mr. Kaufmann will have an opportunity, followed by you. Go ahead, Luningning.

Ms. Sheila Farrales (Member, Philippine Women Centre): Hello. I'd like to respond to the question of whether health care professionals in the Philippines are aware of what they'll be facing here. Many nurses leave the country out of economic necessity. They're forced to migrate. They migrate because they seek greener pastures for a better life for themselves and their families, with the intention of using their education and skills to their full potential.

But Canada deskills them. First of all, they cannot migrate as nurses. On the general occupational points list of Canada Immigration, zero points are offered for nurses to come in as registered nurses. Therefore, many nurses from the Philippines come through the live-in caregiver program to do domestic work and 24-hour-a-day home support work. They are not provided with that information. They are given the impression that as a live-in caregiver they'll be doing private nursing. That's even encouraged at their immigration interview. They don't get the information that they will be doing nanny work, domestic work, and home support work.

• 1705

So Canada plays an active role in deskilling Filipino nurses when there's an obvious need for their skills.

The Chair: Thank you for that information.

Mr. Kaufmann, do you have any comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Steve Kaufmann: Let me answer in French.

It is certainly a very difficult matter. I believe that in Canada we can have only three official cultures: Anglophone, Francophone and First Nations. People who come from other countries very clearly can, if they wish, maintain their culture of origin. No one will prevent them from doing so. But, in the long run, if we wish to remain united as a nation, sharing common values, we must continue to maintain the three cultures I mentioned a moment ago.

Within the English-speaking culture, there is ongoing change considering all the new arrivals. Just think that 100 years ago, in Ontario, half the population belonged to the Orange Order. That is no longer the case. Toronto, for example, is made up of many races. Things have changed, then. But still, you must have a certain unity within the nation because there will be times of crisis. And in times of crisis, you depend on national solidarity. Say you have religious groups, fundamentalists, for example, who eventually seek to have schools where their particular language of origin is mostly used and the government's policy encourages them to believe that, when they come to Canada, they will be able to go on living the same life they had in the old country. This, of course, is inevitable as far as the first generation is concerned, but I believe that if the next generations are encouraged to maintain this particular culture, then it will have a negative impact on Canada's future.

Take the example of the three Canadians who went to Antarctica to save an American scientist. One of them was called Norm Wong. I wonder whether this person is a hero only in the eyes of Chinese-Canadians. Is he more particularly a hero for Chinese-Canadians or is he a hero for all Canadians? I believe he is a hero in the eyes of all Canadians. The fact that he is of Chinese origin has non bearing on any of this.

I used to live in Montreal. Fifty years ago, if you had a name other than a French or English one, you were treated as a second class citizen. You no longer have this since nobody knows really whether the father of a certain Gretzky, for example, was Ukrainian or Dutch. No one knows anymore. You get the same thing with Paul Karya; no one really knows whether or not he is of Japanese origin.

If we continue on the path of integration, no one will be able to say, for example, whether Mr. McCallum's son, whose name, you must admit, has a certain Asian ring to it... It is clear that integration is not necessarily a bad...

[English]

The Chair: I'm enjoying this discussion immensely, but this is the citizenship and immigration committee, not the multiculturalism committee. I'll make sure that committee knows to come back here and talk to Mr. Kaufmann. Thank you.

Mr. Campbell, I think there was a question addressed to you.

Mr. Charles Campbell: The question had to do with disappointment that I was critical of immigrants who didn't support themselves, or something like that.

Perhaps I can expand on what I said. As soon as the 1978 act came into play, the productivity of our immigrants dropped precipitously.

The University of Western Ontario did a study for the ministry of agriculture in Manitoba. Just a minute, I'm confused. The man who led it was from Manitoba, and he was the minister. They did a massive three-year study. The professors at the University of Western Ontario measured the new immigrant groups against the traditional immigrant groups. Obviously, that's a breakdown we don't like to think about, but this is what they did. The traditional immigrant groups maintained their productivity well above the national average. It was slightly below in the early years of the forties. The productivity of the new immigrant groups, which were selected carefully, was a little above those who were Canadian born.

• 1710

As soon as the provisions of the 1970 act came into play, the productivity of the new immigrant groups, as opposed to the traditional immigrant groups, dropped by about 60%—I've forgotten the exact number, but it dropped. But the important figures I gave you when I spoke were that the productivity of the immigrant people, based on studies that were done both at Simon Fraser and the University of Toronto, was only 68% of those born in Canada.

One of the difficulties with this kind of thing, as Mr. McCallum will know, is dealing with averages, and we don't know when we get a figure like that how many of them were immigrants and how many were traditional, pre-1981 immigrants, or who were born Canadians. But we do know that's what happened, and we know too with those earlier figures I gave you that after the 1978 legislation, when the traditional immigrant groups had been 95% of the in-flow into this country and the new immigrant groups had been 5%, that figure switched almost immediately to 35% for the traditional immigrant groups and 65% for the new immigrant groups. There's no question about that problem.

That's a problem we have to face. The job to do is to get busy and recognize those things and face that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Charles Campbell: There's no sense in fighting about facts like that; there's no sense in broadcasting them. It's just an obligation on a committee like yours to recognize them and make recommendations and see that they're changed. It might have to happen gradually, but that's your job.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.

Something more interesting than listening to two lawyers talking is two economists having a discussion.

You have the final question, Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville: It's more a comment than a question, Mr. Chair, since you have advised me to be brief.

To the Philippine women's association, are you aware that the Province of Manitoba, through the provincial nominee program, is actually interviewing and accrediting nurses in the Philippines so that they can come and work in Manitoba?

Ms. Luningning Alcuitas-Imperial: Yes, we're aware of that, but the issue we're also advocating for is the accreditation of the women who are already here under the live-in caregiver program.

Ms. Anita Neville: Yes, under that program.

Are you also aware that in the Philippines they are currently embarking on a pilot project to inform women who are coming as part of the live-in caregiver program, and those who want to do further studies while they're here, to allow that to happen? That's very recent, but it is in development.

Ms. Luningning Alcuitas-Imperial: We've asked the department for information about their intentions regarding the academic upgrading, and we've received no information.

The Chair: I'm sure they would appreciate more good suggestions too. I'm sure they're open to that.

I'm sorry, Anita, that's it.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you, Vancouver and British Columbia, for hosting us. The bus will be ready and set to leave from the front door in ten minutes, so thank you very much for all your input. I know an awful lot of what you said will hopefully be seen in our discussions in the next weeks.

The meeting is adjourned.