CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 1, 2001

• 1313

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.)): Welcome to you all.

Given that we have at most one hour, and five witnesses and approximately seven questioners, we're going to have to do things in a way some lawyers describe the bill: in a somewhat draconian, even un-Canadian, fashion.

So in the interest of fairness, everybody who is making a presentation or asking questions will be limited to five minutes. Otherwise, we simply won't have time for everybody. If you wish to take less than five minutes, you're welcome to do so.

I'm sorry I have to be so strict, but the video conference will end in one hour, and otherwise, not everybody will get a chance to speak.

Am I correct that there are five groups as witnesses in Edmonton?

A voice: There are five of us here, yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Before you begin, could you state your name, your title, and your organization, to make sure that everything is right.

I'd like to begin with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. Is Mr. Neil Windsor there?

Mr. Al Schuld (Deputy Registrar, Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta): Good afternoon. My boss, Neil Windsor, regrets he's not able to be here. I'm the deputy registrar of the association. I'll just go right into our presentation, if that's all right.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Please go ahead.

Mr. Al Schuld: Shall we introduce everybody else who's here?

• 1315

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Yes, that would be a good way to begin. After that, we'll introduce ourselves.

Ms Wendy Danson (Past Chair, Canadian Bar Association, Northern Alberta Branch): Good afternoon. my name is Wendy Danson. I'm a lawyer with the McQuaig Desrochers in Edmonton, and an immigration practitioner. I will also be speaking on behalf of the Northern Alberta Canadian Bar Association.

Mr. Valdemar Larsen (Executive Director, Alberta Centre for International Education): Hello, good afternoon. My name is Val Larsen. I'm the executive director of the Alberta Centre for International Education.

Ms. Alice Colak (Chairperson, Alberta Association of Immigrant-Serving Agencies): My name is Alice Colak. I'm the chairperson for the Alberta Association of Immigrant-Serving Agencies.

Mr. Roy Beyer (President, Canada Family Action Coalition): My name is Roy Beyer. I'm the president of the Canada Family Action Coalition.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you.

My name is John McCallum. I'm the member of Parliament for Markham, and vice-chair of this committee. The rest of my colleagues can introduce themselves.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): I'm Inky Mark, chief opposition critic and also a vice-chair of this committee.

Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I'm Lynne Yelich, the Saskatchewan member of Parliament for Blackstrap.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Good afternoon. My name is Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral. I am a Bloc Québecois member, representing the riding of Laval-Centre.

[English]

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Hi, my name's John Herron. I'm the Progressive Conservative immigration critic, and I represent the riding of Fundy—Royal in New Brunswick.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Good afternoon. I'm Anita Neville, I'm the Liberal member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Good afternoon. My name is Yolande Thibeault. I am a Liberal member, representing the riding of Saint-Lambert.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you. I forgot to mention that I am also a Liberal.

Just in case any of my colleagues were late, we have a very strict five-minute-maximum rule.

I would now ask the Association of Professional Engineers to begin their presentation. Thank you.

Mr. Al Schuld: Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this committee on what we feel is a very important piece of legislation. As I said, I'm Al Schuld, the deputy registrar of APEGGA.

In Alberta we are responsible for administering the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act. Under that statute, we have licensed in the order of 35,000 professionals involved in the practice of these three professions. We believe that these professions really do affect the lives and economic well-being of Albertans.

Your committee has already heard from our national body representing professional engineers in Canada, the CCPE, and also from a coalition of related regulatory agencies, of which the CCPE is a part. We certainly support the recommendations the CCPE has made to your committee, and we don't wish to repeat them. Rather, we would like to provide what we feel is a unique perspective from our provincial licensing authority.

We strongly support licensing geologists and geophysicists across Canada, and we've been doing it since 1960. Quite belatedly, most of the other provinces have also decided to become involved. Now they are establishing a similar regulatory regime for these professions—one that engineers have had for years. This arose from the issues surrounding the Bre-X affair, and the report of the TSE-OSC mining standards task force recommending that a qualified person sign off for the details of share offerings and share prospectives.

APEGGA is very involved with the Canadian Council of Professional Geoscientists, and I serve as the secretary of the Canadian Geoscience Standards Board. So we're concerned with all these functions that are offered by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers to prospective immigrant geoscientists, and we're involved in the flow of this proposed legislation.

Coming back to Alberta, for some time there's been a relative shortage of talented individuals in many of the fields in which our members work. The two Alberta universities do not graduate sufficient numbers of engineers and geoscientists to meet the demand for these professions.

• 1320

So the talent deficit is made up from two primary areas. One is the other provinces in Canada. But around 15% to 20% of our new uptake of members per year are engineers and geoscientists who were trained in other countries. We license in the order of 1,500 to 2,000 new individuals per year.

The economic conditions in Alberta are such that employers regularly ask us to approve the hiring of prospective immigrants who have the skills they need. They not only recruit across Canada, they recruit abroad. These employers rely on our association's assessment of these individuals' qualifications.

So we do a fair bit of consulting work in providing information, guidance, and direction to both employers and prospective immigrants. These come to Alberta either as a result of job offers, or as other classes and categories of immigrants.

We work closely with an assessment service in Alberta called the International Qualifications Assessment Service. I've served as an adviser to the group, primarily because of our length and volume of experience in assessing foreign-trained engineers.

I want to underscore a couple of points made by the CCPE, in consort with the other licensing authorities across Canada. As a professional licensing authority, we believe we're probably in the best position to provide fair, appropriate, and precise advice to immigrant engineers on how their qualifications are recognized in Canada.

We have the privilege of frequently working with immigrant-serving organizations in Alberta to provide guidance and information to current and prospective immigrant engineers and geoscientists who wish to be recognized by our organization. So we believe that eligibility for immigration should be based on eligibility for being admitted to the professions of engineering and geology under these licensing authorities in Canada.

We believe that in the public interest, there should be some direct reference to the provincial professional licensing authorities, recognizing the important role we play in approving credentials for immigrant engineers and geoscientists.

Thank you for the opportunity of making this presentation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much. I apologize again for this time limitation.

I will ask now the Canada Family Action Coalition to make their presentation.

A voice: They've just left the room.

The Chair: Then we'll move to the Canadian Bar Association, Northern Alberta Branch.

Ms. Wendy Danson: Thank you very much, sir, and members of the committee.

Five minutes doesn't even give me enough time to scratch the surface, so I would just like to give you an overview of my perspective on immigration—a business perspective. I bring immigrants into Canada, some temporarily and some permanently—people who hope and intend to remain here for their lifetimes.

By necessity, the Immigration Act must deal both with bringing people in on a long-term basis and asking people to leave who came for the long term but have been guilty of infractions of our criminal or other laws. The mentality when you're inviting people to come to Canada, to bring their families, to settle for their lives, and to plan the future of their children is different from when you're enforcing an act and trying to remove people for being criminals. The act must deal with both parts, though the mentality is different. But in Bill C-11 it has got confused. We're now treating permanent residents as though they are all criminals. That's not the case; it's just the minority. The new legislation confuses that by treating all permanent residents as “foreign nationals” for all purposes of the act.

• 1325

To take one example, a person is inadmissible to Canada if they've been sentenced to six months or more for having been convicted of a criminal act. They can appeal that if they're a permanent resident, as long as they weren't sentenced to more than two years.

Take the case of a client who has gone overseas on business and was sentenced to seven months perhaps for driving while impaired or driving criminally in a matter that was not criminal. Not only is he inadmissible to Canada, but he won't get back into Canada. So that leaves his appeal right rather vacant.

My concern is that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the department have led you to believe that all permanent residents will have a right to appeal as long their infraction didn't result in more than two years of incarceration. But that's not correct, because the bill does state that they're inadmissible if they were sentenced to more than six months. That's just one tiny example I can give you in the limited time I have.

The other point I would like to raise is that Bill C-11 leaves a lot to regulation that prior to now was never in regulation. It was in the act itself. As a result, Parliament will not have the opportunity to review the regulations that will be implemented under the act. As a result, the department and the immigration officers will have much more authority under the act and will be making very critical decisions that will not have been vetted by Parliament. That is of great concern to us as well.

I don't know what my timing is here. The message I'm trying to suggest, without giving a thorough overview, is that we're confusing enforcement for those who truly need to be dealt with forcefully with people who are coming to devote their lives to Canada.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much, Ms. Danson. You were actually just over four minutes.

You raised some very good points. I'm sure they'll come up in the question period.

I would like to make one comment. I think there's a broad consensus around this table, and we've heard it from many people, that we don't like the term “foreign national” applied to permanent residents.

I know you've raised many other issues, which we'll come back to.

Is the Canada Family Action Coalition back in the room?

Mr. Roy Beyer: We are.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on behalf of the Canada Family Action Coalition.

Our concerns relate specifically to the interests of our organization of promoting and defending the family, in particular subclause 12(2), which says:

A foreign national may be selected as a member of the family class on the basis of their relationship as the spouse, common-law partner, child, parent or other prescribed family member of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident.

We do have a number of concerns with what we see as a hugely expanded definition of qualifying family members, and I'll summarize those concerns for you. As the previous presenter mentioned, we have concerns with the process. So much of this is falling under what we see as the discretionary power of the minister or the department under regulations. This will only lead to further erosion of genuine parliamentary debate and input on the details of immigration policy, which we believe to be very important.

Our present immigration policy has already given Canada the reputation in the international community of being a pushover, a nation with loopholes, and an opportunity for fraudulent or bogus claims. Going down that path when you're trying to fix one set of problems but then creating yet another, we don't see the wisdom of that. We believe that this particular subclause creates an awful lot of loopholes and an opportunity for bogus claims.

In terms of substance, I will just share a few points quickly. The first is that, obviously, there is great potential for abuse of the system when there's no legal requirement for a sponsored partner to be married. In other words, a spouse can be a common-law partner or a same-sex partner. Really, anyone can claim to be a spouse. Therefore, you can have all kinds of people fraudulently applying under the spousal status. I realize that the bill deals with those issues to some extent, but it's rather obvious to us that we're increasing the possibility for abuse when we expand the definition of family members to this extent.

• 1330

The second point, which I think is probably more important, is that expanding the definition of spouse to include common-law and presumably same-sex couples will delay legitimate spousal reunification. It's quite conceivable that the system will be overwhelmed with claims of all sorts, many of which will certainly be fraudulent and complicated in terms of investigating the details of the background of these claimants. Married couples who are split up by reason of separate dates for immigration to Canada are going to find that the immigration of their spouse and reunification are delayed that much longer because the line is also going to be much longer. When you expand the number of people who can immigrate, this is just common sense. We see this as an attack on the family, because these other relationships that do not involve marriage or are not legal are also going to be considered as such.

Thirdly, we question the wisdom of considering common-law and same-sex relationships as equivalent to marriage and whether it is in the best interests of Canadian society to endorse or promote these other kinds of relationships. If the intended spouse is a true life partner, is it so much of a burden to require that true life partner, in the case of common-law couples, to be married? We don't see that as a great burden. In most societies it is actually a common expectation.

By watering down this definition, there's going to be a long list of people making claims under that category. We believe it's perfectly reasonable for the protection of our society to impose a minimal legal requirement that people be legally married in order to be able to apply under this particular category.

I suppose there's some political controversy attached to this point, but with regard to same-sex couples, which is not directly written in this legislation, but I'm sure based on Bill C-33—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Excuse me, Mr. Beyer.

Mr. Roy Beyer: —as it's going to relate to this piece of legislation, we object to the notion that same-sex couples should be treated as equivalent to married couples in terms of Canada's immigration policy. I want to point out that we're not talking about homosexual individuals who may come to Canada and make individual contributions and who we consider to be very worthy.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Excuse me, Mr. Beyer. Can you hear me?

Mr. Roy Beyer: We're talking about same-sex couples being treated as equivalent to married couples. There is a cultural and religious consensus in the world with regard to marriage in terms of its definition and its importance in society, and we believe that sticking with what is commonly held and commonly appreciated—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Can you hear me? I'm very sorry, but your time is up. Perhaps you could conclude in 15 seconds.

Mr. Roy Beyer: I'm sorry, I didn't realize that my time was up.

Certainly marriage has proven itself to contribute uniquely to the well-being and stability of society, and we believe that the traditional definition of family status would best serve the interests of Canadians.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much for that presentation.

We turn now to the Alberta Centre for International Education, Valdemar Larsen.

Mr. Valdemar Larsen: The purpose of my presentation will be to underline the importance of building our capacity in the knowledge industry through recruiting and encouraging the entry of international students to Canada.

I do want to say, though, that the technology is very interesting. We would have appreciated having you here in the province. We typically use these opportunities to promote our province and to encourage more tourism. I want you to know that the weather is very nice here. The sky is blue, and it's about 17 degrees. I hope it's as nice where you are.

• 1335

As for other good news from Alberta, I think the province is poised on the verge of a very significant period of growth and prosperity. Last Tuesday's provincial budget speech indicated that Alberta would continue with robust growth into the first decade, with last year's growth in GDP being over 6%. I think that led Canada. And it isn't all in oil and gas. It's also in high technology and in the knowledge industry. We've gone from 35% of our GDP in the oil sector to 21% in the last ten years. So there's been a significant diversification of our industries in Alberta, and it's been very much in the area of knowledge-based industries.

The only cloud over our horizon centres around the questions we have on the capacity to provide manpower. Mr. Schuld has already mentioned the question of capacity for trained workers. It's throughout all of the industrial sectors, I think, and particularly the high-tech and knowledge-based sectors.

The Conference Board of Canada is forecasting a national shortage of skilled workers, a shortage approaching one million workers by the year 2020. That mirrors what we're looking at in Alberta.

Our problems, then, are really threefold around human resources. We have rapid growth in a variety of industrial sectors, we have an aging workforce, and we have attrition through emigration, or brain drain. Just taking my industry, education and training, as an example, our Ministry of Education projects growth in the area of 25,000 students. That's 25,000 students for whom we'll need to find seats before 2005.

This is going to be taking place at the same time that our workforce is retiring. One-third of our basic education teachers will retire within the next ten years, and 40% of college instructors will retire. A staggering 50% of the university faculty will retire within the next ten years. Those are tremendous challenges for us in terms of renewal and continuation.

These problems are exacerbated by emigration out of Alberta, especially in the high-tech and advanced research fields. Stats Canada suggests that upwards of 12% of all doctoral graduates go to the United States on completion of their degrees. Seven times as many doctoral candidates or graduates leave Alberta as come into the province. That's a significant concern for us.

To reiterate our problem, we're poised for tremendous growth, but it's likely to be severely limited by our capacity to produce highly skilled workers. Now, one hundred years ago we had the same challenge, and I think the solutions we came to are illustrative of what we might be thinking of doing in the future. One hundred years ago our problems were the settlement of the west and developing the agricultural industry. Our solution was, of course, immigration. We developed through our immigration policy a policy of favouring agriculturalists from all around the world, certainly from eastern Europe.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): I'm sorry, Mr. Larsen, but your time is up. You have about ten seconds to conclude.

Mr. Valdemar Larsen: I would like to say that, while I second the comments by Mr. Schuld, one of the best ways to solve our human resource problem is to have more highly skilled people in the province. We could get those people through recruiting international students. I agree with our sister organizations, the AUCC and the Canadian Bureau for International Education, who presented to you recently, that there needs to be significant changes to the Immigration Act to permit that to happen.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you, Mr. Larsen. I'm sorry we can't be in Edmonton today, especially because it's raining here in Winnipeg, and it's better to be face to face. Nevertheless, I thank you for your presentation.

I might just add that we've heard a number of presentations along these lines. Perhaps because I've been in education most of my career I agree with everything you've said.

Let's now move on to the Alberta Association of Immigrant-Serving Agencies. Ms. Colak, please.

• 1340

Ms. Alice Colak: Thank you.

The Alberta Association of Immigrant-Serving Agencies is an umbrella organization. It's a provincial network of 17 community-based organizations that provide settlement, employment, language, and community services throughout Alberta in eight communities. Our members serve 14,000 immigrants and refugees per year, and more than 3,000 volunteers provide supportive services and contribute more than 150,000 hours of service. AAISA is the acronym for the Alberta association.

We certainly appreciate this opportunity to respond to select issues and concerns relating to the new legislation. Our comments and observations are from the front lines, from the delivery side of our business, so we will focus primarily on those provisions that fall within our scope of work.

I should state at the outset that our members acknowledge all of the comprehensive reviews, studies, and analyses done of the bill by various national and international organizations, but we acknowledge most especially the work undertaken by the Canadian Council for Refugees. Our members certainly have expressed strong support for the key positions and issues outlined in the brief submitted by the Canadian Council for Refugees.

On the positive side, we welcome the federal government's initiative to revise the rather old legislation—it's 25 years old—to reflect more precisely our international obligations and national commitment to refugees. We also are encouraged by the government's willingness and openness to consult with, seek input on, and include recommendations from stakeholders, communities, and citizens.

That said, we have a few comments and concerns. Overall, we believe the bill could be more immigrant-friendly; could recognize the historical, current, and future important value of immigration; and could acknowledge the contribution that immigrants have made, and will continue to make, to our nation and our society. In our view, there appears to be much emphasis, perhaps too much emphasis, on enforcement and criminality.

With regard to family reunification, we are pleased that the legislation will raise the age of dependent children from under 19 to 22. However, we also hear from many of the cultural communities we work with that even this is too low, that perhaps the age should be closer to 25 in order to be more culturally sensitive and culturally appropriate.

We are pleased also that the sponsorship duration has been reduced from ten years to three.

Regarding the permanent resident, we, like many other community groups and associations, believe the term “foreign national” is not appropriate and should be replaced. Perhaps “permanent resident”, the current term, should remain. We also do not think that permanent residents should be required to renew their status.

With regard to refugee protection, the association supports the separation of the refugee and immigration sections in the bill. We also strongly support the shift in balance toward protection and away from the ability to settle. We are also pleased that there will be an appeal on merits, which was an issue of long standing among our sector. We also believe that refugees who have been selected as refugees should be landed automatically.

We also need to say that because this is framework legislation, much will be left to legislation. Because this legislation will affect the lives of so many immigrants and Canadians, we believe there should be a full review of the legislation and regulations, with fuller consultation.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to make this brief presentation. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

Thank you to all the witnesses, and again, my apologies for having to limit you so much.

• 1345

Before turning it over to questions, I might just make a couple of very concise points here. In the last day or two we've proposed possible amendments that would go some way towards meeting the points of the lawyers. First, as I said earlier, none of us like this idea of permanent residents being called foreign nationals. Second, we could suggest the possibility of limiting the rights of examination as proposed in the current version of the bill. Third, we've proposed preserving the intent of the bill, though not how it could be interpreted, in that no immigration officer should have the unilateral power to deport any permanent residents. And finally, with respect to regulatory powers, this would be clarified, so that things that are core principles or fundamental to the policy would be contained in the act and not the regulations. This was the product of our conversations yesterday and earlier today. I thought I might just pass those on.

With that, I'll pass on to Inky Mark, who will be the first questioner.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us on camera. It is most unfortunate that we don't have a face-to-face meeting. Perhaps we could have met at the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary with the folks from Alberta and Saskatchewan this afternoon.

Much has been said, not only in the last day, but also in the last month, as this committee has heard from Canadians with many concerns. It was interesting to note this morning that one of our witnesses indicated that in discussing family classification—and these are his words—“those not allowed in as family members are using the refugee window”. And we all agree that family reunification is vitally important in our immigration process, because we're all products of immigration process. One of the other witnesses indicated that co-sponsorship may be a way of alleviating some of these pressures. I would ask the question to each of you, how can we make the system more friendly towards family reunification in this bill?

A witness: I'll just comment quickly from a legal perspective.

My friend Ms. Colak already indicated that one could raise the age of children to be considered members of the family class. I would concur. Even among new Canadians or permanent residents I find children living with their parents, as married couples even, well into the age of 25 years. These are primarily new Canadians, because kids born in Canada are out the door at 18 or 19. We do find that in immigrant families, overseas cultures, there is much more of a tendency to live as extended families. That's one way.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John McCallum): We have another comment here.

A witness: As already mentioned, our concern is that by so dramatically expanding the definition of those who qualify as family members, you in fact make it more difficult. With those who are married, I think there is historical and cultural religious consensus that is a very core relationship to family, and when you treat other relationships as equivalent to marriage relationships, as well intentioned as that may be, the practical fact of the matter is that you open the door to fraudulent claims, which then causes the line of people applying under this category to be much longer, which then makes it more difficult for people who are truly family, through marriage or as parents of children, having to wait longer to see their applications dealt with.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Alice, did you want to comment?

Ms. Alice Colak: From dealing with many cultural communities in my day-to-day business, I find most families cannot believe that brothers and sisters are not considered immediate family. I think that's one area that's causing a lot of hardship and heartache among many immigrant families.

• 1350

An hon. member: I have a quick question to Wendy Danson. You indicated that in your practice as a lawyer doing immigration work you concentrate primarily in the area of immigrants coming in for business. I'm curious to know if you have any comments in respect of those coming in under the business immigration category specifically, how it's working, what are the problems, how the bill does or does not address that issue for you.

Ms. Wendy Danson: I'm going to be tentative here, but I'll try to answer. Much of my experience has been with the current entrepreneurial class. That's the class that comes in and invests in a business, hires Canadians, and has direct management in the business. Those parts of the act are actually contained in the regulations, so those requirements do not appear in the act at all. The same is happening under Bill C-11. We don't see any of those requirements in the act, and because they're in in the regulations, they can be changed by Order in Council. They, once again, won't be coming before Parliament. That causes me concern.

With respect to the department, they have been consulting with the Canadian Bar Association, so we have had some input. But the classes aren't dealt with in the act, the protections aren't given in the act.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would first like to make a few comments and then I will ask my questions.

During their presentations the witnesses expressed on a number of occasions some dissatisfaction and concern based on their feeling that the legislation gives more importance to preventing crime than to accepting genuine claimants. Ms. Danson said more than once that she considered permanent residents were treated almost as criminals.

As regards Mr. Beyer's comments, I would just point out to him that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which everyone is so proud of in Canada, recognizes gender-based discrimination. Determining whether a relationship is legitimate or not is no easy task.

I have two questions. The first is for Mr. Schuld.

You referred to the shortage of specialists, particularly in engineering and related sciences. Recognition of credentials is of course the prerogative of the professional bodies concerned. To your knowledge, are there discussions underway with a view to streamlining the recognition of qualifications of people from other countries?

My final question is to Ms. Colak. If I understood correctly, you said that permanent residents should get their status renewed. If that is in fact what you said, do you have any suggestions as regards a reasonable timeframe?

• 1355

[English]

Mr. Al Schuld: Responding to the first question, about the recognition of credentials of engineers and related specialists, the answer is most positively yes. We have a number of initiatives that are designed to streamline our application process for recognition to allow better access to examinations.

Our association, APEGGA, is involved with the offering of a professional practice examination, which all would-be registrants must write, and we're offering that a number of times per year throughout Canada and trying to promote access and commonality.

Similarly, our sister association in Ontario is offering to all the other associations a service of writing technical examinations, which may be required for certain immigrant engineers, but they are very actively involved in promoting fair, accessible, quality examinations that really are an appropriate assessment of the immigrant engineer's competencies to perform as a professional in Canada.

I believe there was a second question, directed to one of our—

Ms. Alice Colak: As a quick clarification, I did say “not to renew”. Sorry.

Mr. Roy Beyer: I'd like to respond to the committee member as well.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): There's another point to be made here. Go ahead.

Mr. Roy Beyer: I'm fully aware of what the Constitution has to say with respect to discrimination, and I want to reiterate that we did not say to discriminate against homosexuals. What we talked about is treating common-law and homosexual relationships, same-sex partnerships, as equal to marriage relationships.

The Egan decision of the Supreme Court of Canada certainly does allow Parliament the right to extend certain benefits uniquely to marriage relationships, and that's our policy position. I think you can hold a position like that without going contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): The next questioner will be John Herron, of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. John Herron: I'll address my question to the representative from the Canadian Bar Association. The contribution that the CBA has made to the hearings, not only in Ottawa but also on this tour, has been extremely constructive.

I'd like to see if you're amenable to reiterate the concerns that take place with respect to the due process in the right of appeals. Would you like to share with the committee your concerns in that respect?

Ms. Wendy Danson: Yes, thank you.

First, may I say that with regard to Mr. McCallum's comments on the four areas that you've already addressed, I'm very pleased to hear that, and they are in line with the recommendations of the CBA.

I'd just comment on the first one that not only is it important to change the terminology on foreign national and permanent resident, it's also important to note that the rights and the attributions that go with that term must also be changed. So I commend you on changing that, but also, that has to follow through in terms of the rights granted in the act to the foreign national versus the permanent resident.

Mr. Herron, with regard to your question, I'm going to comment on the right of appeal for an applicant overseas who wants to come in as an immigrant to Canada and has gone through the application process and finds himself or herself turned down.

Currently, that person can make an application for judicial review to the Federal Court of Canada to have the visa officer's decision looked at to see if there was some unfairness or some error that person made in law or in determining the facts.

Under Bill C-11, that particular applicant overseas must now make an application for leave for judicial review to the Federal Court. That's an application for permission to have a full judicial review application heard. Those are very seldom granted. They're hard to get. It seems to me that bona fide immigrants overseas will no longer have an independent avenue to go to, to have their application vetted when there's a visa office denial.

• 1400

My major concern with that is currently inland counsel represent immigrants right, left, and centre. Overseas, that isn't the case. They don't have the same access to lawyers or their rights being preserved as we do inland. So nobody is monitoring overseas except the department, and we don't believe they can do that properly.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you, John.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Hello. I'm Judy Wasylycia-Leis, the NDP critic for immigration and citizenship. I want to reiterate the other comments that have been made about the difficulty in communicating across the wires. I hate it as much as you must hate it, but thank you for your patience.

Let me also add to the comment of my colleague from the Bloc, Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, about concern with respect to Mr. Beyer's generalizations around benefits pertaining to same-sex relationships in this law. I think many have fought long and hard for this small step. There's a concern that it may not go far enough, but we certainly don't was to roll back the clock in terms of definitions set out under this proposed act.

My main question at this point would be focusing around the question of attracting more immigrants. So it's to both Alice and Al, and anyone else, around how we can actually become more competitive with respect to immigration. If we don't adapt some flexibility and some strengthening around foreign credentials, can we truly be competitive given what's happening in other jurisdictions to take the medical professionals trained in other countries under their wing?

The other question is with respect to family. We had two suggestions this morning from some Manitobans around how to increase immigration in Canada as to family reunification. One suggestion was to change the definition of “dependant” to single, unmarried, regardless of age. I wouldn't mind hearing some feedback on that suggestion.

The second suggestion was to change clause 13, pertaining to sponsorship, to allow for sponsorship of any relation or friend if the person sponsoring them has undertaken responsibility for supporting that person. That's a rough wording, but you probably get the gist of the suggestion.

So I wonder if you have some ideas around those two proposed amendments and whether you think there are any problems, and if we should be supporting them at this committee.

Ms. Alice Colak: Regarding attracting additional immigrants to Canada, certainly with the issue of qualifications is a very complicated and complex one that deals with professional associations and bodies, as well as provincial and federal jurisdictions. I think there are some efforts on a local basis, trial projects, and so on, but on the larger scale, it's still a major project in the works.

Regarding attracting immigrants to Canada, I think community support is very critical, supporting communities to ensure that there are support services—cultural communities, social services, some of the work that settlement organizations, community-based, not-for-profit groups, are involved in. I think it's important to ensure and recognize that this work is in place in large and small communities. We believe immigrants should not only be going to Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, but also to many smaller centres. But before that happens, those smaller centres should have an infrastructure in place, should have some support networks to welcome and assist the newcomers with the settlement and adjustments and adaptation process.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Val has a comment.

• 1405

Mr. Valdemar Larsen: I'd like to make a comment about attracting qualified new Canadians. Obviously, my point would be that one source of qualified new Canadians would be international students. The issue for us is to make the process of recruiting international students easier and to encourage them to come.

They're paying a significant amount of money to come here. They're contributing significantly to the Canadian economy. They're big-ticket items, in fact.

We're really creating a lot of problems for them. Because it's a very competitive market, they're going elsewhere, and we're losing them. We're losing them in the short run in terms of the contribution they make to the economy while they're students, and we're losing them in the long run in terms of their prospects of settling in Canada. They're obviously not going to settle in Canada if they consider it to be a hostile environment.

With the aim of facilitating their entry, I think we need to do some significant work in streamlining the processing of their student applications. It's still one of the longest and most Byzantine processes, to use the word of our chairperson. Our immigration regulations are very difficult to get through, especially in comparison to competitor countries such as the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. There have been studies to that effect.

We need to facilitate the ability of students to change their status while they're in Canada so that they can apply for permanent residency. We need to expand employment opportunities for them outside of our campuses and of course for their families.

We need to improve the consistency and transparency of the implementing regulations. Of course, with Bill C-11 and the great emphasis there is on regulations, that concern is intensified.

Ms. Wendy Danson: If I may just make a comment as well, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, I don't want you to go away thinking that all Albertans were reflected in Mr. Beyer's comments. That is not the case. In fact, I do a fair amount of immigration work myself with same-sex couples, and they are by far extremely skilled individuals who Canada should, and I hope would, want. Those people are applying. By changing the definition of spouse, I think we will bring in the talented people we're looking for.

Just to comment on how else we can bring in immigrants, along with raising the age of children, which I mentioned earlier, there ought to be an accommodation for young children who are married. At the moment they are excluded. As I mentioned, very often these persons are still living as part of the larger family unit, but they are excluded from immigrating with the family because of the marriage issue. My experience is that the young child has gotten married because they don't want to leave their spouse behind. They don't want to come with mom and dad without their boyfriend. This excludes some very talented immigrants.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Are there any other comments?

Mr. Roy Beyer: From my perspective, bringing in talented people does not require an expanded definition of family members.

We're not objecting to bringing in people based on their qualifications, regardless of their sexual orientation. I'd like to emphasize that what we're talking about is the expanded definition to include common-law relationships as well as same-sex partnerships being problematic in terms of the potential for fraudulent claims. Unless the committee has a specific plan as to how they're going to address that concern, it's a concern that I believe is legitimate.

With regard to the issue of sponsorship of any relation or friend as long as that person is being supported, it's good to have that in a definition, but in practical terms how is the immigration department going to enforce that?

Statistically, it's a fact that common-law relationships are far more unstable than marriage relationships, so it stands to reason that for those who intend to provide support, that relationship could well break down. We would see going in that direction to be an error.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you.

Yolande.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Good afternoon to all our witnesses. My name is Yolande Thibeault. I have a question for Mr. Colak.

• 1410

In your presentation, you expressed the wish that a refugee should be given permanent resident status immediately on arrival in Canada. We have heard that view expressed on a number of occasions. I would like to know how you would respond to those people who argue that some refugees come here in order to get around the system and perhaps, as those same people might maintain, to the detriment of real immigrants who are not so familiar with Canadian immigration legislation.

I don't think you correctly understood my question. There are people who argue that some refugees use the refugee system rather than using the law to come to Canada as immigrants. You are now saying that a refugee should immediately receive permanent resident status when he or she arrive in Canada. How would you justify that to an immigrant who has been waiting for many months, and in some cases for many years, to come to Canada.

[English]

Ms. Alice Colak: Perhaps there's clarification needed here. What I intended to say was that refugee claimants or asylum seekers who were determined as refugees should be landed, rather than having to wait for permanent residency status, which has been taking some time—so upon determination as refugees. I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding. It should have been more clear.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Indeed, but this is a comment we've heard before. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you. Thanks to my colleagues for their brevity. That leaves enough time for me to make a couple of very brief comments, and then for Inky to have the last word.

With respect to Mr. Larsen, I agree 100% that we're competing with many other countries and we are making some progress in this bill. But we have further to go. My colleague Anita Neville and I were in Asia recently on an immigration-related trip. I was struck by the many TV commercials by Singapore saying what a wonderful place Singapore was to come and work. So it's evident that we have a lot of competition out there.

Second, to the Canadian Bar Association, I'm saying we all agree that we don't like the term foreign national applied to a permanent resident, but it's not purely symbolic. Whereas the act might give the impression that an immigration officer could, under some circumstances, deport a permanent resident, we're also proposing an amendment to make sure that such a person would always get an independent adjudication, which could be interpreted as not currently the case.

Finally, on brothers and sisters, I think all of us like the idea and principle of siblings being allowed to be brought in, but I've been convinced that if we were to allow that to happen without limit, our system could get swamped and it would dominate the economic category, because in some countries siblings are so numerous—either that or we'd be forced to the American system of 20-year waiting lists. So I think there might be some room to accommodate siblings more than we're doing now, but I don't think it's practical to think of an open door for all siblings.

So Inky, over to you.

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

An interesting point was brought to us this morning on clause 190. I will read it to you—it's very short. It's on application of the act. I would like Wendy and Alice to respond to the question.

Every application, proceeding or matter under the former Act that is pending or in progress immediately before the coming into force of this section shall be governed by this Act on that coming into force.

I would like to hear from you whether you would support a transition, perhaps of one year, for this new act to come in force. If that didn't occur, how would the application of this new act affect the cases ongoing right now?

• 1415

Ms. Wendy Danson: I'll start. I have two comments to make here.

Some kind of transition period will be critical, primarily because so much is dependent on regulation, and the regulation has not yet been introduced. It will take time to figure out how the regulation and the act work together, so not only the department, but also practitioners and applicants can adjust.

Absolutely, we would support a transition period. I hope one year would do it, but it's an excellent start.

Secondly, it happened to be one of the sections of the bill I had highlighted in yellow, and I don't have very many highlighted. Many of us perceive the current Immigration Act as giving greater rights to immigrants than the new Bill C-11. We are of the opinion that rights granted under the current act should not be allowed to fall away under this new legislation once it is adopted. There are legal ways to do it so the rights that invest before this new act comes into effect will be able to be retained. We would recommend this happen.

Ms. Alice Colak: I agree with everything Wendy said.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): We finish then on a harmonious note. Everything is agreed with...not quite.

I would like to thank you all very much for coming under these less than ideal conditions. We now have to switch off to plug into Saskatchewan.

I've been very impressed with the diversity and the depth of the presentations we've heard. You could tell from the questioning we've been very interested in what you have had to say.

On behalf of the committee, let me thank you for attending and say goodbye. Thank you.

• 1418

• 1439

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Good afternoon. Can you hear me in Regina?

Voices: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John McCallum): My name is John McCallum. I'd like to welcome you all to this hearing. I'm sorry we can't be there. We've just had another video meeting with Edmonton, and it's not quite the same as personal interaction. Nevertheless, it's the best we could do, and I'm delighted you all were able to join us.

• 1440

We have quite limited time, so I would ask the witnesses to limit their presentations to five minutes, and my colleagues to limit their questions and answers to five minutes each. If we all do this, then we will get through with everyone given a chance to speak.

We'll begin. Please identify your organization and name to make sure we have it right. But before we begin it might be useful to have each of you briefly introduce yourselves, going around the table. Then we here will do the same, and then we'll begin with the witnesses.

Mr. Keith Vallanda (Saskatchewan Anti-Racism Network): I'm Keith Vallanda, and I'm with the Saskatchewan Anti-Racism Network.

Ms. Fiona Bishop (Saskatchewan Anti-Racism Network): I'm Fiona Bishop, also with the Saskatchewan Anti-Racism Network.

Ms. Christine Lwanga (Member, Committee on Anti-Racism in Education and the Employment Sector; Commissioner, Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission): I'm Christine Lwanga. I'm registered under the Action Committee on Anti-Racism in Education and the Employment Sector. I'd also like to speak on behalf of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission as a commissioner.

Dr. Lisa Cormode (Anglican Diocese of Saskatoon Refugee Committee): I'm Lisa Cormode, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Anglican Diocese of Saskatoon Refugee Committee.

Ms. Helen Smith-McIntyre (Saskatoon Refugee Coalition): I'm Helen Smith-McIntyre. I represent the Saskatoon Refugee Coalition.

Mr. Amit Chakma (Vice-President, Research and International Liaison Office, University of Regina): I'm Amit Chakma. I'm representing the University of Regina.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): All right, we have five of you. I therefore ask that we obey the five-minute rule strictly. I'm sorry about that, but otherwise we won't have time.

The names you have just given don't exactly coincide with what we have, so when you speak, would you again repeat your name and where you're from?

First up is the Saskatoon Refugee Coalition and Helen Smith-McIntyre.

Ms. Helen Smith-McIntyre: Excuse me, we wanted to change. The fellow from the University of Regina wanted to go first, because of time commitments. Is that fine with you?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): It's certainly fine with me.

The University of Regina, Amit Chakma, please go ahead.

Mr. Amit Chakma: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My purpose in appearing before this committee is probably different from the other groups with whom you are meeting. I am here to emphasize the need to recognize the importance of international students in the proposed immigration legislation.

The University of Regina, like other universities in Canada, is attempting to internationalize its campus by integrating a national and international perspective into our fundamental threefold mission of instruction, research, and service. The recruitment of international students contributes to this goal.

Our university has been a pioneer in internationalization since its early beginnings. We are the first Canadian university to establish formal relationships with a Chinese university. In fact, our informal relationship with China took shape well before the two countries had established a diplomatic relationship.

We are also the only university in the world with whom the National People's Congress of China has official relationship. We offer opportunities to the staff of the National People's Congress to come to Regina to study and be acquainted with the parliamentary democratic system in Canada. During the recent Team Canada mission, we agreed to offer an executive training program in public policy for senior Chinese officials.

We have pioneered the development of joint academic programs with universities in China and Thailand, allowing international students to complete the first two years of education in their home country, and then to come to Regina to complete their education.

These innovative partnerships not only contribute to the academic and cultural diversity of our campus, but they also contribute to the economic and social development of both countries.

International students make many contributions to Canada and our universities. They play a critical role in the internationalization goals of our universities. They bring significant economic benefits to Canadian universities and local communities. For example, over 400 international students at the University of Regina today bring about $8 million worth of economic activity to the City of Regina.

• 1445

More importantly, perhaps, bringing international students to Canada serves the longer-term trade and diplomatic interests of this country. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, Canada is falling behind other countries due to the lack of a coherent international recruitment strategy and competitive approaches to immigration policies and practices. Canadian immigration policy does not recognize the importance of international students; as such, some immigration posts do not appear to consider processing student visa applications in an expeditious manner a priority. It takes too long for student visas to be processed. For example, last year it took 40 students who were coming to Regina more than eight months to receive their student visas from Beijing, China. This has to change; otherwise, we will not be able to compete with countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

We strongly support the position taken by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. We request the committee to consider the following changes to Bill C-11:

—The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act should recognize international students as important contributors to Canada's academic, social, and economic development goals. The act should also place a stronger emphasis on facilitating international student recruitment as a major objective for Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

—Past experience shows a high level of student visa acceptance rate for university students. In recognition of this, the CIC should modify its current single-student visa class to develop and implement a system of student visas differentiated by education sub-sectors.

—Finally, CIC's expedited medical pilot projects should become standard procedure at Canadian missions in student recruitment target markets such as China and India, with a view to making it standard procedure at all Canadian missions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much, Mr. Chakma, for that very good and concise presentation.

I neglected to go around the table here, but I think we'll save that for the question period, when the individual MPs ask questions.

Who would like to go next? Is it the Saskatoon Refugee Coalition or somebody else?

Ms. Christine Lwanga: My name is Christine Lwanga.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): And what organization do you represent?

Ms. Christine Lwanga: I'm representing the Action Committee on Anti-Racism in Education and the Employment Sector, but I would also like to speak on behalf of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. My presentation is specifically going to be covering the importance of recognizing human rights within Bill C-11.

First of all, I would like to start by acknowledging that Bill C-11, under clause 3, the clause on objectives and application, in paragraph 3(3)(d), does specifically talk about human rights. It states that the bill is going to try to ensure that any person seeking admission to Canada is subject to standard policies and procedures that are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And I think it also goes further to say this includes its principles of equality and freedom from discrimination. I recognize this as an important inclusion in the act, but I do have concerns that I think are important for us to address.

First of all, the concern I have is that the bill needs to be situated within the context of immigration, Canada being an immigrant country, and the fact that there were historically Canadian immigration policies that violated human rights. Within human rights, we have a video that talks about human rights when wronged, and within that video we talk about violations of human rights within the Immigration Act.

• 1450

Historically we know that Canada excluded and did not welcome certain communities. For example, we know that the Sikhs at one time were turned away from this country and the Jews were denied equal access to this country. We also know that people of African ancestry were resisted, specifically in Saskatchewan but also in other parts of Canada. They've been treated inequitably even to this date, even though we have had legislation and the Charter of Rights to protect their rights to equality. So I think it's really important that Bill C-11 is situated within the historical context of immigration within this country.

In addition to other factors that need to be noted in situating the bill under the historical context of immigration of this country, it's also important to acknowledge the aboriginal people of this land within this bill. In the clause on human rights we talk about the importance of recognizing Canada as a bilingual country, recognizing that we use French and English. But equally we need to situate this clause in the historical context that this land, Canada, has aboriginal people. As we promote Canada as an immigrant country, we also need to promote the equality rights of aboriginal people.

I specifically want to talk about this point, because for example in Saskatchewan we have many aboriginal people. I would find it very difficult to promote immigration, making sure that we have a viable population base in Saskatchewan, without promoting the equality rights of aboriginal people in this country.

I also think this bill needs to be situated within the larger global world we live in. Basically for me, from what I've read of it, this bill seems to assume that Canada is living in a bubble. We do talk about the immigration needs of Canada, but we've not situated it within the larger global population pressure. We need to admit the population needs of Canada, but we need to be situating it within the larger population pressures in the world.

So the other concern I have is under clause 3, on objectives and applications, specifically paragraphs 3(1)(h) and 3(1)(i). Because the bill is not situated within the larger historical context and the issues that are important in immigration, the bill is tilted towards almost criminalizing immigrants.

For example, again we miss recognizing the importance of immigration in this country and the contribution of immigrants to this country—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we do have time constraints, and your time is up. Could you conclude in 15 seconds or so?

Ms. Christine Lwanga: Maybe I'll summarize my concerns in terms of recommendations.

The first recommendation I need to make is that the bill needs to be situated within the historical context of immigration in this country, plus the recognition of the aboriginal people. In terms of the recognition that there have been human rights violations in immigration historically, it's important that the bill specifically recognizes this and makes sure that these violations are not repeated in the future. So the main recommendation is the need for a preamble to the bill.

The other point I wanted to specify is that when we talk about the concept of equality, we should recognize that equality is not equal treatment. Many times we talk about equality as if it were equal treatment, but I would appreciate that as a definition the concept of equality is defined so that it means equity—equal regard, as opposed to equal treatment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm sorry we have to be so strict on time, but otherwise we won't have time for everybody to speak.

Who would like to go next?

• 1455

Ms. Fiona Bishop: We will. My name is Fiona Bishop, of the Saskatchewan Anti-Racism Network.

The first point we want to make is that Bill C-11 is framework legislation, and that leaves too much to the regulations. We have concern over the fact that the rules can be changed too easily through any kind of political pressure and public lobbying that may not be in the best interests of recent immigrants. We feel that more of the rules should be put right into the legislation and not be left to the regulations.

We feel that too many discretionary powers have been given to the immigration officer. We outline in our brief, which you should have—I don't want to repeat the whole thing—the training that we feel needs to be done with immigration officers. They have a huge responsibility, and it's important that they all have training so that they have a sense of understanding of the basically racist immigration policies this country has had up until now. We hope to see some progressive changes in this legislation. There should be an anti-racism and gender analysis brought to the training they get so that they understand systemic and institutional racism and international human rights standards and can thus carry out their duties in a fair and just manner.

We just can't stress that enough. It's really important that the people making these decisions have a good background in this area.

Another point we want to make is that it's really important that this bill measure up to international human rights standards. Any United Nations covenants that have been signed by Canada, including the one on torture and the one on children, must be held up to careful international scrutiny. The bill should be vetted by these organizations before it's finalized.

Another point—and these aren't necessarily in any given order, but just as I think of them—is that there shouldn't be any quotas set for the number of immigrants and refugees you're letting in the country. The detention powers should not be expanded. That's another issue of concern for us.

As well, human trafficking is a growing concern. It's really important that the victims be protected. That needs to be covered a little more right in the bill itself.

The family reunification proposals, which were discussed earlier, need to be included right in the bill. We find that they're omitted, or at least we can't find them. It's really important that these be included.

With regard to the members of the Immigration and Refugee Board itself, they have a huge responsibility, and we feel that there has to be a very clear, open, and accountable process developed for who gets appointed to these boards. We're very concerned about that. It has to be a transparent process, free from any political appointments. We suggest that it be vetted through recommendations from, say, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and organizations like the Canadian Labour Congress should have an opportunity to have input into who these board members are going to be. In fact, there could be seats set aside for these groups to be on the board making these decisions, because they have a good background in this area and they need to have that input.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt. You have 20 more seconds, please.

Ms. Fiona Bishop: Okay.

The appeal for refugee claimants is a good thing, but it needs to be expanded to include more areas.

• 1500

Separating and defining the differences between immigration and refugee protection is a good thing, but there needs to be more on resettlement programs right in the bill to allow for the refugee resettlement programs.

Overall, I guess our main point is that we recognize that it is framework legislation, and we want to ensure that more of what you're putting into regulations right now gets put into the bill itself so that it won't be subject to change too easily, at somebody's whim.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much for that presentation. I appreciate it.

Who would like to go next?

Ms. Helen Smith-McIntyre: I can go next. My name is Helen Smith-McIntyre. I represent the Saskatoon Refugee Coalition.

Thank you to the members of the standing committee for this opportunity to address you. I'm pleased to be here, even by video conference.

The message I want to underline is the need for safety, protection, and respect for refugees. I will speak more to these principles than to the specifics of the legislation. I will need to leave it up to you to read our brief and in the end make the final assessment as to whether the specifics of the legislation fit into the principles I am choosing to emphasize.

The Saskatoon Refugee Coalition is primarily interested in assisting refugees to find safety. We are very aware of the ongoing persecution, torture, arbitrary detention, disappearances, and extrajudicial executions. These kinds of happenings occur at least every moment in our world.

The Refugee Coalition exists to support these people. We know that only a very small number of refugees in the world would choose, or have the means, to come to Canada. But when they choose to, and are able, the Refugee Coalition feels a heartfelt desire to advocate safe and respectful processes for their assessment and integration.

Refugees have enriched the lives of all the members of our coalition. We want to see many refugees accepted from all parts of the world. We believe deeply that Canada, as our country, has a major responsibility to provide protection for people who are fleeing persecution. We want to be proud of our country, and for us to be proud of our country we need Canada to have truly humanitarian policies and processes. We need our country to live within the values of the Geneva Convention, the convention on torture, the convention on the rights of the child, and all other international documents that Canada has ratified.

We take our responsibility for caring for refugees very seriously. We do not ever want to be responsible for somebody being returned to a situation where they will face torture, arbitrary detention, disappearance, or execution. We do not ever want to feel that we have contributed in any way to the retraumatization of people who have experienced electric shock, beatings, rape, death threats, or other atrocities.

You, too, by reviewing this piece of legislation, bear, I think, the same level of responsibility for ensuring that this legislation will indeed protect refugees. Together we bear responsibility for ensuring that this legislation will not allow people to be returned to situations of persecution. We bear responsibility for ensuring that this legislation will carefully provide for sympathetic processes for people who have already experienced so much brutality and tragedy.

• 1505

As we have said in our brief, we are deeply saddened by the attitude and language of the proposed legislation, and by the media coverage of the legislation. The attitude of the refugee part of the legislation seems to be directed more toward screening for criminality and fraudulent claims than it does toward protecting refugees. That leaves the impression that refugees are abusers and that we must protect the borders of our country at all costs. The term “foreign national” feels alienating and seems to set people apart from each other.

There are two points I want to make under this theme. Firstly, the attitude and language of the legislation colour the popular perception of refugees in our country. Secondly, such attitudes do not reflect the reality. Statistically, only a very small number of refugee claimants could be considered abusers, terrorists, or criminals. By far the largest number of refugees accepted to come or to stay in Canada are sincere, honest, and hardworking people who simply desire a safe place to live.

The NGO community has asked over many years that refugee procedures focus on identifying refugees. We have always felt that if that was the sole purpose of the procedures, then the small number of so-called abusers would effectively be screened out. When we get procedures that focus on abusers, such procedures are often harmful to refugees; i.e., instead of proving that one is a refugee, one is called on to prove that one is not a criminal.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt. I've let you go on for nearly six minutes. I know these are life and death issues, but I would ask you to draw your remarks to a close, please.

Ms. Helen Smith-McIntyre: I just have one concluding paragraph.

We brought to our analysis of the legislation the question, how can this particular clause be changed or improved so that refugees are offered safety and treated with respect? We believe that this is the question that you, the members of the committee, should also put to all parts of the proposed legislation.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

Perhaps I shouldn't apologize after each presentation, but because of the format, we're really constrained by time. That's why I'm having to enforce the time limits more than I normally would.

Who would like to speak next?

Dr. Lisa Cormode: My name is Dr. Lisa Cormode. I'm presenting today on behalf of the Anglican Diocese of Saskatoon Refugee Committee, as Klaus Gruber wasn't able to come. He contacted Ottawa about this yesterday. I am an adjunct professor at the University of Saskatchewan. I'm also a research affiliate of the Metropolis Project.

First of all, I will give you some background. Refugee issues are very important in Saskatoon because refugees now account for a relatively large share of all immigrants to this province. The Anglican Diocese of Saskatoon has a sponsorship agreement with CIC. We try to encourage private sponsorship, so we actively recruit private sponsors. We also train, prepare, and support them. Our diocese is a member of the Saskatoon Refugee Coalition and the Canadian Council for Refugees.

I want to stress that the efforts of groups such as ours are extremely important because in recent years the government has had difficulty meeting its overseas refugee target. We see that the level of private sponsorship has fallen to about 2,500 refugees a year. This is woefully inadequate given Canada's size, wealth, and circumstances.

I want to highlight very quickly several impediments we've found to greater private sponsorship of refugees: first, media portrayals of refugees as being dangerous criminals or illegal queue-jumpers. Second, in our experience potential sponsors are often discouraged by excessive and somewhat arbitrary processing decisions made overseas that not uncommonly result in waits of two or more years. Third, there's often confusion about the difference between refugees and immigrants.

• 1510

We have a number of concerns about Bill C-11, and I will highlight only a few of them. Then I want to move on to another issue: religious worker immigration. I believe this has not yet been addressed before your committee.

First of all, we want to express our agreement with the Canadian Council for Refugees' brief. We share their concern about the urgency in rushing this bill through. There seems to be a lack of consultation, and many individuals and NGOs who want to speak are having great difficulty making their voices heard.

I want to highlight some particular issues. Canada is a large country, and different regions have different experiences of immigration. I suggest that it's particularly important for these regional perspectives to be heard.

We share the concern about the move away from legislation and towards regulations that can be changed without recourse to Parliament. We are concerned about the discrepancies between the overseas process and the inland claims process.

We also share the concern about the IRB process. In the present system, IRB staff have a geographical focus: people in Calgary or Montreal serve certain communities. We suggest that a much more effective system might be to have staff with expertise in very specific areas, such as gender persecution, sexual assault, or specific regions or countries. They could hear cases related to these issues.

The idea is for you to acknowledge that these are life and death issues. It's critically important that refugee claims be heard by people with expertise, rather than by people appointed on the basis of their political ties to cabinet ministers or to the party in power.

On the overseas issue, we also want to express our concern about the over-reliance on immigrants' ability to establish themselves successfully in Canada. In our opinion, we should be looking at providing protection rather than stressing that ability.

We support the expansion of the family reunification provision. We would like this to go beyond Canada's nuclear family model and recognize first cousins, for example, as Australia does.

We also believe it's very important for refugees to be able to become permanent residents as quickly as possible.

To sum up, we see it as essential that Bill C-11 comply with international human rights conventions and with the obligations under the UN convention on refugees. We are not satisfied that it does.

Turning very quickly to the question of religious worker immigrants, the existing Immigration Act makes specific provisions for the entry of clergy and related workers and religious and charitable workers. Bill C-11 and the proposed regulations to accompany it do not. In our opinion, this is a—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt, but your time is more than up. Could you please try to draw your remarks to a conclusion? Thank you.

Dr. Lisa Cormode: I will just conclude by saying that Bill C-11 and its accompanying regulations should address the clergy and religious workers. I believe we need specific legislative provision for the immigration of such workers, and clear guidelines for what constitutes eligibible religious work and religious duties.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

We have two groups: one from 2:30 to 3:30, one from 3:30 to 4:30. There seems to be some overlap, which is just fine. I wonder if we might have a round of questions now. How many groups are there remaining in the room who have not yet presented?

A voice: None. The next set of groups is coming in at 2:30.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Everybody has made a presentation for this round?

A voice: No, there'll be another group.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Okay, we will proceed to questions.

I would just like to introduce myself. I think everyone will individually. My name is John McCallum, Liberal member of Parliament for Markham.

I'd like to briefly make a couple of points that were made in our hearings earlier today, and yesterday in Vancouver. They address some of your concerns, though certainly not all of them.

• 1515

First, I believe this committee is unanimous in not liking the term “foreign national” when applied to a permanent resident.

Second, we've suggested we could amend the bill to ensure that the critical issues in the legislation—matters of policy and principle—are not subject to regulation.

And third, on the point of discretionary powers of immigration officers, we've suggested possible amendments that would limit those powers—both with respect to the right to deport permanent residents, and with respect to examinations. Those powers would be circumscribed, and no permanent resident could be deported on the word of an immigration officer.

These are issues you probably wouldn't have heard about, because we discussed them in the committee yesterday and this morning. But they go at least a certain way towards addressing certain points you raised.

Now I'll turn matters over to the first questioner, Mr. Inky Mark.

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

My name is Inky Mark, a member of the Alliance. I'm the chief opposition critic for this committee, and also a vice-chair of the committee. Now I'd like to turn the speaking part of the question period over to my colleague from Saskatchewan.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you, and welcome to the committee. My name is Lynne Yelich and I'm from the riding of Blackstrap.

John has alluded to the fact that we've heard many of the things you've said from previous witnesses, so I won't go into that.

I do want to talk about Saskatchewan for a minute, because of our diverse population and the fact that we have people coming from all corners of the world—immigrants, and also refugees. Since ours is an agricultural economy, I'd like to hear what you think. How well are our refugees and immigrants fitting in? How can we strengthen the legislation to emphasize settlement support and integration in Saskatchewan? I would like to hear what you have to suggest. Regionalism was brought up. Is there anything in particular you can offer me?

Mr. Keith Vallanda: My name is Keith Vallanda and I'm with the Saskatchewan Anti-Racism Network. I'm an immigrant into this country myself.

One of the problems we have with immigration is the question of accreditation—how we recognize people's academic background and work experience. People like myself come here and try to get a job and we're told we don't have enough Canadian experience, even though we might have 20 years of experience in a particular field. That's a form of discrimination.

We have to figure out some way to equalize accreditation, to allow people the possibility of getting reasonable employment. Then as productive citizens they can be productive taxpayers, etc. This is a real problem, because there is no provincial standard, and also no national standard. For many immigrants and refugees I've worked with over the years, this accreditation question is a constant problem.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: That was actually brought up this morning as well, and something we're definitely going to have to consider.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Any further comments, Lynne?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes, I would just like a comment.

Ms. Christine Lwanga: I would like to add to the comments I made earlier.

Many times, the people who have trouble with accreditation are the visible minorities. To go back to the point I raised earlier, it's very, very important that the immigration officers be aware of the context of the historical inequities existing in this country.

Many times people struggle with qualifications and can't find jobs. In this country, we know of people who have MA degrees but are working in parking lots—they can't find jobs. But most times people experience these problems either because they're visible minorities or because they're not fluent in English or French. This is not a new phenomenon; it's an historical phenomenon. So it's really important that this view is recognized.

• 1520

It's really important that you recognize the historical context of the inequalities. Otherwise, we will continue to exclude and dehumanize certain members of the community. They could come to this country, but they would not be able to participate fully as contributing citizens.

A witness: I'd like to add two points. One, of course, is to speed up overseas processing as a means of encouraging private sponsorship.

As you're aware, there has been discussion in Saskatchewan about whether we should encourage refugee sponsorship in rural communities, both to address the very high level of interest in many rural communities in sponsoring refugees, and also to address the decline in rural populations.

In practice, of course, we have issues about providing services to refugees in rural areas. Again, in some cases it's a matter of the mentality of the people at CIC. Perhaps at the national level, they just aren't aware of what is available in rural prairie communities.

A witness: I'd like to add a comment. I think you originally asked something about agricultural workers, did you not? Perhaps as a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, you might want to pressure the provincial government into including farm workers in the labour standards. It's difficult for us to promote people coming into the country to work in agricultural areas, when these are not covered under basic trade union and labour standards. They need those kinds of protection.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

To reiterate, we certainly agree that we need regional perspective. That's why we were in Vancouver yesterday, talked to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta today, and tomorrow we're going to Toronto, and then Montreal and Halifax. So I'm sure we'll know a lot more when we get back to Ottawa.

I'll now turn it over to Anita Neville.

Ms. Anita Neville: Good afternoon. My name is Anita Neville, and I'm the Liberal member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre. I'm pleased that you've joined us today, even over the wires rather than in person. But we welcome the opportunity to hear from you.

Most of you picked up on a theme we heard earlier this morning, of the nature of the bill. I think one of you mentioned that it tilted towards the criminality of immigrants, rather than the positive aspects of what immigrants bring to our country.

Christine, I think you spoke about the importance of the historical context of immigration in this country, as well as the importance of recognizing first nations peoples in the bill.

I wonder if any others would like to comment further on this, with any direct suggestions as to what might be changed.

I would also like to ask Mr. Chakma from the University of Regina, you indicated that you had a number of difficulties with the processing of student visas—particularly out of China. You referred to the expedited medical pilot program as well. I hope you have also had some positive experiences with students coming to your university.

The reason I ask is that Mr. McCallum and I were in Korea recently, and they're turning around almost 12,000 student visas in a two- to three-day period. In part, that's because the medical documentation is coming in with the application. So I'd like to know a little bit more about your experience with student visas and the facilitation of international students.

Mr. Amit Chakma: Our experience has been mixed. We are very careful to select high-quality students to come to the university. To do that, we have linked up with very reputable universities in China—essentially, they do the recruitment for us.

• 1525

So from our perspective, it should be a very straightforward case for immigration officers based in Beijing to look at these files. The chances of getting criminals coming through this sort of arrangement are going to very slim. Unfortunately, all the files are treated with the same level of scrutiny, and all these boat people coming clearly doesn't help.

When we recruit students, we're given the assurance that it will take about two or three months to process their visa application, so we start the process. We expect students to come in September, and of course they cannot come because of the delay. Eventually they get the visa—that's the positive part—but if they arrive eight months later, it creates so much complexity in terms of curriculum, what they can fit in, and then it becomes extremely difficult for these students to adjust to their educational program here.

It is extremely frustrating for all of us in the process when we are trying to reserve residence space for them. We don't know exactly when they'll be arriving. So yes, ultimately they get visas, but the time it takes is completely unacceptable.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Anita, there were a couple of other questions you wanted to ask.

Ms. Anita Neville: I want some comments from others there. I think one of you identified it as focusing on the criminality of immigrants rather than the positive aspects. I would like to know what your concrete suggestions might be in that area.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): We have time for one comment on that issue.

A witness: I was one of the people who raised that concern around refugees—not necessarily around immigrants, but I think the concern should be the same.

Our frustration is not knowing why, with the number of refugees who resettle so well and work so hard, that's not what we hear about. Why is the legislation not focused on recognizing who refugees are, the trauma they've experienced, and their need for safety? Why does the legislation focus on the small minority of our experience, the few people who might be viewed differently? It's frustrating to not know why the legislation takes this focus. What are the statistics and the attitudes and biases behind that?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

I will now move on to Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Good afternoon. I will repeat my name. I am Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral. I am a Bloc Québecois member, representing the riding of Laval-Centre.

The large majority of your concerns were expressed by a number of previous witnesses. I would like to ask two questions. The first is to Ms. Chakma. You talked about establishing an effective strategy to attract a good number of international students. Do you think that a piece of legislation such as Bill C-11 should, in addition to facilitating the granting of student visas and allowing the people concerned to work part time while they are studying here, develop such a strategy? Once these parameters are set out in the legislation, is it not then really up to the college and university educational institutions to show some imagination? That is my first question.

My second question is to Ms. Smith-McIntyre. In your brief you referred to the importance of carefully selecting board members, as they are the people who ultimately decide on the claims before them. I would ask you to list, if possible, some of the criteria that you consider essential.

• 1530

[English]

Mr. Amit Chakma: Thank you very much for your question.

You are absolutely right. Canadian universities need to be innovative, and may I suggest, Canadian universities indeed are innovative and entrepreneurial. On the recent Team Canada mission, Canadian universities signed over 30 agreements with China alone, and I can give you several other examples.

What we need in this legislation is almost some of the directional sense that some of my colleagues are pointing out: as opposed to focusing on criminology, looking at the positive side of it. So we almost need to look at it from that point of view.

This legislation should give a clear signal to CIC and the officers who work for CIC that international student recruitment is a priority for this country and that they should do everything in their power to facilitate that. Once that signal is given, we can do our job, but right now, unfortunately, in spite of our efforts and the positive signals we are getting from the government, the Prime Minister, to do these sorts of things, at the bureaucratic level they are slowing the process down. In many ways they are subverting the political will of the government of the day by delaying tactics and not cooperating with the universities.

The frustration level goes to the point that even when a university president visits China, for example, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to even have a meeting with the immigration officials there. It's almost an attitude type of problem, and I think the only way to solve it is by sending a very strong signal through this sort of legislation that these are priority items for this country.

Ms. Fiona Bishop: You asked if we had comments about the consideration for the board members. That was some of our input, from the Saskachewan Anti-Racism Network, and in our brief we propose that a proportion of the board members should come from the community. The Canadian Council for Refugees could be asked to make recommendations on people with qualifications and experience in working in these areas.

The other is that a portion of the board members should come from organized labour to ensure that workers' rights are protected and proper consideration is given to trade union activists fleeing a country due to persecution based on union activities. For this, the Canadian Labour Congress could make recommendations as to who could sit on the board to cover off that area.

So I think you have to look at input from the communities that are working and have knowledge and expertise specifically in this area, and you should actually be setting aside seats on the board for these groups.

Ms. Helen Smith-McIntyre: Maybe I could add that even though these are Order-in-Council appointments, I think we need to ensure they're not patronage appointments. I would like to see that all the appointees have experience with refugee issues, an understanding of refugee-producing countries, cross-cultural training, and an understanding of issues of race, trauma, and gender-specific persecution. That would be my list.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

I gather there are people waiting outside to come in for the next round. Perhaps you could tell them we are a little bit behind schedule, but we should be ready for them in not more than 15 minutes.

Thank you, and I'll turn it over now to John Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My name is John Herron. I'm a member of Parliament from the riding of Fundy—Royal in New Brunswick, and I serve as the Progressive Conservative Party immigration critic.

I'd like to see if I can drum up some support on two angles that we're going to pursue as we proceed towards clause by clause on the bill. In the media we have seen, with respect to this bill, that the bill is not something where we're sending a signal to our society that immigration is something we need from an economic necessity perspective and also reflects the values we have within the country.

• 1535

There are two elements I'd like to flag that the Progressive Conservative Party does indeed see as draconian. They both relate to the issue of appeal. One is that for permanent residents, should something out of the ordinary happen and they be convicted of a crime—no matter how long they've actually lived in Canada—they would not have a right to appeal a deportation order. We find this loss of due process very un-Canadian.

Here's the second aspect we have a problem with: in the current bill—I think it's in clause 25—the Canadian Bar Association pointed out in the wording that the minister “may” hear an appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, as opposed to the current rules where the minister must hear an appeal with respect to humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

I'd like to see if there's support for the direction in which we're proceeding on those two aspects.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Helen Smith-McIntyre: I certainly would support anything providing an appeal of the deportation order for permanent residents who have been convicted of a criminal offence.

From a refugee perspective, these people sometimes have lived in turmoil and in disruptive circumstances for many, many years. This is one of the explanations for why they may come into conflict with the law. The trauma and disruption they've experienced may lead them into developing some survival skills not necessarily in keeping with the Criminal Code or the culture of Canada. Maybe it's the failure of our integration process that gets people into trouble with the law in the first place.

Mr. Keith Vallanda: When we say people are permanent residents, what do we mean—they are permanent residents, but then when they engage in some unfortunate criminal activity, they are not permanent residents any more?

We really need to look at this in a more direct way. It seems to me this is a form of discrimination. If you are going to challenge this section of the legislation, I would support you.

Ms. Fiona Bishop: We definitely feel there should be an appeal process in there for everyone.

This does raise a number of concerns about permanent resident status. All of a sudden you're opening up the door to giving them less protection than they have now, and this is a concern.

Mr. John Herron: I like the aspect brought forth by one of the committee members from the Anglican diocese, the issue pertaining to overseas processing. The issue was about our needing to invest more energy in and more capacity for overseas approvals. Now we almost encourage or provide an incentive for individuals to not apply through proper channels overseas, but rather to try to enter the country illegally, because our system is actually too bogged down. We're not doing our job overseas.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): I'm afraid we don't have time for further comments on this.

I move to Judy now, please.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Hi. I'm Judy Wasylycia-Leis. I'm the NDP member on this committee. I want to ask a general question about what's behind this bill.

All of you have identified some serious shortcomings with many aspects of the bill, in particular the refugee portion of Bill C-11.

There's been some consensus across the country on the feeling that this bill is very much focused on enforcement and protection, and keeping the so-called bad people out of this country. I'm trying to understand where this is coming from, because it doesn't seem to be consistent with what I feel is happening in Manitoba, and I'm wondering about attitudes in Saskatchewan.

There is a sense we might be catering to an anti-immigration lobby. There is a sense we might be trying to coat the immigration pill in a covering of tough-sounding verbiage in order to get Canadians to swallow an annual target of immigration. There seems to be a sense from many Canadians that this approach is fueling, contrary to its intentions, xenophobia and racism.

• 1540

I'd just like to get a sense from all of you, or from whoever the chair will permit to respond to this, of the attitude in Saskatchewan. Is there a backlash? Are there attitudes we have to be worried about? Is there a problem in terms of a province like yours handling more immigrants and refugees?

Mr. Keith Vallanda: Saskatchewan has a limited population, and it has a very hard time drawing immigrants, or even refugees for that matter, particularly to our rural areas. It seems to me, from reading the draft of this legislation, that the emphasis in the legislation tends to be more in favour of those who are going to provide or come in with professional skills, or who are business people. So the bill is probably more business-oriented. It lessens the emphasis on Canada's obligations internationally, and, in terms of human rights legislation and so forth, on opening up the country to more refugees. I think that's where the weakness of the overall piece of proposed legislation lies.

Second, as we pointed out in our brief, the legislation is so broad, it's weak. It leaves the day-to-day decision-making process up to the regulations, which puts more and more power in the hands of bureaucrats, and therefore it is open to greater abuse. These people can make decisions at a whim, without having any training, without understanding the international political or geopolitical situations of the various countries they're stationed in.

That is our concern. In some ways the bill is progressive, and in other ways it's extremely regressive. If we are going to attract people into a province like Saskatchewan, we have to have the ability to make Saskatchewan a place of conviviality for these potential immigrants and refugees.

Ms. Christine Lwanga: I would like to add to that point. The bill specifically, under objectives, talks about protecting Canada from criminals, and about issues of security. This is under the section on refugees and also under the overall section on immigration. I think it's awkward and really absurd to have that under the objectives of an immigration policy, even more so when the policy does not talk at all about the contribution of immigration to this country.

We all know that Canada is an immigrant country, that the people who are here have immigrated here and contributed a lot to this country. There's no preamble at all that talks about the contribution of immigrants to this country, and yet, under objectives, we talk about protecting Canada from criminals. I really want to argue that there ought to be a preamble in the bill that recognizes the contribution of immigrants and also talks about the issue of criminals. But that shouldn't be repeated in the new bill.

This bill is taking us into the 21st century, and really, we need to pay attention so that we're not continuing the problems we've had in the past. But we also want to reap the benefits of immigration. If possible, the objectives should not talk about immigrants as criminals. Not very much of the contributions from immigrants have been criminal. There have been lots of other contributions, and these could be at risk.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

I'm afraid we are running somewhat behind. I shall call upon my colleague, Yolande Thibeault, to ask a question, and then our Saskatchewan MP, Lynne Yelich, will close off the session with one brief question.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Yolande Thibeault. I am the Liberal member for Saint-Lambert. I would like to put a question to Ms. Bishop from the Saskatchewan Anti-Racism Network.

Ms. Bishop, I have before me a brief your group presented to the Standing Committee in August 2000. Under recommendation number four, you suggest setting up an independent, arms-length agency which would monitor the activities of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

• 1545

I wonder what you have in mind. Are you suggesting an agency which would operate in a way similar to the Ombudsman? Or do you have in mind some other kind of agency? We would have to decide to whom it would report because at first sight it seems to me that this is the role of the Canadian Parliament.

Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Fiona Bishop: Yes, it would be along the lines of the role of an ombudsman. They would be responsible to Parliament directly. I think it's really important, given all the issues we've all talked about today, that there be a lot of scrutiny of the decisions made.

It's good to hear that they may not be giving all the powers to individual immigration officers, but even opening that door, mistakes can happen. It's really important that there be an independent body, at arm's length, to make those types of assessments and decisions on whether the process is working correctly. It has to be free from political patronage. It has to be an independent body, one that has the right qualifications and background—for instance, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and others that work specifically in this area—to make sure that it's all being done properly.

Ms. Christine Lwanga: We also know of cases where people have been trying to immigrate here, or applying to become refugees, but their applications have been misplaced in foreign countries. Such an office would be able to address such issues. At the moment there is no way of following up on applications that are misplaced or not processed properly.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

I'll now ask Lynne Yelich for a brief final question.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: This is just a comment.

I don't know what Judy was alluding to when she said we got the impression that Saskatchewan is xenophobic—I think that was the word—because in the presentation today from Manitoba, it says this:

A poll we commissioned from Angus Reid for the Pioneers 2000 conference showed that Manitoba/Saskatchewan is the most progressive and tolerant region of any in North America. We view immigrants as an essential thread of a national fabric, and prairie dwellers recognize the important cultural and economic contributions immigrants make to national life.

So you, my counterparts in Saskatchewan, are on record.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Just on a point of order, I think my colleague might have misinterpreted what I was saying. I was trying to get a sense from Saskatchewan folks of philosophical approaches to immigration, because I believe, in fact, the same attitudes exist in that province as we heard this morning. I was just looking for some verification from folks in Saskatchewan that the same kind of tolerance and appreciation of our diversity is as alive and well in Saskatchewan as we've seen to be the case in Manitoba.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Okay. Thank you both.

I must now draw this to a conclusion. I would like to thank all of you for coming out in these less than ideal and somewhat impersonal circumstances. As I said earlier, these are critical issues, sometimes life and death issues. We've listened to you, and I thank you very much for coming out.

I think we now have a second group from Saskatchewan. If the group can move in we will proceed right away to their statements.

• 1550

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll have a two-minute break so that you can set up and we can get a cup of coffee or something, and then we'll be back.

• 1551

• 1555

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Good afternoon, everyone.

Can you hear me in Saskatchewan?

A voice: Yes, we can.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): I'm just trying to get our crew back, and I think we have a quorum.

Welcome to you. I apologize for the delay and also the rather un-intimate setting of this technological long-distance communication. But I'm delighted you could be there. Perhaps to begin with each of you, could you state your name and affiliation and then we can get on with the presentations.

Mr. Gordon Barnes (Representative, Regina Refugee Coalition): My name is Gordon Barnes and I'm here today representing the Regina Coalition for Refugees.

Ms. Kripa Sekhar (Executive Co-ordinator, Saskatchewan Action Committee on the Status of Women): My name is Kripa Sekhar and I'm here representing the Saskatchewan Action Committee on the Status of Women. I'm also here representing the Saskatchewan Coalition Against Racism. Erica could not be here because she's been subpoenaed.

Ms. Bula Ghosh (President, Immigrant, Refugee and Visible Minority Women of Saskatchewan): My name is Bula Ghosh and I'm representing the Immigrant, Refugee and Visible Minority Women of Saskatchewan.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much. I think to save time we'll introduce ourselves as the various members of the committee ask you questions later.

This list here says the Saskatchewan Action Committee on the Status of Women will go first. Is that what you would like to do?

Ms. Kripa Sekhar: I'll go first.

My name is Kripa Sekhar and I'm with the Saskatchewan Action Committee on the Status of Women. I wish to thank the honourable John McCallum and the parliamentary committee for giving us this opportunity to present at this hearing.

The Saskatchewan Action Committee on the Status of Women is the province's largest equality-seeking women's organization. We represent a diversity of women's group that include women with disabilities, aboriginal women, lesbians, women of colour, rural women, young women, and older women. We have a membership of 66 women's groups and several hundred individual members. Our volunteers and members are committed to women's equality at all levels.

We make a conscious effort to ensure that all our work reflects the intersections between race, class, and gender. We are a multi-issue organization and actively promote the status of women by, in several ways, raising awareness; networking; identifying policy gaps and areas of concern; presenting issues before government and institutions; providing ongoing support to women through referrals and intervention; actively working to create change to improve the status of women; and producing two issues of Network Magazine.

I am also here for the Saskatchewan Coalition Against Racism, which does a tremendous amount of work in the area of anti-racism, particularly with the immigrant and refugee population and with aboriginal communities.

SACSW works closely with organizations like the Refugee Coalition, the Immigrant, Refugee and Visibility Minority Women of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Coalition against Racism, and others. We have actively promoted the rights of immigrants and refugees and have intervened when required. We support the position of the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International, and others.

SACSW is concerned about the way in which these hearings have been rushed through. I would like to say that we're really concerned about the process. We do not support the passing of any legislation without a full and fair consultation, particularly when there are several concerns around human rights issues in Bill C-11.

We are concerned that because the bill is being passed without proper consultation we will not be privy to any of the regulations that in fact control the administration of the bill.

We are also concerned with the criminalization of immigrants and refugees. This sends the wrong message to Canadians. It contradicts and tarnishes the image of the rich and valued contributions of immigrants and refugees, perpetuating the myth that Canada is a haven for criminals. And it further contributes to the anti-immigrant and refugee backlash.

• 1600

Rarely is it ever mentioned that immigrants and refugees actually pay to come to Canada. Immigration is an expensive affair. The rights of landing fee of $975, which has possibly increased, has a systemic level of inequality and must be revoked.

We're also concerned about the authority and power clearly vested in immigration officials in this new bill. The kind of power vested in their hands can be very threatening and provides room for abuse of power. It has the potential to target racialized people, women, and people with disabilities. Detention and deportation continue to target mostly people of colour. We are concerned with the sweeping powers of enforcement in these areas, and this is very evident in the bill, whether it has to do with interdiction, detention, or deportation.

SACSW recommends that the bill be constructed in the language of human rights protection and international covenants on migrants and other United Nations covenants and treaties. We must recognize that the immigration and refugee system in Canada is structured in race and gender bias, intentional or otherwise. We recommend that the definition of refugee be broadened in the context of human rights, which means that we must take into account lack of shelter, home, water, etc.—a growing problem in poor countries. We must strengthen the legislation in the context of globalization, taking into consideration human deficits in Canada while also recognizing that people in poor countries are being forced to find alternative living arrangements for the above mentioned reasons.

We also want to ensure that forced arranged marriages must be considered within the legislation as well. We recommend that in the area of family reunification, Canada construct a bill taking into consideration that we are a multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious country, or at least we say we are.

The bill, however, lacks sensitivity in its definition of family. It is a very anglo-Canadian definition. Children are no longer considered children because they turn 19 years of age. This is ridiculous. Canada promotes itself as a family friendly nation and yet we separate families for several reasons, through reunification and deportation. One must have money to bring in a family member. That family member then must be a healthy family member. That member must also be of a certain age. And it is preferred that person have money to invest in Canada. These are major barriers, particularly for those of us who come from countries that are poor.

We are urging this committee to look at the way in which the bill aids at creating a sanitized society where we say—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt. I should have mentioned earlier that we have had to, for time reasons, have pretty strict time limits, and I'd ask if you could wrap up your remarks in half a minute.

Ms. Kripa Sekhar: Yes, half a minute.

Everyone who is healthy and has money.... These create inverse systemic biases. If one can ask for documentation of the number of persons who have been refused entry, by whom, for what reasons, and from which countries, I think we can prove it. We have often asked for a task force audit or at least for an outside agency to monitor Citizenship and Immigration Canada in terms of finding out about the various areas I have pointed out. And we endorse that 100%.

Thank you very much. I probably took more time than I should have.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much for your presentation. I forgot to mention the time limit, although I did to the other group. But could you try to confine yourself to five minutes in the opening statements?

Ms. Ghosh or Mr. Barnes, who would like to go next?

Mr. Gordon Barnes: Thank you. My name is Gordon Barnes and I'm honoured to be able to present today on behalf of the Regina Coalition for Refugees, a voluntary coalition of people from human rights organizations, churches, and others who share an interest in advocating on behalf of refugees.

First, I've been a volunteer with the Regina group of Amnesty International for many years and have also served recently as the chair for the Regina Citizenship and Immigration Canada community advisory committee. Our advisory committees had the opportunity to have some community discussion on Bill C-11 with the assistance of our local CIC manager, something we're very grateful for. I would note though that my comments today are made on behalf of the Regina Coalition for Refugees.

• 1605

May I preface my remarks by indicating that we urge your committee and all members of Parliament to take a serious look at the spirit, the implications, and the reality of this bill. A piece of legislation like this goes to the heart of who we are and who we want to be as Canadians and as a country.

In our discussions with people in our community, be they students or people active in faith communities, working people or business people, we are continually finding people who are generous and supportive of a policy that will allow more refugees to come to Canada and also a policy that does not put people at risk through the refugee determination system.

We have very carefully studied the proposed bill and also the very well-prepared, comprehensive briefs submitted to your committee by the Canadian Council for Refugees, and also the Canadian section of Amnesty International, and it is our conclusion, one we share with you today, that Bill C-11 does, as it stands, provide for a regime that will jeopardize refugees' legitimate rights and put people at risk.

Given this, we urge all members of this committee to seriously examine this legislation and their consciences, and to also reflect on their vision for our country, to be sure that the final edition of the new immigration legislation is something we can all be proud of.

We share the concerns that have been expressed that this bill does not live up to our international human rights obligations. We also share concerns with respect to the increased powers of detention that are provided to immigration officials and a clause that has been identified with respect to the refugee determination system.

You will have heard from others about the concern with respect to subclause 110(3) of the bill restricting the Refugee Appeal Division to only considering appeals on the questions of law or fact and only on the basis of a paper review of the record of proceedings. These are concerns we share as well.

We are also concerned with the direction to have one-member panels as compared to the current two-member panels. Certainly this has the potential to literally reduce people's chances, and it will also make individual decisions of the single-member panels even more critical.

We share the comments that have been made by others with respect to the importance of the appointment process for the panel members.

We would like to note that the concerns some may have with respect to refugees who travel without proper documents needs to be balanced by a bit of a reality check. In reality, people who are fleeing atrocities, torture, terrible treatment, etc., should hardly be expected to manage to keep all their papers together as they literally run for their lives, for their safety and their family's safety.

I would also like to use this opportunity to raise a concern in our community with respect to the very real difficulty created for refugees who are in places like Africa or Asia, for example, where there are very few Canadian immigration officials. This fact of geography alone puts people at risk, and we believe it is a fundamental human rights issue here that needs to be addressed.

Canadians in large measure, we believe, supported the large-scale efforts of the Canadian government to provide a safe refuge for people caught in the terrible conflict in the former Yugoslavia. The response in communities across the country, and certainly in ours, was very supportive. But does the Canadian response to provide a safe refuge for those caught in the horrible conflicts in places like Burundi, Rwanda, Sudan, or Sierra Leone, for example, compare at a reasonable rate? Sadly, the reality is it does not.

We also urge all members of your committee to support efforts in your communities in our country that will help Canadians understand the plight of refugees and the reasons why at times people may get into trouble. People who have been victims of torture, displaced, or seen members of their family killed or hurt need a caring and understanding environment. They need not to be victimized further by people who may be grandstanding in the public arena. It is simply a statement of truth that these terrible conditions some people flee may cause some to be disoriented. They may get into difficulty in our country and they need a supportive, safe environment rather than a situation where things become worse and people are sent back to their home country where they are at risk of further torture or execution.

Another area we would flag is the question of family reunification. Here we urge members of your committee to remember that within different cultures the concept of family does vary. They should also remember that when family members remain at risk, and these are concerns we hear at the community level all of the time, the definition of who a family member—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Mr. Barnes, excuse me. Sorry, but your time is up. Could you draw to a conclusion soon?

• 1610

Mr. Gordon Barnes: Thank you.

We urge members of your committee to examine your hearts and reflect on what you want your legacy to be. We hope you'll want to be remembered for establishing a supportive legislative environment that protects people who apply as refugees from outside our borders and those who come to Canada and make a refugee claim.

Thank you for your time.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much for your presentation.

Ms. Bula Ghosh.

Ms. Bula Ghosh: I wish to thank the honourable John McCallum and the parliamentary committee for giving us this opportunity.

The Immigrant, Refugee and Visible Minority Women of Saskatchewan is a provincial organization comprised of four chapters and two associated organizations. The organization was founded in 1983. In short, we call it IRVM.

IRVM is committed to the principle of equality for human beings and works towards the eradication of sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination, and to the enhancement of intercultural understanding. Our objectives include the coordination of services related to adjustment, settlement, and integration into Canadian society, activities focused on research, communications, and public advocacy. As an organization, our primary focus is to provide a forum for immigrant, refugee, and visible minority women to voice their needs and concerns and the needs of their families. It is therefore from the perspective of women and their families that we respectfully submit our comments on Bill C-11.

First, we would like to commend the federal government on their efforts to address some of the concerns that have been voiced in the past with respect to the Immigration Act. In particular, IRVM wishes to commend what appears to be a sincere effort on the part of Immigration Canada to involve those most concerned with the standards of immigrants and refugees in the consultative process.

Secondly, we wish to lend our support to many of the concerns expressed in the submissions of the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Bar Association, and others. We too are saddened by the negative portrayal of immigrants and refugees implied by wording such as “to protect the Canadian people”. This is a country founded by immigrants. The implied presumption that new immigrants are more likely to be criminals is both unfounded and a sad commentary on the attitude of Canadians.

We also share the concerns expressed by the Canadian Bar Association respecting the potential for unfair treatment introduced by changes to authority and appeals procedures. The ability of the minister to appoint and the loss of a transparent procedure are ominous predictors of future abuses.

We understand the risks to refugees resulting from a lack of understanding of the reality that has been expressed by the Canadian Council for Refugees, but to be a criminal, in many countries one need only to oppose the existing political regime. Those deemed criminal will, according to Bill C-11, be prevented from entry to Canada, yet by nature, refugees are often political criminals by virtue of their opposition to totalitarian political regimes.

Overall, we share the concerns expressed by other organizations that too much is left to bureaucratic regulation. We support the need for improving clarity and transparency. This should begin by defining terms such as “criminal”.

It is our mandate, however, to address issues facing women and their families. Those we will discuss include: the failure to address the victimization of women sponsored to enter Canada in spousal and caregiver roles; financial barriers to citizenship and family unification; the potential for discrimination on the basis of disability; and the potential for criminalizing immigrants and refugees attempts to assist friends and relatives.

We would like to draw attention to Canada's obligation to UN human rights. We feel that Bill C-11 will significantly hinder Canada's compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the refugee convention, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Regarding victimization by sponsors, under the existing act, women sponsored to enter Canada as wives or caregivers are tied to their sponsors regardless of how they are treated by their sponsors. Loss of sponsorship may result in deportation. A wife may stay in a violently abusive marriage due to the threat of deportation. In fact, there has been no provision preventing a known batterer from sponsoring a foreign wife.

Women sponsored to fulfil the role of nanny or caregiver to an elderly or disabled person are in a similar situation. Many of these women endure long hours of work, including 24-hour responsibilities without regular days off, as well as hourly wages well below minimum wage. We do not see any provision in Bill C-11 that addresses these concerns.

By allowing women's deportation in a situation where sponsorship subjects women to violence and abuse, Bill C-11 fails to comply with the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

As a recommendation, we believe sponsorship withdrawal provisions need to be accompanied by a notwithstanding clause protecting women from the threat of deportation if sponsorship is withdrawn in the event of abuse by the sponsor.

• 1615

With regard to financial barriers to citizenship, we support the principle of family reunification. However, we also recognize that these barriers may not be apparent to those who do not have daily contact with immigrants and refugees. Most refugees initially come in under Immigration Canada. Thereafter, they would remain on social assistance or in low-paying menial labour for some time due to both language barriers and the lack of recognition in Canada of foreign training and experience.

This severely limits the financial situation. Individuals may reside permanently in Canada without any permanent status. This situation would appear to make them unable to sponsor other family members. Reunification of the family appears impossible.

Immigrant women who have come to Canada since 1984 are the poorest of the poor. The cost of citizenship puts enormous burdens on them. We recommend that the price of citizenship be considered.

These concerns have been brought to the attention of the minister in the past, and yet we see no provisions in Bill C-11 to address them. Many women who come to Canada have children. Therefore we have concerns regarding the potential treatment of families with disabled children. Under the act, we see the possibility of families being denied immigration due to their having a disabled child.

This discriminates against the disabled. War leaves many innocent children disabled, and their families may be the ones in greatest need of protection.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm afraid I must tell you that your time is up. If you could conclude quite quickly, we'll move on to questions.

Ms. Bula Ghosh: Sure.

Disability as a screening criterion is not acceptable. Delete references to disability of children as a screening criterion.

We are concerned about what may potentially happen to families attempting to achieve family reunification by trying to help relatives and friends into Canada because of the attempt in Bill C-11 to close the back door. Illegal immigration also places the legal immigrant at risk of becoming criminalized in their efforts to help others.

In conclusion, we find the consultative process positive, and we are pleased to add our contribution. We applaud the efforts being made to deal with the situation and to at the same time improve the sensibilities of Canada to true refugees and legal immigrants. We recommend that the final draft of this bill pay attention to Canada's commitment to UN human rights treaties. We are convinced that there's still room for improvement in the provisions respecting women, their children, and their family members.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

We will now move on to questions, beginning with Mr. Inky Mark.

[English]

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

My name is Inky Mark. I'm an Alliance member from Manitoba. Dauphin—Swan River is the name of the riding. I am also a vice-chair of the standing committee.

First, let me thank you for taking the time to appear before the committee.

The standing committee put out a report last June, whose title, Refugee Protection and Border Security: Striking a Balance, in essence should be the focus of this piece of legislation. We've heard over and over again that we don't want to criminalize refugees or new immigrants. People are 100% correct. Unfortunately, it's the rotten apples who get all the media attention, but there are provisions outside the legislation that can deal with these people who exhibit bad behaviour.

Because we're short on time, what I'd like to do is ask each of you to respond to this question: If the minister were to ask you what one change you would make to the bill, what would your answer be?

Mr. Gordon Barnes: My sense is that the first one ought to be to incorporate in the legislation our obligation to respect international human rights treaties that Canada should be party to. The bill does go some good way in that direction, but I don't think, if you look at the briefs that have been submitted to you, it goes far enough.

That's probably the most fundamental change that ought to be considered by your committee.

Ms. Kripa Sekhar: I would like to take that one step further and say that the entire bill needs to be reconstructed in the language of human rights to ensure that UN treaties and covenants, particularly the covenants for migrants and workers, are adhered to.

• 1620

In fact, we should incorporate within the legislation a system that looks at equality in the truest sense of the term, one that takes into consideration the fact that, at this point in time, our Immigration Act is racist, sexist, and discriminatory against people with disabilities. If we have to reconstruct the language in order to ensure that all members of society—rich, poor, able, disabled—can participate fully, then that's what we'd like to see. However, before that is done, I think far more consultation has to take place before the bill is pushed through.

Ms. Bula Ghosh: My friends mentioned the human rights convention, and we would like to see that, but I would like to go one step further and say that a lot of these laws and regulations discriminate against women. Those are also covered in the human rights convention, and I would like to see you make changes according to that.

That's very important because it's close to the heart. Women are usually the caregivers in the family, and I think by looking after women's rights we will also look after the family.

So that's one change I would suggest, definitely.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

You have a little more time, if you want it. No?

Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville: Good afternoon. My name is Anita Neville. I'm a member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre. I was very pleased to hear your presentations today.

I'm very conscious of the time today. We've had a long day, and unfortunately it's now coming to an end.

I just want to indicate a couple of changes that I proposed both yesterday and today and to ask for your responses to them. I also would like to make a commitment to you to go back and review the bill in light of some of the issues you and others have raised today as it relates to gender.

I want to indicate that in clause 3, which outlines the objectives of the bill, I did indicate yesterday that I would be putting forward a recommendation that the word “multicultural” be added to “respecting the federal and bilingual character of Canada”. I know that isn't a revamping of the bill, as you're asking for, but that wording is something I've indicated I'm prepared to do.

The other item I want to hear your comments on occurs in clause 42 of the bill, which deals with the refugee determination system. Where it says “A foreign national, other than a permanent resident, is inadmissible”, I want to add the words, “or a protected person”. The clause would thus read:

A foreign national, other than a permanent resident or a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an inadmissible family member if

I think this would clarify the policy intent to exempt refugees from this provision.

The other amendment I'm suggesting concerns clause 26. The clause deals with access to the humanitarian and compassionate review, which I believe is one of the most important safeguards in the system. I am proposing in clause 26 to delete the words, “and, in the case of an exercise of a power delegated under subsection 6(2), in section 25”. Paragraph 26(c) would thus read:

the circumstances in which all or part of the consideration referred to in section 24 may be taken into account;

By doing this, I believe it would remove the authority to place any limitation on access to the humanitarian and compassionate procedures by regulation.

I'm wondering if you have any comments on that.

Ms. Kripa Sekhar: Can you go back to the last piece you talked about, please? I can't hear you.

Ms. Anita Neville: I'm sorry. Can you hear me now?

Ms. Kripa Sekhar: Yes.

Ms. Anita Neville: It's clause 26. Do you have it in front of you?

Ms. Kripa Sekhar: Yes.

• 1625

Ms. Anita Neville: I propose to delete the words “and, in the case of an exercise of a power delegated under subsection 6(2), in section 25”. So it would read:

the circumstances in which all or part of the considerations referred to in section 24 may be taken into account;

As I indicated earlier, I think this would remove the authority to limit access to the procedures by regulations.

Ms. Kripa Sekhar: I think that might help in part. But I think—and I'm sure others here would agree with me—that to some extent, the concern is the whole issue of what the bill has struck there before us. I think the regulations will be the administrating power behind the bill. At least, they will be the mechanism that puts the bill in place.

So I want to know how what you propose is going to govern that, somehow balance that.

Ms. Anita Neville: If I can move forward, Mr. Fontana, the chair of this committee, has indicated that all regulations drafted will be reviewed by the committee concurrent with the implementation of the bill.

But yesterday or today, I'm not sure which, I think Mr. McCallum spoke to the issue of the regulation-making authority in clause 5. He amended it to read:

Except as otherwise provided, the Governor in Council may make any regulation that is referred to in this Act, that prescribes any matter whose prescription is referred to in this Act,

The amendment deletes the phrase “or that it considers necessary to carry out the objectives of the Act.”

The intent there is to ensure that all matters affecting the fundamental rights, freedoms, core principles, and policies framed in the act are not subject to regulatory change. That change certainly tries to address some of the issues brought up by you, and by others before you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Perhaps we'll move on, then.

Ms. Kripa Sekhar: Where this clause 5 is concerned, it's okay. But can I just draw your attention to another clause?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Please go ahead.

Ms. Kripa Sekhar: What you suggest is that the regulations that will be framed, which your committee will scrutinize, will then come within the purview of the act. Am I correct in assuming that?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Maybe I'll speak to that, because I was the one who brought this suggestion forward.

I'm not sure this committee is going to oversee all the regulations. I don't think it is; I don't think that's how the system works. I'm new to it, so I'm not sure. but I don't think we will.

But the intent of the proposed amendment is to ensure that the points central to values, or principles, or policy, will be in the act itself rather than in the regulations. So we're circumscribing the scope of the regulations and trying to ensure that the regulations don't go against the spirit of the act in its critical setting out of values and principles.

Ms. Kripa Sekhar: So there won't be any contradictions between the act and how it's carried forward to the regulations? While I don't have a major problem with that, I do see a problem with this bill itself in the way it has been written. The bill should be changed to ensure that it is framed in the language of human rights, clearly defining discrimination and all those pieces we talked about.

Mr. McCallum, I think the speaker before you alluded to the issue of gender. But I think we need to take into consideration class and race as well. I don't think you can separate those pieces.

• 1630

Until we are able to go back to the bill and frame it in that context of equality—no matter what we do with the regulations, how are we going to guarantee that it's not going to be misused?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much. I think in deference to my colleagues on the other side of the table, we should curtail this discussion and move to Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Hello. I would just like to thank you for joining us at the end of the afternoon despite the frustrations inherent in the video-conference system. My question is to Ms. Sekhar.

In your brief, you pointed out one of the most important values on which all legislation must be based: that all Canadians. Be treated fairly. At one point you referred to the cost involved in obtaining permanent resident status which can be very expensive, particularly for some women.

During the previous testimony I had the opportunity to suggest something which might perhaps help improve the situation. If the Income tax Act were to authorize tax deductions equal to the amount paid to obtain permanent resident status, do you think that would make the situation a little less unfair? Do you think that could improve the economic situation of new Canadians a little?

[English]

Ms. Kripa Sekhar: I would like one of the others to respond first, and then I will respond. I really want to hear what some of the others have to say. Then I will respond.

Ms. Bula Ghosh: Some of these women sometimes don't even have an income, so an income tax rebate or deduction will not really help their cause. They need to put out money first—and where would they get that? This is my concern, and I'd like others to comment on it too.

Mr. Gordon Barnes: If I could, I would invite the committee members to visit Saskatchewan and Moose Jaw sometime. Moose Jaw has recorded a part of Canada's history in which Chinese people were kept underground in tunnels, in appalling conditions. They came and built our railways, but then in order to stay in Canada and settle, they had to pay a head tax. These tunnels are now a tourist attraction—you can visit them and see the experience of these Chinese immigrants to Canada. Many Canadian people who tour that system in Moose Jaw are appalled.

So I hope we don't put any structure or fee in place at all that makes it more difficult for people to successfully settle here. I don't think this needs to be a financial issue. When people from other countries try to settle here, support their families, and potentially bring more family members—why would we want to make it more onerous? I just don't understand. I think Canadians are generous people and don't need to make it financially difficult.

I would also refer to the fact that refugees actually have to get a travel loan in order to come here, and they pay it back at a very significant rate. People need to acknowledge these things, and I hope our legislation does in the future.

Ms. Kripa Sekhar: I think the right of landing fee should really be scrapped, or at least replaced with a reasonable fee. One has to take into consideration the level of earnings. Immigrant and refugee women and people of colour, despite their qualifications, also face employment problems in Canada and end up being the lowest wage earners. Therefore, when you put it in the context of income tax, I don't believe that would solve the problem. I know you meant well, Madame, but unfortunately I don't see how that will work for us.

• 1635

On the other hand, I also see this as an investment. I see the fact that for families to reunite creates a healthier community, creates a community that will invest in a better Canada, that will invest in growth and a richer community. I see it in that context, that this in fact is an opportunity for Canada and Canadians to welcome and take into consideration the human deficit we are facing in Canada. I think that would be one way to do it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

We are substantially over time. I'd ask the remaining questioners and respondents to be as concise as possible.

Does John Herron wish to speak?

Mr. John Herron: No, I'm okay for the moment, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I'm Judy Wasylycia-Leis, the NDP member on this committee. I wanted to thank all the presenters, but in particular Ms. Sekhar and Ms. Ghosh for their gender analysis of Bill C-11. I think the testimony they have offered today compliments that which we heard earlier from the Canadian Council for Refugees. Together they have made a very important statement, and that is that this bill, in many of its parts, will have a differential and negative impact on women.

I think the question for us as committee members is, should we be putting our names to and supporting in any way legislation that entrenches in law any discriminatory policies or any programs that actually have a negative impact on women? I appreciate their contribution in that regard.

I would like to ask one related question. An issue we have not talked about very much during these committee hearings, but about which we've heard from different women's groups, is the live-in caregiver program. I know that is a program that is part of the system that the minister says she will not alter. Many groups have said to me it is very discriminatory. It treats women very much as second-class citizens and perpetuates the opposite conditions we would want to see for women in this country.

So I'm wondering, in addition to anything else you may want to add on the gender analysis of this bill, if any of you have a comment on the live-in caregiver program.

Ms. Kripa Sekhar: I think one of the things that we have always advocated—and there are so many other pieces we would like to have put into this piece, but could not because of lack of time—is that in fact the landed caregiver program clearly discriminates against those women who come here and in fact take care of Canadian families so that women and the other members of their family can go out and work, while they're engaged in all kinds of jobs in that home environment.

I think what we have always recommended is that they come in as full landed immigrants, that they be granted status right from the start. If they're contributing from the very beginning and they have a job right at the outset, why then should they be discriminated against and have to wait for a period of time, and after that period of time they can sponsor their families? I think that really does not speak well of Canada's family reunification system. If we are in fact talking about what a family friendly country we are, we need to practice that.

Ms. Bula Ghosh: Sometimes we have people come into Canada on a sort of sponsorship program or to work here. Everything will not always work as we planned. If we do not give them landed immigrant status right away, it will limit their choices. It puts them under very bad circumstances sometimes, just bearing it for the sake of living in the country. This is where we are not being fair to these programs and the people who come to provide a service—a very essential service. They don't have any rights, unless you give them the landed immigrant status right away and they come in as employees.

• 1640

I would also like to remind you that most of them are women and most of them are women of colour or black women. I think one has to take that into consideration too in terms of the discrimination.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much. We may have run out of questions and comments.

Mr. John Herron: I have a point of order I'd like to bring forward, but I want to wait until you're finished with the witnesses.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: Hi. I'm Lynne Yelich from Blackstrap. Is it Gordon Barnes, the author, from the University of Saskatchewan? Okay.

I just want to ask one thing. We've heard continually about the criminality of the bill. The minister, who's a Liberal and wants a very liberal immigration bill, says it has to be this strong because of the abuse. Do you believe there is an abuse of the system for why the bill has gone this far? I'd like to have an answer from each of you as quickly as possible. Do you believe there is an abuse? The officers are being labelled as very draconian, or going to be, or whatever. I'd like your answer on it.

Mr. Gordon Barnes: I tried to speak to that a little bit in my presentation, in the sense that I did indicate that it is unfortunate, but people who have come as refugees do get into difficulty at times in Canada, and I think we need to reflect on their experience before they got here. I don't think, by virtue of that, this is an abuse of the system. It's a fact of life that, unfortunately, sometimes people, Canadians and newcomers to Canada, do break the law. I don't see that as an abuse of the system. I'm hoping we can get away from blaming people and create an environment that supports people, Canadians and others, who do run into difficulty with the law, and move away from treating people who may, recognizing their background, have difficulty settling in Canada.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: I want to make a point on the record. I have also had immigrants come to me and say, “I know these people got in. We had to go the long way and these people are getting in.” In particular, this person was from Islamabad, and I tried very hard to get his family in, and I'm very sad today that we didn't accomplish that. He is the one who comes to me and says, “I know in southern Saskatchewan these people got in like nothing and they have the criminal way. They're landing in Saskatoon.” This sort of thing is also probably why our minister has to go this far—I'm thinking, I'm assuming, and I want that on the record.

Ms. Kripa Sekhar: I would like to respond to that. When you have a mother here in Saskatchewan—I'm just using one example—who after nine years is still considered a visitor, even though her husband came in as a resident, and when the marriage breaks down she is told, “Go back to your country, but your children will live here because he has joint custody”.... Now, at this point in time, nine years later, essentially she still does not have status. I question Immigration's motives when they send her for psychological testing. What is the motive? What is behind it? A woman in this situation is bound to be depressed. Are we then going to use her depression as a way to deport her and prevent her from being with her children, who are 4, 6, and 10?

For me, those are serious concerns. That's what we talk about when we talk about the nature of abuse and the nature of this bill. It gives sweeping powers to immigration authorities and immigration officials.

I also think one has to look at human rights language. When you're looking at, let's say, one particular person or two particular people who might have violated, for whatever reasons—in the case of young people, whether it is peer pressure or for whatever reasons. I think you have to take it case by case. You simply cannot have sweeping legislation to address all of those pieces. I think that is totally unacceptable. It goes against all that we have ratified with the United Nations.

• 1645

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

At this point I would like to thank our witnesses very much. As I said earlier, face to face is better, but I thank you very much for joining us at this long distance. We've definitely listened to everything you've said. We will absorb it between now and going back to Ottawa. We shall be working on this I believe next week.

So thank you very much for coming to join us. Goodbye.

Mr. John Herron: I have a point of order. Mr. Chair, upon some reflection—and I've spoken to some of my colleagues on this concern—I'd like to echo the comments made earlier today by Mr. Davis, who represented the Canadian Bar Association, when he cautioned the committee about going too fast with respect to clause-by-clause.

We're going to be hearing witnesses throughout the next three days, and a comprehensive list as well. In order for us to have the appropriate amount of time to digest the information, for the members of the committee to properly prepare amendments, and for the legislative staff to be able to act on those, for the purpose of clause-by-clause I would like to formally give notice of a motion, 48 hours in advance, to be voted on this Thursday. That would essentially provide the committee one week's grace to prepare, so we would not go to clause-by-clause until May 15.

The motion would read as follows: Given that the committee has heard from a myriad of witnesses during its cross-Canada consultations, and to give proper attention to the material and testimony, it is moved that the committee not sit until May 15 for the purpose of clause-by-clause, to provide members and legislative staff sufficient time to prepare amendments.

[Translation]

This motion exists in both official languages. I would ask that we vote on the motion Thursday morning.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Not having vast experience with such matters, I assume this is in order, that a motion be presented with 48 hours' notice.

Mr. John Herron: It's just notice of a motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): That's what I mean. I guess my role is to—

Ms. Lynne Yelich: Tell Joe.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): —tell Joe and accept it.

Mr. John Herron: To try to cut Joe a little bit of slack here, he's under a lot of pressure from his own department in the House to try to proceed with the bill. What I'm trying to do is actually make this consultation, on which we spent a lot of taxpayers' dollars, meaningful. All we're looking for is one week to prepare ourselves so that we can actually do clause-by-clause appropriately. I think that's the minimum we owe the witnesses, and that's why I flagged this issue personally to him earlier in the committee process.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): I was quoting Lynne Yelich as saying “tell Joe”. But we will undoubtedly consult with each other. Your notice of motion is now on the record.

We are adjourned.