CIMM Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, January 29, 2002

0905

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

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

0910

The Chair

Mr. Coderre

0915

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Coderre

0920

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

0925

Mr. Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)

0930

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex, Lib.)

0935

Mr. Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ)

0940

Mr. Denis Coderre

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Coderre

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Coderre

0945

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin--Swan River, PC/DR)

0950

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Mark

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. Mark

Mr. Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Hanger

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Charbonneau

0955

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. Karygiannis

The Chair

Mr. St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Coderre

1000

Mr. Jim Karygiannis

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre)

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Coderre

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1015

1020

1025

1030

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1035

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1040

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

1045

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Karygiannis

The Chair

Mr. Karygiannis

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Karygiannis

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1050

Mr. Jim Karygiannis

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1055

Mr. Steve Mahoney

1100

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1105

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

1110

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Karygiannis

The Chair

Mr. Karygiannis

1115

The Chair

Mr. Karygiannis

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Karygiannis

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Jim Karygiannis

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1120

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

1125

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

1130

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1135

Mr. Joe Fontana

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1140

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Ms. Neville

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Charbonneau

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

The Chair

1145

Mr. Charbonneau

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Karygiannis

1150

The Chair

Mr. Karygiannis

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Karygiannis

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Jim Karygiannis

The Chair

1155

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

1200

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 041

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, January 29, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues, and welcome back from our Christmas break.

As you know, the order of the day today is to begin a review of the regulations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I want to thank you all for your cooperation over the past weeks and months, because not only have we talked about Bill C-31 before, but Bill C-11 and the border security issues. This committee is very seasoned, I might add, Mr. Minister--very knowledgeable about immigration, very forward-looking--and I want to thank them all for their hard work.

This is the first time in my recollection that a committee, after hearing numerous witnesses across the country, has indicated that while the framework legislation is very good, the regulations have to be looked at carefully. There was a lot of suspicion about regulations, and therefore the committee insisted, and the former minister agreed, that the committee hold public hearings on the regulations to make sure they do in fact reflect the spirit of Bill C-11.

I believe, Mr. Minister, you will find that this committee's hard work over the course of weeks and months as it relates to Bill C-31, Bill C-11, and especially border security and the refugee determination system shows it to be a very pro-immigration committee, a pro-refugee committee--for bona fide refugees--and a committee that has said no to terrorists and no to criminality, having put in place a system to make sure the integrity of our immigration system, which has played such an important part in our country's growth socially and economically, continues to be the model of the world.

Mr. Minister, I know you are new on the job. We know you have a passion for immigration; I know that for a fact. I know you've probably already heard that these regulations--and some comments have already been made--present challenges and need to have some work done on them. I hope, in the spirit of cooperation and of working together to make sure the regulations will meet the needs of Canada and Bill C-11, that we move forward in a very constructive way. I know you're determined to do that and I thank you very much for this opportunity for us to meet with you first-hand to talk about the regulations and make sure, as I said before, they reflect the intent and the spirit of Bill C-11.

I'm sure you will hear there are a lot of challenges--a lot of good things about these regulations, but a lot of things that need to be worked on.

It's my opportunity to welcome you to the committee.

I'll recognize Judy on a point of order.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I'm sorry to interrupt. I don't want to delay hearing from the minister, but I wanted to ask a question, Mr. Chairperson, about a motion I have presented to the committee, according to the rules, that deals with the issue of these regulations, reflects our concern about the significance of the changes involved in them and the growing concern about their retroactivity provisions, and also, I think, reflects strong feelings about the committee's role in terms of not only vetting or having the time it takes to seriously scrutinize the regulations, but also to have a say in shaping them, based on our testimony. I just wondered when we might hear that motion and have the discussion.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: The point of order, I believe, is how long we as a committee are going to take to review the regulations. I thank you very much for submitting your letter and your concerns to the committee. I will deal with that issue.

I think we might want to hear what the minister's view of the situation is. I will tell you right now that this committee will take all the time necessary to make sure we get the regulations right. I think your letter is within that spirit, but I think we should allow the minister to make his opening comments, which may very well speak to your issue; if not, we'll speak to it after the meeting.

I should tell not only the committee members, but those who are interested in these hearings, that so far over the course of the next week or two weeks we have something like 18 to 25 organizations and people who want to address the committee. So already our book is filling up with regard to representations to be made. I can only assure you as the chair that we will take as long as we need to make sure we deal with these regulations in a very substantive and comprehensive manner.

Having said that, Mr. Minister, first of all, congratulations on your appointment, and second, welcome to our committee. As I said before, we hope to work with you in a very cooperative and constructive manner.

[Translation]

Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

For those who do not know me, I'm Denis Coderre. I'm 38 years old.

I heard English Canada did not know me well, so I thought I should introduce myself.

I'm married. I have two children. I have a bachelor in political science. I live in the riding of Bourassa, where you have more than 30% new Canadians.

I'm not the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; I'm the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. I'm thrilled to have this portfolio, because, like you, I believe this country has been built with immigration. Immigration is a very important matter for this country and for me.

[Translation]

I am firmly committed to doing my work with the energy and passion I am known for. We also have the duty to work with the communities and all Canadians to get to know one another better and to understand not only the situation, but also the challenges to be met.

[English]

First of all, I'd like to say that this is probably one of my most important briefings. For the first time we're asking a standing committee to look at regulations. I'm not here to tell you what I'm going to do. I'm here to listen to both sides of the coin, so that at the end of the process I will be able to make those decisions.

So we're not here for nothing. I can talk about options, and I will, but if I were here only to tell you what I'm going to do, why bother to have the process?

The events of September 11 forced us to change our ways. I'm a very balanced person. On the one side, of course, we have to be vigilant; we have to talk about security; we have to talk about efficiency. On the other hand, I think we have to send a clear message that immigration and citizenship is very important and that we are a country that is open and fair and that this is a land of opportunity.

So I won't be the one to say I'm going to put all my eggs in the same basket and that everybody is like that.

We have a new bill that has helped us arrest criminals, the terrorists, that has given us all the tools. At the same time, it will also help to facilitate reunification of families, for example. These regulations are very important because they will provide tools, and they will face some tough challenges and questions, which I'm ready to face.

You will ask me questions about skilled workers, you will talk about refunds, you will talk about retroactivity, and you will talk about timeframes. I'm open to all of those questions.

Mr. Chair, I'm here to set the tone. I'm here to listen to you. During question period I will be able to answer specifics. I feel it's important that my role today is to send a message that not only am I open, but I feel our priority is to be open on immigration but to make sure--and don't get me wrong--the people who are not supposed to be here face the consequences.

Thank you.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for those opening remarks. Again, you've indicated your passion for the subject. I think you will also see that you have a very passionate committee. We work really well together. I can assure you again that the proof is in the pudding. Over the course of three years, where we've done studies on the refugee determination system, Bill C-31, and now Bill C-11, and more recently border security, a lot of the recommendations we heard and put together were adopted by the government and the minister previously.

I think we know the subject matter very well, and I think you'll find that your experience with us this morning and over the short, medium, and long term is going to be a very fruitful and constructive one.

We'll go immediately to Paul Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Welcome, Mr. Minister, to the committee.

I appreciate today that you've come to committee not with a long text, but you basically just gave some introductory remarks and allowed the committee to do its business.

Certainly post-September 11, as you mentioned, the nation has been awakened to a host of security concerns. There is a reason why we have a Department of Citizenship and Immigration and a structure in place. It is necessary in order to provide peace, order, and good government in an orderly society.

Certainly the security concerns have come to our attention. We look at a department that in the past could have been seen to be in somewhat of an administrative disarray--a tremendous backlog of files, inconsistencies of decision-making, even some fraud. We all know those national stories.

It's certainly fine for you, as a minister, to come today and say some good things about your department, and we're all optimistic that all public servants are doing the very best they can, but they must be given the tools to do the job, and they must be given the spirit and the administrative backup from the government above that they are going to be supported when they want to fulfill the regulations, or do their job, or try to fulfill the law. It's up to the Liberal administration to oversee the department, and sometimes that administrative oversight has not been great.

One of the issues about which we certainly want to hear from you is the progress made concerning a bilateral agreement with the United States so that both countries are not sending refugees to each other.

Certainly the question in the Commons has been, what about detaining all those who destroy or dispose of documents? We really have no idea where they're from; they just tell us a story. Obviously they have documents to get here on an airplane, and yet they're released into the community, and there's no confidence about security for the country as to who they are and whether they pose a threat.

Certainly we need a balance between security and compassion. You talk about being the minister for, rather than the minister of, and you mention balance. So the problem is, where is that balance?

A document was just circulated to us regarding applications submitted with a fee. There are 15,000 applications awaiting file creation, another 45,000 applications awaiting paper screening, another 120,000 applications on top of that awaiting interview, and 36,000 cases awaiting a decision. That's a colossal administrative structure to try to sort out.

So with those introductory comments, I would love you to react to some of those things and provide some specific action plans to make security not just something we talk about but a reality--specific action plans to restore confidence in the system.

The Chair: Thank you, Paul.

Mr. Minister.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Well, if you want to talk about facts, let's talk about facts, and of course we'll have to talk about the bilateral issue and the relationship with the United States.

I would like to remind you first that when I hear the numbers, that at the American border they arrested 14,000 individuals, I hope we will also say that at the Canadian border we arrested 22,000 individuals coming from the United States and that at least 60% of all the refugees are coming from the United States. I'm also concerned with the 8 million illegals in the United States.

So it's both sides of the coin that we have to face. Efficiency is the name of the game. We have to talk about those figures.

The United States and Canada are friends, but as I said before, the United States is my friend, not my boss. So we have our ways; we have our culture. For example, as you know, in the United States it's two-thirds about reunification of families and one-third about skilled workers. It's the opposite in our case, for our reasons. So we have to face that.

As you know, there are some agreements to follow. An agreement has been signed by Tom Ridge and John Manley, and of course, immigration is a very important matter that we'll have to face. But at the same time, I think it's pretty clear I'm sending a message here that we will share but we won't be dictated to.

We have to give more tools. Efficiency is the name of the game regarding security, and that's exactly what the bill has brought. As a matter of fact, as you know better than I do because you've been there in your committee longer than I have, I think it's important to send a message that, not only are we giving more resources--and look at what happened in the last budget, $565 million in 5 years--for our people in the first line, but at the same time, we are providing through regulations those tools that will help us make sure we have secure boundaries.

At the same time, we have to be careful. What do we want to do? Do we want to follow the people who are getting in? Do we want a police state? That's not what I want, and that's surely not what Canadians want.

Regarding detention, that's a debate that I want to have, because I have a problem with detaining everybody. If you have a kid who is five years coming from a country and asking whether her mom can be a refugee, are you telling me we should detain those people? Perhaps it's good for the press and we'll have some pictures, but I'm not sure I'm ready for that one.

So I'm ready to debate that, and I want to have a debate on that. In the United States, again, they detain everybody. I'm not ready for that.

Let's talk about the skilled workers. I'm ready for options. Under the law, if we don't provide a service, we have to refund. When we're making a line, we have to look at those 15,000 persons who asked to get in plus the 45,000 who asked for a preliminary evaluation. That might be an option. We should look at that.

When you look at the 36,000 persons who are waiting for a final decision, well, we'll wait for the final decision. It's not a backlog; we're waiting for a final decision.

So what am I going to do with the 120,000 persons? We also have to face the fact that a percentage of those will be refused for interviews, so you have an answer right there.

So what's my option? My option is pretty clear. Now we're talking about retroactivity, but we should talk about the evaluation, the numbers, the points that we allow, and at the same time we have to look at the pass mark. Before in the whole system it was 70%, now it's 80%. I can make a decision to change that. We know that through the people who were applying under the old system, we were talking about 75%. We gave an extra five percentage points.

Tell me what you think and I'm ready to listen. Should I apply at a certain time or should I wait? There's a motion from the NDP. I'm open to options.

But the balanced way is what? The balanced way is to make sure our Canadian people feel secure but that at the same time we send that open-minded and fairness message.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Mr. Coderre, as you know, because you've been on committees for a number of years, the question and answer period on the first round is ten minutes. And if you've taken seven minutes to answer his three-minute question, we have a problem.

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's a strategy. That's good then. Can I go on?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Certainly. Go ahead, Paul, one question.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Minister, concerning the issue of basic security, gradually the revelations are that, indeed, many who were associated one way or the other with the recent terrorist organizations did have connections with Canada. CSIS has been telling us about many other organizations that for some time have been certainly conducting illegal activities here in Canada.

It's about the ability of our administrative procedures to decide who comes into Canada. It's about the fact that Canada decides rather than some people smuggler or some terrorist organization...to protect our sovereignty

So I want to know a little more specifically about the concerns of preserving security and what you're going to do to perhaps prevent individuals from offshore...beefing up our screening ability or capacity in other countries, in our embassies, or whatever. The best kind of security is to prevent someone who should not be here from ever getting here in the first place. What are you going to do in that regard?

¿ (0925)

Mr. Denis Coderre: There are already some answers in the bill, and through regulations there are already more tools to change that. Don't get me wrong, we have to be very careful. We don't want to generalize that. A person who is coming in is not necessarily a terrorist, so we have to be very prudent with that and be very open-minded.

It's not because you have some people who are from a terrorist organization that everybody who is getting in as a refugee, who asked for refugee status, will automatically be a terrorist. We have to be careful. There is some verification. There is some security status.

Don't get me wrong, something happened on September 11 and it changed the whole planet. So we have to face our responsibilities, but at the same time we don't want to have that kind of state where we feel, as a start, that everybody is a crook or everybody is a smuggler or everybody is a terrorist when they are getting in. We need to have the proper tools for verification through security.

I'll remind you again that since September 11 we have been acting. We have more tools, we have more resources, we have more money, and we're facing the issue.

The Chair: Steve and Jerry will be splitting their time.

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

Thank you for being here, Minister, and congratulations as well.

There are going to be a lot of questions on the regulations as opposed to the issue of security. That's where I would like to focus, particularly on the new grid, where there's a requirement. If you look at the new grid, 20 points would be granted to an applicant with a diploma trade certificate or apprenticeship training. Requiring three years' full-time study is a total of 15. If you do the math, that's elementary school for 8 years, high school for 4 years, with a graduation certificate, and another 3 years. Very few apprenticeship training programs even in Canada, never mind abroad, require that number of years of education.

Let me give you a brief example. My own son is in an apprentice training program to be a carpenter. The real issue here for me is not only the number of years of education, but the issue of full-time study. My son's program requires 6 months on the job and 6 months in school, 6, 6, 6, and 6, for a total of a 3-year program, but he's not in full-time studies. He's working 50% of the time, so the study period he does will be a year and a half out of the 3 years, yet at the end of the program—God willing that he lasts—he will be a fully accredited, certified carpenter. He would not qualify based on this regulation, because of the issue of full time.

The other aspect is that it seems to me that even when you go down into two years and one year of study, it still requires the full elementary and secondary school education. It seems to me there are a lot of people who might leave high school to go into the trades. That may be less true today, but I still believe it is true to a certain degree. A young person might leave after grade 10, take up a job at a construction site, and wind up enrolling in an apprenticeship program, etc., but because they didn't get their high school graduation, they would not qualify under these regulations.

So I'm very concerned that we're setting the bar so high that we're going to exclude people who would normally come to this country with the skilled trade of a carpenter, an electrician, a pipe fitter, or whatever, but because they didn't get full secondary education and the three years.... They need the three-year apprenticeship to get twenty points, but the full-time issue is there.

I'm sure you've been in briefings ad nauseam, but I wonder if you've had a chance to look at that issue, or if you have a response to it.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: To the committee members, you will know—and I suppose I should have mentioned this from the start—that our research staff has done an awful lot of good work in our absence. Benjamin Dolin's report of January 21, 2002, is where the grid on which Steve just asked questions can be found. It's also on page—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's also on page 40 of the regulations.

The Chair: —page 40 of the regulations, yes.

Mr. Minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: I wish to thank the member for asking this question. We have all heard, and it is true, that this country was built and grew through immigration and that the immigrants did not necessarily all have a university degree. I remember that in some waves of newcomers there were people who, without necessarily having a university background, became presidents of companies and did a great deal to improve the quality of life of Canadians.

The matter troubles me somewhat. I realize it must be taken into account and we must be sure to send out the right message.

[English]

Frankly, I feel we should look at that one again. I think we're sending a mixed message here. We want skilled workers, and what's the definition of skilled work? I'm the son of a carpenter. Believe me, my dad doesn't have a university degree, but he can build a house. I can't, but I've a bachelor's degree. I think we need another balance on that one. It depends on what we expect in a skilled worker and what kind of message we want to send to the rest of the world.

So feed me with that one. As I said, I'm able to work on the number of points when you're making the evaluation. At the same time, I'm there to evaluate and to define what a skilled worker is.

We should talk about equivalence also. I remind you that you might have some people who say we must get some plumbers, or whatever worker it is, but at the same time, we have Canadians with some guidelines to qualify carpenters. So we need some equivalence to make sure we don't penalize the people who already want to apply for a job here.

That's a tricky question that we should answer, but I feel you hit the nail on the head by saying it is a challenge we have to face and maybe we have to change.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Jerry, on the last half of the--

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, thank you very much. I think your initial presentation, as open as you are, really gives this committee a lot of confidence in where we're heading. We do appreciate the point that you haven't come to tell us what's happening, but to listen to our concerns. In that light, we are all reflecting concerns of our constituents and people we have met and discussed issues with to this point.

You pointed out very clearly that the U.S. is two-thirds family class, Canada is one-third family class. We are looking at far more skilled workers and fewer family class people coming to Canada. It's a matter of numbers, I certainly understand that. But one of the frustrating issues that seems to me to occur often is where I have a person in my riding who has a brother somewhere in another country; that brother may have the skills that person wants, but they may not be in the specific skill class categories that we welcome into the country.

I'll just give you an example. A Chinese restaurant may have people who are very good at providing that food, cooking the food, doing the types of things necessary, even running restaurants, and application to Canada is very difficult, first, because if this person is in China, the opportunity to speak English is not necessarily as good as it would be if that person were in Canada. So when they don't have specific skill sets and they don't have English or French as major languages, it becomes very difficult for anyone to enter Canada under the point system that is available there.

So I feel that in some ways we have to look carefully at how a blend of those issues can be put together to be a little more open to family reunification, with siblings in particular, and still allow us to go to those skill sets and make sure we fulfill the skill sets as well as possible.

The number 80, which I guess has come out of some research and discussions, seems very much more difficult than the 70 that existed before, even with the 5% given to the applicants who are already in the system. I think in many cases those are issues of getting families together, getting certain elements of the point system in place so that we can be that open society and yet meet the needs of a lot of families who might otherwise not be able to come to Canada.

¿ (0935)

Mr. Denis Coderre: Thank you, Jerry.

First, you're talking about three things. You spoke about the definition of family, you spoke about the language, and you spoke about the mark in itself.

Regarding reunification of families, we made a choice. We can include brothers and sisters, but if we do so, we'll have fewer skilled workers. As a matter of fact, certain people would be able to say that through skilled workers there's a kind of reunification of families. So there are limits to the cases we have, and if we expand the family definition through reunification of family, it will have an impact on the skilled workers. I like also to put the emphasis on the skilled workers, because they have an impact on our economy, and I think immigration is also for that purpose.

Second, on the language issue,

[Translation]

I am very aware of the language issue. I am ready to listen, but the language issue is important to me. When people want to enter this country, especially competent people, I am not ready to set aside this notion of language. I also think this is a brilliant opportunity, especially for francophones, to get qualified workers.

Obviously, there is the Canada-Quebec agreement, which is separate from this. The people have their own grid and do a good job. But it is important for francophone communities outside Quebec to have a similar approach, one that will enable us to have francophone workers in some communities.

Twenty points are awarded for language skills. Is that too much? If they know one or both languages, they have an advantage. For skilled workers, perhaps more emphasis should be put on job opportunities, but I firmly believe the language issue is important. I am very aware of it and I want language to still be a factor.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Colleagues, I'm already running into a problem, and that's this. I know, Minister, that you have to leave at ten o'clock for a cabinet meeting.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes, I have to go to cabinet.

The Chair: I can understand that. I'll tell you in advance that we're going to ask you back, obviously. But because we have the department coming after you and we will get into some specifics, I also have a number of people who want to ask you some questions before you leave.

With your indulgence, colleagues, I want to make sure--

Mr. Denis Coderre: So the politics is between nine and ten o'clock.

The Chair: --that I can get all of your questions directed to the minister, and I know you all have questions. Therefore, I'm going to ask you to be very quick with your questions and very specific, so we can have the benefit of the minister's ideas. And the answers, Minister, have to be very much shorter.

If I could, I'm going to get to everybody ad hoc. So I will now move quickly to Madeleine, Judy, Inky, and then a couple of questions from the Alliance and then back to the Liberals.

[Translation]

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

Welcome, Mr. Minister. I am first going to tell you what you already know. The portfolio you have just taken over is extremely sensitive, particularly as it pertains to the values that distinguish Canadian society, which I still feel a part of.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Denis Coderre: Oh, that is a statement. Or is a motion?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, but I must be quick .I am referring mainly to the values of openness, compassion and generosity. Mr. Minister, I was thrilled to hear you say—and I know the words are important—that you were minister for and not of immigration. It is like making the distinction between working with yourself versus for yourself. Thank you.

People are concerned. Some are concerned about the change in grid criteria. I agree with some of the comments made by my colleagues about the language issue and about the points given for education. I feel those are important factors, but perhaps some changes could be made.

Mr. Minister, these regulations were published in mid-December, just before a one-month break. Given the importance of these regulations, not only for us around this table, but also for those they affect, and there are tens of thousands of them, would you consider extending the deadline? I heard our chairman say we would obviously take all the time required, but there is a 60-day limit. I would therefore like to hear your comments on that. It is a very specific question.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You are an extremely... [Editor's Note: Inaudible ]... committee and you know the ins and outs of the situation. I do not want to denigrate the briefings I got from my own department, but I have an extremely important briefing here. Some of you have been here five years and deal with the question of immigration everyday. So we won't reinvent the wheel. We will just have to find a way, as the saying goes. I think you know what I mean.

In my view, it is important to do it in the set timeframe. You know the questions and answers. You have a preconceived idea on the matter. Give me your answers and I will make the decisions quickly. I do not think we should push back the deadline indefinitely to gain even more time. I think we are ready to make decisions. You are in a position to do so and I am ready to implement them.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Well, I'm glad to follow up on this point, because you did in fact indicate at the outset, Mr. Minister, that you were prepared to give us the necessary time to make meaningful recommendations to you so that you can improve these regulations, which are raising all kinds of concerns. I wish time permitted us to go into all the details of the skilled worker category, same-sex benefits, dependant children, or refugee detention, but suffice it to say that we cannot do our job and give you recommendations if you are prepared to carry on this unfair, undemocratic, arbitrary process that has been handed this committee.

You realize that we were handed these regulations—the public was given these regulations—on December 15, just when Parliament broke. The 60-day requirement applies to us, to the public. There is a two-week period for this committee to deal with hundreds of pages of regulations that have more to do with shaping immigration policy than the bill itself does—a bill that we deliberated for many months, up to a year.

Furthermore, Mr. Minister, your government has resisted the idea of this committee playing a role in terms of actually shaping these regulations. There is no mechanism by which we can ensure that our recommendations will be adopted by your government, and that we will be there to change and shape these regulations, which are so critical in terms of our open, humanitarian traditions in this field.

The Chair: Thank you, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have one more thing. I just—

The Chair: No, I'm sorry.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay, there were the two questions on the timing and the role.

The Chair: I think I understand the questions.

Minister.

Mr. Denis Coderre: We're democrats, and you're a New Democrat, so you understand the word “democratic”. We're giving you the chance to look at those regulations and to have the opportunity to give me what you think are the best things to do. I could have said....

I would like to thank my predecessor, because this is here because of her. I'm supportive of the vision that we should use the committee to provide those regulations. That's pure democracy. It's one of the first times that you have seen a government asking a committee, through regulations, to give us an option. So if you want to talk about democracy, we'll talk about democracy.

I heard you're an expert on this issue, so you already know the tenants et aboutissants. What I'm saying is that we have a timeframe. Give me your thoughts—and I have already received your letter, so you know how to reach me. I'm ready to make a decision, but I think we have a timeframe and we should respect it.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Judy, I'm sorry—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Is four days a democratic process—

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —four days for us to hear—

The Chair: Judy, order.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, Mr. Chairperson, you said we would get a more specific answer from the—

The Chair: I intend to answer your question.

Mr. Minister, February 15 and the 60 days are not enough time, not for us. We are experts, but if we are to truly listen to the Canadian public, whom we have guaranteed that we intend to listen to, it is physically impossible for us to do our public hearings and provide you with a report on February 15.

You will also know that part 2 has yet to be tabled, although it's a very small part. I do not think it would take away from your master plan, so to speak, to implement your regulations and the new act by June 28, as an example, if we were to take the time that's necessary

I only say as a supplement that February 15 is not on. I think we can have a report to you by the middle of March, after we've completed the very thorough and comprehensive things. I just want to leave you with that, but the committee is of the view that we will need a little more time because of the Christmas break, because of the fact that these things were tabled on December 15—

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

The Chair: It's impossible that—

Mr. Denis Coderre: I thought you were working during the Christmas break.

The Chair: We were, in our constituencies.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The House wasn't sitting.

The Chair: It's impossible to do by February 15, so Judy raises a very good question. Perhaps you can end off your submission with a re-thinking about the timeframe we need to work with.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On a point of order—

The Chair: No, I'm sorry.

Inky.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chairperson, I have a point or order.

The Chair: I'm sorry, but I'm going to questions. The minister has to leave by 10 a.m.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: May I then just ask that the question about the weight of our recommendations be addressed by the minister, and also by this committee subsequent to this whole round?

The Chair: Minister, will the report of the committee, whenever it's tabled—and hopefully it's going to be a little later than February 15—in fact have an impact on the decisions that you make?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin--Swan River, PC/DR): You already have an impact, you'll notice.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Inky--

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: [Inaudible—Editor] ...refugees will be accepted by the government is the question.

The Chair: Inky.

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

Let me begin on a positive note and congratulate you on your appointment. I know that your excellence in your job as sports minister will certainly carry forward, and having worked with you--

Mr. Denis Coderre: It's a good thing I'm a boxer, right?

Mr. Inky Mark: You'll do a good job. I have no doubt about that.

I want to echo what my two former colleagues indicated in terms of the whole business of regulations. This bill, really...the old bill had 56 regulations. This one has 262. That's the problem with framework legislation. This is bigger than the bill itself. If I can go back to when this committee asked that the regulations be presented to the committee for discussion before being gazetted...well, we got them gazetted just before the Christmas break. So we certainly do need a lot of time.

What I'd like to say to you is that the Auditor General has a long list of issues that have not been addressed. If I were to give you advice, I would suggest you look at the old concerns from over the past 10 years regarding this department. I think a lot of things could be improved.

The whole issue of retroactivity wasn't a surprise, because during the amendment stage I asked for a transition. I made an amendment to provide a transition period for Bill C-11, and that was defeated.

The only other thing I ask of you is to look at the effects of Bill C-42, how it affects Bill C-11 in terms of the processing time for refugees. There's potential for conflict. If Bill C-42 passes before the implementation of the regulations in Bill C-11, which is going to supercede the other?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Okay, thanks a lot for the question.

First of all, on the technical issue, after 10 a.m. you will have the opportunity to talk to my department. The concordance of the application between Bill C-42 and Bill C-11 is something I'm still looking at.

I promised myself I wouldn't make any clichés today, but.... We can look at the past--and I think we've answered a lot of those issues. We face a new reality since September 11, and we don't want to hide our heads in the sand. We have to face some issues.

Were there some efficiency problems? Maybe. But I think the way the department and the government reacted on certain issues proved to you that it's like a car: the windshield is bigger than the back mirror, because we have to look ahead. That's the only cliché I'll make today.

I think it's important to mention that I'm a human being, I will make mistakes. I think it's a very sensitive issue. But I'm ready to put in all the passion and energy, and that's the reason I've said I'm the minister for immigration and citizenship. We don't want to be even partisan on that issue. It's about Canada, it's about people, it's about life and survival, and I'm totally dedicated to that. But I'm ready also to fight all those stereotypes that say the people who want to get into Canada are all a bunch of crooks or terrorists, because that's not true.

I'm totally dedicated also to using those tools as an educator, as somebody who can talk with people, to build those sounding boards and bring all the communities together. I think that's the most important thing we have to do. On the other hand, we have to face some problems, because some Canadians have fear. Is that because they don't know or they don't understand? Well, you know me--I'm a man of the field. I'm going to work with people. I'll go into the field and we'll find a way. But, listen, let's go ahead.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I wonder if we could put our questions and then have the minister answer, because I want to make sure we put our questions to the minister before he leaves.

So I'll go to Art, then Yvon, then Jimmy, then Guy, and Anita.

Go ahead.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Minister, congratulations on your appointment.

I know there are a lot of discussions around the regulations, and I can see why there are a lot of discussions around the table right now, given the fact that there are so many proposed new regulations.

If you are going to go back to Bill C-11, for instance, there is an indication in Bill C-11 that there is going to be some movement on this safe third country rule or process; yet the regulations show nothing in that area.

You said there are a number of refugee claimants coming across the border from the United States--in the tens of thousands actually, and over the years you can go past tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. It is a concern about the visitor visa regulations south of the border, as they have concerns about our visitor visa regulations and our processes here on this side. Yet nothing has been addressed on that issue.

What is your stance and direction on safe third countries? When can we expect to see some important and substantial movement in this area?

Mr. Denis Coderre: First of all, I would say that it is not part of the regulations, it is part of an agreement we are negotiating with the United States. It is a matter of an agreement between both countries--who is getting in--and the safe third country is part of that.

So it doesn't have to be under regulation. We are looking for an agreement.

The Chair: Thank you. We will get back to that through the department.

By the way, Art, we are talking to the IRB this afternoon, and you will find some of the refugee determination rules in that document we have prepared for you.

Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would also like to congratulate the new minister on his new position, especially since—I am the only one who can say this here—he is also my MP.

An hon. member:: Lucky fellow.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Minister, welcome to this portfolio.

An hon. member: Did you win the election?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Your role is so important, Mr. Minister, that I would compare it to that of someone responsible for blood transfusions at a hospital. You are responsible for managing the demographic exchange between those who are not in Canada and who want to come, and Canada.

Mr. Minister, you have the very difficult and important task of ensuring our immigration system is consistent. For years, Canada has been sending a very clear message to the entire world: our doors are open. The spirit of C-11 is supposed to be the same, but apparently the regulations in front of us have not been inspired by that same spirit.

Our ridings in Montreal are more our less overlapping. I would like to know what you think of this: when we go to see business people, what do they say is the most pressing need? Workers.

They are not always high-tech firms, they are businesses dealing in wood, metal, furniture. They need workers, and there are no tradespersons available here. They will never qualify based on this grid.

Are you willing to review that particular aspect? There is a great need to do so.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough--Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. Minister, I want to congratulate you on being appointed, and I thank you for coming here this morning.

However, I do have a few problems with the numbers. For skilled worker applications we see 45,000 and 120,000. In your own statement you said two-thirds of the people coming in are skilled workers. If you take what is in inventory right now, 660,000 applications in the department, two-thirds of that certainly does not reflect the numbers we see.

Mr. Minister, I had the opportunity to send faxes to posts overseas, and I am questioning, disputing, some of the numbers here. Hong Kong alone has 27,430 applications waiting to be paper-screened. Beijing has over 34,000. When you put those two numbers together--and these were taken a little bit before Christmas--these 45,000 applications waiting to be paper-screened are certainly not reflective of the number.

I am sure that around the table you heard about regulations, and I want to make sure we do not cloak the regulations in something to do with September 11. We shouldn't be fear mongering. The regulations are there for us to address the quality of people we want as well as their skills when coming to Canada.

However, there is one important piece of the puzzle we haven't touched upon and that is the entrepreneurs. We are raising the bar for people coming to Canada to start a business from “Show us who you are, show us your capabilities, show us you have some money in order to bring these thoughts of yours into being in Canada” to “Unless you have $300,000, don't bother applying.” That's like saying to someone who wants to open a business in Canada, “Unless you have $300,000, do not bother going to the bank and starting a business.” That is unfair.

I'm sure if you go around the table you will hear that 70 to 80 is totally unfair. The way we are looking to process the people is unfair. I believe that as you are open to changing the regulations, we will hear from you, and hopefully you will be called back to address that once the decision has been made.

The Chair: Those are good points, and there are three questions there.

Guy.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I know that you are a minister who likes to take action, which you proved when you were responsible for amateur sport in Canada. You know that immigration is a real sport.

Here is my question. You showed openness a few minutes ago when you were talking about the Canada-Quebec agreement, under which good work was being done. Do these regulations make major changes to the objectives of Canada's overall policy with respect to immigration? Will they have a great impact on the Canada-Quebec agreement?

[English]

The Chair: Minister, I wonder if you could answer those questions before you leave.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: I believe that especially when we are talking about the whole question of retroactivity and .... [Editor's Note: Inaudible], there is no impact on the Canada-Quebec agreement, since that agreement already has its own grid. We signed an agreement that is working very well.

Of course, our role involves verification, security and refugee issues. No, I do not think that these regulations will have an impact. On the contrary, maybe some things can be used to ensure greater consistency, especially in the assessment grids. I can do that.

[English]

To answer Mr. Karygiannis, I don't want to take the fifth amendment, as they say in the United States, but I'm taking notes about the investors. If there's a specific case, of course there's a process, but I'm taking notes regarding your 300,000--

À (1000)

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: That's entrepreneurs, Minister.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Entrepreneurs, sorry.

The Chair: Jim, you asked a question; let the minister answer, please.

Mr. Denis Coderre: As you notice, I'm French and I'm learning English, so I'm taking notes.

I have no reason to doubt the numbers, and I have full confidence in my department. The number you have here--as a matter of fact, I'm the one who asked to give it to you to show the transparency in the way we are working in our department.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, if I could, I know that--

Mr. Denis Coderre: I have some concluding remarks to make. Maybe you should finish and then I'll--

The Chair: Well, Anita has one question, quickly, and then--

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Chair, I'll pass. I'm sure we'll see the minister here again.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, if I could just reflect a little bit on the questions that have been asked and then perhaps you can conclude.... I'll start with this. We need more time. We'll get you a report in a timely manner with some very constructive recommendations. I don't think that will upset--and perhaps this is one of the things you might want to consider--the implementation date of this legislation, which is supposed to be June 28.

I think this committee can do its work, its good work--every time we've done some work we've given ministers some very good advice and some very good legislation. So that's our guarantee to you. But we need the time. It's not very much time, but it may very well be two or three weeks.

I think you've already indicated that you're open to looking at the point system and how that's evaluated, from education to language to a number of points. You even talked about--

Mr. Denis Coderre: I could have talked about adaptability too.

The Chair: --retroactivity, refunds, and those obviously are going to be very, very important issues.

I know there are a number of issues that relate to security, issues that in fact may be found in these regulations but may very well be found in Bill C-42, and some other issues.

But the crux of the matter is--and right from the beginning I think you indicated that you wanted to be open to suggestions as they relate to regulations. Right after you leave we're going to get into some nuts and bolts with the department and with witnesses tomorrow, the next day, and into next week.

As I said, in advance, we'd like to welcome you back, because one hour on this very important issue at the beginning.... I understand you're under some time constraints today. We will have to ask you back--it might be next week or the week after--when we can spend a lot more time, after we've a heard a little bit from the public.

Mr. Denis Coderre: So if I say until March 15, we're okay?

The Chair: Well, that does give us a month.

Mr. Denis Coderre: So you have one more month.

To conclude, what's my option? What can I do regarding regulations?

I'm ready to face the issue of refunds. I'm ready to face the mark by itself. Should it stay at 80 or should we lower it to 70? I know there will be some impact. As a matter of fact, if we look at those marks and say we might have some slight change in the evaluation, plus a lower mark, maybe we can even say we're facing the issue of retroactivity through that. We know that if there are a lot of people--for example, if it was 72% or 71%, you can ask the question, but you can have a huge number of people who will go through interviews to a final decision. Maybe that's an option.

I have homework for you.

The Chair: More homework?

Mr. Denis Coderre: You can ask me something, but I can ask you something.

The Chair: Not a problem.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I want you to face the issue of regulating the job of immigration consultant.

Through the Supreme Court decision, the Mangat decision, they're saying the federal government is able to ask for regulation. I don't want to regulate now, but I think we need an ethics code for immigration consultants. I would be more than pleased to have your guidelines on that. You should invite the three associations and ask them some specifics regarding that.

So if I'm ready to listen, I'm also ready to move on some other issues. The immigration consultants should be able to tell us what their future is and how they perceive it.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, I thank you for that extra bit of work. I can tell you that we've already done a bit of work and previous studies on that, but we look forward to examining that issue and may very well incorporate it in part of our report to you.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Thank you very much.

The Chair: We're going to adjourn for five minutes, and then we'll be back.

À (1004)

À (1012)

The Chair: Colleagues, we'll resume.

From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration we have Joan Atkinson, assistant deputy minister, policy and program development; Daniel Therrien; Mark Davidson, director, economic policy and programs, selection; and Nicole Girard, acting manager, legislative review and enforcement.

I want to welcome you all back to this committee. I know we had a very constructive couple of years together as we put together Bill C-11, and I want to thank you very much. I'm sure we have an awful lot of questions relating to the regulations.

I believe, Joan, you're going to take us through this document first as to the regs and some of the provisions in them, because I'm sure some of our questions will be specifically towards some of them.

So welcome back, happy new year, and I wonder if you could take us through the document.

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleasure to be in front of committee.

I'm going to quickly run through this document, which is an overview of some of the key changes in some of the regulations, just to position the regulations.

The first page--flag two--gives you the key milestones. Note that it makes reference to tranche one. As you pointed out, I think, Mr. Chairman, there is a second tranche of regulations. Most of the key regulations are in this package, but there is a second package coming, which has some more technical pieces in it.

As you know, the pre-publication period for the public is set to February 13. But as the minister has indicated, he is prepared to receive your report after that date.

The third page gives you the general overview of the regulations. The first part is dealing with general provisions, which include some of the general definitions on things like dependent child, common-law partner, and so on--general rules with regard to application and documents and conduct at examinations.

Parts 4 to 7 include a lot of the meat. The skilled worker selection criteria are there. The family class definitions are in that part. The refugee resettlement from abroad categories are in there. The rules around the pre-removal risk assessment, the undocumented refugees class, are all in that part of the regulations.

Parts 8 to 11 are on work permits, study permits, and visitor rules.

Parts 12 to 15 on enforcement deal with the specific rules around removal orders and detention, definitions on inadmissibility, and finally the transition rules on the economic class.

In slide 4 we get into the skilled worker category. Obviously there has been a lot of discussion already. We're very happy to take more questions this morning on the grid.

I'll just take you back to what our initial objective was here in terms of the new skilled worker grid. Our objective here was to move the currently used intended occupation model--which is outdated, does not serve Canadians well, and does not give us the kind of skilled worker that we need for the economy of today and the future--to a human capital model that would select people on the basis of transferable and flexible skill sets, with an emphasis on education and language. We know from all of our research and from all of the research others are doing that education and language skills are key.

As a bit of background, from research that our colleagues at Human Resources and Development Canada are doing, by 2004, 70% of all new jobs created in Canada will require post-secondary education of some kind. So it is critically important that we get it right in terms of the education piece.

As for the other factors--age, experience, arranged employment, and adaptability--I'll be happy to go into more detail in the question period of what our objectives are on those criteria. As you know, the pass mark is different from the current system. The minister has the authority through these regulations to set the pass mark, which is a very important point. It means the minister has a flexibility to change the pass mark, if need be. The minister can put a pass mark out there, monitor, gauge, see the intake--what sorts of cases are coming into the system--and adjust and change quite quickly and respond quite rapidly to the situation out there.

On the next page we talk about business immigrants. We still have the three components: investors, entrepreneurs, and self-employed. Our objective here on business immigrants is to put in place more objective, transparent criteria to assess business immigrants. As opposed to the system we have now, where we talk about ability to successfully establish a business, what we're looking at in these definitions is a clear and objective definition of business experience. You must have business experience in order to be qualified as an entrepreneur or an investor. Yes, we have added a net worth component to the definition of entrepreneur as well, in order to provide some consistency and objectivity.

As for self-employed, there is not a lot of change from the current self-employed, but there is a reference to persons who will make a significant contribution to the artistic or cultural life of Canada, or to athletics, which is new, at the world-class level, or by purchasing and managing a farm--specific reference to self-employed farmers, which we think is important.

À (1015)

Page 6 talks about the transitional rules, which have been the subject of a lot of debate. I would again like to talk a little bit about what are our objectives here, and I think you heard the minister being very open to looking at some changes here.

It is true that with our new selection criteria we are selecting a new type of skilled worker. That is clearly our intention with the new skilled worker selection criteria.

We also know that with the kind of inventory we have--and the chart the minister passed around gives you an indication of the cases that are in process--if we were to have two systems in place, the new system and the old system, we would have two systems for a very long period of time because it would take a great deal of time to clear out all the individuals who are in our inventory. The department can't afford operationally to run two separate systems for a lengthy period of time. Also, we won't be meeting Canada's economic needs if we are selecting people under an old selection system that we know we must change.

So those are the objectives behind some of the transition rules that are in the pre-published regulation package. We do want to try to put the new system in place sooner rather than later. We recognize that we need to mitigate the impact of the transition period on those persons who are in the inventory, and, as I think the minister has indicated, we are open to your suggestions on that front.

On page 7 we talk about the temporary foreign worker and students, new definitions of “work” and “work permit”, and working with Human Resources and Development Canada on the new rules for HRDC validation, as it is known, referred to in the regs as, “an opinion with respect to the economic effect”. The regulations outline an in-Canada landing process for certain temporary workers and they talk about changes to the student rules with regard to students coming for courses that are less than six months, which is a change.

Of course, as you know, in the act itself we have the provision that school-age children of foreign nationals with work and study permits can attend school without having to get a study permit, as can minor children of refugee claimants and others. That's clearly outlined in the act, and there's no need to expand upon that in the regulations.

The next page talks about the family class definitions, which are in the regulations. These cover, as you know, dependent children, who are moving from under 19 to under 22; a definition for common law partners and an interpretation of that definition; rules around simple adoptions and guardianship; and a new in-Canada landing class for spouses and common law partners and their dependants. The rules are all outlined in the regulations.

On the next page, family class sponsorships, the regulations outline the new provisions with regard to sponsorship, lowering the age for sponsorship from 19 to 18. The duration of undertaking is reduced to three years for spouses and common law partners and maintained at ten years or until the age of majority for dependent children.

There are new sponsorship bars for those who have been convicted of sexual assault, family-violence-related convictions, and those who are in default of child support payments are not allowed to sponsor.

For persons who are on social assistance, except for reasons of disability, again there is a bar to sponsorship. Always, of course, there is the opportunity and ability for humanitarian and compassionate considerations where there are compelling cases.

Also in the regulations there is the permanent residency obligation. As you know, in the act we talk about two years out of five physical residence in Canada, but the regulations provide details on what would be an effective presence; that is, for individuals who are outside of Canada working for Canadian business, the regulations define what we mean by Canadian business and accompanying family members.

On the next page we have refugee resettlement. As you know, in the regulations we have made some changes in order to meet our objective to find the right balance between the need for protection and the need to successfully establish in Canada. The new regulations reflect that balance. They exempt refugees who are found to be in urgent need of protection. There are definitions around what urgent need of protection means and vulnerable cases, totally apart from the ability to establish assessment. The ability to establish assessment is broader than what we have in the current regulations and looks at a broader range of issues.

À (1020)

The source country class and the asylum country class are maintained in these regulations, but there is reference to referral organizations. Cases to be assessed under the humanitarian classes or the convention refugee from abroad classes should be referred from an organization that the minster has entered into an agreement with. The regulations allow for some exceptions to that. The regulations also allow for facilitating the processing of separated family members for up to a year.

Finally, almost all of the provisions of the in-Canada refugee system are found in the act. As you know, we discussed that at length during our deliberations on Bill C-11. The regs have detailed rules around the pre-removable risk assessment--rules around notification and process, around oral hearings in exceptional cases, and so on.

The IRB is coming to testify later, and they will undoubtedly be talking to you about the IRB rules that were pre-published at the same time.

On the next page, “Examination”, all of the major provisions on rights, responsibilities, and obligations are in the act. In the regulations you find the detailed rules around examination: documentary requirements, where applications should be submitted, how applications should be processed, medical examinations, a definition of excessive demand, and definitions of public health and safety related to medical inadmissibility.

In this section of the regs we have specific provisions dealing with in-transit passengers through our airports. We have a definition of point of finality, i.e., when an examination is completed. That is an issue when admissibility may not be determined right on the spot at a port of entry. That is clarified, as well as the basis for alternate inspection, in dealing with remote ports and people who may attempt to enter Canada through alternate inspection routes.

All the rules around inadmissibility are in the act, but we've put in the regs some definitions and clarification procedures. For example, the definitions of senior official and excessive demand are in the regs. Transborder crime is a new inadmissibility provision. We specify in the regs the statutes that are relevant to that provision.

In the regulations we also describe deemed rehabilitation. As you know, in the inadmissibility provisions, if you are criminally inadmissible there is an opportunity for you to be found admissible to Canada if you are rehabilitated and no longer fall within an inadmissibility category. The regulations provide the detailed rules around rehabilitation.

On the basis for removal orders in the act, the regs give you the specific rules around how removal orders are to be issued and by whom, i.e., the minister issuing removal orders or an adjudicator at the immigration division of the IRB. The regulations specify the rules around who issues removal orders and stays. There are new stays in the regs for all persons who have submitted applications for pre-removal risk assessments. Their removals are stayed.

When a humanitarian and compassionate application has been approved in principle, there is a stay on removal. On the judicial review of the refugee appeal division, there are stays for most refused refugee claimants, except those who have been found to be criminals and terrorists. There is specifically in the regs a much more transparent and objective process for the minister to issue a stay of removal for a person going back to a country where there is a generalized risk they may face upon return to that country. This is an administrative process.

À (1025)

We have specified this now in regulation and are putting in place a more transparent process, working with our NGOs and our other partners in determining those countries where stays should be put in place.

A new provision in the regulations concerns authority outside Canada to verify removal. This is a technical problem we have had in the current legislation and regulations. It will allow now, for the first time, a visa officer abroad.... An individual is subject to a removal order, has left Canada, didn't tell us about it, applies at a post abroad, is accepted for immigration to Canada, and wants to come back to Canada. We want him to come back to Canada because he meets the requirements, but there's one problem. This person has an outstanding warrant for their arrest because they never officially effected their removal from Canada. This is a provision that allows us to deal with those issues outside Canada.

There are the factors to be looked at in making detention decisions and in release of persons from detention.

Finally, there's the permanent resident card. There are very specific rules concerning issuance of the card. You will notice that there are a lot of similarities to issuance of passports. We took a lot of what the passport office does now in issuing passports and replicated a lot of that for issuance of permanent resident cards, to make sure we had the proper procedures.

The rest of this document simply gives you a little bit of information on tranche 2, which we are hoping to be able to table in mid-February. On page 14, you see all the cost-recovery fees will be in the second tranche, transportation loans, other loans, debt collections, specifically with regard to sponsorship and the ability to be able to garnish wages. Transportation company obligations and liabilities will be found in this tranche, as well as specific rules about seizure. Then there are other transitional provisions as they relate to other than the economic class: family class, persons in process in Canada before the board, or in other processes in Canada.

We just talk a little bit here about the sorts of consultations we have had and will continue to have on the regulations.

The last slide just gives you a little sense of our implementation strategy. We are targeting June 28, as you know, for implementation of the act. There are many things we have to do in order to get there, in addition to the regulatory process, consultation, and refinement of the regulations. We've listed here all the implementation activities the department is currently engaged in. As you know, this is a massive undertaking for the department, touching as it does on all elements of the immigration and refugee programs. So we are very busy trying to get all our implementation activities up and running so that we will be ready for the planned implementation date of June 28.

Those will be my opening comments, Mr. Chairman.

À (1030)

The Chair: Thank you, Joan.

I have just a couple of technical things before we move to questions. First, is tranche 2 ready for us? I know it says it's in the website, but if you've got tranche 2 and it's going to be 30 days, I'd like very much to be able to incorporate it, because some of our witnesses may very well want to talk about certain aspects of it. So if it's already set to go, pre-publication, I think this committee would like to see it, so as not to have to hold hearings all over again just on tranche 2. So I think if we could do that, that would be helpful.

Second--I think the question was posed by Inky and others of the minister--obviously, Bill C-42 brought into place a lot of the measures that are found in Bill C-11 by virtue of what happened on September 11. Can you just tell us how Bill C-42 affects these regulations? Because, obviously, Bill C-42 is now actionable, in the sense that it's in place for public security reasons. Therefore, the regulations, as they relate to some of the measures you're talking about, from detention to inadmissibility, are covered in another piece of legislation. So I wonder if you can just tell us a little bit about how Bill C-42 interfaces with these regulations.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Tranche 2 regs are not on our website yet. They haven't been pre-published yet. We expect to have that package complete very soon, and we hope to be able to move to pre-publication very quickly. We will get that package to you.

I certainly understand what you're saying, Mr. Chairman, that it would be helpful to have that package as soon as you can, so you're not having to duplicate your efforts. So we will do what we can on that front.

The Chair: Sorry, I must have misspoken.

I referred to Bill C-42. I think there are certain provisions in Bill C-42, but Bill C-42 is still before the House. It's Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, that brought forward a lot of the Bill C-11 measures, or immigration measures, to ensure Canadians that we were moving very, very quickly on those security measures.

It's Bill C-36, and perhaps Bill C-42, obviously.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Bill C-36 is the anti-terrorism legislation that received royal assent. Bill C-36 does not have a direct impact on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

There was some comment about the fact that Bill C-36 has specific definitions around terrorism. Our view is that that informs us, in terms of dealing with terrorists under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but it doesn't compel us to follow the same definitions because we are dealing with two very different types of law. We're dealing with civil law in the immigration context and criminal law in the anti-terrorism bill.

It is indeed Bill C-42, Mr. Chairman, that brought forward a number of the provisions in Bill C-11 to try to move them forward more quickly. This was done in anticipation of Bill C-42 moving, I think, more quickly than it has through the parliamentary process.

Those provisions related to detention of undocumented people from within Canada. The current act allows us to detain at ports of entry those who are undocumented and whom we cannot identify. The new act will give us that ability to detain, both inland and at port of entry.

There's also advanced passenger information. Again, we don't have that currently. We simply put the provisions for advanced passenger information in Bill C-42.

The eligibility for refugee determination and the ability to be able to make those eligibility decisions more quickly and suspend processing, specifically of a refugee claim, if a person has been determined to be ineligible for reasons of security is in the new legislation, not in the current legislation. We put it in Bill C-42.

Finally, there's the ability to allow the minister to determine for which country a person should depart Canada if they're under a departure order as opposed to a deportation order.

Those provisions would require regulations. Obviously, we have all the regulations that relate to those provisions in this package--those provisions that are in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

We're proceeding on the basis of what we have and what's in the regs, and we'll see what happens with Bill C-42.

À (1035)

The Chair: Thank you Joan and company for all of that.

I would be interested...and obviously for a lot of us during the Christmas holidays this was great bedtime reading, all of these 200 or so regulations. So we might surprise you, that we've actually done our homework and looked at these things. We'll test you on that right now.

We'll go to Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to go back to slide 6, which deals with the transitional problem.

In the last couple of weeks, certainly, the department must be aware of the number of articles that have been in The Toronto Star and elsewhere, making certain claims about the problems of the transitional mechanisms. I understand, of course, that when you move from one regime to another, it's problematic.

Some of the things that have been suggested don't seem to be reflected here. According to the slide, it looks like the original positions are being continued with. Yet we have a minister who came today and said he's open to suggestions, and perhaps changes.

Perhaps those who have applied should be allowed to give supplemental information to improve their application, because the department is taking two years or more to deal with these files. Someone could apply in good faith under the current rules that we say are there, and then if the department takes so long to get around to processing the file, in the meantime, the rules are all changed. Then the department will say, “Oh, we have new rules now, but because we've taken so long, we're dumping your files.”

So what about the possibility of an applicant...because it takes so long? Life happens; stuff happens. Maybe in the original application they were applying for education, but by the time they get through they might have completed their university degree. So they could supply supplemental material to their application.

Secondly, when it looks like they might not make it in the new regime, they should be allowed to withdraw gracefully, get their money back, maybe go back to university or improve their circumstances, and reapply again without penalty and without being seen as a rejected or an unsuccessful applicant.

Also, there were some other allegations or whatever made about the transition mechanisms in the press. I just wonder if you could look at those, in view of the minister's new openness, and at how we're going to deal with those transitional problems.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I appreciate the comments. You'll notice under the first bullet there in brackets, “as per the pre-published regulations”. This is simply just repeating what's in the package, so there's no reflection at all on our part in terms of the openness the minister demonstrated here this morning. The minister was clear that he's open to suggestions. We are as well, and we are prepared to look at how we can manage the transition period, because that's really what we're talking about here, trying to manage this process of change. It's never easy to try to go through a transition period and try to find a balance between fairness to the individuals who are caught up in that transition and our need to be able to put in place the new system.

In terms of supplemental information--absolutely. Individuals who are in the system and wish to provide supplemental information to us to demonstrate how they meet the new criteria will certainly be able to do that. I think your point is a very valid one, that it does take time for us to process applications, and in the intervening period a person may have improved their language skills. They may have been taking English or French classes. They may, by the time we get to making a selection decision, have an increased competency. They may have taken further education. Those are definitely issues that should be brought forward to the decision-maker, and the decision-maker will look at it.

Refunds are a complex area. As the minister has indicated, we're open to looking at what's possible, but the general rule is that it is a fee for service. If the service has not been provided, then the money can be given back, but if the service has been provided, regardless of the outcome, the fee is generally not refundable. It is a complicated area, but we are open to receiving suggestions on that.

À (1040)

Mr. Paul Forseth: Just to clarify that, then, are you suggesting that it would be possible for someone looking at the overall regime, in a case where the ministry has taken so long to get the file done under the old rules, to withdraw because the rules have changed, get their money back, improve their circumstances, and maybe apply at some future point under the new regime? It looks here as if the compassion part of the transition is worth only five points, and it appears that there has to be a much more liberal approach to this transition period.

The Chair: Thank you, Paul, for mentioning “liberal”. Go ahead, Joan.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: As I think the minister indicated, the setting of the points is something he is open to discussing. There are two sets of points we need to look at here. There are the points that are currently set at 80 for persons who submitted their applications after we pre-published the regs. So those would be for brand-new applications, if you will. Why are we looking at setting that at 80? Part of our difficulty is that we do not know the size of the intake we may be looking at by moving to the new grid.

Under the existing or old grid, if I can call it that, people are prevented from being accepted because of our general occupations list. They have to find themselves somewhere on that general occupations list. If they don't find themselves on that list, they won't qualify. That has the effect of sending a message to a very significant number of people who may want to come to Canada that they're not welcome. This applies to nurses, doctors, teachers, lawyers, electricians, you name it--there are a number of occupations from which people don't apply because they won't qualify as a result of not being on the general occupations list. By eliminating that general occupations list, we open it up to a much broader pool of people who can apply. What we don't know is how many people will want to apply and how many people will come through the system and succeed.

Setting a high pass mark is, we think, a prudent approach. It can be changed, because, as I indicated earlier, the minister has the ability to change it quickly. In addition, it would be our intention, regardless of where we set that pass mark, to monitor very carefully the intake of applications in the first weeks and months of the new system and then to adjust as we go. So that's one pass mark.

The second pass mark is for those people who applied before we pre-published the new rules. As a way of trying to mitigate the impact of the transition, for those people we've set it at 75 in terms of the pre-published regs. Again, the minister has said he's open to looking at that pass mark and looking at whether or not we've got it right in terms of the impact of the transition on people who are in that category, that large pool of people who are waiting for a selection decision.

Anyone who actually gets a selection decision before the act is implemented--our target date being June 28--will be processed completely under the old system. We will not go back and revisit decisions that were made under the old system. So anyone who is in the system now and gets a selection decision by June 28 is not affected; they're dealt with under the old rules.

The Chair: Excuse me. I get confused. May I clarify with a supplementary?

For anybody who was in the system before December 15, the old rules apply, or the point system. Joan, you've confused me because you said as long as you're in the system you're going to apply the old rules before June 28. Let's get this straight because it's a most important point.

À (1045)

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay. Yes, it's a very important point.

The old rules apply if you get a selection decision. You've had your interview or we've waived your interview, you came into the system under the old rules, and we made a decision on your application. We're not going to go back and revisit selection decisions that we've made right up until the date the act is proclaimed.

For persons who applied before December 15 and for whom we have not made a selection decision by June 28, or whatever date the act is proclaimed, the new rules apply.

That's the distinction. If you get a selection decision before the act is proclaimed, it's old rules. If you don't get a selection decision before the act is proclaimed, it's new rules.

The Chair: The minister did provide this thing. I'm sorry, I'll just supplement it, because I think this is very important.

You said this is a fee for services. When does this service really begin? You have 45,000 people who applied and are still waiting for paper screening.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right.

The Chair: You have 120,000 people who obviously have gone through that and are awaiting interviews. How long have those people been sitting around waiting? What have we been doing with all that paper before we get to an interview, so now we have 36,000 people who have already been interviewed and are waiting for a final decision? How long is that taking?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right.

The Chair: When you talk about who we are serving here, you've got a body--and I know Jim has some other numbers that I might want to ask you about, potentially 165,000 people who we're going to have to make an adjudication or a decision about; we may want to refund, if they voluntarily withdraw. Now you've indicated that they might even give us some additional information to help their case under a new point system that some of us have some problems with.

We are working on a two-tier system or a two-parallel system.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay. All right.

The Chair: I can understand the dilemma and the problems, because you and I had that interchange on Bill C-11. Inky will remember. I thought the department said, maybe not the minister, as we deal with transition, that the benefit of the doubt.... Bill C-11 was supposed to make it much easier to get into this country, to be much more welcoming, and I think Yvon Charbonneau said it best. Bill C-11 might say that, but the regulations, I think, go in the reverse direction. They make it much more difficult to get into this country, and so they're not being given the benefit of the doubt under the new system if they were already in the mill under the old rules, people who, in all good conscience, applied under the old rules.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right.

The Chair: So they should be given the benefit of the doubt, if the new system is to improve their chances of getting into this country.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Maybe I can try to explain the chart. First, to try to clarify the difference in numbers, this chart talks about--

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Chair, when we get to the numbers, is there any possibility that we can--

The Chair: You can ask the question, yes.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: --deal with the numbers specifically?

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I may be able to help here in regard to the apparent discrepancy. The numbers on this chart refer to applications, not persons, and I believe the numbers you may have, Mr. Karygiannis, are persons.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: They're applications and they're from posts abroad.

The Chair: Jim, I'll give you the opportunity of asking that question, and I will ask the administration for the numbers.

Joan, could you answer the questions?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: First of all, they're applications and not persons, and every application may be two, three, or more persons.

Secondly, these numbers are not cast in stone. This is a snapshot in time, and these numbers change on a daily basis. This is to give you some sense of what the numbers are in terms of people at various stages of the process, but these are not going to be the numbers today, and they're not going to be the numbers tomorrow. As more applications come in, as more applications move through the process, this is an ever-shifting and ever-changing scenario in terms of the exact numbers.

If I could describe what these different processes are, those in the first box are applications that we've received and that are waiting for the file to be created in our computer-assisted processing system. So the application and fee have been received and the file is waiting to be created in the registry.

Secondly, the 45,000 applications are those where the file has been created, but we haven't done anything with the application aside from creating the file and taking the money. We haven't made any preliminary decisions on those cases.

As you may know, when we're looking at a skilled worker application, we make what's called a paper-screening decision, which is based on the paper we have in front of us, the application and the accompanying documents, and we make a decision on whether or not they appear to meet the criteria. As this chart says, only about 2% of people are actually refused at this stage. Most people pass from the paper-screening stage to the selection stage.

At the selection stage, we could require an interview. We could require additional documentation. We could be doing some further investigation on your file. All of these 120,000 cases are awaiting further investigation, and in most cases an interview with a visa officer.

Finally, on the 36,000 cases awaiting final decision, the selection decision has been made and we're waiting to finalize medical, criminality, security, and such requirements at the end of the process.

For individuals who've submitted their application prior to December 17, if they've gone all the way up to and passed through applications awaiting interview, if they've made it all the way through that box before the proclamation date, planned for June 28, they're processed under the old system, the old selection grid.

People who have applied and don't get as far as that bottom line, whose applications are awaiting interview, are the group to which the new rules will apply, with the lower pass mark.

Applications that were submitted after December 17 go through the system totally with the new system.

À (1050)

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Chair, the numbers are really bamboozling--

The Chair: Excuse me, I will get to your questions--and I know that's why we've asked these questions and that's why we have the department, so we have understanding.

We will be not done at 11 o'clock, Jim. I know it's your first time before this committee. Let me manage the time. This is very important. We have three weeks to do the work, so let's all settle down. They are here to answer our questions.

I have Anita first.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

Joan, I think you in part answered my question, but not totally. What I'm having difficulty with is that you talk about going from the occupation-based selection criteria to new, broader, skills-based ones, but when I look at the point system and the number of points given for education and the number of points given for work experience in a specific occupation, I don't see the kind of flexibility you're talking about in terms of it being skills based. I recognize the bureaucratic difficulties of it, but a skills-based prior learning assessment--flexibility in skills and the transferability of skills.... Have you dealt with that in your...? I'm sure you have.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I appreciate the question. In the selection grid we do talk about experience in a skilled occupation, but the way we define skilled occupation in the new grid is much broader than in the current system. The current system has 183 different occupations; you have to find yourself somewhere. In the new grid we use a tool called the National Occupation Classification. We say everyone who is at this level and above in the National Occupation Classification is eligible to be a skilled worker if the person has experience. We don't specify which occupation; we say the whole range of individuals who have experience in that range of occupations are eligible.

That's where, when I talk about broadening and being more open, the new system is much more open than currently to a broader range of people, without regard to whether they are engineers, tool and die makers, architects, or electricians. They are all eligible, and they don't have to find themselves somewhere on the list.

We have changed the criteria with regard to education and language. We've put more emphasis--I would say much more emphasis--on education in the new grid. It's a little complicated, though, because in the old grid the occupation and experience and something we called the education training factor were all tied in with occupation. So while we've put more emphasis on straight education in the new criteria, we had a fair amount of emphasis on education in the old grid as well. We've put it much more clearly. We`ve said, this is it--education; we're looking for high school graduation at a minimum; we're looking for post-secondary.

As I think the minister indicated earlier, we're looking for “post-secondary“ education, not just university degrees. We want to bring skilled trades in through the system. I think, from some of the comments we've heard from the members here and from others, there are things we need to look at in terms of what we have currently in the pre-published grid.

“Prior learning assessment” gets us into an area not directly addressed by this selection grid, and that is the recognition of foreign credentials and education equivalency. I know this committee has looked at the issue. You heard, from a lot of witnesses who came before you when you were hearing testimony on the bill, that credential recognition is a really important issue and that we need to work with provinces, licensing bodies, and professional associations to get a handle on it with our colleagues from Human Resources Development Canada. That work is continuing, but it's separate and apart from the selection grid itself, because we need to have--

The Chair: You'll have to be a little bit quicker.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay, I'm sorry. I'll come back to you on it. Thank you.

The Chair: Steve, and then Jim.

À (1055)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If I can, I am going to ask three questions and then maybe you could answer them.

The first one is you made a reference to my question to the minister and I'd like your response to that, particularly as it relates to full-time studies. I think you have to be a nuclear scientist to qualify under this issue because nobody takes three years of full-time studies on top of their eight years in elementary school and four years in high school to become a tradesperson.

So what I need to understand is what is your definition of skilled workers, skilled tradespeople, if they are indeed the high technical end of it, computer based, whatever, then.... Pardon?

Á (1100)

The Chair: PhD plumbers.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, the PhD plumbers get 25 for PhDs. So I need some clarification there in the point.

Also, there is the issue along on that grid, the last one, high school; for a total of 12 years of full-time study you get five points. We're sending a message that high school graduates can get in, but in fact they only get five out of a maximum of 25. They have no shot unless in fact they are fluently bilingual and they make up their points down here and get an additional 20 points in the language category. So how many pure and simple high school graduates who are fluently bilingual in French and English are going to be applying?

I think this is misleading; either we're saying a high school graduate with other things will qualify or it really doesn't say this. Putting it there, I think, is misleading, and I'd like your comments on that.

The other issue I'd like your comment on is the $300,000 net worth for an entrepreneur. If somebody's worth $300,000 plus in their homeland, they probably don't want to come here. They're probably quite happy. It strikes me that $300,000 net worth is a pretty comfortable level in terms of where people might be living, because it's plus that. It's not just $300,000, it could be more than that. So is it realistic to expect that we're going to attract entrepreneurs at that level, particularly given the definition, if you will, or the flavour of an entrepreneur? The guys who invented Trivial Pursuit wouldn't qualify under this the day that they invented Trivial Pursuit and yet they're worth substantially more than $300,000. That's maybe a bad example, but I'd like your reaction to it.

The other question is on detention. What I heard when we went out to the border sites--and we particularly heard it in Montreal--is that our people on the front lines are loath to detain someone because the independent adjudicator 48 hours later is going to just open the door and let them go.

Is there anything in the regulations that deals with this? I recognize they're independent and they need to be at arm's length and everything else, but if our front-line workers won't detain because they're frustrated at their decisions being overturned, then we have a problem. So either in the training or in the regulations, is there anything that deals with that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On full-time study, I think your point and the example you gave are very good. We need to look at that. When we're looking at co-op type programs--and I don't know whether that's the specific sort of example you were using--where it's six months of work and six months of classroom training, we would count that as full-time study. If it's part of the program and part of the package that comes in terms of getting that, we'd certainly--

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Just to be clear, Joan, that's not a co-op. It's an actual apprenticeship and it's done through one of the unions.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: But, again, we want to recognize apprenticeship programs, and if, as part of the apprenticeship program, it's six months on the floor working and six months in the classroom or something else, that will be included in full-time study.

On the $300,000 net worth for entrepreneurs, we have received comments on that. We consulted fairly widely with provinces and other stakeholders in terms of setting that particular level. We clearly want to have an objective threshold and standard for entrepreneurs. We think that helps, in terms of decision-makers and people knowing what requirements they have to meet. But the $300,000 was based on our best judgment in terms of what would be reasonable and what would be required for a small-business person to set up a business in Canada. But we have received a number of comments on that particular issue, and we will be looking at it.

In terms of detention--

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sorry, you forgot the high school issue.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Oh, the high school issue, right.

I take your point: someone who only has high school education and no post-secondary will have a hard time qualifying under this grid. They would probably need to have good points in language and adaptability to be able to make it, or a validated job offer, which is another possibility. And there's always the use of discretion, of course, when a visa officer determines that someone meets the requirements. But as I said, the figures we're getting are that 70% of all new jobs by 2004 will require post-secondary--so beyond high school. We think it's very important to emphasize post-secondary education.

Finally, on the detention, the regulations do contain new rules that will guide not just our officers, but adjudicators at the IRB, in terms of continued detention or release in the three different categories: flight risk, danger to the public, and undocumented and lack of identity. So those regulations will guide the adjudicators, as well as our own people.

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Good morning, Joan. I have a number of questions to ask, but I have picked three.

My first question deals with the section on inspection of those who want to come into Canada. It says that the purpose of the regulations is to place intelligent and reasonable limits on the discretion of immigration officers. Can you indicate to me where these limits are found in the regulations? That is my first question.

Over the fall, there was a lot of talk about the landed immigrant card. When I read the impact study, I saw things that surprised me and that will surely create a lot of confusion.

On page 33 in the French version of the impact study, we see that carriers are being asked to require a permanent resident card of anyone claiming to be a permanent resident. If the carriers are being asked to require this card to be shown, it presumably means that anyone without a card must stay wherever they are. Obviously, that person will not be able to get on board. On page 36, however, it says that there is no obligation under the act or the regulations for permanent residents to have that card. If that is not changed, we may see legal challenges. If people are not required to have it, how can it be something that is required? That is my second question.

My third question is as follows.

I was not really troubled when I saw the amounts required for those wanting to come to Canada as investors, but I am concerned about the pass mark. The grid for investors sets the pass mark at 35. I was a teacher for a long time, and if I had let my nursing students pass with a mark of 35 just because they had a lot of money, I would not have wanted them caring for me. I would really like you to clarify that for me.

Á (1105)

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Let me start with the last one first in terms of “investor”.

In the current selection system, we have a much lower pass mark for investors as well. Our intention is to put most of our emphasis on the definition of “investor”, because we believe that's probably where the most important part of the selection decision is made. Do they meet the definitions of business experience? Do they have the net worth? Are they experienced business people according to those definitions?

The selection criteria are not as important for an investor as meeting those definitions is. We worry less about their education and language skills, because we are selecting them as business people coming to make an investment, as opposed to as people who are going to enter the labour market and who therefore need to have those sorts of skills in terms of entering the labour market. That's the objective.

On the permanent resident card, yes, airlines will be required to satisfy themselves that a person who is claiming to be a permanent resident has the appropriate documentation. That's no different from what is the case today. Airlines need to satisfy themselves that they're carrying passengers who are properly documented. What we want is for the airlines to require the permanent resident card as the proof.

As we've said, the permanent resident card is meant to be the secure travel document that permanent residents will use as they travel outside the country and come back. If you're not planning on travelling outside the country, you won't necessarily need the permanent resident card, so it's not an identity document and we're not making it obligatory for all permanent residents.

In terms of examination and discretion, I'm not sure I completely understood your question. We have tried to provide the rules for officers in terms of examination of individuals, but I'm just not sure exactly what your question was.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Could I clarify my question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Many witnesses expressed a great deal of concern during our consideration of Bill C-11 about the discretion that the act seems to give immigration officers, who are the ones dealing with potential immigrants on the front lines. From what I can see here in this document, the regulations would limit that discretion.

I would have liked to hear from you which aspects show that there would be limits put on this discretion.

Is my question clearer now?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes, thank you.

It's always a balance between making sure you have clear and objective rules and having discretion. There will continue to be discretion available to individual decision-makers, whether it be through a humanitarian-compassionate application or whether it be....

I think one of the areas in which we had some controversy when we were looking at the bill was the situation in which an individual is found to be inadmissible and a report is written on that individual. We have left discretion—which will be determined by guidelines—to examining officers. When they're dealing with individuals who may be inadmissible and are liable to removal from Canada—this is within Canada—the officers have the discretion to decide whether or not to write that report, and the senior immigration officer has the discretion over whether or not to accept that report and send those individuals to an inquiry. That discretion is retained, and that discretion will be dealt with through guidelines, not regulations.

The Chair: Inky.

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

First, let me say that I'm rather disappointed to be seeing a large number of regulations, because I don't believe the regulations reflect the general intent of the bill. To echo the chairman's comments, if Bill C-11 was a pro-immigration document, I certainly can't say the same for the regulations. Obviously, it attacks the legal or legitimate people who want to come to this country. We know that the future of this country depends on good immigration policies.

Yes, we know that we don't want people who are going to come here and do us harm. I think that after September 11 we all know that. The fact of the matter is, September 11 has taught us a big lesson. Yes, we must prevent people from coming to this country who are going to do us harm, but at the same time, our future depends on good immigration policies.

I know that one of my own staffers took that test and failed it. I don't think I could pass that selection test. At the same time, there are too many second chances for review for people with criminal backgrounds who have come into this country, and we reduced the residency requirement from five to three years.

There are a lot of things we've done to give people a second chance. Perhaps we shouldn't have, but just from the reactions to this bill already as to retroactivity--and I'm glad to hear the word "transition" in your vocabulary--I'm surprised the department never thought about transition. If this is a major piece of legislation, and you indicate it is, certainly transition is a major component of any document, of any change. From listening to you, I understand there is still a lot of flexibility for transition.

That's just a statement I wanted to make.

Thank you.

Á (1110)

The Chair: Further to your own evaluation, the fact is that there is no job security in politics. Since you are a pretty nice guy and if I give you all those points you probably deserve, you're right, you might only get 65, assuming the best of qualities, of course, in your c.v.

Joan.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: If I could, I'll just make a quick comment.

We're focusing very much on the selection grid, and we've indicated that we're open to making refinements and adjustments to the grid to help us deal with transition. I'd just like to point out that the regulations have lots of other things in them too, specifically the family class provisions. We are looking at expanding the family class. We are looking at increasing the age of dependant children. We are looking at including for the first time common-law partners in the immigration regulations. There's always a balance, as we've talked about. We've talked a lot about what our policy objectives are in terms of the selection grid. We're anxious to engage in that debate with you, but there are other areas of the regulations that clearly expand and open more opportunities. It is our belief that the selection grid will open up more opportunities for more people to come to Canada.

The Chair: Jim.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Let me give you another chance to solidify those numbers. You're saying there are 15,000 applications awaiting file creation and 45,000 applications awaiting paper screening. That tells me that as of December 17 you have 60,000 applications that will be affected. Am I correct on that, yes or no?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Those applications will be affected, yes.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: So nothing from the 120,000 or the 36,000 will be affected because these applications have been assessed?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No. In those 120,000 applications, those people who--

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Have they been assessed?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: They have only been paper-screened.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: They have been assessed.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It depends how you define assessment, because--

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: They're under the old system.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes, they were assessed. They were paper-screened under the old system.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Let's go through some numbers, then, and I'm going to throw some names at you, because these people are the people who--

The Chair: Maybe rather than mentioning names--I don't think that would be fair to the applicants--why don't you just talk about...? I think you're on the right--

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: These are not applicants. These are people who work for the department. These are the people you have in the posts abroad, and they're managers.

In Hong Kong, Tom Ryan says that 27,371 of the 29,152 cases fall under the December 17 rules and are pending a selection decision. I repeat, 27,371, so that's half the amount you have here. Now let me go to another one. David Manicom, deputy program manager, Beijing, says that their office currently has an inventory of 24,000 cases awaiting a selection decision. When you put 27,000 and 24,000 together, that comes out to 51,000. Are you trying to tell me that you are not waiting for any other numbers from abroad?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Hold on. You can go one by one, or I can lay out all my questions for you; which do you want?

Á (1115)

The Chair: Jim, why don't you do your questions.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Okay. You're saying transition, retroactivity from one system to the other system. This is not the first time that Immigration went from one system to another system. Never before, that I can remember as a member of Parliament here for 14 years, did we address transition. We said “from now on” and we dealt with the old system. Am I correct in that? Okay.

Now, you'll... [Inaudible—Editor] ...a long-time system that will run for a long, long time. You are putting in two classes of citizens. In one class of citizens are the people who are applying under the old system, and in the other class of citizens are people who are applying under the new system.

Not only are you taking these two classes of citizens here, but you're also putting them into the sponsorship class. You've said that if you are somebody who is collecting welfare, you would not be able to sponsor. There's a bar on sponsorship. So if I'm an individual on welfare and I want to sponsor my wife, I have a bar on sponsorship, except if you go under humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

We've talked about high school and we've talked about everything else, but isn't it true that if you are a high school graduate today and you speak the two languages, you will have a pretty tough time getting ...?

You're saying that this is a snapshot in time. I'm wondering which time it is with regard to these numbers you have here. Could you address the number situation? I can certainly give you more numbers if you want, and I can give you dates as to which post is doing what, and what post is somewhere. If you want me to read them and if I have the latitude of the chair, I will. If you are satisfied with those numbers.... To my dissatisfaction regarding how you got these numbers--51,000 only in mainland China and Hong Kong and 9,000 in the rest of the world...? Are we only having Chinese applying, and is this only applying to one particular country?

So you justify the numbers to me.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't dispute your numbers at all, Mr. Karygiannis, and we're very well aware of these numbers, and I absolutely agree with those numbers that you have from our missions abroad. Let me try to explain again the 120,000.

The 120,000 are people who have not had a selection decision. So they're waiting for an interview. They are waiting for a selection decision. They will be affected by the new rules. The only people who will not be affected by the new rules are those who will have a selection decision by June 28. I don't think there's a discrepancy. I think that it's just trying to clarify what the numbers mean. I absolutely agree with the numbers that you have.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: So the 60,000 then does not reflect the numbers as of December 17. You're saying that the number is 180,000. This is what you're telling us. There are 180,000 applications that could be affected--180,000 families who have put their life out on a limb, waiting to come into Canada. They engaged the department under the rules that were posted on the website, and to those 180,000 applications--180,000 families--we're saying, “You know what? Thank you for applying; thank you for going to the bank and applying for a mortgage and the bank saying to you, yes, we're going to give you your mortgage. Too bad, you're going out the door.” This is what you're telling me--180,000 applications, 180,000 families. Am I correct on that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes, 180,000 applications potentially could be affected by the new rules. They won't all be refused under the new rules. Many of them will be accepted under the new rules, and we'll give them adequate opportunity to present new documentation, if that's required, to demonstrate that they can meet it under the new rules. Many would have been refused under the old rules. We have a refusal rate of 20% or more, so--

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: That is 36,000--20% is 36,000.

The Chair: Jim, you've asked your questions. Could you give Joan an opportunity to answer them. Then we'll come back to you on some of them. We're all interested in the answers. They were very good questions, and we want to get to the root of what numbers we're talking about.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't know whether I've answered the question on numbers. Perhaps I could move on to transition and whether we have done this in the past.

We have applied new legislation retroactively in the past. When we made changes in 1993 to the legislation, we applied the legislative elements retroactively. When we made changes in 1995, we applied the new rules retroactively. It is true, however, that when they have made changes in regulation with regard to selection criteria or changes in the definition of family, our historical way of dealing with it has been not to apply those rules retroactively and to maintain two systems. So you are correct. We've mixed. In some cases, when we've applied legislative rules, we have applied retroactively and we were challenged in Federal Court on that issue of retroactivity, and the court upheld the ability to do that on the legislation when we changed it in 1993. But with regard to regulatory changes, in most cases we have only applied the new regulatory rules from the date the rules become effective. You're right.

Á (1120)

The Chair: [Inaudible—Editor].

Ms. Joan Atkinson: On the issue of sponsorship, the next tranche of regulations will have the specific rules around transition for family class and how we will deal with issues of sponsorship and so on in the transition for family class. But it is our intention to indicate to individuals who are on social assistance, except in cases of disability, that they will not be accepted for sponsorship unless there is an H and C situation. So that is clearly the intent.

Mr. Paul Forseth: If I'm sponsoring my wife and I'm collecting welfare, too bad, eh?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Unless there is an H and C situation and a compelling case--that is correct.

On high school, I guess I would repeat what I said previously on that one. You are correct: an individual who has high school graduation only, unless they get good points in the rest of the grid, will have difficulty meeting the selection criteria. That is correct.

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'd like some further explanation. It's like we've got a warehouse full of files and the ministry is gradually mining these files. Then you've been saying that as an applicant moves through this system.... Well, the applicant isn't moving anywhere. The applicant has put their file on the desk according to what the ministry has said. It's the ministry that's so slow to get around to this warehouse of files. But they say if they don't get through the warehouse of files by June 28, too bad. So the onus is on the ministry, not on the applicant.

Some of the presentations that have been made to me are that they would love to have simply a straight cutoff date. If you get your application in before December 17, you're assessed on the old rules; after that, you're assessed on the new rules. It's just a simple cutoff date. Also, allow some people around that to supply supplemental information, or perhaps to withdraw the application and get their money back because of the problems.

The issue is that the ministry is taking so blinking long with this huge backlog that people are caught in the middle. Maybe you can explain that to me.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Joan.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, I guess our previous minister always referred to it as an inventory and not a backlog. She always put on the table that if we're meeting our levels, then it's an inventory. I guess the good news is that there are a lot of people who are interested in coming to Canada. The not-so-good news is that there are so many people interested in coming to Canada that we are not able to deal with all of those cases as quickly as we would like, and we have inventory as a result.

We intend to and we know that we will be able to meet the announced levels for 2002, given the inventory of cases that we have in the system. It is our intention, obviously, to continue to meet our targets in terms of our overall immigration levels. So we intend to manage the inventory as best we can with the resources that we have available to us. But there is a very large demand for people wanting to come to Canada, and there is very significant intake into the system as a result of that demand to come to Canada. There are only so many resources to go around, which is why you end up having inventories of this size.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Then why did the department and the minister say we want more applications when you can't deal with the applications you've got? We're working at cross-purposes here.

The Chair: Joan.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We don't want to cut off intake. Some have suggested that we impose a moratorium and just sort of shut the doors and try to clear up the inventory that we have. That's certainly a possibility, but we think it doesn't send the right message to the world if you close the doors for a while. That sends the message that we're not interested in receiving immigrants to this country, which clearly is not our intention.

We're trying to find the balance. It's one of the reasons we are suggesting that for people who apply after December 17, we set the pass mark fairly high so that we can gauge the intake. You're absolutely right, we have these inventories that we need to deal with. We don't want to be overwhelmed with hundreds of thousands of new applications at the same time as we're also trying to work through the inventory. So we're being cautious and prudent by setting the pass mark for those new applications fairly high so that we can try to manage intake and inventory.

The Chair: Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Atkinson, I would like to say, thank you very much for coming today and trying to help clarify some of these issues.

One of the major problems I have is the way I read what you have done since December... [Inaudible—Editor] ...with new applications coming in. You have moved us to a very elite area of accepting immigrants, and quite frankly, I'm not sure that this is in the best interests of dealing with what we have talked about as to jobs, the ability to handle these requirements of labour codes, different problems we have in the country, and things we're after.

When I look at education, I look at language factors, which I see getting into 60% of the points in that area. To me, in many countries only somewhat elite people study more than one language, so we eliminate an awful lot of people.

The fact is that setting the bar at 80% is to eliminate or decrease applications until we can catch up with the backlog; that seems to make some sense. But when you put in rules and regulations, you know it's going to affect the backlog, first, and it's going to affect new applications, second.

It is my view that what you have done with the regulations...and just to give you a point in the official language, which I did speak to the minister about...I have some problems with that. High proficiency in English is worth 20 points, moderate is worth eight points, and basic--and believe me, I hear a lot of new Canadians with very basic language skills--is worth no points. We're talking about having less than half the points for moderate ability. High proficiency--and I'm not sure what that means--is worth 20 points; that means they read, they write, they speak, and they do everything extremely well. Those are pretty heavy numbers: 17 years' full-time schooling, a master's degree or a doctorate, required to get the highest points in that area. A person who hasn't gone beyond high school will never be allowed to come into this country, according to these numbers I see.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe you know how these regulations and the way they're structured for skills and language will affect applications from different countries, and you know how this will affect the backlog. It appears you're trying to shut down the system for a period of time, bringing only elite people in and changing the whole movement of immigration to Canada. That's how it appears to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but give me an idea of how these changes are going to affect employers who are looking for skilled tradespeople coming into Canada.

Á (1130)

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Those are really important questions. Our objective is not to create an elitist selection system but to select people who have the levels of education and the communication skills and language competency to be able to succeed in the kind of economy we have today and in the economy of the future. We are putting a lot more increased emphasis on language and education.

High school graduates will make the point system only if they have all the other attributes, they get good, high marks in them, they have job offers, and so on. We definitely want to be able to bring in skilled tradespeople through this selection system. If we don't have it right in terms of ensuring that we can attract skilled tradespeople, then we need to look at it.

For language proficiency it is, I think, 16 points if you have high proficiency, and eight points.... There is quite a gap there in recognition of the extreme importance of language skills, as all the research we've done shows us. We are open to making some adjustments within that area to see whether or not we've got it right, but the policy objective is what we have to keep in mind.

We don't know how many of the new type of skilled worker we will attract, as I said before. We do know that the new rules are going to apply to people in the inventory, a proportion of them negatively. That's absolutely true, and it depends very much where you set that transition pass mark. If it's at 75%, 72%, 71%, or 70%, it is going to affect the numbers, the proportion accordingly, depending on where you set that transition mark.

We've talked about it before, but the reason we're applying the new rules to people in process is because of our inventories and because of the length of time it takes us to work through. We want to be able to select the new type of skilled worker, and we can't afford to have two systems running for a long period of time. We believe it's not in Canada's economic interest to have the old selection system running for many years.

The Chair: Thank you.

Jerry, you can have a short supplementary.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Let's just go back to the high school example. If that high school person... [Inaudible—Editor] ...has a connection in Canada, which would give them points, if he is bilingual in both English and French--he has to be fluent in both English and French as well as his own language--he won't be able to come to Canada. That's clear here, because you lose 20 points if you only have high school, and 80 points.... This high school graduate is virtually eliminated. You're going for post-secondary people only, and you're going with a lot of criteria they're carrying with them. I'm not saying we shouldn't look at the very highly skilled, highly trained people, but I'm wondering if this is overkill. That's my view.

The Chair: [Inaudible—Editor] ...supplement. A high school diploma with one year of work experience, a job offer in Canada with suitability, and the best of language still won't get you into this country.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: What we're looking at is, again, the labour market of the future. We're selecting people for the labour market of the future, and the figure that is very striking is that by 2004 70% of all jobs created in Canada will require post-secondary--not high school, but post-secondary--education. That's what we're cognizant of when we're looking at how we design the system. That's the objective. How do we get there? Let's talk about it. I think the minister has indicated that he's very open in terms of talking about it, but that's the objective and that's the sort of thing we have in front of us.

[Translation]

The Chair: Madeleine, just a...

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Everyone is talking about the criteria; I would also like to talk about them. There is something that bothers me a lot. In this grid, there seems to be no distinction made between minimum knowledge and no knowledge. In my opinion, there is a great deal of difference between the two. When I see zero and zero, it disturbs me.

What I also find disturbing is that moderate proficiency in the second language gets zero points. I find that unacceptable.

There is something else of particular concern to me in the criteria with respect to the adaptability of potential immigrants to Canada. Anyone without a spouse or a common law partner cannot take advantage of the skills and education of that person. That makes no sense to me.

There is something else that I am very concerned about. We know that people will be living longer. We also know that they will be working longer before retirement. These days people retire at 55; in 20 years that will no longer be the case. Why has 44 been set as the maximum age for someone deciding to make a new life, and why do people over that age lose points? At the same time, extra points are given for a doctorate, a master's degree and all these wonderful things that I do not have, but there we go!

That said, anyone under the age of 21 loses points. Why would people lose points because they are young, when they are expected, on the other hand, to have a doctorate? There is something in all that that seems to me quite illogical. What I would like is for us to work together, using everyone's experience, the cooperation of the departmental officials and the minister's obvious willingness, to come up with a grid that is intelligent and that we would like to see applied to ourselves, for example, if we were applying for a job or intending to move to a new country.

That is not even a question; it is a comment.

Á (1135)

[English]

Mr. Joe Fontana: Thank you.

Ms. Atkinson.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: On language, the research done indicates that very strong competency in the first official language is critical. However, I take your point on the second official language. That is another area we are looking at, in terms of the way the grid at the moment assigns points between the two official languages. I think you heard very clearly from our minister that this is an area he is also interested in and will be looking at.

In terms of the adaptability factor in spouses, in the extensive consultations that led up to the pre-publishing of this grid, we heard that we should award points and recognize that we're selecting families. People come with spouses or partners who are also very qualified and may have the same sorts of attributes we are looking for in the skilled-worker principal applicant--education and language skills. We wanted to try to reflect that.

We don't want to discriminate against persons who are single. That is why we went to the sort of menu approach on the adaptability, so there are a number of factors that a visa officer can choose from. Spousal attributes is one factor--three to five points. Others factors are relatives in Canada, previous worker study in Canada, and informal job offers. So there are other parts of that adaptability feature that a single person may be able to get points on. We heard from everyone, in all our consultations, that we should recognize spouses and the attributes spouses and partners bring, because we are selecting couples.

On older workers in the labour market, unless an individual, 45 years or older and trying to break into the labour market for the first time--which our newcomers are--has a job offer or is an eminent individual who was very well-known in their field of expertise, they will often find it very difficult to break into the labour market as a new worker.

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

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

Joan, you indicated you would meet the targets for 2002. The minister in October announced that the targets were from 210,000 to roughly 235,000 people for this year. The breakdown for your plan showed that under the skilled workers category we're looking at roughly 125,000.

Do you really believe you can fulfill that under the current selection criteria you've established in your regulations?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's a good point, and in terms of looking at the impact of the transition period, it's obviously something we look at very carefully. We believe that, yes, we have enough people in our inventory and moving through the inventory—even those who are affected by the transition period—that we will be able to meet the targets for 2002.

Á (1140)

The Chair: Thank you. That was a very good question.They turned out to be very important mathematical equations and machinations in terms of how we get to the points and how we get to the levels.

Anita had a short question, and she'll be followed by Yvon, Jim, and Lynn.

Ms. Anita Neville: I just have a short question, Joan.

I realize the numbers are small, but of those who are not successful under the skilled workers program, are many diverted to the provincial nominee programs, or do many come in through the provincial nominee programs in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Quebec? What's the impact of the skilled worker through the provincial nominee programs, and how do foreign officers promote them?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't think our experience has shown that a lot of failed skilled workers show up in the provincial nominee programs. The provinces that have those programs are fairly active in terms of their recruitment, the Province of Manitoba being a case in point. Generally, those cases come to us first as provincial nominees.

As you may be aware, visa offices do give priority processing to provincial nominee cases, and they tend to go through the system more quickly as a result. The provinces do a lot of the promotion and recruitment themselves, with whatever assistance visa offices can provide. In the past, we have done joint recruitment exercises with provinces. I'm not sure that we've done any recently, but we do assist provinces that want to do some promotion and recruitment in that area.

Ms. Anita Neville: How many come in under the provincial nominee programs?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: What are the numbers?

Ms. Anita Neville: Yes, the applications.

A voice: Is it a thousand or two thousand?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, that's the target in terms of the target for the levels planned. In terms of applications in process, I'm not sure I have that figure with me. I could certainly get it for you.

The Chair: Maybe the branch can get that information.

Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, I first have a technical question. We are dealing here with a proposed grid that has been discussed, critiqued, etc. What is the status of this grid with respect to the grid used, for example, by Quebec? Which one takes precedence? Does this one influence the Quebec grid? To what extent? Are there other provinces where the federal grid does not apply or applies only in part?

That is my first question.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Merci.

The grid applies to all cases outside Quebec. Quebec is the only province that has complete selection powers and its own grid. Other provinces have entered into agreements on provincial nominees, but we apply.... Under the provincial nominee program, the provinces nominate individuals according to their own specific needs, but I'm not sure whether or not I could say they have their own specific grid.

I'll ask Mark Davidson to comment a little bit on that. Before I do, though, we were influenced by the Quebec grid. There are some very interesting attributes on the Quebec grid, such as the emphasis on language skills or the recognition of spousal qualities. Those are some of the things the Quebec grid currently has, and we certainly looked at the Quebec grid in terms of designing our own.

Mark, perhaps I could ask you to talk a little bit about provincial nominees.

Mr. Mark Davidson, (Director, Economic Policy and Programs, Selection): Yes, just very briefly, some provinces do in fact have a formal grid for their selection of nominees, while other provinces take a more holistic approach in deciding who will be nominated. Certainly we look at provincial grids when we design our grid, and they do indeed look at ours. A lot of dialogue goes on between us and Quebec, and indeed between us and other countries that have similar selection systems. That's particularly the case between Canada and Australia, which we see as one of our important competitor nations for skilled workers. We spend a lot of time looking at their selection system, and they spend a lot of time looking at our selection system.

The Chair: When we were discussing Bill C-11, all of us wanted to see exactly what was going on when we talked about this grid. I think you might have tabled what other countries were doing, but I'd like to see—and the committee would like to see—those provincial nominee grids, as well as the grids of the other countries, so that we can look at who they're trying to attract, because everybody's trying to attract from the same pool of people around the world. It would be helpful for us in terms of reminding us what other countries are doing with regard to selection, as well as in terms of what those other provincial nominee agreements have been doing.

Á (1145)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We heard Ms. Atkinson explain to us with a great deal of conviction the basis for the proposals that are found in the regulations. She said that she felt that it was a way of opening the door to immigration, that it was the best way of implementing C-11, whereas the general feeling is quite the opposite. We have received hundreds of letters and we have briefs that are dozens of pages in length, all supporting the opposite view.

What or who did you consult in coming up with your work method? Who did you listen to in coming up with these proposed regulations, given that public opinion in general is obviously against these regulations? A lot of organizations that will be coming before us are totally opposed for a number of reasons. Who did you hear from and who did you consult before coming up with this?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We certainly did not create this in a vacuum. This grid that was pre-published is a result of five years of extensive consultation and research. We have consulted very widely on this grid. We have consulted with labour, with business, with immigration stakeholders, with members of the public, with academics. We've researched what other countries do. We have talked to provinces and territories about what their needs are. We have published many different papers, starting back in 1997. In October 1997 we held a major conference, where we had over 200 people, and we addressed what should be in a new selection grid. That was after we had done fairly extensive research looking at the relative economic performance of people selected under the current grid.

This was followed up with a number of different papers; in 1999, I think, we put out a paper that had three different models. So we put out for public comment, through labour, business, immigration stakeholders, immigration lawyers, provinces and territories, three different models for discussion. What you see in this grid is the consensus from what we gathered in all that five years' worth of consultation and research and discussion. What was not made public until the very end was the pass mark. That's absolutely true. The pass mark was only pre-published when we pre-published the regulations. But we've been talking about the grid itself for five years.

The Chair: To be fair, you might have been talking about it for five years, but this committee raised all kinds of concerns a year ago when we took a look at Bill C-11 and the regulations. We saw your draft. We raised all kinds of questions on language, education, all that. I think you've moved somewhat. You're absolutely right, the only missing component part--but then, of course, it's the biggest component part--is the pass mark. I think everybody might have assumed that the pass mark would have been 70. Obviously, we'll get into that a little more.

I have two more questions. Let's have Jim and Steve and Lynn, then we'll call it a day for this morning.

Jim.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: I want you to understand, Joan, that it's not so much the grid and the new regulations. The grid and new regulations certainly show where Canada wants to go and where we want to take it. Is the pass mark too high? Is it absolutely impossible for somebody to come in who has maybe university plus one or two years of technical school? Yes it is. Certainly, we can revise the 80 or 75 or 72. That is not the problem at hand. The problem at hand is the backlog. We invited these people to apply, we set one set of criteria. Somewhere you said you were telling them, although you might apply, we're going to change to new rules and regulations. That was not made public until December 17, 2001, and yet, gazetted way back somewhere in the back pages in September, you sort of said, well, maybe we're going to do this.

I think we're setting the bar too high, and I'll tell you what I'm feeling: it's a backlog eradication. Thank you for applying, thank you for giving us your money, thank you for pinning your hopes on Canada--you know what, we've got such a big number out there that we're going to do one fell swoop and we're going to eradicate you. So there are contracts people have made with this country, pinning their hopes and dreams and aspirations.... I know, because I'm one of those immigrants, and I remember, when my father applied to come here, the hopes and the dreams I had of coming to this country. And if my father were applying today, it wouldn't happen. These people applied under a set of rules. We cannot, we shall not, we dare not, because it will have a bad effect in people's mouths. It will make us look like a bunch of jokesters to the rest of the world if we change the rules like that.

Á (1150)

The Chair: This is not a speech. Do you have a question?

You can make speeches in the House of Commons. This is a working committee. I want solutions. Just put the question.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: You said that you applied these regulations in the grid and you showed it to everybody in the whole system. And you said that you just put the grid out today. Nowhere there did I...and Joe would also probably say the same thing...although this consultation was done with MPs, the grid was never shown.

The questions are the following. Is the grid written in stone, number one? I see the minister said no. Is the grid not used as backlog eradication?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Is the grid written in stone? No. These regulations are for pre-publication specifically, for comment. We fully expect that there will be some changes and modifications before we get the final grid.

Is the grid being used to do backlog eradication? No, that is not the intention of the new grid. However, we are concerned about having to apply two systems for a long period of time, for several years. That's why we're looking at this and dealing with these issues of retroactivity, because we cannot and do not want to have to apply dual systems for a lengthy period of time.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: You have in the past applied two systems.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We have in the past applied two systems when we were dealing with not as major a change as this, I have to add.

We've made some modifications to the selection system, but this is the first time since the 1976 act and the 1978 regulations that we've applied a completely new selection system.

The Chair: I'm sorry. We have to move on.

Steve, and then Lynne.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have asked, and I don't think this was dealt with when I was out of the room. By the way, I tend to agree with my colleague that this is an attempt to eliminate the backlog. I might not be as dramatic as saying “eradication”, but it's definitely an attempt to reduce that backlog, and a recognition that there is in fact a backlog, and it's a problem.

You said earlier, Joan, that there is a magic date of June 28. I'm assuming that's when we're anticipating royal assent. That's why it's a magic date.

If you look at this chart, the 36,000 persons, you don't need to worry about them. They're going to get a decision. The other people, the 45,000 to 60,000, whatever the number is in that category--if Jim's number is right, or this number is right, it doesn't matter--they would have an option of taking their money back or proceeding. It would be their choice perhaps.

Could you do an extension for the 120,000 applications, say, to the end of the year...to say that they will be dealt with by December 31 under the existing rules and then the new rules would kick in after that.

It's almost a total reversal of the plan right now, which would cut it off, which would be retroactive. I remember the minister's saying that the front windshield is bigger than the rearview mirror, so let's look ahead.

So instead of looking back and being retroactive, let's look ahead. Give these people a chance to finish their applications that they paid for and that are in the system. Set a sunset date, whatever it is. I'm saying December 31.

Is there anything to stop that from happening?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It's clearly possible, but you'd need a regulation in the package to do it.

Part of our difficulty with the 120,000 applications is that some of them move more quickly through the system than others. Setting a date of December 31 would still probably not get all of those 120,000 applications.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: I'd like to know what she means by the fact that some of them move faster than others. Can she explain that?

The Chair: There is no point of order. He asked a question.

Á (1155)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think it's obvious that some of them might be more complicated than others. There might be a larger backlog in one office than there is in another.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Correct.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So it's a resource issue. I can see that clearly.

While you might not get all 120,000 applications, at least you'd be treating them more fairly in allowing them through the system in setting a sunset date.

That would also give you time, I might add. I don't want to micro-manage. I hate it when we get into this level of detail, because it's not our job as politicians, but it might give you a window of opportunity to do some training on the new system while the old system is being cleaned.

The Chair: Thank you, Steve.

Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I was just wondering how you would take care of the backlog. You've mentioned the word “moratorium”. I almost think that makes sense: why would you take more applications when in fact your backlog goes back to the last century? It's very sad. It's not a very good message for us.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Lynne Yelich: Well, it does--to 1999. If you really look at it, when would you even possibly catch up with these? It's not a very good message to people when they apply to say: “Put in your application. We'll be looking at you in the tenth year of the millennium”--that kind of response. I'd be very concerned about new applicants being discouraged. I think the backlog should be cleaned up. How you do it--perhaps with something like that, or a cover letter indicating they needn't bother coming back for a couple of years because we've got a lot of people ahead of them--I don't know. I'd like to know how you--

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, we do, in fact, tell people. We try to give them some indication of how long it's going to take to process their application, and indeed some people do get letters saying their interview is not going to be held for x number of months, and sometimes that period of time is quite lengthy.

I think there are two different ideas on the table. Both, of course, are possible. One is the idea of a moratorium where you say “no new applications”; we just deal with what we have and don't take any new applications until we finish what we have in the system. It could take you quite a long time to get through all the applications in the system, so your moratorium could be fairly lengthy; then you'd really have to worry about meeting your levels commitment.

Another option, which Mr. Mahoney has put on the table, is asking whether we can delay implementation of the new selection criteria, which is a different way of looking at the same sort of issue, saying we'll apply the old selection criteria until a cut-off date and then apply the new ones. This is possible, too.

These options obviously have operational difficulties, and you won't necessarily be able to be fair to everyone, if fairness is the issue we're discussing here. You won't necessarily be able to get to absolutely everyone in the inventory with those approaches, but those things are possible with amendments to the draft regulations.

The Chair: Joan, can I ask you two final questions? We've heard that not only is [Inaudible—Editor] applications, and I think some of our colleagues have pointed that out, but this process is taking way too long. New Delhi is taking four years; Beijing is three to four years. We want people to come to this country, and the spirit of Bill C-11 is to attract them here.

Not only is it cumbersome; it's also lengthy. It's taking three or four years for people to put their lives on hold until we get our bureaucrats to act. I don't know if it's a question of resources, or maybe.... You said the demand is so great, that's one of our problems. Well, we've got to solve it. We want to invite people to this country and we've got to process them in a timely, fair, and efficient manner, not in three or four years. There is competition out there. A lot of countries, including Australia and the Europeans, now have the same demographic problems this country will have. There's a shortage of skilled workers--tool and die makers, bricklayers. We can't find them now in this country, let alone waiting two or three years to process paper.

I'll tell you what I would like you to do on behalf of this committee. You talked about two options. There are a lot more options than that. I want an options paper from you--and I'll give you a week to do it--that lays out all kinds of possibilities, from a moratorium, to lowering the pass mark, to moving the date, to doing all kinds of machinations. If there are six or seven options available to deal with the backlog in a fair and efficient way--which essentially run from Paul's option of offering people the opportunity of giving us additional information, to withdrawing their application and starting again, to the options Steve, Inky, and everybody else have had--we need some options to take a look at. I think the minister says he has options. We want to see what those options might be, from our standpoint.

Truthfully, I think we need you to take a look at that point system again, recognizing some of the comments you've made. There is some moveability, not only in terms of the pass mark, but within those various categories--language, education, job experience, and everything else--to try to reflect what may very well be options on a grid. That's why I suggested we might want to take a look at the provincial grids as well as other countries' grids.

Then you pointed to a study that you said had given you an insight about the kind of applicant and the kind of immigrant we should be looking for in this country. You talked about an HRDC model, looking out four or five years, of the kind of immigrant we want. I'd like very much to see that report and read it to see the model exactly.

There's no doubt this is the start of the process. Obviously we're going to have you back. We've got a lot of witnesses who want to talk to us, but as you can see, the level of discussion--while it centred around the transition period, which is very important, and retroactivity in the point system, and so on--means obviously we're going to have to have you back.

I want to thank each and every one of you for answering some very tough questions and for the hard work you've done. Now you have a new minister, even though on this committee it's the same old members, so we know our stuff.

Â (1200)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So far.

The Chair: So far.

We look forward to working with you, and I'm sure at the end of the day we can come up with a workable solution for this country.

Thank you very much. We'll see you after question period for our next round with the IRB.