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

Monday, February 4, 2002

1535

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

Ms. Avvy Go (Representative, Coalition for a Just Immigration and Refugee Policy)

1540

The Chair

Ms. Judith Kumin (Representative in Canada, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)

1545

1550

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

Mr. Cres Pascucci (National President, Canada Employment and Immigration Union)

1555

The Chair

Ms. Janina Lebon (National Vice-President, Ontario, Canada Employment and Immigration Union)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Avvy Go

1600

The Chair

Ms. Judith Kumin

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Judith Kumin

1605

The Chair

Ms. Janina Lebon

The Chair

Ms. Avvy Go

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

1610

Ms. Judith Kumin

Ms. Neville

The Chair

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

1615

The Chair

Ms. Janina Lebon

The Chair

Ms. Avvy Go

The Chair

Ms. Judith Kumin

1620

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judith Kumin

1625

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Cres Pascucci

Ms. Janina Lebon

1630

The Chair

Mr. Cres Pascucci

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies)

The Chair

Ms. Janina Lebon

1635

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Janina Lebon

The Chair

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.)

Ms. Janina Lebon

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Avvy Go

1640

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

Ms. Judith Kumin

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Avvy Go

1645

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Avvy Go

The Chair

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

1650

The Chair

Ms. Avvy Go

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

The Chair

1655

Mr. Cres Pascucci

The Chair

Mr. Cres Pascucci

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Judith Kumin

1700

The Chair

Ms. Avvy Go

The Chair

Mr. Mark Assad

The Chair

Mr. Cres Pascucci

The Chair

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

1710

Mr. John Ryan (National President, Association of Immigration Counsels of Canada)

Mr. Joseph Kenney (First Vice-President, Association of Immigration Counsels of Canada)

1715

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Chantale Tie (Lawyer, National Association of Women and the Law)

1720

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Sungee John (Chair of the Immigration Committee and Actions Treasurer, National Action Committee on the Status of Women)

1725

1730

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. John Ryan

1735

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Mark Assad

Ms. Chantale Tie

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Chantale Tie

1740

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Chantale Tie

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1745

Mr. John Ryan

Mr. Joseph Kenney

1750

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Pickard

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Chantale Tie

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Jerry Pickard

1755

Ms. Chantale Tie

The Chair

Ms. Chantale Tie

The Chair

Ms. Chantale Tie

The Chair

Ms. Chantale Tie

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Chantale Tie

The Chair

Ms. Sungee John

The Chair

Mr. John Ryan

1800

The Chair

Ms. Sungee John

The Chair

Ms. Sungee John

The Chair

Ms. Chantale Tie

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Chantale Tie

The Chair

Ms. Chantale Tie

The Chair

Mr. John Ryan

The Chair

Mr. John Ryan

The Chair

Ms. Chantale Tie

1805

The Chair

Ms. Chantale Tie

Ms. Andrée Côté (Director, Legislation and Law Reform, National Association of Women and the Law)

The Chair

Mr. John Ryan

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Chantale Tie

Mr. Jerry Pickard

1810

Ms. Chantale Tie

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Chantale Tie

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Chantale Tie

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Chantale Tie

Mr. Jerry Pickard

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Chantale Tie

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Chantale Tie

The Chair

Ms. Chantale Tie

The Chair

Ms. Chantale Tie

The Chair

1815

Ms. Chantale Tie

The Chair

Ms. Chantale Tie

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

The Chair

Mr. Pickard

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 044

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Monday, February 4, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good afternoon, colleagues. We're resuming our meetings on the review of the regulations with regard to Bill C-11 and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I'm happy to welcome our guests and our witnesses in this first segment this afternoon. We have with us Avvy Go from the Coalition for a Just Immigration and Refugee Policy. We have the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We welcome Judith Kumin, who is the representative in Canada, as well as Kim Mancini, the regional legal officer. From the Canada Employment and Immigration Union, we have Janina Lebon, who is the national vice-president, as well as Cres Pascucci, the national president. We welcome you all.

We have copies of your briefs. Thank you very much for submitting them. Thank you for taking the time to meet with some of us during our travels on Bill C-11 and for your great input. Some of your suggestions found their way into Bill C-11.

I would ask that you summarize what's in your briefs, not read them word for word, because we can do that. We'll give you seven to ten minutes each, so that we can be given an opportunity to ask you some questions.

We'll start with Avvy Go. Welcome, Avvy.

Ms. Avvy Go (Representative, Coalition for a Just Immigration and Refugee Policy): Thank you. My name is Avvy Go, and I'm the clinic director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, which is a member of the Coalition for a Just Immigration and Refugee Policy.

I would like to thank the standing committee for giving us the opportunity to present the coalition's position on the proposed regulations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I would also like to extend our sincere apology in that, due to the time constraint, we were not able to provide our submission in time for translation. We are a coalition that has over 50 members across Canada, so our submission was vetted by everyone before we submitted it, and we don't have the resources ourselves to translate a document. So on behalf of the coalition I would like to apologize to the committee for this shortcoming.

As the committee members may know, our coalition has been active in promoting a just and fair immigration policy for immigrants and refugees in this country for over a decade. Previously we have also made submissions to this committee on Bill C-11.

It's no secret that we do not like Bill C-11. Many of our concerns, we submit, were in fact shared by members of this committee. In the end, some of our mutual concerns were addressed, but many were not. What the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration promised, however, was that some of these concerns would then be dealt with under the regulations. The then minister also promised that under the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the regulations, Canada would open its front door more widely while closing the back door. But in reality, we are now closing both our front door and our back door with this new policy.

What is more distressing is that whatever the minister has given with one hand through the act, she has taken away with the other through the regulations. There are many examples of the minister's flip-flop, but the focus of our presentation today will be on family class immigrants, as well as refugees and protected persons.

Much has been said about the retroactivity rule and its implications on independent immigrants. We feel that it is not necessary for us to repeat those concerns. More significantly, we want to remind the committee that what makes Canada a country of immigrants is not only because of the skilled workers that we attract; in fact, the history of immigration to this country has been one of humanitarian policy and tradition towards family class immigrants and refugees. True, we have opened our door to welcome those with skills, but just as importantly, we have opened our arms to embrace those who have come to Canada to reunite with their families and to seek asylum.

Against this historical backdrop, we believe family class immigrants should be defined as broadly as possible to include all members of our extended family. We do not believe a two-tiered family class system, as is now being proposed by the regulations, which gives spouses and dependent children priority over other family members, is desirable.

We are troubled to see a further retreat from our commitment to family reunification under the proposed regulations, which is done with much contradiction and inconsistency.

One example is found in the definition of “family class”, which is now broadened to include common-law partner. But on the other hand, “fiancé(e)” has been taken out of the definition of family class altogether. Under the new regulations, fiancé(e)s will now come under the discretionary provisions of the humanitarian and compassionate application, and they will continue to be subject to the 90-day marriage condition. With this change, Canadians who want to sponsor their fiancé(e)will have no recourse to an appeal process if the sponsorship is rejected. At the same time, women who come as fiancées and are then abused by their sponsors will continue to face the dire consequence of deportation should they fail to get married. So nobody wins. We ask the committee to put “fiancé(e)” back into the family class and remove any condition of landing attached to it.

Just as family class should be given a broad and generous definition, the eligibility requirements for sponsorship should be made as minimal as possible. We believe very strongly that one's income and wealth should never be used as a determinant of one's ability to care for one's family. We find it repulsive that our government proposes that the poor in this country do not deserve to be with their family, by barring anyone who receives any form of social assistance, as very broadly defined in the regulations, from being a sponsor. It is discriminatory and it is unnecessary.

We therefore ask the committee to remove the bar to sponsorship for those on social assistance.

There are many other problems. One of them is with the H and C, the humanitarian and compassionate clause, in which the act gives the power to the minister to grant permanent resident status to anyone, including those who are inadmissible.

The regs, on the other hand, take away that power by allowing only those who are admissible to be landed. Anyone who is inadmissible will be given a temporary permit, which will simply perpetuate the current problem facing individuals who are on minister's permit and who are put in limbo for at least five years or more. We submit that the regs in this respect should be amended in order to be consistent with the act.

Turning now to the issue of permanent resident cards, we do not object to the idea of a permanent resident card if its only purpose is to replace the existing paper landing record. We do however strongly object to the suggestion that the permanent resident card needs to be renewed every five years. Moreover, the renewal process and the requirements set out under the regs are so onerous that it will be easier for someone to get citizenship status than to get a new permanent resident card. There is really no rationale as to why that should be the case, except to reinforce the prejudice that immigrants are a threat to Canada and therefore they must be scrutinized stringently. We ask the committee to amend the regs to remove the requirement of renewal of the permanent resident card.

Finally, we would like to echo the concerns that have been raised by the Canadian Council for Refugees and many other refugee advocacy groups around the issue of refugees in limbo. We are well aware that this committee is sympathetic to the plight of thousands of undocumented refugees and protected persons who are not granted landed status because of the ID requirement and other admissibility issues. With all due respect, sympathy alone is not going to solve their problem. We urge the committee to give automatic landing to all those refugees and protected persons so they can be fully integrated into our society in a timely and painless manner.

These are only some of our concerns, and again, we echo the concerns of many raised by others such as the CCR. We would invite the committee members to look at our written submission, which was prepared in a very short period of time. We will be preparing a further submission in the future.

Thank you.

¹ (1540)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Avvy. That was pretty extensive for a very short period of time. Again, I applaud you for your work and your insight, and also some of your good advice on these regulations.

Now we'll go to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and welcome Judith Kumin, representative from Canada, and Kim Mancini. Welcome both of you.

Ms. Judith Kumin (Representative in Canada, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

We appreciate this opportunity to testify once again before this committee. I am the representative in Canada of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and with me is our regional legal officer from Montreal, Kim Mancini.

As we have appeared before this committee on several previous occasions, I don't think any lengthy introduction of our organization is necessary. I will just remind you that UNHCR is the international agency mandated to provide refugees with international protection and to help governments solve refugee problems.

We are mandated also to supervise the application of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, to which Canada is of course a party.

We have been present here in Canada since 1976, and we very much welcome the collaborative atmosphere in which we are privileged to work in this country.

As others have done over the past ten days, UNHCR welcomes the committee's very careful examination of the regulations. The framework nature of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act gives these regulations particular importance.

You will have received our written comments on parts 1 to 17 of the regulations to the extent that these affect refugee protection. These comments complement our submission of March 2001 on the act itself.

I would like, before we move to your questions, to draw your attention to just four areas of particular concern that emerge from our written comments, both on the regulations and on the act itself.

First of all, as we have said on a number of occasions, persons seeking protection need to have access to full and fair and efficient refugee status determination procedures.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act mandates security screening of claimants now at the start of the process and stipulates categories of persons who are barred from the refugee determination procedure.

The act allows claimants to seek exceptions to these bars. However, the regulations do not establish the procedure for seeking such ministerial relief. We believe that in the interest of transparency the procedure for seeking such relief should be explicitly prescribed in the regulations.

Secondly, the scope of the statutory bars to the refugee determination procedure make, as we have said on previous occasions, the pre-removal risk assessment especially important. The PRRA needs to be an effective safeguard for persons whose protection needs are never examined by the Immigration and Refugee Board, that is those who are excluded from access to the board.

We therefore believe that the regulations should require an oral hearing at the level of the pre-removal risk assessment in each case whenever an individual is not heard by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Thirdly, concerning detention, as you know from our prior testimony and from UNHCR positions, UNHCR remains opposed to the detention of asylum seekers. If detention is nonetheless considered necessary, it should be on limited grounds strictly defined by law. Wholesale detention of asylum seekers is, in our view, neither necessary nor justifiable.

Where the law permits detention in order to ascertain or verify identity, they should be limited to cases where individuals do not cooperate with the authorities or where they deliberately deceive the authorities.

Detention of children, in our view, should not occur.

Now, while this approach is by and large reflected in the regulations, we would urge that specific reference be made in the regulations to the situation of refugees and asylum seekers. This is because, as the committee knows, refugees and asylum seekers are frequently compelled to travel without proper documentation and they may frequently be wrongly perceived as uncooperative when in reality they are frightened, traumatized, or simply afraid of the authorities.

Also, many refugees are compelled to rely on the services of smugglers and sometimes even of people traffickers. This should not place them at greater risk of detention than others. The decision to detain should, in our view, always be an individual one and not be based on general factors such as mode of arrival.

¹ (1545)

For this reason, we are concerned about the inclusion of the rather vague factor “involvement with an organized human smuggling or trafficking operation”, which is contained in the regulations for assessing flight risk at paragraph 252(f).

My fourth and last point is that in our comments and in previous appearances before this committee, we also raised the issue of the group that has come to be known as the refugees in limbo, that is, the convention refugees recognized by the Immigration and Refugee Board whose landing is delayed because they cannot provide Citizenship and Immigration with a “satisfactory identity document”. We have pointed out that in UNHCR's view, parties to the 1951 refugee convention are obliged, in articles 25, 27, and 28, to provide recognized refugees with identity and travel documents. We have further indicated that in our view, it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the refugee convention for a state party to oblige a recognized refugee to approach his or her country of origin--that is, his or her country of feared persecution--for documentation.

We had hoped that the creation of the status document for protected persons in section 31 of the act would help to resolve this issue, but it is clear from the regulations that the problem remains unresolved. With the introduction of security screening of claimants at the start of the process, we see no reason not to land all convention refugees, regardless of their nationality, immediately upon recognition by the board, and we urge that the regulations be amended accordingly.

Although there are several other aspects of the regulations I could comment upon, including those that concern refugee resettlement, in the interests of time I will stop here, and we will deal with those in response to your questions. Thank you.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Judith. I want to thank you for the invitation. I guess some of the members of our committee will be inviting the United Nations High Commissioner here to Ottawa on Wednesday. We look forward to a meeting with him and to discussing further Canada's role in the world in terms of refugees.

Judith, you pointed out that this is not your full submission on the regulations. I think you indicated that it was done and sent. Do we have a copy of that?

The Clerk of the Committee: It's this one.

The Chair: Okay, it's that one there. Thank you.

Thirdly, we have the Canada Employment and Immigration Union. We have Janina Lebon, national vice-president, as well as Cres Pascucci, national president.

Welcome back, both of you. I know you gave us your insight on Bill C-11, and we appreciate the fact that you've come back to talk to us a little bit about the regulations, so welcome.

Mr. Cres Pascucci (National President, Canada Employment and Immigration Union): I think when we were here the last time we indicated that the legislation was so general we couldn't really make any comments on some issues because we had to wait for the regulations. Now some of the regulations are out, and we're quite concerned.

When we went to our members about the regulations in terms of an implementation date, most of our members felt that the June 28 implementation date was much too soon. In past pieces of legislation there was a period of one, even two years. We feel that the implementation date shouldn't be until the beginning of the new year. Part of that too around the June 28 date is that a number of our experienced members go on vacation or on leave and are replaced by students who don't have that expertise and that experience. I think the timing is very poor in terms of the current implementation date being proposed.

The other aspect is the training that needs to be completed. Now, there are a couple of sections in terms of regulations that have been written, but we have to ensure that the training is completed so the members who have to administer the act have all the tools and information and are able also to make adjustments that are required. In addition, it seems to be fairly cumbersome--and I'm only using the word “cumbersome” because it was different before--in terms of the publication of changes in the regulations. In the past those were written up by the minister, and now there's another complex process. If there's something inequitable in the regulations now, it could be a lengthy process to change them, for example in terms of issuing, gazetting, coming before the committee, and that kind of thing in terms of process.

There are some concerns about the authorities, for example on the issuing of bonds. The current regulation creates a minimum of $4,000 in terms of bonds, whereas before it was quite discretionary. In a way it's almost like a head tax, saying that you have to have $4,000 to post a bond rather than it being discretionary, and it could be a lot less. Our members are concerned about the authority and the flexibility around some of the decisions, and the right to delegate some of that is not there.

In terms of the resident card, it comes up so often that we wonder if it will ever happen in some respects. We're concerned because in other jurisdictions, for example when the Ontario government tried to institute the smart card and the identity card, they ended up in the hole for $12 million before they scrapped the idea. In other words, I think there has to be better study in terms of the use of that.

We mentioned when we were here the last time concerning the determination of eligibility... and we still have concerns about the parameters around the time in terms of meeting that determination of eligibility.

The other aspect too is that obviously, as new positions are being created, there's a staffing process that takes place, and that takes a fairly lengthy period of time. If you want the best people to do the best job, then there has to be a period of adjustment, and that's another reason around the implementation date.

The other aspect is in terms of dealing with the independent class and retroactively using the regulations and depriving people who have applied in good faith in the past six months--or thereabouts, anyway--and who, many of them, won't be considered now under the criteria that were in place when they applied. We think this is wrong and that their application should be accepted according to the regulations covering that type of situation before the new regulations pass so there is no retroactivity in terms of application.

Those are some of the comments we want to make at this time, and we'll be pleased to answer questions.

¹ (1555)

Sister Lebon works in the enforcement section in Mississauga, so she has lots of experience. She has been working in the settlement and in other areas that have been beneficial to immigrants and refugees and will be able to give you even more detail on some of the mechanics that are required to make these regulations work.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Were you going to do that, Janina, or just upon questions?

Ms. Janina Lebon (National Vice-President, Ontario, Canada Employment and Immigration Union): On the questions. It'll be easier.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you all again. Obviously you know the subject matter first-hand. You're all involved. I want to thank the men and women of all of your organizations who are really dedicated to immigrants and to refugees. Thank you so much for that service.

We'll go to questions. First, Paul Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Chairman.

I'd like any of you to respond to the statements I have heard about the changes to family class and the definition of family. This definition is generously made as spouse and dependent children. That's a family. What are the objections to the changes? I certainly think that Canada, looking at the international context in comparison to other countries, is in good shape in that regard. So I am very curious about your complaints about that change.

Also throw in there the definition of fiancé(e). We know that this whole business of a marriage of convenience is an international racket, and a lot of money is changing hands over it. As a result, a lot of individuals I think are duped into a situation. Those caught in the middle sometimes become victims, and Canadian society also becomes a victim.

I would like various presenters today to talk about their complaint over the definition of family class, as to who is part of the family and who isn't, and also this problem of fiancé(e).

The Chair: Avvy, I believe you addressed both of those in your submission. Perhaps you could give the committee and Paul a little more of your insight with regard to the finer points.

Ms. Avvy Go: Sure. Actually there are a number of issues. One of them is that in the regulations there is a section that deals with definition of family member, and then there is a section that deals with family class members, and the two definitions are not the same.

In the section dealing with family member--I believe that's under section 2--it only includes spouse in the broad sense of including married spouse and common-law partners and children, and none of the others such as parents or grandparents were included in that family members definition, whereas in the family class membership it preserves the existing family class definition with the exception of fiancé(e).

It sets out two different definitions under the regs, and it's not clear as to why that is the case. We believe it's because different rules are going to apply differently. If you're dealing with spouse and children, there is a certain rule that would not be applicable, such as medical admissibility, and then with the other ones they will still be applied, in effect creating a two-tier family system.

With the issue of fiancé(e), I certainly agree with you that we share some of the concerns about mail-order brides--women who are brought to Canada and then they are abused by the prospective husbands. But I guess my concern is just that taking them out of the family class and leaving them facing the risk of deportation is not going to help them, because these women are here. They may have been sponsored by their fiancé, or they may be sponsored by someone who basically sponsors them just to test the 90 days, and if it doesn't work they have all the intention of sending the women back. Depriving them of the status of a permanent resident is not going to help the women who face the abuse. Yet at the same time, those who genuinely want to sponsor their fiancé(e) under the new regulations will not be treated as family class. So if they are rejected for whatever reason, they will not be allowed to appeal.

I don't think the situation or the solution really helps anyone. There are other problems with the family class definition too. For instance, with regard to the dependent child definition, the new definition seems to imply that only a biological issue will be regarded as a dependent child, whereas the current definition actually allows legal issue. It will allow for situations where a child may not have been born biologically, but has been accepted in the family for a long time, and they are treated as part of the family.

Under the current regulations in the Immigration Act, they will be treated as a child. In some cases they are not able to be adopted because of the law of that country. So they'll be stuck in nowhere. They are not treated as biological issue and at the same time they cannot be adopted. So we think that at the very least we should keep the current definition of dependent child. Those are some of the problems that we see, but there are other issues as well.

º (1600)

The Chair: Judith, you had something to add.

Ms. Judith Kumin: Yes. I also wanted to comment on this issue, although a little bit from a different perspective since we're not commenting on family class per se. My comments relate to the way in which the family member definition may affect the reunification of refugee families.

We've pointed out in our recent submission that section 138, which in principle we welcome, establishes a one-year window of opportunity--it's been called--within which family members of persons who have been recognized as refugees in Canada may join them after the family members have been landed. That is limited, however, to family members as defined in the act, that is, spouses and minor children essentially.

And we have urged in our comments that section 138 be amended to allow some flexibility for the kinds of cases Ms. Go was talking about, where a person has been living like a member of the family in the country of origin, in a situation of emotional and economic dependency on the head of the family, but would be excluded from family reunification in Canada because of not meeting the strict definition.

So from the point of view of refugee families and the unity of refugee families, it would be good to introduce some additional flexibility into section 138 of the regulations, to be able to take account of persons who aren't, let's say, spouses or biological children, but who have been living integrated in the family, dependent on the family, so that they could then reunite in Canada together with the rest of the family.

Mr. Paul Forseth: As a supplementary on that point, if we went to what you suggest, could you contemplate the capacity of Canada to ever draw a line and figure out, indeed, is the story true? The applicant can say anything they want, but in terms of the capacity of our nation to then go behind that story and go out into the field and do a bit of a sociological study to verify, yes, indeed this is true, or not, it seems to be an unending trail that will never end. So that's why, obviously, there has to be some kind of a documentary line that it's either a natural child or one of legal adoption.

So can you help us... Perhaps there are other nations that struggle with the same issue about how far does the family go, because our traditional western way of a family definition is quite different from that in other communities where it's a much more tribal context.

Ms. Judith Kumin: Maybe as an analogy you can look at how the visa officers currently look at what they call de facto family members when they're selecting refugee families for resettlement.

We have a similar problem when refugees are presented to Canadian visa officers overseas as candidates for the Canadian resettlement program. And the families do sometimes include children who aren't biological children of the heads of family; sometimes they're nieces and nephews who have been raised by the head of family.

The visa officer will need to use his or her good judgment in interviewing the family to determine whether the relationship is a pre-existing one, whether this person is indeed dependent on the head of family. And of course we do have to rely on the judgment of the visa officer who sees the family and who makes that assessment.

I agree with you, it's not always easy to make. That's why it's hard to prescribe in regulations. But it is good to leave enough flexibility so that the visa officer can look at a child and say, “This is not your biological child, but you've raised this child since infancy; the child has been treated like a member of your family and should not be separated from you”.

º (1605)

The Chair: I wonder, Janina, for the people who are actually on the front lines who have to deal with this...the present regulations perhaps allow for a little more discretion. I think that's where Ms. Go was going.

Could you give us some insight from your perspective?

Ms. Janina Lebon: What I was going to comment on was the fact that I was surprised not to see fiancé(e) in the family class. But my bigger surprise was when I looked at humanitarian considerations; there is no procedure, no guidelines, nothing in the regs to say what you look at when you consider an agency application. Is this going to be the department setting the guidelines if it's not in the regs? That's where our concern would be, because it goes to the fact that we don't know who's going to be the delegated officer. That's the first concern we have.

Right now, when an immigration officer receives an H and C application, there are guidelines; there's jurisprudence; there are court decisions. With the new act, we don't know who's going to be delegated. And following from that, if, let's say, I'm going to be the delegated officer and I have received an H and C application, how do I deal with it when the regs don't specify how? There are no guidelines.

Again, when we came here we complained that the act was vague and the regs have some major gaps.

The Chair: Ms. Go, did you have something to add?

Ms. Avvy Go: Sure. I want to add to that. In fact, in the Canadian context we do have a concept of locus parentis, meaning someone who is a parent of a child who may not be the biological child of that parent. That exists even in our Canadian legal system, so it's not something where we need to look elsewhere in order to determine whether the child is part of the family. We can certainly draw on our own expertise and our own understanding of family to do that.

But certainly I think that whether or not there's a marriage of convenience or an adoption of convenience, those are the kinds of issues that are being struggled with every day by the immigration officers, even under the current law. I don't think it will be any different.

But what is difficult with the new regulations is that under the current law it's a two-pronged test. First of all, you have to show that the marriage or the adoption is entered into for the purpose of immigration. Then, secondly, you have to show that the person does not have the intent of residing with the sponsor. The new regs take the second test away.

We are concerned that would mean a lot of the family members would be excluded solely because one of the reasons why they come to Canada, or why they're adopted, or why they're getting married, may be for the purpose of immigration. But the person who enters Canada is going to reside with the sponsor, and there's no reason why that person should not be allowed to come.

I think it's too restrictive for the family class purpose. I think we have to also understand it in the context that the family class members and the number of family classes we're allowing in every year is declining. This is getting to be a situation where less than 30% of all immigrants are family class. We're certainly not expanding the door to family class members. We should be doing more to attract family class immigrants and allow more family class members to come in, but we have gone the other way for the last ten years. It's just going further and further down that road.

The Chair: I hope everybody agrees, though, that Bill C-11 wants to reverse that trend by inviting more family members. That's what Bill C-11 talks about. Whether or not the regulations really make that happen, that's why we're here. But you're absolutely right, Ms. Go, there's no doubt that with Bill C-11, what this committee and this government want is more family class members. How do we achieve it? That's what we're talking about.

Thank you.

Anita Neville.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you.

I'd like to ask Judith Kumin some questions about her description of refugees being in limbo.

Could you speak a little bit more about the process by which they could come in? You spoke about the upfront security screening as being adequate. Have you any other suggestions as it relates to this group of refugees? I suppose overarching everything is the issue of security. How do we reconcile the two?

º (1610)

Ms. Judith Kumin: As I'm sure you know, this has been a very long-standing issue here in Canada. In the past, with the old legislation, the position of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration was that even though an individual had been through the refugee determination process at the Immigration and Refugee Board, that person still needed to go through a security check before the department was satisfied about the person's identity and security record for purposes of landing.

That objection should now disappear with the new act, since by the time the person will be recognized as a refugee by the Immigration and Refugee Board, that process will have been completed. It starts up front. At best it's done before the board starts its procedure, and at worst it's concurrent. By the time the board issues the positive decision saying you are a refugee, your security screening has already been done, so there should be no further reason for delay. We feel that in the process of determining refugee status, the Immigration and Refugee Board of course has to determine identity, because you can't really judge whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution unless you're also judging whether he is who he says he is.

Under the new procedure, we believe objections to immediately landing recognized refugees could be eliminated and we could assimilate them to the resettled refugees and treat them in the same way as those refugees who are selected overseas and who are landed immigrants immediately on arrival in Canada. That would then do away with our concern that the Canadian practice for many years has not been in line with articles 25, and especially 27 and 28, of the refugee convention. I'm doing this from memory, but article 27 states something like “shall issue identity documents to refugees on their territories not in possession of valid travel documents”. That would then resolve that problem, rather than sending refugees back to the embassy of their country of origin for a travel document or an identity document.

Right now, we have a rather bizarre situation where the board recognizes you... Let's say you are Mr. “X” and you are recognized as being a refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo. We recognize that you have a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of that government; please go to the embassy of that government and get a passport or a travel document. Mr. “X” will then say, “I don't want to; I'm afraid to”. In that case, he may be in limbo indefinitely. We think that's unfair and contrary to the spirit of the refugee convention.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Have you any further questions, Anita? All right then.

Go ahead, Madeleine.

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

The committee began hearing from witnesses last week. Much was said about the new criteria set out in the new regulations. Needless to say, few people are pleased with these criteria. There was also considerable talk of retroactive action. You haven't said very much about this today. However, you have stressed the problems that many refugees apparently have, under the current set of regulations, obtaining identity documents.

Many people told committee members during the hearings on Bill C-11 that they were concerned about the discretionary powers of immigration officers. What I'm hearing today from some of you is that given the stringent nature of these regulations, a little more discretionary authority is needed. I'm wondering how we can strike a balance of sorts. Obviously, barring a miracle, the international situation is not about to improve. Canada will continue to be viewed as the ideal safe haven for many people, and in my view, Canada has a responsibility to ensure that it remains an ideal country.

How can you help us to strike a fair balance between too much and too little discretionary authority so that each case is dealt with separately, and not merely as one in a series of cases handled in the same manner?

º (1615)

[English]

The Chair: Let me start with Cres and Janina. How much discretion do you want as people on the front lines?

Ms. Janina Lebon: I'm not sure we have that discretion because the regulations currently state that within x number of years you will land and give them the permanent residence.

As to the office that deals with all the refugees, there are certain offices where that's all they do. The security clearance should be done. I imagine there's going to be a certain amount of risk we will still take.

I think back to after the Second World War. We now have war crimes that we've discovered just recently. That could happen. But if the person has been recognized as a refugee and appears to have a fairly clear record, then let's land them, because otherwise they're still in the system. If something happens down the line, I'm sure then there is a method to revoke and remove that status, both as a permanent resident and ultimately as a citizen.

The Chair: Ms. Go.

Ms. Avvy Go: I'm not sure this is a question of how much or how little discretionary power we're giving to the officers. I'll give you two examples as to why I say that.

For instance, regarding the question around the undocumented refugees and all that kind of stuff, it was not because of the lack of discretion. It was because there was a rule there that you had to have ID requirements in order to be landed. So we're saying that if you remove that requirement you will be able to land these individuals automatically.

On the other hand, just by narrowing the definition does not mean you are taking away discretion. For instance, with regard to the dependent child, the regulations are saying only biological issue will be regarded as a dependent child.

An immigration officer faced with an application will still have the discretion of determining whether a DNA test is needed from this parent to prove that the child is a biological issue. That is still an issue that will be before the immigration officer. Whatever power or whatever definition you use, the individual immigration officers still have to apply it in the way they see fit. Whatever discretionary power you give them or not give them will not fall directly from the narrowing of the definition.

I think the question is not so much whether we are giving them too much or too little, but rather, through the definitions, through the regulations, and through the application of this law, what kinds of immigrants are we letting in? What is the kind of policy we want for this country in the long run? I think that's the question the committee has to wrestle with.

The Chair: Judith, do you have any comments on that?

Ms. Judith Kumin: Well, if I understand the question to have been asked mostly in the context of landing of recognized refugees without “satisfactory identity documents”, I would say that I also don't think it's really so much an issue of discretion as including language in the regulations that will allow for implementation of the court settlement in the Aden case. This case urged the officials of Citizenship and Immigration to take other evidence--other types of documents--into account for people who didn't have documents such as affidavits from people who knew them.

I think the security concerns are not necessarily that well placed, because the security screening under the new act will have been completed, and the immigration department always has the possibility, if refugee status has been obtained wrongly, to revoke that status. It has the possibility in the new act, in the course of the refugee determination procedure, to stop or to suspend the process if security concerns have arisen.

So I think the security concerns are well looked after. If we don't do something about the limbo problem, we just go on with hundreds or maybe thousands of refugees whose lives are in a kind of suspended state but who don't pose any security risk to Canada and who do know who they are. It's really not a question that they aren't who they say they are; it's just that they can't come up with the right piece of paper.

Where discretion sometimes comes into play--and maybe there it's an issue of training of officials of Citizenship and Immigration--is that the demands are sometimes excessive.

I saw a case recently, for instance, where a recognized refugee had two pieces of identity documentation that pre-dated his application for refugee status. One was a national identity card and one was a driver's licence. They were both legible. They were both, in my opinion, adequate for the purposes of landing after he was recognized. The immigration department refused to accept them and told him he had to go and get a passport. Well, there's nothing in the law that says he has to have a passport. They could have accepted them.

So I think to a large extent also it's an issue of training and willingness to resolve cases in an expeditious manner.

º (1620)

The Chair: Madeleine, did you have a question? No?

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I wanted to start with Judith Kumin and just ask about these regulations in the context of the broad directive or statement that was issued out of Geneva on December 6, in response to the fact that so many governments are looking at proposals to deal with the post-September 11 situation. I think the concern of the new head of the UNHCR in Geneva is that we might be overreacting, and I'm wondering if Canada falls into that category by virtue of these regulations.

I think the concern of the new head of the UNHCR in Geneva is that we might be overreacting, and I'm wondering if Canada falls into that category by virtue of these regulations.

Specifically, the statement said that:

UNHCR is particularly concerned that legislation currently being proposed be framed so as not to have negative repercussions on innocent refugees. This could, for instance, occur if new measures were to deny them access to asylum systems altogether, or if there were insufficient safeguards to ensure that asylum-seekers are not expelled before their asylum claims have been properly examined.

My question to Judith is whether or not these regulations move us in this direction about which the UNHCR is concerned. I'm particularly concerned about that today, because in question period—and I have to check the record—it seemed to me that the Minister of National Defence actually said something to the effect that the Geneva Convention was outdated. I'm very concerned that—

The Chair: He never said that.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: As I said, I want to check the record. He certainly made a comment that raised doubts about the Geneva Convention. So given that we're dealing with the 1951 convention on refugees, I want to know if these regulations keep us in line and if there's any sense that pressures are in fact mounting within this government to second guess the 1951 convention on refugees.

So that's one question, and I have two others.

The Chair: I liked your first question.

Ms. Judith Kumin: That's a very good question.

Just for clarification, I think you might be confusing the Geneva Conventions and the Geneva Convention. My understanding is that the defence minister was talking about the 1949 Geneva Convention on the status of prisoners of war. We're talking about the 1951 Geneva Convention on the status of refugees. I don't think there's any question about Canada's commitment to either one, but I won't get into the discussion on the 1949 convention on prisoners of war.

The question of how you strike the balance between the right to asylum and security—security of the country, security of the community—is one that has been really at the forefront of everyone's mind, especially since September 11. In his statement in early December, and indeed in his statements since September 11, I think our high commissioner wanted to remind governments and populations that people who flee their country because of war, human rights violations, and persecution, are generally those who are threatened, not those who pose the threat. We have to be very careful not to stereotype, not to label people, and not to criminalize asylum-seekers in the minds of the general public. The high commissioner—and I'm sure he'll say this during his visit this week—feels very strongly that politicians have an important responsibility to remind the general public of these things.

That being said, Bill C-11 has a number of tools built into it to address security concerns. It has, first of all, power to deny entry to individuals on grounds of security and criminality, but it also has power to deny them access to the refugee determination procedure, to detain individuals on grounds of danger to the public, to revoke refugee status, and to remove refugees. So I think the necessary tools are there.

We've drawn attention to the fact that because some of these tools are quite blunt ones, there also have to be safeguards so that a person who is denied access to the refugee determination procedure because of a suspicion that the individual might be involved with criminal activity, human rights violations, or other reprehensible actions, is still entitled to a pre-removal risk review, in order to make sure Canada's human rights obligations are met. Indeed, UN Security Council resolution 1373, which was adopted at the end of September, reminded states that they should take measures to ensure that those seeking asylum are not complicit in terrorism, but at the same time, those states have to do so in conformity with human rights obligations. So it's always a balancing act.

The other thing I would say is that there are other tools, of course. Immigration remedies are not necessarily the best remedies to deal with security concerns. While it may be very attractive because it's quick and easy, deportation may not address the international community's concerns about an individual, because it might just put that individual back into circulation.

So, as I think the Canadian Bar Association said when they appeared here last week, it is important to look at the tools in the Criminal Code and to look at the tools in the new Anti-terrorism Act to see how some of these issues can be addressed, using remedies that are perhaps more appropriate than immigration remedies.

I don't know if that answers your question, but it's an attempt at it.

º (1625)

The Chair: Thank you very much for that.

Judy, you have time for one additional question, and then I have to move on.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Only one? Can I get back on the list again?

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'd like to ask Cres and Janina a question about the June 28 deadline, because I'm a little worried.

We've heard from other witnesses that it would be very wise on our part to ask for a stay of proceedings or whatever, in order to lift this deadline from our shoulders and to give us a little more breathing space to do the job properly. I'm a little worried the minister might come back to us and say that if we do that, the government is just going to make life that much harder for our folks out in the field who need these new regulations and this new law in order to deal with the workload, the pressures, and the stress of the job. I just want to get a sense from you about whether the minister would make that case or if you think there is a real argument there.

Also, just related to that is the question of resources. Today, we heard about that leaked memo that the press reported on, in terms of these documents that disappeared from a number of offices. That report very clearly said the nub of the matter is outsourcing, understaffing, and a lack of resources, all of which are causing a lot of problems at that level. I think we need to hear from you on whether or not some of the money promised by the Minister of Immigration has in fact been forthcoming. Also, are you seeing any help in terms of additional staff, and where do you see that going?

Mr. Cres Pascucci: When we go to our members, the first thing they usually talk about is authorities, meaning discretionary or non-discretionary things. The first thing our members talked about was the June 28 deadline, so I think that says it all and puts the whole thing in perspective. They want to make sure they have the right tools in place to be able to make the right decisions. By fast-tracking this, that's not going to happen. If errors result from that, who gets hurt? Everybody does in the long term.

I think that answers it, but Janina may want to add something.

Ms. Janina Lebon: When I went out to get input, the first thing that came back was that this isn't enough time. In 1976, it was pointed out—and we have some who are still around—there was a two-year period to implement, and there were still problems in transition.

They're saying right now that their greatest complaint and concern is the implementation date of June 28. That just happens to be before their second-busiest period of time, July 1 and July 4. Annual leave could be denied, which will cause greater morale issues with the staff. You're going to have to train the current staff on the new regulations and on the new act. You're going to have to train your students on the old act and the new act. And then there are some very simple logistics. Are our computer systems up to date? Do we have the new forms? Do we have the questions and answers that are going to be asked?

I can see a scenario in which someone comes to the port of entry and the staff doesn't have an answer to what the problem is because they're going to have to flip through what will probably be 300 regulations by the time this is finished, along with the whole act, and they're not going to be trained. And that's their big concern. They want to be able to do their jobs professionally, but they're not going to look too competent when they say they have to go to the region and the region has to go to NHQ just to get an interpretation.

Their greatest concern is insufficient time for implementation. They need to be trained. You're going to be working on the regulations until at least the end of March, and then they have to be finally gazetted. When do we get trained?

º (1630)

The Chair: I now know why Cres has such great white hair. It's either because he's too stressed or it's just biological, right, Cres?

Mr. Cres Pascucci: Yes, of course it is.

The other question was on resources. Yes, we are starting to look to resources, but it takes time for someone to be able to do the job completely from the start.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: No, I'm sorry, I have to move on.

Yvon Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr. Chairman, during the previous exchange, the matter of training arose. I too was wondering about that and I'd like you to tell us if your staff urgently requires more training. Obviously, the June 28 deadline for the new legislation or regulations creates some special challenges, but generally speaking, do your people need to be trained?

I also have a second question for you concerning this discretionary authority provided for in the regulations. We can't possibly draft regulations that are so specific and airtight that they leave officials no room to manoeuvre whatsoever. That probably wouldn't be a wise thing to do. However, when there is some discretionary authority, there is a natural tendency among officials to be more stringent, rather than more lenient. Some officials have confided in me that it's better to say no, to avoid any fallout. If the claimant doesn't have the means to telephone someone in Canada or if he doesn't have any political contacts, then the matter is out of their hands and they have one less claim to worry about. If the person files a new claim, brings some pressure to bear and the initial decision is reversed, at least the officials can feel safe because they rejected the claim. Now, it's become someone else's problem.

How then should we approach this matter of discretionary authority? Do the proposed regulations allow too much discretion, or conversely, not enough? Or, are they just fine as they are? Should someone from your offices be responsible for monitoring this discretionary authority?

Members of Parliament aren't really clear on how the process works. Some offices take a hard-line position and a negative spirit seems to prevail. Other offices take a more liberal, or flexible approach. Yet, all claimants are entitled to be treated equally.

[English]

The Chair: What's also clear, Yvon, is that every time they say no more often we get busier in our office. We never hear from them when you say yes. That's a consequence of what will happen, of course.

Cres or Janina.

Ms. Janina Lebon: Let me start with the training. There is the regular training we need for the act and regulations, but another issue has been identified, and nowhere is it seen. We do have refugees who claim status inland, and we have not been doing in-person interviews inland since Vegreville. So in some of these offices, people will need to be trained in how to interview. Cross-cultural awareness training is needed. There are some cultures where, if you look a person in the eye, it's an insult. There are many other issues on that.

Then there will be new computer training, new document training--there's going to be a huge learning curve. The newest employees will probably be able to adapt easily. I'm talking about our 20- to 25-year veterans who were around last time. There's going to be resistance and they're going to say, “This is what we used to do”. There's going to be that psychological barrier in the training as well. So there's a whole issue on training.

On the issue of discretionary power, currently at least it's defined. We have jurisprudence. We have guidelines. We have... whatever. The new act and the regulations have not defined the delegation of authority instruments, so we don't know if part I will be an immigration officer, an enforcement assistant, a counsellor assistant, or whatever. It could be the supervisor. It could be a manager. We don't have a clue, and that's causing a fair amount of concern among the staff who figure, “Who is the delegated immigration officer?” We don't know what discretion we're going to have until those instruments come out.

I'm sure there will be some strict guidelines coming out, but they're not in the regulations right now. It's a period of anxiety, because if our level of discretionary authority goes down, that will have a direct impact on the job description, which will then have further impact on the duties and compensation. So there's a whole internal issue here. Our morale issue is already bad. You've probably heard we were paid less than Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. If you take away some of those discretionary duties... I heard it from the committee members when I was here the last time. We already have morale issues.

The uncertainty on where the delegation of authority lies needs to be settled soon, so we can continue moving.

I hope that answers your questions.

º (1635)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Would you prefer to have this clarified in the regulations, or would you rather this be spelled out in directives or some other instrument of this nature?

Ms. Janina Lebon: We're not exactly sure.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mark.

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): You alluded to the word “guidelines”. Last week, several witnesses mentioned that there was nothing in these regulations to guide officers posted abroad. Would you have some suggestions for the committee?

I found the comment to be quite relevant. These might occasionally prove useful to MPs because it would give them some idea of why some seemingly questionable decisions were made. How would you feel about having regulations or guidelines establishing parameters for immigration officers?

[English]

Ms. Janina Lebon: Overseas we have locally engaged staff--that's number one. It's a different process. Canadians working overseas are not the ones who do a lot of the processing. You do have some immigration officers and some foreign service officers over there, but the majority are locally engaged staff.

I'm under the impression that overseas--and this again fits into another component--it would be the national component and also the foreign service bargaining agent who would set the guidelines. But I think they are done internally, or they'll sit down with their manager and say, “Here's the decision I've got, this is what I want to do”, and they will get guidance one on one. There is inconsistency, we know that. It's possible you may want to have something there for the overseas personnel.

Just as an aside, the summer period--June--is also the time overseas for all these major changes, so there's another disruption in the process. You need to have them trained as well, so it becomes a bigger, complex picture.

The Chair: Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I want to ask, do you agree with the immigration minister's focus on immigration levels being 1% of the population? Do you agree that our immigration should be based on numbers, on 1% of the population?

The Chair: We won't ask our staff but we'll ask Ms. Go.

Ms. Avvy Go: I'm not a demographic expert, so I'm not even sure whether 1%, 1.5%, or 2% would be the perfect answer. What I do know is that we have an aging population. By the time I retire I'm not sure if there'll be money in the CPP and OAS to support my retirement. So I think it's clear that we do need immigrants of all different kinds, not just the most highly educated and brightest. We need immigrants to come in and build, the carpenters and all the various skilled workers. But I don't know if 1% is the right answer.

Certainly, I don't think the minister or the various governments have actually studied this issue clearly enough, in depth enough, to know what standard, what goal, we should try to achieve. But I certainly think the fact that we haven't even met all the quotas for the last I don't know how many years--

The Chair: Ten.

Ms. Avvy Go: --goes to show that there is a problem.

º (1640)

The Chair: Just for the record, our planned target is not even 1%. That's a government policy, a Liberal policy, of at least getting to 1%. We are now at 0.7%, 225,000 people.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: The minister's office was using the numbers the other day when determining how we were going to do the skilled worker transition, because we had to have numbers to meet. So I was kind of curious.

How do we sit internationally with that, or with the way we are taking refugees? I'm concerned about the refugees who are the ones who land by surprise, as opposed to the ones from overseas. How do we sit internationally with that when we have the surprise visitors, I guess you would call them, or the ones who land at our borders as opposed to the ones who were trying to apply from abroad? I would like to hear your comments on that.

The Chair: We have a resident expert.

Ms. Judith Kumin: Well, you're lucky, because I brought the figures.

I of course won't comment on Canada's immigration levels. That wouldn't be appropriate. But in terms of refugee intake, first of all, regarding selection of refugees overseas, only a handful of countries do resettlement of refugees--selection overseas and planned resettlement. The big three are the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Canada's resettlement intake per capita--that is, the number of refugees selected and brought to Canada compared to the Canadian population--is the highest of the big three. The numbers for the others, some of the Nordic countries and the Netherlands, are much smaller.

In terms of spontaneously arriving asylum-seekers, what you were calling the surprise visitors, people who arrive and ask for asylum, the figures for last year, 2001, which are provisional because not all countries have reported, show Canada in fifth place, if you want to put it that way; before it in the palmarès was Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, and France, not necessarily in that order. I don't give you the order because, as the final figures aren't in, it may change, but those four countries received more asylum-seekers in absolute numbers than Canada did, and then it goes on down.

Actually, the figures for last year for asylum applications in 29 industrialized countries are on UNHCR's website, so you can consult them there. It's interesting maybe to see that there were just over 500,000 asylum applications in 29 countries of the industrialized world last year, and if the arithmetic in my head is correct, Canada received around 7% of them and the United States around 14%, 15%, or 16%. So you can see the ratio a little bit.

The Chair: The added little bit after our own border security study was that over half our refugee applicants are coming from the United States, surprise or not a surprise, either inland or at our border points.

Do you have a further question, Lynne?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: No.

The Chair: Okay.

Hang on a second, I'm going to get to you; it's not a problem.

Madeleine, and then Judy.

You see, Madeleine, every time you wink at me, I give you another question. I am so generous, it's incredible.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: My question is for Ms. Go. In your presentation, you indicated that while you had no objections to the permanent resident card, you did have some reservations about the fact that the card must be renewed every five years. Why do you feel this way, considering that a passport must be renewed every five years, and a driver's license, every two years?Many documents or papers must be renewed. I'd like to hear your views on the subject.

[English]

Ms. Avvy Go: The distinction I see between a passport and a landing record or a permanent resident card is that a passport is an instrument for a certain purpose. It does not confer a status. The permanent resident card speaks to a status. The person who holds this card has a certain status in Canada. It replaces the existing landing paper, which is a piece of paper that should probably be converted to a card, just for a number of practical reasons. One of these is that the paper gets torn. A lot of my clients come into my office with this paper that they got 20 years ago, and it's not even legible sometimes because it's so old.

I think there is an issue around the format in which the status document can be presented, and I think a card would probably be better than a piece of paper. But to say that you have to renew your permanent resident card every five years is, I think, saying that you're not a permanent resident. It's saying that your permanent residence is good for only five years. Every five years you have to prove that you are permanent again, in order to renew it. I think that's inherently a problem.

On top of that, the requirements that are being set out right now in the regulations are so onerous that I think a lot of people would either not be able to give out all the information that is requested, or because it's so complicated, they may lose the time to extend the permanent residence. What would happen if there were a time lapse and they didn't have their permanent resident card? Does that mean they're not permanent residents? What happened to the status in Canada?

I think there are a lot of complicated questions around that. And certainly, on a practical, day-to-day level, we also don't want to get into a situation where because a card is issued there is a corresponding expectation that you have to carry this card around with you in order to prove that you are a permanent resident. I'm thinking more on the law enforcement side of things. I don't know if police officers will start asking people to show their status by showing the permanent resident card. If I don't happen to be carrying it around with me that day, what would happen to me?

A lot of these things we have not really thought through, and I think a lot of them can be eliminated if we don't have this renewal requirement.

º (1645)

The Chair: Judy, quickly.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a quick question to Avvy. I think she raised a lot of concerns that we've already started to hear, and they point to the difficulty we're going to have as a committee to get those necessary changes reflected in the regulations, because we're up against pretty entrenched thinking within the higher echelons of the department, who I think are waiting us out. They've waited us out in terms of the bill itself by promising that this would be addressed in the regulations. Now they don't show up in the regulations, and I think they're going to wait us out until we get the guidelines, and then we won't have any control.

The Chair: Yes, but we're persistent and determined.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But we were the same way during Bill C-11, and some of us had hundreds of amendments. It didn't seem to matter, so now we have to try again.

The Chair: Judy, have faith.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I guess my question to Avvy is if she has any advice to help us move the agenda in the direction of an open-door immigration policy, which we clearly don't have.

My question is twofold. First, how would we--

The Chair: One question. No twofolds, threefolds.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: A two-part question?

The Chair: No. One question, one part.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: What would be the most significant change we could make with respect to the regulation on family class to ensure we're accepting a broad diversity of family members?

Secondly, would you agree to the recommendation in the Beyond Conjugality report, which actually recommends that the Immigration Act be amended to let people sponsor for entry into Canada those with whom they do not have blood, marital, or common-law ties in order to reflect the diversity of relationships in Canadian society?

Ms. Avvy Go: I guess the solution is to change the family class definition, to define it as broadly as possible so it would incorporate and take into account all these various factors--whether it's the dependent child situation we talked about, whether it's the fiancé(e) not being part of family class, whether it's parents, grandparents. Just make the definition as broad as possible. Then I think you can start talking about the other potential issues.

The Chair: Jerry.

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

There are a couple of issues I would like to raise. One, I'm very concerned about what I heard with regard to the regulations--namely, that 70% of new jobs in Canada are going to require very highly skilled people. It seems that our regulations are very skewed toward language and high skills, and without them the best-trained technical people will not be allowed to enter Canada. It seems to me that the skew is far too high.

Number two, in light of that, in my area I'm looking at the requirement for unskilled labour at the same time. When you look at agricultural communities, the agricultural aspects of this country were made on immigrants coming into Canada. If you try the greenhouse industry, which is a very growing industry in Canada today, I look in the regulations and say that they're not going to be able to fulfill the need that's required. I know the housing industry certainly is going to need a tremendous number of people in the near future. They are not going to be able to build on that capacity.

We've chosen, I believe, to move in the high-tech, high-skilled, high-educated categories and omitted the traditional numbers we seek. In the family category I believe we have increased numbers, but the percentage has stayed the same--around 30%. As a result, we're holding down some of the unskilled by controlling the family entries as well. So that's another indication to me that highly skilled over family has been given preference here again. There is too much on that high-skilled, language, high-education side of it, not enough on the general. That's a problem I have.

This would go to possibly Chris or Janina on the regulations versus our guidelines. Has it not been over time that the guidelines developed with regard to the regulations? Would you not anticipate your staff following the guidelines that are naturally in place today with maybe alterations to those guidelines as you get some changes?

What I'm trying to focus on is if I were in your shoes, working in a position, how could I handle that job? I'm assuming that with the regulations that are there, obviously there will be instances when some guideline changes are required. But I wouldn't like to leave the impression... and maybe it is only an impression, but I felt that you were saying you don't know what the guidelines are going to say, so you don't trust what's happening here. I have to think that you guys on the front lines are very important. Your attitudes and desires are all of those things that make this system work. I would think the leadership must encourage positive views there and try to work in as positive a light as we can with regard to those regulations and future guidelines.

Maybe I could get your comments on those points.

º (1650)

The Chair: Avvy, would you respond to the first question, please, with regard to the independent class.

Ms. Avvy Go: I have two responses to the comments.

First of all, we do attract and we do focus on high-skilled and very highly educated individuals who come to Canada. And what do we do? We let them drive taxis. We let them serve us in restaurants. We know of many examples of doctors and engineers doing this. We have probably the most highly educated taxi drivers in the world. That is one issue. Even though we are letting these people in, we are not using their skills.

At the same time, I want to say that it's not because the unskilled or the less-skilled workers are not here. They are here. They are not necessarily here as immigrants. We are seeing seasonal workers. We're seeing migrant workers working on a farm. Because they are not immigrants, they don't have the same kind of protection as immigrant workers do.

For instance, in Ontario, migrant workers are working right now with the carpenters' union. It has a lot of undocumented members who come as carpenters and work as carpenters, but they are not recognized as immigrants because they come as visitors at first.

I think we are creating a two-tier system. Because we focus so much on the skills--high-skills, high-education--we're letting other people in through other illegal channels, which is not good for Canada either. We have to acknowledge the fact that we do need all kinds of workers and labour. That's the only way we can protect all of them.

The Chair: But you really get to your destination very quickly with those highly educated taxicab drivers, I can tell you that.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I should tell you that Bill C-11 and some of the recommendations of this committee will in fact try to get the federal government and the provincial governments to move to recognition of those accreditations. You are absolutely right, because by keeping them down, we're underestimating the great value those people could contribute to our economy and to our society. There's no doubt about that.

Cres, could you comment on the guideline regulations again?

º (1655)

Mr. Cres Pascucci: I think it brings up another question. I'm glad the member brought this up, because someone made some remarks about public service workers always interpreting in a restrictive way. I don't personally believe that's the case. I think we have to look at what we develop based on the times we live in. When my parents came here from Italy, there were different criteria and different beliefs, and it was a much more generous time in terms of welcoming immigrants to the population.

The Chair: That's why they let me in, too.

Mr. Cres Pascucci: I came under H and C, but that's another issue.

But in view of that, I think we're the products of our times. What has happened now is that we're in a different environment in terms of questioning who comes in. Someone said you don't have to use immigration policy for security reasons, but I believe security reasons are an element that's there.

Our members are human beings. They watch TV and they read the news. If you watch CNN, the war is on forever. That's a reality. We can get into this argument about having discretion and non-discretion, about writing up acts and giving certain powers, but the bottom line is that the guidelines are the ones that, in a sense, make what is almost a final determination.

The best example I can think of in terms of how a public service worker should work is not to be restrictive, but to allow the maximum of doubt to the person the public service worker is serving or appraising. How can I allow this case? How can I permit this case? That's what a federal public service worker should ask.

I think the best example of that type of thing is...I don't know how many of you know of Billy Wilder, but he was a director and writer who wrote some tremendous movies and won many Oscars. In accepting one of his Oscars, he explained how he got into the country. He got into the country because the immigration officer—it was in the U.S., but it's the same example—gave him the benefit of the doubt and allowed him in. He was a German Jew escaping persecution, and according to the law, if there had been no discretion, he wouldn't have gotten in. I think that's the type of immigration policy we should pursue and that we try to pursue as leaders.

The Chair: I like that.

I have just two quick questions, but I know you winked at me, David, so that means you must want to ask a question.

Mr. David Price (Compton--Stanstead, Lib.): I have two questions.

Judith, you were talking about the numbers. You said you had numbers in front of you. What bothered me a little bit was that you were talking about percentages of total numbers. How does Canada look if we look at percentages in regard to our population? In comparing us to the States, there's a big difference there. That's the short question.

The other question is for you, Ms. Go, on your paper, and specifically the section “Bad Faith”. I'm not very clear on that. You talk about a two-pronged approach, yet I feel that with the bad faith, it actually gives us more than two prongs. You're saying we're eliminating a prong, so I'm wondering if you can clear that up.

The Chair: Judith, go ahead with regard to the percentages.

Ms. Judith Kumin: You're absolutely right: absolute numbers tell a different story from percentages. It's quite interesting. I don't have percentages, but I have applications per thousand inhabitants, which tell us the same story.

If we look at asylum applications per thousand inhabitants last year, we can see that in Canada there were roughly 1.4 applications per thousand inhabitants, which is sort of in the middle. Austria is at the top, with the highest ratio, at 3.7 applications per thousand. Also over three is Norway, at 3.3. The United States, as you've put it, is quite at the bottom end of the spectrum, at 0.3, on par with Finland and a number of more distant countries, like Australia and New Zealand. So if you look at the 29 countries for which I have figures, Canada is pretty much smack in the middle, between the low end and the high end of the spectrum.

» (1700)

The Chair: Ms. Go is next, on the two-pronged question.

Ms. Avvy Go: Under the current immigration system, let's take the example of a spouse. You are excluded from the definition of family class if you enter into a marriage for the purpose of emigrating to Canada and you do not have the intent to live with your sponsor.

This new regulation says you will not be included if you come here for the purpose of immigration. So they take away the second prong, which is also that you do not have the intent to live with your sponsor.

The problem with that is honestly, in reality, you can never really tell what the intent is. It's very hard to gauge the intent. You gauge the intent, in part, by looking at whether or not they are living with their sponsor.

So if you take out the second part, first of all there is the difficulty of gauging the person's intent. Secondly, you exclude the person whose purpose for marrying the person is to come to Canada, apart from marriage for love and all that kind of stuff. But from the perspective of society, there's no reason why we should exclude someone who is living with a sponsor. He's going to stay there and he's being sponsored and supported.

So I think it eliminates too many people too easily. You also have the question of how do you then decide whether the person intends to marry for the purpose of immigration, or what, because you don't have the second part to gauge that intent.

The Chair: Okay. Mark is next.

Mr. Mark Assad: On the first question, I got the answer.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

First of all, thank you all very much for your insight and for some very helpful suggestions. But I need to ask Cres and Janina something, because this gets to the crux of the matter.

We have to decide on the best regulations, and how we can make them fair and implement them, taking into consideration that we have an awful lot of people to train on the front lines. I know that the resources have not been there for a long time. They're starting to come up and we're introducing them.

The department tells us they had two parallel systems at one time about 25 years ago. I think that was what you were saying. Is it possible to run two concurrent systems for the backlog, which is about 400,000 people, or at least 250,000 independent class, and once the regulations have been established in a fair way and we have trained people, can we then start the new applications under the new regs? I need you to tell me about retroactivity.

This committee would like to recommend the best way to be fair to those people who've applied under the old rules, and we have new rules that have yet to be finalized. So what would be your best advice to us, on dealing with the questions of retroactivity, implementation, and the resources that are so very important, to make sure fairness and equity are brought to the new and old systems?

Mr. Cres Pascucci: The easiest answer is it can be done. It's been done during periods of amnesty, for example, where they had fast-flow cases, in terms of quick decision making and that kind of thing. It can be done with that kind of volume, with no problem at all.

It's not a question of having a vested interest in this, by the way, in terms of thinking maybe we'll get more members. That's not the case here. The case is to be fair to everybody and make it work. If you're going to make it work, then take the time to do it right.

The Chair: Okay. Again, thank you all very much for your great advice and your input. We appreciate it very much. Thank you.

We will go to our next of witnesses, colleagues. Let's just take a two- or three-minute break while we clear the table.

» (1704)

» (1709)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)): Thank you. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is reconvening. This afternoon we have the Association of Immigration Counsels of Canada, the National Association of Women and the Law, and hopefully the National Action Committee on the Status of Women also. We will have brief presentations from those three organizations and then we'll proceed with questions. We should try to wrap up before 6:30 today.

So could we have the Association of Immigration Counsels of Canada proceed first.

» (1710)

Mr. John Ryan (National President, Association of Immigration Counsels of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the Association of Immigration Counsels of Canada, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

To my left is our first national vice-president, Mr. Joe Kenney.

Briefly, I want to introduce the association. Our organization is a federally chartered, non-profit organization that represents the interests of Canadian immigration practitioners. Among its key roles is to serve as a vehicle through which its membership, comprising former government immigration and foreign service officers as well as lawyers and professional consultants, can advise and assist the Government of Canada with its formulation and implementation of immigration policy and procedures.

We want to preface our comments today by saying that we believe there are many positive aspects to the proposed regulations. However, we are also here to register our deep concern about certain features of the regulations that we believe are not in the best interests of the country and its future. We also believe that some of these proposed measures are unfair and unjust to hundreds of thousands of people who want to make this country their home. We believe some elements of the proposed regulations are sending the wrong message about this country to the rest of the world.

The focus of our brief that we have submitted to you today, and the remarks we are going to make, is on the selection of immigrants overseas by Canadian visa posts, and specifically as it relates to the selection of the category of immigrants known as skilled workers. This group, numbering over 100,000 a year, accounts for over half of Canada's overall immigration intake. We should point out that while our organization was one of several canvassed extensively by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration over the last few years, the features of the regulations to which we most object are matters on which, to the best of our knowledge, there was no prior consultation by the department.

First among these disappointing surprises was the proposed retroactive application of the new regulations to those immigrants who submitted their applications before December 15. Our brief, which I encourage you to read, provides a more detailed critique of the retroactivity provisions and the damage that we believe these measures will cause to Canada's reputation internationally. Simply put, we strongly recommend that you urge the minister to drop the plans for retroactivity of the application of the new regulations that his department has proposed. We ask that you request the department to keep its word to the 200,000 plus applicants awaiting decisions on their applications. This means processing their files in an efficient and professional manner according to the rules that existed when the applications were received by our visa posts overseas.

I would now like to call on my first vice-president to go over some of the recommendations that we're making to you today.

Mr. Joseph Kenney (First Vice-President, Association of Immigration Counsels of Canada): Among the other recommendations contained in our brief are the following: we recommend the committee to urge the department to increase the incentives available to both pending and new skilled worker applicants to obtain objective measures of their language ability through standardized testing. This measure will allow for faster reduction of the backlog of pending applications and reduce processing times for future applicants.

We recommend separate pass marks for married and skilled applicants under the skilled worker category in order to eliminate the disadvantage for skilled applicants under the proposed criteria.

We urge the committee to address the clause in the current point system for skilled workers by seeking to adjust the pass mark downward. This is required to properly take into account Canada's economic and demographic needs, while at the same time maintaining an appropriately high standard for admission to Canada as a skilled worker. Specifically, we recommend pass marks of 70 for single applicants and 73 for married applicants.

We further recommend to the committee that it urge CIC to re-examine the proposal for settlement funds for skilled workers contained in paragraph 64(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, and come up with more reasonable and appropriate settlement fund requirements for skilled worker applicants.

We also recommend that CIC eliminate the requirement in subsection 9(1) of the regulations that all applicants apply at the visa post responsible for their country of habitual residence, thereby preserving the non-discriminatory and colour-blind nature of our immigration selection system.

We recommend that this committee urge the minister and the department to develop and implement simultaneously with the new act a comprehensive system of alternative dispute resolution applicable to the review of overseas visa officer decisions.

Finally, we recommend that the committee request the minister to urge his officials to complete the process begun with the College of Immigration Practitioners of Canada to develop and implement the recommendations that we cite in our brief from this committee's 1995 report on immigration consultants.

We look forward to our discussion with you on these matters. Thank you.

» (1715)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Thank you, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Kenney.

Could we now proceed with representatives from the National Association of Women and the Law.

Ms. Chantale Tie (Lawyer, National Association of Women and the Law): Thank you.

My name is Chantale Tie. This is Andrée Côté, who is the director of law reform and policy for the National Association of Women and the Law.

Just for the record, we would like to point out that we fully support the recommendations of West Coast LEAF, which are written recommendations that you have in regard to the humanitarian and compassionate applications part of their brief, particularly the need to take into account threats of violence, rehabilitations, victims of trafficking, and the best interests of any children affected as primary considerations in humanitarian applications. We also support their recommendations that self-sufficiency not be a consideration for permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds because of the negative impact on women.

We have provided you with a short, six-page brief, which I understand has been translated into French. While we think all of those points are important, we only have five minutes, so I want to concentrate primarily on only two of those points.

The first one is listed as part 8 of our submission. It has to do with sponsorship duration. First, I want to make just some general background comments about sponsorship duration and the effects of the sponsorship regime. There is ample existing evidence that sponsorship places considerable strains upon relationships, particularly strains upon marital relationships. While they're most evident in marital relationships, there's absolutely nothing to indicate that those strains of sponsorship regimes would not be felt in other relationships, such as parent-child relationships and parent-grandparent or older relationships. In other words, men continue to use the sponsorship process to control women. It has a significant effect on women's inequality. I've cited the status of women's study. There are academic studies that clearly show it.

Secondly, until now, while we have always had a sponsorship undertaking as part of our immigration process, until very recently in Quebec none of those sponsorships was in fact enforceable. The only consequence has always been that you sign a sponsorship undertaking and then if you don't live up to it you can't sponsor somebody else. That has been the consequence.

Nobody really paid much attention to sponsorship undertakings. Now that they're going to be enforceable, we need to go back to first principles and really look at what this means. It's going to change things fundamentally--the fact that they're enforceable.

Section 126 of the new regulations defines social assistance as including “any benefit in the form of money, goods or services provided to or on behalf of a person by a province under a program of social assistance, including a program of social assistance designated by a province to provide for basic requirements including food, shelter, clothing, fuel, utilities, household supplies, personal requirements and health care not covered by public health care, including dental care and eye care”. That's how social assistance is defined. So when you have a sponsorship undertaking that requires the reimbursement of all of those expenses for a particular period of time, we're talking about mega-money here sometimes. Let's take some case scenarios just so you understand what this is going to mean on the ground.

We have a potential sponsorship undertaking for a newborn child who is sponsored to Canada until the age of 22. That is a 22-year sponsorship where the person who sponsors is liable for 22 years. What does that mean? Let's say a husband sponsors his wife and their newborn child to come to Canada. They are allowed to come. The child is less than a year old. Everything is fine. They come, and three years later they're all Canadian citizens. Seven years later, a Canadian citizen, coincidentally, runs the child over in a car and the child is disabled. The child needs housing supports to re-ramp the house. They need access to a wheelchair, special education programs. They require all sorts of other supports that are not provided by health care programs in Canada, but provided as disability support programs.

» (1720)

Let's say, for example, that the family is currently working, that both parents are working, but their income is not sufficient to bear those costs. The child, at the age of 18 in Ontario—that's when they're entitled to it—applies for and is accepted in the Ontario Disability Support Program, and receives the maximum allowance under the ODSP, which is approximately $980 a month, so let's say $1,000 a month. When their child is at the age of 22, those parents will owe almost $60,000 in ODSP payments, as well as all of the other support services. If they accessed subsidized housing in order to have accessible housing for their child, that would also be covered.

These are huge costs, and the consequences of making those costs reimbursable mean there are significant pressures on the family not to access those services. What this means or what it could mean is that, in order not to bankrupt the family, a child might not get access to support services that she needs in order to remain as independent as possible. And the same holds true for senior citizens sponsored by their children—under a tenured sponsorship, let's say. They ultimately owe hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I think we need to go back to first principles, because the undertaking enforcement brings into sharp focus the inequality of having members and Canadian citizens here in Canada who are not entitled to the Canadian social safety net as a right. They are entitled on a loan basis only. What that does is place significant consequences on the family in terms of whether they will access those, or whether an abused child will be allowed to leave the home and access student welfare if they're being abused. What about an abused spouse? Will she be able to access that safety net when it's ultimately her husband who is going to have to pay that bill? We have to think about these things. The consequences are very severe.

Secondly, as I said, it creates two classes of citizens in Canada, and that is the definition of inequality. It ultimately means new Canadians who are sponsored aren't the same as everybody else, and children who are sponsored aren't the same for 22 years. I wanted to talk about social assistance, too, but I want you to think about this. It's very serious, but I don't hear other people talking about the fact that these things are now enforceable.

Quebec has started to enforce the sponsorship undertakings, and what we're seeing is crippling debt. If you're concerned that people are going to sponsor people who they're responsible for and that we're all going to pay, I want you to think about three things.

First, new Canadians pay disproportionately more in taxes than old Canadians, and they access social services, including welfare, less than established, old Canadians do. You're therefore asking a group of people to pay twice for social services, once through their taxes while they're working, and once as a reimbursement.

I think I'm being shut off.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Thank you very much. Those were certainly some very provocative thoughts.

We'll now go to a representative from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.

Ms. Sungee John (Chair of the Immigration Committee and Actions Treasurer, National Action Committee on the Status of Women): We thank you for the opportunity to make our submission today.

We have the submission in English. Unfortunately, we weren't able to finish the French translations in time for today, but they should be completed this week.

Rather than repeating some of the issues of my co-presenters here, some of the issues that we want to focus on, certainly, are the regulations and their impact on women.

In the regulations it states that a gender-based analysis would be included with the final submission when it goes to the Governor in Council. We feel strongly that a gender-based analysis should not be an afterthought; it should be included. First, there should be an analysis drafted even before the regulations go before the committees, not only a gender-based analysis, but also one that looks at the intersections of race and class within that analysis.

In looking through the regulations, we are concerned that there are significant barriers that have a greater impact on women than they do on men when it comes to the regulations regarding the Immigration Act. For example, under the classification of skilled worker, since they've eliminated the grid where it's based upon occupations, where points are assessed on occupations...the old system did have its own barriers, but the new system also has barriers in that it doesn't acknowledge the skills that women bring. Many of those skills are unquantifiable. Many women, especially those in other countries, have skills that aren't certified, that aren't accredited. And many women in those countries don't have access to higher education and the training that men would have.

Therefore, first and foremost, the assessment of points based on a person's recognized education, assessed through diplomas, degrees, and certificates, ignores the fact that women around the world don't have equal access to the right to education. I think that needs to be addressed and it needs to be reassessed to reflect that.

In previous presentations when Bill C-11 was presented, the domestic workers had a lot of concerns around the live-in caregiver program. Under what we're seeing through regulations, there haven't been many changes that would improve the conditions of many of the people under this program, the vast majority of whom are women. For example, under the proposed regulations, live-in caregivers are still required to live within the same premises as their employers and then only allowed to apply for permanent resident status after an accumulative work period of two years out of three years.

According to research conducted by Intercede, a group that advocates for domestic workers, it states, and I quote:

“The possibility of permanent resident status, and essentially the future of the person in Canada and their rights--or lack thereof--are directly tied to and conditional upon a good work record. Caregivers, as well as their employers, are very aware of this.”

That means that a caregiver is still vulnerable to the whims of the employer. If the employer feels that this person is not working to their satisfaction, or the employer is one who would exploit the caregiver, then they certainly would not recommend them, and they certainly would have an impact on their ability to successfully gain permanent resident status.

Furthermore, to maintain a 24-month requirement within a three-year timeframe is a high expectation for women in this area. So rather than tying conditions such as working for two years before you can even apply for permanent resident status, we recommend that the committee look at recognizing that these women have the right to automatically apply for permanent resident status as live-in caregivers.

» (1725)

On the other issue of sponsorship, I just want to compliment the very powerful presentation given by Ms. Tie. The concern about sponsorship is again the fact that gender persecution is not tied into the regulations. Women who face potential abuse still aren't recognized in legislation or in regulation. Their rights and their freedom to escape these conditions need to be addressed further. That also could be tied in with a better gender-based analysis.

Another issue we're concerned about is the fact that the detention aspect concerning minors is not addressed strongly enough. Canada is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and yet children have been and are being detained if they can't provide documents. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children should not be jailed and they should have the right to education. What we've seen over the past few years is that minors have been jailed and in some cases, minors have been intimidated and insulted while they've been in custody. These are conditions that should not be present for children seeking asylum. If they're refugees, they should not be treated as criminals and criminalized.

Finally, we acknowledge that there has been slightly more transparency in the processes drafting the regulations, but there is always room for improvement. As women the world over are fighting for and gaining more equality rights, they encounter new barriers in immigration policies, not just in Canada but in many countries of the so-called developed world. It's clear that the Canadian government needs to take seriously the gender and race biases in its immigration policies.

As immigration numbers are increasingly reflective of people from the south--that is, people of non-European descent--the bar is raised even higher. With an aging population that's more reliant on government services and programs, it's left to the taxpaying ability of the new immigrants to maintain this infrastructure.

Many European countries are facing a dilemma of what to do with a declining population and an increasing tax burden. The only answer is immigration, but as we pick and choose which categories of immigrants we like, we are ignoring the historical fact that immigrants--the people who seek to move to another country--are seeking a better life. In that aspect, they have the will to succeed, and it's that will to succeed that will build this country, that will improve Canada as we continue into this new millennium.

Thank you.

» (1730)

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

We'll now move to a round of questioning with one question to the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition. Lynne Yelich, please.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you. I would just like to go to the first presentation by Mr. Ryan, the national president, about your regulation of immigration consultants. Do you have any suggestions as to how that would be done?

Mr. John Ryan: I thank the member for her question. Unbeknownst to the committee, and surprisingly, unbeknownst to the minister when he arrived in front of your committee giving you some homework, there has been some activity by the department already on this portfolio or this issue.

I'm one of the national directors of the new College of Immigration Practitioners of Canada, which two years ago--and I refer you to appendix C in our handout--signed a memorandum of understanding with Citizenship and Immigration, with Joan Atkinson, the former director general of social policy, to work with Citizenship and Immigration to develop a self-regulatory self-registration regime for the industry.

With another group that will be appearing before you tomorrow, the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants, we share lockstep our views on the need for the registration of consultants, simply to protect the more vulnerable members of our application inventory who are applying here and are being abused by unscrupulous consultants, both overseas and in Canada. There is a need to protect this group; it's an issue of consumer protection, and it's certainly in Canada's best interest to do it. We are asking that the committee urge the minister to press his officials to move on with their memorandum of understanding and the procedure they've already set in motion to develop this self-regulatory regime or self-registration regime.

There are a number of issues. There are eight or nine criteria that have to be met by a regime. I call your attention to a letter from Ms. Atkinson to the college, in which you can read the basic criteria. For the members' reference, it's appendix B.

It has to be self-sufficient--in other words, cost-effective for the Canadian taxpayer--supported by the people who will be registered by the regime.

There are rigorous personal and professional requirements of admission. That's one of the things on which we agree with the government.

There are minimum requirements concerning the size and scope of the association's membership, including representativity in the whole country.

Another condition would be the ability to train and educate its members, with a program of continuing education. We're talking continuing professional education for re-registration.

There's a code of professional conduct; the ability to monitor and enforce the compliance of the members; a variety of enforcement measures, including expulsion; reporting mechanisms; and also a compensation fund or liability insurance for people who perform the work.

That is the basis on which the College of Immigration Practitioners has been formed, and I'm sure you're going to be hearing a lot more about it from my counterpart, the president of the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants, tomorrow.

» (1735)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Thank you very much. We'll now go over to the government side.

Mr. Assad.

Mr. Mark Assad: I have a short question at this time.

You brought out three points. You mentioned the fact that new Canadians will pay more taxes and be less a burden on our social welfare. I think it's important that you continue with the other two, because unfortunately, most Canadians don't realize these facts about our new Canadians. Do you want to elaborate on the two others?

Ms. Chantale Tie: The other two points, which I didn't get to, were that, in all views, family reunification is in fact a human right, and that underpins our submissions as well on social assistance and sponsoring when you're on social assistance.

But the third point is that there exist already adequate mechanisms to ensure that people who are legally responsible for other people take care of them. Every province has requirements in both their family law and their welfare law that require you to seek support from anybody who is able to and has a legal obligation to pay it. So if you have a spousal sponsorship, there exists a mechanism to get support. You're required to by law. To get welfare, you have to go after your spouse. If your children get welfare, they're required to sue their parents. So it already exists.

The fundamental difference, though, between the support obligation in the undertaking and the support obligation in family law in every province is that the provincial law takes into account ability to pay and changed circumstances. The immigration sponsorship undertaking has no mechanism at all to take into account any of the circumstances, any humanitarian circumstances, or whether you actually can pay or whether it will bankrupt you. That's a fundamental difference.

You don't need this undertaking. All the laws are there. You can do it. You can ensure that people support the people they are legally required to support through the welfare laws and family law act in every province. You don't need it.

Those were the three points. I can go on about social assistance, though.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Does anyone else want to comment on that particular point?

Ms. Chantale Tie: I want to talk about social assistance. Because we view family reunification as a human right, we don't think there should be a price attached to it; that's where we talk about the undertaking. But it's also a human right, so people who are on social assistance should not be excluded. Yes, you have not excluded people on a disability under the regulations. So who does that leave on social assistance? All the studies show that the people on social assistance, for the long-term, are single mothers on social assistance. Why are they there? Because they're single mothers, because they don't have a partner; so your regulation disqualifying sole support mothers, essentially, from sponsoring their spouse is crazy. It's their only chance, probably, to get off social assistance, to have a partner, a spouse, to share the child care responsibilities so they can stay home and look after the young children while their spouse goes out and works.

If you disqualify people on social assistance from sponsoring, it's an eligibility requirement. What that means is there's no appeal because they're not eligible. Now, even if you're on social assistance you can sponsor them. If they turn it down, you can appeal it, and all the H and C factors will come into account, including the best interests of the children. We're talking here maybe about sponsoring your father, right? Now, you're ineligible. What happens to those children? We have an obligation to consider their best interests in everything we do. That's what the courts have told us, it's what the new act says. It's not there if you disallow sponsorship on the basis of social assistance.

» (1740)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Thank you very much.

We'll now move over to the Bloc. Madeleine, you have one question, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Good afternoon, everyone.

Ms. Tie, I commend you on your strong defence of women. It's very reassuring to see women take on this role.

Judging from what you're saying - and I tend to share your vision - the draft regulations before the committee, particularly the proposed points system, widely discriminate against women. I'd like to hear more from you on the subject, because many witnesses expressed reservations about the grid. Clearly, the number of points required should be lowered. However, a number of other adjustments are also warranted. Therefore, I'd like the three organizations to comment briefly on this matter, because the points system is an important component of the regulations.

Ms. Chantale Tie: I'll answer your question in English, because I don't speak quite as quickly in French.

Mme Dalphond-Guiral: You seem to be doing fine.

Ms. Chantale Tie: Yes, but I'm not as fast.

[English]

Yes, NAWL has real significant concerns about the point system. We have critisized the point system in the past because it is clearly gender-based. It provides a scientific veneer to a very unscientific process. Essentially, there are all kinds of hidden assumptions in the point system, which have been pointed out repeatedly, and I can refer the committee to articles that break down the point system and show how it's inherently gender-biased. By raising the points from 70 to 80, it exacerbates the problem. It just makes what we've already argued is a bad system even worse.

It's also simply wrong to assume that all we need in this country are highly skilled, highly educated people. We need all kinds of immigrants in this country. The job postings I see in Ottawa are not the high-skilled ones always. Women who don't have access in many countries to the advanced education, the high tech and the high skills, have an important role to play in this country. Many of them, once they get here, exercise their rights to access. So what we're talking about is human potential, and not selecting immigrants just upon what they've already been permitted to achieve in their own countries. That's very important.

It's very interesting if one looks at the United States system, which doesn't have a point system. The immigrants they actually end up with in terms of job skills five years after are the same as immigrants here. We have this process that is supposed to be highly scientific, but it actually isn't. As my friend said, you actually select immigrants who have a desire to come, a drive to establish themselves in a new country and make the most of it. That's the most important quality, and the point system doesn't do that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Thank you very much.

We'll now move to the NDP. Judy.

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

I have a question for each of the presenters. Let me start with John Ryan.

The Association of Immigration Counsels of Canada was probably the first group off the mark in terms of raising this whole spectre of problems with retroactivity. You've clearly said in your statement today and in press statements that this is, to put it mildly, un-Canadian. You've raised the whole issue of fairness.

I want to get down to some options. It seems to me that our first option in making a case to the minister should be that the regulations come into effect when the bill, along with its regulations, is brought into law. The other day the minister was basically giving us some options and saying that he's looking at a whole range of things. Is that your position? If we don't get that, what's the next-best position?

My next question is to the National Association of Women and the Law. You've raised a new issue here that I haven't heard before. I'm not sure if other members have tuned into the fact that through the regulations these sponsorship agreements are now binding, enforceable, and mandatory. Did we miss something? Was this part of Bill C-11, or is this one of the things that has been slipped in through the regulations?

I'm looking at the package of regulations. We're looking at, I assume, regulations 149, 150, 153, 154, and 155. We obviously have to do something to change these proposals. What do we do? Do we change them all? Do we scrap them and start again, or can we fix up what we have?

My last question is to Sungee, who made a very important observation about a gender impact analysis. We received today a preliminary gender impact analysis from the department. In that a number of concerns have been raised about differential impact, suggesting that we study the impact in order to verify the concerns raised. It seems to me that we're going to be doing it after the fact.

What would your advice be? Would it be to slow down the whole process until we can get a proper handle on this and ensure there is no disproportionate impact on women?

Sorry, I know those are three big questions.

» (1745)

Mr. John Ryan: Thank you, Judy, for the question.

Honestly, ladies and gentlemen, I'm an immigrant. I came here. I had the privilege of being an immigrant and this country allowed my family to come in, allowed my brothers and sisters to be educated here, gave us opportunities. I served as both a customs officer and a senior immigration officer before I became a consultant, I guess the Darth Vader of the profession.

I will tell you, the reason we were first off is out of the personal issue of how repugnant I found the retroactivity to be, as an immigrant. I think it goes against the grain of being Canadian, as you've picked up on by my comment in the press. Simply, it's not something we've done in the past, especially to inventories, and Joan Atkinson, the current deputy minister, told the committee that during her testimony.

Are there solutions? I think we all can sit here and complain about whether they've got an inventory or they've got a backlog--I guess it depends on your terminology. But yes, there are solutions.

In 1997, the time of the last change of the skilled worker regulations, they did have a two-tier system. The reason they've introduced the December 15 cut-off date is simply because they didn't want a larger backlog building up in anticipation of a change of regulations, with people trying to file applications to beat the regulations, if you will. So I can understand the department's reason for doing this. However, I don't agree with the retroactivity.

What can they do to control the inventory? I think that's one of the things you have to wrestle with as a committee. There are a number of things. Currently in the overseas configuration they're using such tools as waivers of interviews, they're using such tools as English-language testing, the international English language testing service offered by the British Council, TOEFL.

In countries where the largest backlogs are, specifically China, which has a disproportionately large backlog right now, one of the things we've suggested in our report is that they increase the incentive by having the applicants do their English-language testing upfront. There are two advantages to this. One, they remove the subjective decision an immigration officer has to make on whether the person's English skills are good or bad, and therefore it becomes an issue of really getting on to the bona fides of the application in terms of work experience. Simply by doing that, they could probably reduce the inventory very quickly, by 30% to 35% if the officer had this in front of him on a paper screen.

There are other innovative things they can do. The Australians have done it in their recent change, group interviews for applicants of low risk. There is, I think, far too much use of interviews by some of the immigration offices overseas. My expertise lies in China, and I know there are some legitimate concerns about documentation, fraudulent claims made by immigrants. However, that has to be tempered in terms of common sense by the officers.

I noticed one of the members earlier alluded to the fact that it's easier to say no, because there are no consequences, than it is to say yes. That's even more so under these regulations, because these regulations effectively take away a refused applicant's right to appeal if there's been an error in law by the immigration officer. This places far too much unaccountable power in the hands of an immigration officer overseas.

Those are some of my comments.

Mr. Joseph Kenney: I'd like to add to that. What we've suggested in our submission is what we see as a sort of middle ground. I think what you were saying was that the cut-off would be the proclamation date of June 28 of this year. The problem we see, and I'm sure the department would see the same problem, is the fact that up until that date they would be flooded with applicants who are able to qualify under the current system.

We don't see any particular problem saying okay, these regulations were pre-published on December 15, so any application before that date should be given the benefit of the doubt and should be processed under the rules that are in existence now and were in existence at that time. But since December 15 most people have been made aware of these proposals.

CIC put a notification on its website, I think on the 17th or 18th, that said if you are applying now, you may be assessed under this new criterion when it comes into effect in June, because you're not likely to get through the system until then.

We think this is a fair way to sort of take a middle position and say that at least for the people who applied when there were no other rules in existence, they should get the benefit of the old rules. People who apply after the new rules had been published you could conceivably switch over to the new system once it's been proclaimed.

» (1750)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll go back to the government side with Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On a point of order, I know my time is up, but I just wonder if we could come back for the answers to the other two questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Jerry, could you...

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I can wait.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Go ahead, quickly.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I've already put them. I'm just waiting for the answers.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Then I'll let Jerry put his question after we've come back for your answers.

Ms. Chantale Tie: You asked me if we could fix up sponsorship and the interplay with the undertaking. Quite frankly, I think the bottom line is that we need to continue doing what we've always done in practice, which is not to have undertakings enforced. That's the only solution I can see, quite frankly.

When immigrants come here, we take the risks as Canadians. If they get a great job and contribute disproportionately in taxes, they don't get them back just because they're new Canadians. If they're unfortunate and they use more social services than others, then we take the risk. If we take the benefits, we should take the risks.

NAWL's position is that it may be justified for three years, which is the time it takes to get citizenship, but it certainly is not justified beyond that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Okay, we will move on at this point.

Mr. Pickard, go ahead.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I was particularly drawn to the fact that you have presented the problems that women will face with regard to the regulations, and I quite frankly agree that the unfairness is there. But I also think there are other groups in other countries besides women, and they would be lower-income people who wish to emigrate from other countries. That would also mean those who are not in a relatively higher class of people in some other countries and can't afford post-secondary levels of education or can't afford to get into very good educational opportunities that allow them to learn two or three different languages. Quite frankly, if you come from China, having English or French as a language you can use fluently in terms of speaking and writing is for a privileged group of people in that country.

We're almost only on the women's side, but I don't want it to be left there. I have to look at it on a broader scale. I believe it's not just women, because there's a whole, broad scale of people that we just totally wiped out.

I want to come back to a second question that I'd like to lay in for John or Joseph. As consultants, you look at the system and try to determine how you can help those people who need help entering Canada. If we talk about putting a language analysis up front, do you not perceive that as a huge barrier for a lot of people?

I have a man in my riding who wishes to recommend that his brother come here. He has a job and a location where he can live, and my constituent is quite willing to support his brother and to help him work. The brother has a job but can't come under the family class, so he has to come under the points system. There's no way he can learn to speak English in some reasonable time period while he's still in China. My constituent says that when he came to Canada, he couldn't speak a word of English or French, but it only took him three or four months to learn because he was under pressure in a different society and had to be able to communicate. Is that not the case with 50% of the immigrants who have entered Canada, or at least a large number of immigrants? Are we being very restrictive? I guess I'm concerned about how restrictive we're being to certain classes of people in the regulations.

» (1755)

Ms. Chantale Tie: I'd be happy to take a stab at that, and I'm sure Sungee will say something too.

Yes, there very definitely is economic inequality contained within our Immigration Act and within our immigration regulations. One example is not being able to sponsor if you're on social assistance.

The only way to actually ensure that you don't have that kind of thing—the only way that I'm aware of—is to have some portion of your immigration done basically the way the U.S. does, with a lottery system. You get the people who want to apply, who can apply, and as long as they are not medically and criminally inadmissible, there's a lottery system and they get in. What they've actually found with that lottery system in the United States is that, for one thing, it's very simple to administer compared to the points system, but it also tends to get highly motivated people who want to go to the United States and make a new start.

So, yes, I completely agree with you. Our Immigration Act is riddled with economic inequalities, particularly in terms of sponsorship and selection. That's not what we've addressed in our brief, but there's no doubt that it's there. If you're concerned, it is there. However—

The Chair: Excuse me, before you move on to another point. Is the Status of Women recommending that we move to a lottery system in this country?

Ms. Chantale Tie: I have no idea what the Status of Women is recommending--

The Chair: I'm sorry, I mean your organization.

Ms. Chantale Tie: The National Association of Women and the Law has not taken a position on that.

The Chair: But it sounds very much like you're supporting a lottery system.

Ms. Chantale Tie: I do support a portion as a lottery system personally.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Can you put an amount on that portion? Seriously.

Ms. Chantale Tie: No.

Certainly it's not in the regulations. It's not something that I thought I was going to be required to discuss today. I'm happy to talk about it, but I can't for NAWL, I can only talk for me.

The Chair: Sungee.

Ms. Sungee John: It's not just an economic issue. Yes, in poor countries it's a class issue that those who are on the lowest rung of the country's economy have the least access to what would help them emigrate or seek a better life. But you have to put a gender analysis on that. While there are families that are very poor, the women are still poor, and families make choices. If families have money to send one child it will be the male child, the boy child, and not the girl child. Once again, women, females, do not get further up there.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Ryan: To respond to your point, I'm going to talk a little bit about what is there and what is not there any more.

First of all, we have concerns about the skilled worker grid being very rigid. If you look at the language points, you have 16 points, and then there's a drop-off to 8. Did somebody all of a sudden say I'm fluent at 16, but I just lost 50% of my marks because I don't pronounce it just so?

The objectivity is what we're seeking in the visa officer's decision. Part of the problem in many of the cases in front of the Federal Court now--although they have been lost mostly--have been on language. An officer has been able, on a subjective basis, to convoke a person for interview and have an English-language assessment. I think with the IELTS test what you are getting in advance is an objective opinion, tested by a professional testing organization, which can give a true measure of a person's English-language ability. But I don't want to belabour that.

In the skilled worker program, we're looking for people who can quickly integrate into our economy. I think we need to separate that from the family class. One of the concerns we do have is the ending of one of the programs we thought could help that person you just described, and that is the family business job offer. Through this program, which has essentially gone the way of the dodos under these regulations, a person could sponsor a family member over to Canada in a position of trust to work in their family business irrespective of their language skills. Of course, we all understand that for entrepreneurs and investors there is really no discernible language requirement. They can come in with very weak English skills.

So I think we would take the position that yes, there is the requirement for a skilled worker to have English or French-language skills to really get a job in our society. Are there other means whereby we can accommodate other family members? Yes. I think one of them is through the FBJO, the family business job offer.

¼ (1800)

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions?

With regard to the gender-based analysis, we did one on Bill C-11, or the department did, and I'm sure that if you haven't seen it, it's available to you. It was something that we insisted, as a committee, be done. Because some of you have spoken with regard to the gender-based analysis, I don't know if you were talking about Bill C-11 or whether you had indicated putting the regulations through the same prism. It sounds like you have a lot of expertise. Based on what you have seen in terms of the regulations now, and because over the course of the next two or three weeks we'll be looking at a number of points, could you give us a quick analysis of the regulations from a gender-based platform?

Sungee.

Ms. Sungee John: Thank you. You've heard many critical points today regarding sponsorship, regarding the skilled workers class, and regarding--

The Chair: I'm wondering if you have had an opportunity to look through this gender-based analysis--

Ms. Sungee John: No.

The Chair: --and then took the principles of the bill and the regulations into account. Your best advice would be most helpful to the committee over the course of the next two or three weeks as we do that. Would that be helpful?

Ms. Chantale Tie: I would be more than happy to obtain a copy of the analysis and see what the findings are. We'd also be delighted if the analysis were available. We've never seen it; we didn't even know it existed.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Is it online?

Ms. Chantale Tie: Where is it?

The Chair: Well, it's in the department. We asked for it and we got it.

Ms. Chantale Tie: The point we're trying to make is that it's been kept within the department. Nobody has--

The Chair: It's amazing what we can get when we ask for it. Anyway, it's available to you now. We'll give it to you.

Ms. Chantale Tie: Excellent. That would be very helpful.

The Chair: I'm sorry if it wasn't available to the public. It should be, because we want a transparent look at the system

John, do you have something on the same basis?

Mr. John Ryan: Well, in the base analysis, I think one of the things we're missing under the selection grid--and I'm going to hammer back on that--is that the way the grid is now with the adaptability factors, we're actually telling single applicants not to apply. So if they don't happen to be married... I think what we're doing with these regulations is fostering a cottage industry of consultants who are going to be going out and getting people married and finding people job offers. I don't think that's what we want to do.

The Chair: We'll all be registered consultants now.

Mr. John Ryan: With your help, Mr. Fontana, I certainly hope so.

The Chair: That's a very good point.

Could I just ask something with regard to sponsorship? Bill C-11 recognized that the ten-year provisions we had under the old law were enforceable and we did enforce them, so there was responsibility on the part of the sponsors to essentially do that for ten years. I think that was a big question that some of the committee members had of the department. The fact that we moved responsibility of sponsorship from ten years to three years was in recognition that you can't force people to look after someone else for ten years. I think everybody indicated that going from ten years to three years was a very positive move.

Chantal, you said we didn't have regulations with regard to sponsorship. Yes, we did. It was in the old law. We did have regulations. I don't know where you got the impression that we didn't enforce them.

Ms. Chantale Tie: I don't know what the department told you. I am not aware, aside from Quebec... There has been no enforcement of the sponsorship undertakings with regard to someone going on social assistance. The only enforcement has been that if you sponsored someone before and you were in breach of the sponsorship undertaking, you couldn't sponsor someone else.

I'm not exactly sure why they didn't enforce them. I think it had something to do with the wording in the Immigration Act and the actual undertaking itself. There was no privity of contract between the sponsor and the contract and the provincial authorities. So I don't know why they didn't, but I have been practising immigration law for 20 years, and sponsorships were not enforced in terms of collecting the money the person received on social assistance.

In Ontario there is a sponsorship deduction from your welfare cheque if you're a sponsored immigrant. That's a completely different matter. I don't know what the department told you about the enforcement of previous sponsorship undertakings, but I think I'm in a position to know that they are not enforced.

¼ (1805)

The Chair: We'll find that out about the past. Are you then suggesting that even a three-year agreement is unenforceable, or should not be enforced?

Ms. Chantale Tie: Unenforceable, no, because it appears that it's their intention to enforce, but even the reduction to three... For a number of years, Quebec has had a three-year sponsorship undertaking for spouses only. The study that the Status of Women published, which I referred you to and which is footnoted, shows that even reducing the sponsorship undertaking to three years does not relieve the significant problems related to the sponsorship undertaking. It creates a sort of flashpoint for a number of significant problems, which will ultimately manifest themselves as social problems that we'll have to deal with.

Ms. Andrée Côté (Director, Legislation and Law Reform, National Association of Women and the Law): Mr. Chairman, may I just complete that? I'm one of the authors of this three-year study that was published in Canada.

Quebec started enforcing the sponsorship undertakings only after it had reduced spousal sponsorship from ten years to three years. It was almost like an exchange; we're going to alleviate the system for some people, for spouses, but in exchange, we're going to start enforcing vigorously. What has been happening in Quebec is that you have people who sponsored a family member who was on welfare four, five, or ten years ago, and who are now facing $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 bills for reimbursing welfare.

A voice: $100,000.

Ms. Andrée Coté: In fact, there has been a challenge of this practice in Quebec as being unconstitutional and discriminatory. I don't know where that's going, but it's very worrisome and it's creating a huge burden and extracting a huge cost on immigrant families to exercise the human right of family reunification.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Chantal.

John.

Mr. John Ryan: In practical terms, I think it's an issue of resourcing for the department--you know, the undertakings of assistance, at least when I was in investigations in Toronto enforcement. It was an issue where if we found someone in violation of the sponsorship, if there happened to be a welfare situation involved where we were alerted by the social insurance or welfare workers, it would be more an issue of convoking them to an inquiry. And quite frankly, it was an issue of resourcing. There weren't enough immigration officers to enforce.

The Chair: Okay. Jerry did you have a supplementary?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Chantal, going back to your point, I think it's a very valid one, but it's one I'm not exactly clear about.

We get complaints from the provinces that because immigration is the way it is, it's very expensive to them if they have to put out extra welfare costs and so on. I think that's where the concern originated. But I'm of the understanding--and maybe you could help me with this--that under different laws within the provinces, they could recuperate monies, in welfare anyway, under family law and other regimes they have. So there's absolutely no practical reason that this is applied in the Immigration Act. Could you help me with that question?

Ms. Chantale Tie: I don't want to misrepresent things. There's no practical reason for spousal and child sponsorship undertakings. There's a legal obligation. But if you're sponsoring your parents, your grandparents, or someone else, it may not exist, although potentially you can now make claims against your children. So potentially, I know in Ontario, you could claim against your children.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: You see the problem I had in the example that you gave of 21 years and the huge bills that somebody could incur. It left one message, and it was a very strong message, there's no question about that.

The fact is, if you are a parent in a non-immigrant family, you have some obligations to those children. Whether they're your adopted children or your natural-born children, I think parents have responsibilities for their children. The seniors do add another aspect to it, and that is where I think the application would be greatest.

In regard to your answer, do you not believe that parents have responsibilities? I'm sure you do. So how is it affecting spouses and children? I think very little. Seniors? A great deal.

¼ (1810)

Ms. Chantale Tie: don't know what you mean by how it's affecting spouses and children. I've missed that, sorry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Under the Immigration Act, there's nothing different from what exists in the province now, for recuperation of costs and stuff like that.

Ms. Chantale Tie: Of course there is; there's a fundamental difference.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Okay, what is it?

Ms. Chantale Tie: Under the Immigration Act undertaking, you're liable for all types of other social services the person accesses, regardless of ability to pay or changed circumstances. That's a fundamental difference. There's no forum; there's no court that determines how much you will pay, when, and under what circumstances. It's a debt owed to the government.

Presumably, they'll collect it the way they collect other debts. They'll withhold your tax returns, your child tax benefit, your GST return, and anything else.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: They're using a very heavy hand, and that's the problem.

Ms. Chantale Tie: t's completely devoid of any considerations, including what's best for the child again. It's very different.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Okay, I understand now.

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead, Yvon.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I'd like Ms. Tie to elaborate on the link between sponsorship and social assistance. If I understand correctly, a person on social assistance cannot become a sponsor. The amount of money a person on social assistance receives is barely enough to cover basic living expenses. Sometimes, recipients live below the poverty line.

How can a person on social assistance reasonably expect to sponsor an immigrant? Where will he or she find the money to take on this responsibility? Could you explain to us again why you object to the fact that persons on social assistance cannot become sponsors when clearly they cannot afford to take on this responsibility?

[English]

Ms. Chantale Tie: Okay, very simply, let's say a woman wants to sponsor her husband from overseas, and he's a computer engineer, let's say. He doesn't have enough points, though, to come in on his own. So he comes here. They have three children; they are here in Canada. She's on social assistance. The minute he arrives and gets a job, they're not on social assistance. Every single social assistance regime requires in a two-parent family that one of the parents be actively engaged in a job search. They exempt single parents from the job search requirement, because you cannot as a single parent of young children look for a job.

The addition of somebody to the family unit is the very means to get off social assistance. That's the irony here. That's what this fails to recognize: the way off is to get someone in there who can earn an income.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: How did this individual manage to enter the country with three children? She receives social assistance. How was she able to raise the required number of points and obtain her citizenship?

[English]

Ms. Chantale Tie: Maybe she was a refugee, came here alone, and didn't know where her husband was--good example. She finally locates her husband after civil war and has to sponsor him, because you have to sponsor. So we're keeping them apart. Maybe she came here and they're not even his children. Maybe she's married to the guy. Maybe he was here illegally and went home. I don't know.

You're saying we shouldn't permit spousal sponsorship when the person's on social assistance, but that could mean basically making that person stay on social assistance forever. The reality for women is they need social assistance because they're single. Anything that helps them not be single gets them off social assistance, in most cases. It's a basic social assistance fact.

The Chair: As I understand it, Chantal, if the regulations reflected the fact that it wasn't a carte blanche, it wasn't automatic that if you were on welfare you couldn't sponsor your spouse or somebody else and you could prove the case you did, it would probably be a lot better. It should be permitted, as opposed to being automatic.

Ms. Chantale Tie: That is the current law. Now, anybody can sponsor. Under the regulations, that is not the case.

The Chair: Okay, and that's what I understand.

Ms. Chantale Tie: You can't appeal it, so other circumstances are never taken into account.

The Chair: Perhaps you, John, and Sungee could come up with some good wording that could take into account looking, without making it automatic that you could or could not sponsor. You could look at that possible applicant you want to bring over--

¼ (1815)

Ms. Chantale Tie: I can tell you right now that you don't need any special wording. You just need to remove the ineligibility if you're on social assistance. Then it will be exactly like it is now. If the person is destined for social assistance it can be refused, but you can appeal it, so the children's interests can be taken into account. That's all you need to do.

The Chair: Is that in your document?

Ms. Chantale Tie: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, maybe you can highlight it for us. Thank you very much.

On behalf of the committee, I again thank you for the time and the effort you've taken, not only on Bill C-11 but on the regulations. At the end of the day, with your help, I'm sure we'll get better regulations, as we got a better Bill C-11.

John, I heard you say, while Paul was doing a great job chairing the segment, you were already preparing some guidelines for the department on the code of ethics or the registry for consultants. That would be appreciated. Thank you, John.

Colleagues, we'll adjourn this part of the meeting, but I'm going to ask that you stay for five minutes, because we have a housekeeping matter that needs to be dealt with as soon as we finish this portion. Thank you very much.

We need some motions on the travel that we need to initiate. Could someone move that the committee undertake a study on competing for immigrants and that it undertake travel in order to visit Canadian immigration processing missions abroad?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: So moved.

The Chair: Is anyone opposed? No.

(Motion agreed to)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm not going to oppose, but I think I should abstain, because as a small caucus we have such a hard time trying to figure out how to balance the travel with the.... So I'm just going to abstain, but I won't vote again.

The Chair: Okay.

You'll like this. Lynne has given me her proxy.

On the itinerary, is it moved that the committee adopt the proposed travel itinerary, which is Europe, India, and Asia, to take place from April 13 to 25 in relation to its study on competing for immigrants? Do I have a motion?

An hon. member: So moved.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Europe and Asia?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I thought there were three locations before. Have we changed that?

The Chair: No, it's three. Group one is London, Berlin, and Vienna. Group two is Paris, New Delhi, and Sri Lanka. Group three is Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing, and so on.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Okay, good.

The Chair: We've eliminated South America.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: [Inaudible—Editor]...as proposed by....

The Chair: Impossible to do.

Okay, on the itinerary...

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Third, regarding the budget, for group one, to Europe, it's $49,254; group two, to India, is $86,056; and group three is $78,395. Moved?

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chair: Are there any objections?

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: [Editor's note: inaudible] ...move that.

[English]

The Chair: As an important note, we need to know from each one of you which leg of the travel you want to go on. So we'll make sure we get that to you.

Jacques will send you a questionnaire as to which leg you want to go on. You can only pick one. We need to have that by Thursday or Friday.

Ms. Anita Neville: You're doing...

The Chair: I've already announced that.

Thank you very much. We'll see you tomorrow morning.