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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 26, 2002

0910

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

Mr. Jonas Ma (President, Chinese Canadian National Council)

The Chair

Mr. Jonas Ma

Mr. Rupert Yeung (Executive Director, Ottawa Chinese Community Service Centre)

0915

Mr. Jonas Ma

The Chair

Mr. Jonas Ma

0920

Mr. Rupert Yeung

The Chair

Mr. Jonas Ma

0925

The Chair

Mr. Jonas Ma

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)

Mr. Jonas Ma

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. Jonas Ma

The Chair

Mr. Jonas Ma

The Chair

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

Mr. Jonas Ma

The Chair

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

0930

Mr. Jonas Ma

The Chair

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

Mr. Jonas Ma

The Chair

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

Mr. Rupert Yeung

The Chair

0935

Mr. Jonas Ma

The Chair

Mr. Jonas Ma

The Chair

Mr. Jonas Ma

The Chair

Mr. Eugene Czolij (President, Ukrainian Canadian Congress)

0940

0945

The Chair

Ms. Leslie Wilder

0950

The Chair

0955

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Eugene Czolij

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Eugen Duvalko (Executive Director, Ukrainian Canadian Congress)

1000

The Chair

Ms. Leslie Wilder

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Eugen Duvalko

The Chair

1005

Ms. Leslie Wilder

The Chair

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

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen (Planning Director, Jewish Federation of Winnipeg)

The Chair

Mr. Eugen Duvalko

Mr. Paul Forseth

1010

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

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

Ms. Leslie Wilder

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen

1015

The Chair

Mr. Eugen Duvalko

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1020

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Leslie Wilder

The Chair

Mr. Eugen Duvalko

1025

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen

The Chair

Mr. Eugen Duvalko

1030

Mr. Eugene Czolij

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. Eugen Duvalko

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. Eugen Duvalko

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. Eugen Duvalko

The Chair

1035

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen

The Chair

Mr. David Price

Mr. Eugen Duvalko

Mr. David Price

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen

Mr. David Price

Mr. Eugen Duvalko

The Chair

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.)

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen

1040

Mr. Eugen Duvalko

The Chair

Ms. Anne Legars (Director, Shipping Federation of Canada)

The Chair

Ms. Anne Legars

1055

The Chair

Dr. Anu Bose (Executive Director, National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada)

The Chair

1100

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

1105

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Dr. Anu Bose

1110

Mr. Paul Forseth

Dr. Anu Bose

Mr. Paul Forseth

Dr. Anu Bose

Mr. Paul Forseth

Dr. Anu Bose

Mr. Paul Forseth

Dr. Anu Bose

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Anne Legars

1145

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mrs. Karine Pelletier (Member, National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1150

The Chair

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Anne Legars

1155

Mr. Inky Mark

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

1200

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 049

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 26, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues and guests. We are considering the regulations for Bill C-11.

I want to take this opportunity to welcome our next witnesses. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress is represented by Eugene Czolij and Eugen Duvalko. From the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg we have Leslie Wilder and Faye Rosenberg-Cohen. And with us from the Chinese Canadian National Council is Jonas Ma.

Welcome, and thank you very much. I want to take this opportunity to thank you all for your submissions with regard to Bill C-11. I know some of you have attended those consultations. I want to thank you for the work you do on behalf of your various communities to help us build a great immigration policy and to help Canadians new to this country.

We've received your briefs. We'd like to ask you to summarize your brief within about seven or eight minutes each, allowing the committee time to ask some particular questions.

We are also looking at the additional question of whether or not we ought to regulate immigration consultants. The only thing I might ask you to do over and above what you've already done--and perhaps your briefs have already mentioned it--is to share any views you might have on that subject with us. Some of us might want to ask you about it, if in fact you haven't talked about it in your brief.

It's something the minister has asked us to do, something this committee and Parliament has reviewed for a long time. But in light of what we heard during Bill C-11, and what the regulations are, obviously we wouldn't mind having your opinions on what to do with regard to immigration consultants.

Having said this, let's move on with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and have Eugene and Eugen make their presentation. Welcome.

Mr. Jonas Ma (President, Chinese Canadian National Council): Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I have spoken to Mr. Lahaie about my schedule. We would like to ask to go first because we have a meeting at 9:30.

The Chair: Sure, we're very accommodating. So Mr. Ma will be first.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Thank you so much. We are looking forward to seeing that reflected in the regulation as well.

My name is Jonas Ma. I'm the president of the Ottawa chapter of the Chinese Canadian National Council. I have with me Mr. Rupert Yeung, who is also a board member of the Ottawa chapter. This presentation is presented on behalf of our national council, located in Toronto. The council has asked us to do this on their behalf.

I have our brief with us.

[Translation]

Unfortunately, we did not have the time to translate it into French. I apologize for this. However, we will be able to provide you with a French version later. I will be able to answer your questions in French.

[English]

First of all, I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to this hearing. As you know, the Chinese Canadian National Council, or in short form, CCNC, is a national, non-profit organization established in 1980 with 29 chapters across the country. Our mandate is to promote the equality rights and full participation of Chinese Canadians in all aspects of Canadian society.

We appreciate this opportunity to appear before the standing committee to comment on the proposed regulations. As we know, numerous key areas of community concern are not addressed in the original bill. We know it is a very special process for you to invite community consultation on regulation. We urge you to adopt a similar consultation process in the future legislative review of the immigration and refugee statutes and regulations.

We have concerns about the lack of coherence and clarity in the regulations--let's be blunt--which were presented without any coherent structure or easily discernable organization. I believe it was tabled in mid-December, and we were left with very little time to prepare our submission. With 400 pages of regulations, it's very difficult for community groups to come up with a very quick response. In order for the public to be able to offer constructive suggestions, these regulations must be reorganized and presented in clearer and simpler language.

Our submission on the proposed regulations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act focuses on seven areas of major concern to the Chinese Canadian community. Let me ask my colleague, Mr. Yeung, to present on the first section we would like to comment on, the permanent resident card.

Mr. Rupert Yeung (Executive Director, Ottawa Chinese Community Service Centre): While we do not object to the issuance of identity cards for permanent residents, we strongly oppose the use of any biometric data on the permanent resident's card, except in instances where the permanent resident has a criminal record.

The proposed application process will require far more personal information than is necessary to establish that the person is a permanent resident and goes beyond what Canadian citizens are required to supply when applying for a passport. This intrusive application process creates an implied perception that permanent residents are less trustworthy than Canadian citizens. There should be no obligation to provide detailed information about the applicant's history of employment, study, and travel, the periods during the last five years in which the applicant was absent from Canada, income tax returns, and guarantors. Forcing immigrants to release the above-mentioned information to Canadian immigration officials in order to maintain their landed status violates their right to privacy.

There is a need for special transitional provisions to permanent residents' cards for business immigrants, students studying abroad, those who may not meet the strict physical residency requirement for valid, compelling reasons, and those who are outside Canada when the act and regulations come into force by the end of June 2002.

We do not believe the renewal of permanent residents' cards every five years is necessary or justified. Regular renewal of permanent residents' cards will create unnecessary administrative costs and processing fees. We will support a procedure on par with citizenship cards, whereby the permanent residents' cards remain valid until revoked or abandoned by the permanent resident or upon the permanent resident becoming a Canadian citizen.

The next one we want to address is about skilled workers. We believe Canada's selection criteria for skilled workers should be based on a thorough analysis of the long-term social and economic needs of our society. In our view, the government should take a more active role to integrate skilled workers with appropriate settlement services so that their skills can be fully utilized to the benefit of Canada.

Barriers that prevent foreign professionals from receiving accreditation in Canada should be actively reviewed so that these can be eliminated and Canada can benefit from professional skills learned abroad. Our work with new immigrants from China and other Asian countries, and also recent studies, show that a majority of new immigrants bring with them professional credentials and skills that Canada does not recognize without rigorous and lengthy accreditation processes.

Applicants should be evaluated in accordance with laws that are in place at the time of the application. We believe the policy of retroactivity is unjust and contrary to procedural fairness. The pass mark of the point grid system should remain at 70. In our view, the new eligibility criteria, with a proposed pass mark of 80 points, will unduly exclude many highly qualified applicants.

CCNC believes the increased weight attributed to education and language proficiency is unnecessary and will have an adverse impact on applicants who are not from English- or French-speaking countries and applicants from countries where post-secondary education is not the norm. The increased points awarded for proficiency in English and French will adversely affect applicants from many Asian countries, from which came a significant proportion of recent immigrants who have made very significant contributions to Canadian society. We recommend the maximum points awarded for language remain at 15 rather than being increased to 20.

Under the criteria of adaptability, we believe the indicator relating to education of accompanying spouse or common-law partner of the principal applicant could adversely affect those applicants who are single. The indicator regarding the offer of employment in Canada is not applicable in our recent economic and labour market context, in which frequent job changes and readjustments are common.

Further, while we applaud the attempt to define and make objective the criteria for adaptability, we are concerned that factors such as previous study in Canada and educational level of spouse favour applicants from economically developed nations and discriminate against applicants from developing countries, especially in Asia, and lower-income families who are less likely to have those opportunities.

Thank you.

¿ (0915)

Mr. Jonas Ma: Our next point is regarding business immigrants. The term--

The Chair: We have your brief. I would appreciate it if you didn't read it word for word, in the interests of time. We really want to get to ask you some questions. So far, your brief is very well presented, with some very good work that you've done. If you would just summarize the issues, we will obviously take the time to read it word for word. But we're a bit pressed for time, and we want to ask you some questions.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Let me take up that challenge and try to bring it up to speed, given the lengthy documents we are dealing with.

I will skip the business immigrant class regarding self-employed persons, and I will briefly highlight our concern about live-in caregivers. We feel they should be provided permanent resident status without the two-year employment requirement, because they would be subject to abuse. These are mostly women we are talking about.

We also want to look at family class under sections 111 to 119. There are a few things I would like to highlight. We don't understand, what is the regulation referring to family members under the first section, and why is it defined in a more restrictive way than under section 114? That's a discrepancy we notice in the regulations.

We also want to talk about the dependent child. We believe this should be broader than only biologically defined and fully adopted children.

We also want to highlight the family class in terms of...we understand that in the new regulations this no longer includes fiancé(e)s. I think that is something we would like to see changed. We'd also like the 90-day marriage condition removed, because it will subject the spouse--again, in many cases, women--to the probability or vulnerability of abuse.

We welcome the inclusion of common-law and same-sex partners to the definition of family class. However, section 111 of the regulations says that intended common-law partners must demonstrate that a common-law partnership has not resulted from the partnership.... We question how you would demonstrate it is not a result without going into a lot of intrusive processes and looking into a lot of documents that are probably difficult to obtain. We question that requirement.

We welcome increasing the age of dependent children to 22 from 19. I believe that's a very good recommendation. We also recognize that older, unmarried children, if they are full-time students or disabled and dependent on their parents, should be included in the regulations.

Quickly, the last point is about sponsorship issues. We believe it should be shortened to three years, as this is in line with the provincial regulation regarding family support obligations. Right now we require the sponsor to be responsible for 10 years, but we feel this should be shortened.

I guess the last point is regarding refugee issues and detention and release. I believe we have a major concern, particularly with children. Maybe I'll ask Rupert to briefly summarize that point.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Rupert Yeung: As you are aware, in 1999 we probably had more than two boatloads of migrants from China. Certainly, we believe there are criminals involved in the organization of this trafficking, but we believe that putting all the underage children together with adults, probably in centres where they are mixed with other adults, or even criminals, is not a good way of handling migrants.

In Canada we have a very good record of providing protection for children in our country. In a way, I believe that the way these under-age Chinese children were being treated in those years was abhorrent. I must say that when a government, when you look at this.... I mean, you must be aware that in 1999 we did not even have the 9/11 tragedy. In those days, the kinds of measures that were taken to care for illegal migrant children.... I don't think it's a good measure of what a country can do to protect children.

Regarding the refugee issues, I know the government is trying to impose this three-year waiting period for the undocumented protected person in Canada. I think this is not necessary because these people have gone through the refugee process. As you know, the refugee process is a very vigorous and difficult process for anybody to go through. These people, having gone through the process, are still required to wait three years, and in the meantime they are not allowed to travel or sponsor family members. I think this hurts the family so much that it would take them years to catch up when they are finally given permanent resident status in Canada.

The Chair: Thank you very much. For someone who said they didn't have very much time to look at the regulations and submit a brief, let me applaud your comprehensive brief and some of your suggestions. Thank you very much.

We'll now go to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. Eugene.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could ask a couple of questions or have questions from the members, because we have to leave at 9:30, unfortunately. We're doing it in a limited time--

¿ (0925)

The Chair: I know this is an exception to the case and I'll allow it. I mean, it throws things off for us but--

Mr. Jonas Ma: I'm sorry about that and I appreciate your accommodation.

The Chair: Let's hope the questions are not very long and your answers are not long, especially if you have to get out of here in five minutes. But let's see what we can do for you.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thanks very much. I have a number, but perhaps I'll just focus on your last one about the children.

I think the intent of the government on the issue of detention, particularly when boatloads of really innocent people are arriving on our shores being smuggled by criminals, is to try to discourage it at the other end. If those people are sold a bill of goods that they're coming to Canada, the land of milk and honey, and everything's going to be wonderful and they get here and realize that's not true, then the intent is to try to get that message across to the provinces in China where these people are being lied to and perhaps threatened and that type of thing.

So I'd like some comments from you as to whether you have any alternative suggestions as to how we might discourage that. It's not only Canada. I'm sure you know that in the period of time where I think we had three boatloads, Australia had, I'm told, 50 in that same summer. So it's a world-wide phenomenon, and we need to do something other than closing our eyes, to try to put an end to that for the sake of the people who are being victimized.

The second part of the question has to do with children. Maybe you could expand further. If a young child is part of that boatload, they're likely with somebody--a parent, hopefully, or a relative of some kind--who might not be too happy about having them taken away from them.

I wonder if you have any suggestions or comments on how we might better deal with those two issues.

Mr. Jonas Ma: I will very quickly address it. I think we need to deal with the smugglers, rather than punishing those who are victims of the smuggling process.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: How do we find them, though?

Mr. Jonas Ma: I think we need to work together very closely. I guess we have the anti-terrorist field. We have worked on organized crime and terrorist organizations. I believe we can strengthen our work there.

Once these people are already in that condition, we would like to see them being treated more humanely. We are not saying we should encourage more smuggling and crime organizations to have free access. We are saying these are victims we're talking about. We should treat them humanely in the process.

On the second question about children, I guess Rupert very quickly mentioned they were being detained with adults, some of them with criminal records. We are very concerned about the conditions in which they're being detained and the places where they're being detained. I hope it addressed your questions.

I know we don't have much time. May I ask one very quick question?

The Chair: No, it's time for us to ask questions.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Thank you.

The Chair: I know you don't have time. Perhaps, for the future, you ought to be a little more respectful. I don't want to be so hard on you. We need the time obviously to ask questions of our witnesses. You have a fantastic brief. I have a number of members who would have looked forward to the opportunity of asking you some questions. It's unfortunate. I know the timing sometimes is very problematic. I'll allow you to ask a question before we finish.

Quickly, though, Judy and Inky.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): On the whole issue of people trying to get into this country illegally and relying on human smugglers, it seems to me part of the reason is people are desperate. There's a perception that you can't get into this country in legitimate ways. I think you're making recommendations to do it.

My one question is on the family class. I think it's key. We had hoped we could perhaps try to convince the government to expand the family class to include siblings, maybe even grandparents, to start to be more inclusive on that front. Would it be important? Would you support it?

Mr. Jonas Ma: I believe we made that recommendation and appeal the first time we were invited to the standing committee. We certainly support the initiative, if we can expand the inclusions of more family members in the family class.

Thank you.

The Chair: Inky, quickly.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin--Swan River, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You indicated on the retroactivity issue that applicants should be evaluated in accordance with the law at the time they applied. Unfortunately, we have a huge backlog. How do we resolve the backlog?

¿ (0930)

Mr. Jonas Ma: I believe the process can be streamlined, and perhaps adequate resources can be allocated to resolve the backlog. This would be my recommendation.

These are people who have paid the fee and were expecting to be evaluated under a certain set of regulations. Suddenly we've changed the rules of the game. I believe it's not fair to the people who have made the applications. They are probably not even going to be given back the application fee.

The Chair: Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you. You've presented us with a very comprehensive brief.

My major question was the one Mr. Mahoney asked you. You've given us a number of recommendations. One that I'm struck with is the issue of landing of refugees once they've gone through the clearance.

I'd like to know, given all the comprehensiveness of your brief and the time constraints, what would be the one or two absolute priorities in your brief?

Mr. Jonas Ma: I think I would point out maybe two. This is probably my personal viewpoint.

Ms. Anita Neville: Fair enough.

Mr. Jonas Ma: I also was in consultation with our national executive five minutes before I entered the building. They really want to see this consultation process broadened. It's only in Ottawa right now. We have a huge community in Vancouver and in Toronto. We're eager to participate in this consultation process. They were asking me to ask this question five minutes before I came in.

What would be the next steps for the standing committee? Will there be more consultations on the revised regulations? Will you go to the major metropolitan areas to do some more consultation? This is of concern to our community. This is one of the areas that I think is very key.

As Rupert has pointed out, we have concerns in different areas. I think the biggest numbers coming into the Chinese Canadian community are skilled workers from mainland China. We believe all the regulations regarding the independent class, skilled workers, are very critical for the growth and development of our country. Given the increasing trade with China, I believe it would be a huge loss to our country if we do not have more of these skilled workers coming to Canada because of the changing criteria and regulations.

The Chair: Thank you.

David, quickly.

Mr. David Price (Compton--Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is to Mr. Yeung. You talked about the resident card and you suggested that there's way too much information required. In that case then, what kind of information would you ask for, for that card? You also mentioned that passports require less information and that a resident card is renewed every five years. Well, passports are also renewed every five years. If we look at our pictures after just a couple of years, we usually tend to change quite a bit.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Speak for yourself.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Price: I'm wondering if you could just comment on what you'd really be looking for in terms of information.

Mr. Rupert Yeung: Basically, I believe that immigrants who are allowed to come into Canada have been assessed abroad very thoroughly. When they are here, we believe they are up to the kind of standard we establish in Canada.

In our current economic situation, we don't feel we need immigrants, but some years back, when our high-tech industry was really at a peak...internationally, every country was competing with each other to get the workers we needed. A lot of people, economists, are predicting the economy will turn around, probably starting in July of this year. We don't want to just sit back and wait for things to change and then react to that.

I believe we should create in this country an atmosphere whereby immigrants feel they are welcomed. All these rules and regulations are established, and immigrants are being subjected to these intrusions. I think this is not a way to attract good immigrants to this country.

The Chair: Just before I thank you and let you go on your way.... With regard to the business class, I know you didn't address it, but it's in here. One is with regard to self-employment. The present regulations allow for someone in a small business to bring in a family member to help them in the management of that business. What are your comments on that?

Specifically, with regard to the business investor immigrant program, which I believe has been fairly successful in attracting some very talented and entrepreneurial people, especially from China, to come to this country and help build businesses and in fact create employment.... Can you briefly tell me what you think about those two issues?

¿ (0935)

Mr. Jonas Ma: We did not have extensive consultation on those issues, but I think the current programs work relatively well. At least it was not a concern that was brought up in our consultations within our community. Perhaps there are things I'm not aware of that maybe Rupert would comment on regarding investment.

The Chair: Other than the fact that the new regulations won't make it possible to bring in someone to help with your small business.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Yes, that's correct.

The Chair: That's one of the problems we've heard about.

In answer to your question, then, I'll thank you very much for your brief. This is a very unique thing that this committee has done, to review the regulations. In fact, usually regulations are pre-gazetted or pre-published, allowing any Canadian to give their comment to the government within 60 days. I know hundreds of Canadians are doing that as we speak. This committee wanted to deal with the regulations because we were told--and I think you told us this during Bill C-11, when this committee did travel across the country--to be careful of the regulations; hence that's what we're doing.

We're trying to consult with as many people as possible. Unfortunately, there is not the time to travel. We believe some of the national organizations are very well represented, including yours, not only here in Ottawa as you came down, but in Vancouver and so on. Unfortunately, sometimes travel is absolutely not necessary in order to make sure people can do it. We continue, and people have written directly to the government with regard to these regulations.

The process is that hopefully by March 15, which is really an extension of a month over what the usual 60 days is, we will submit a report to the House of Commons and to the minister with suggestions and recommendations based on what we've heard, not only directly but indirectly. Hopefully the government and the minister will listen and implement the new regulations.

While it's premature for me to tell you what's going to be in that report, I'm confident that some of the stuff you've told us about will find its way into our report. We've been very impressed, as I am today with your submission, and want to thank you for your input.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Thank you.

The Chair: We'll move on to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and Eugene and Eugen for their submission.

Mr. Eugene Czolij (President, Ukrainian Canadian Congress): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I'm president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. Joining me today is Mr. Eugen Duvalko, executive director of the Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress, also known as UCC, is the national coordinating body of the Ukrainian Canadian community. Since 1940 the UCC has actively participated in the development of national policies and programs that impact not only on Ukrainian Canadians but on Canadian society as a whole. Throughout its 60-year history, the UCC has taken a proactive approach on such issues as multiculturalism, citizenship, immigration, justice matters, constitutional development, and foreign affairs.

The Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society is a charitable community-based organization founded in 1974. It is a member organization of the UCC and the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. The Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society was established with the purpose of promoting and assisting in the immigration of Ukrainian-speaking individuals from eastern Europe. Its other major area of activity is to assist people through the immigration process.

[Translation]

It is a pleasure for us to appear before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to present the point of view of the Canadian Ukrainian community with respect to the proposed Regulations on Immigration and Refugee Protection.

[English]

Given the limited amount of time available, I will highlight only the principal points of the three main areas of the UCC written submission, which was previously forwarded to the standing committee, namely, the application of regulations, the selection criteria, and the recognition of the multicultural character of Canada.

During the consideration of Bill C-11, the UCC recommended that prior to the adoption of new immigration regulations, public hearings be undertaken.

¿ (0940)

[Translation]

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress was reassured by the decision taken by the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to extend the work of this committee to allow it to hear submissions from as many Canadians as possible regarding the proposed regulations on immigration.

[English]

According to the UCC, fairness, transparency, and predictability should be the core tenets of Canada's immigration legislation and regulations. That is why the UCC has serious reservations about the transitional measures described in section 259 of the proposed regulations, which allow for the retroactive application of the selection criteria.

In addition, paragraph 49(1)(b) and section 65 bring uncertainty to the immigration process, since prospective immigrants must meet the prescribed criteria that are in place both when their applications are submitted and when the final visas are processed. Therefore, the UCC recommends that Canada continue its long-standing tradition of reviewing applicant eligibility based on the criteria in place at the time of application.

Mr. Chairman, Ukraine has been the source country of some 3,000 immigrants to Canada per year since 1991, and 80% of those are selected as skilled worker immigrants. As mentioned in the written UCC submission, the proposed changes to the skilled worker category will place potential immigrants from Ukraine at a systemic disadvantage since the selection criteria are not properly aligned with the educational and economic realities in Ukraine. Indeed, highly skilled tradespeople such as tool-and-die makers, mould-makers, and others, are prevented from achieving high marks under the education criteria since their normal course of study does not offer training that will add up to 15 years of formal education, as set out in subsection 67(2) of the proposed regulations. A highly skilled tradesperson from the Ukraine will normally have 13 years of formal education.

Furthermore, the requirement of having available settlement funds equivalent to a full year of income based on the LICO standard is another barrier to entry for the best and the brightest of the less wealthy economies. Indeed, individuals or families from transitional economies will not have the necessary resources to meet the settlement funds requirement in order to emigrate to Canada.

[Translation]

Over the past decade, Ukrainian immigrants have shown that they can successfully integrate into Canadian society. The two factors that often best illustrate this success is the rate of full-time employment, and home ownership.

[English]

A recent study referred to in the UCC written submission concerning immigrants from the Ukraine indicates that 89% enjoyed full-time employment and 22% were homeowners after three and a half years in Canada. This study also showed that many have established successful businesses, creating jobs and economic growth for Canada. It is this type of immigrant that Canada will be excluding with the new selection criteria in the proposed regulations. Therefore, the UCC recommends that educational criteria be based on equivalencies as opposed to years of formal schooling and that the settlement funds requirement remain at the previous level, which is the equivalent of a six-month, low-income, cut-off amount.

Furthermore, the adaptability criteria do not take into account community support for prospective immigrants. It is UCC's experience that communities go to great lengths to assist new immigrants. Such community support allows for a much smoother integration of immigrants into Canadian society. Therefore, the UCC recommends that proposed regulation 71 award 10 points for individuals who have community support in Canada.

Moreover, the proposed regulations require that foreign nationals apply at the immigration office that serves their place of habitual residence. According to the UCC, this is an unnecessary restriction in our immigration process.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, historically, Canada has greatly benefited from the contributions made by immigrants, and it should respect its commitment to the principle of multiculturalism.

The Ukrainian Congress of Canada was satisfied with the decision taken by Parliament to incorporate our recommendation for subsection 3(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to stipulate that one of the Act's objectives is to enrich and strengthen the social and cultural fabric of Canada, while respecting its multicultural character. However, the proposed regulations do not incorporate this legislative objective.

¿ (0945)

[English]

Therefore, the UCC recommends that the proposed regulations reflect the objective of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to maintain multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of our society.

We thank you for your attention, and we would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Eugene. That was equally impressive and comprehensive, and I'm sure we'll have some questions for you.

Right now we'll go to Leslie and her group, the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg. Welcome, Leslie.

Ms. Leslie Wilder (Vice-President, Human Resources Development, Jewish Federation of Winnipeg): Thank you. I'm Leslie Wilder, the vice-president of human resource development at the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg. My group includes Faye Rosenberg-Cohen, our planning director, who will be joining us in the question period.

The Jewish Federation of Winnipeg/Combined Jewish Appeal is the central community organization for Winnipeg Jewry. We raise and distribute funds within the community, which currently is at 14,000 individuals. In the census in 1961 we were at a larger population of 19,000, and we are presently in the midst of our Grow Winnipeg campaign, with a target of 18,000 by 2010.

The effort to increase the population will be complemented by efforts to identify employment opportunities for young people and renewal of ethnocultural programming and other long-term initiatives. These long-term initiatives are in partnership with the Province of Manitoba, the Business Council of Manitoba, and other community groups, other large employment groups, and other social service organizations within the community.

Our community requires population growth to strengthen our schools, cultural programs, religious institutions, and the vibrancy of Jewish life in Winnipeg. We have had a formal plan for immigration over the past five years. It's taken us some time to develop it, but we are at the point where it is working very smoothly. We encourage people who choose to come to Winnipeg to come on exploratory visits, so they know us and our community before coming here.

We have large pre-migration files within our Jewish federation office and within our Jewish Child and Family Services where we have been corresponding with people over several years, as they have been making their decisions.

We are presently involved in providing pre-migration assistance to dozens of prospective skilled independent immigrants. I'm appreciative of your time restraints, and there are similarities with the comments made by the previous speakers, so we will not go into that in detail, as it is presented in our brief.

At present, those to whom we have offered pre-migration assistance and our integration and resettlement services within the community are enjoying a 100% employment rate. They are contributors as taxpayers, they are contributors within the community and the schools, and they are enjoying wonderful, vibrant Canadian life.

Our strategic plan for growth includes continuing our relationship with the province to promote Manitoba as a destination for prospective immigrants. A recent federation visit to Buenos Aires, in partnership with the Business Council of Manitoba and the province, was very successful. It was held last May, and we have planned 30 exploratory visits and are looking for many more.

We have many challenges with those who choose to come to Canada. Many are coming from Argentina, where they have experienced a downward cycle in the economy and a downward value of their peso, which makes it difficult to accumulate the resettlement dollars. In addition, we have many who choose to come from the former Soviet Union--Ukraine and other republics. These are highly educated experienced individuals, with many diverse skills and professions.

There are now banking restrictions in Argentina that make it difficult to amass the resettlement dollars within the period of time. In other countries, applicants can become unemployed and see their savings depleted while waiting for their applications to be processed in two years or more.

The potential impact of the federal regulations for skilled workers is severe for many of the high-skilled immigrants. The pass mark has now become too high for most of the skilled individuals, and the recent surveys we have conducted informally indicate that those who have arrived and are currently employed would not be eligible under the new proposed regulations.

¿ (0950)

The consequence of the proposed system is that many people who would easily become economically successful and contributing Canadians will not be improved. That in turn places undue strain on the Manitoba nominee program, as prospective immigrants compete for approval in Manitoba where their value is still recognized. And that is a key component of our partnership with the province over the past few years.

For many of the applicants with whom we are in contact, the time that has elapsed while their application is being processed has a significant impact on the funds they will have available for resettlement should they be approved. In Argentina the applicant may be watching their savings devalue. With regard to employment in the former Soviet Union, they may be living on savings they would otherwise use to come here. In many cases, the wait times create a severe problem for the applicant even though they continue to be employed in their home country.

We have proposed three recommendations. The first is to add 10 points for adaptability when a local community is involved in welcome and resettlement. That has been a very successful model for us. We work in partnerships with our Jewish Child and Family Services on resettlement. The integration component is handled by people from our senior services, from our schools, from our day care. It really is a true partnership. We find that people who experience the full integration process achieve employment quicker and a higher comfort level and integrate into the community and the province as a whole much more quickly.

Increase the number of Manitoba nominees significantly. The number of applicants who will no longer satisfy the proposed federal regulation is high. However, many of them will satisfy the criteria for Manitoba, because they are highly educated and in professions that are in high demand. However, it must be understood that these additional individuals and families are not solely suitable for Manitoba. They are individuals who will fulfill the stated objective of having economically successful skilled worker immigrants.

The third is to evaluate resource levels to find ways of reducing processing time. That has become increasingly frustrating especially for those who are in Argentina, as they are watching their savings devalue and no movement on the bank restrictions.

I'd like to thank you for your time, and we look forward to answering questions from the panel.

The Chair: Thank you, Leslie and Faye. I must tell you that the committee was very impressed when we travelled to Manitoba, and to Winnipeg specifically, with a province that in fact has a model provincial nominee agreement and that in fact aggressively wants more immigrants. That's a true tribute to your presentation and others. Of course, this committee has three members from Winnipeg, so I can't help but tell you that helps too.

Let's go to questions, and we'll start with Anita.

¿ (0955)

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've met several times with the representatives of the Winnipeg Jewish Federation, so I think I'm well aware of their concerns and their comments.

I have some questions that I would like to ask the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. You talk in your last recommendation about the issue of multiculturalism and the importance of maintaining the multicultural fabric of Canada. There have been some informal discussions among members just generally about that aspect and whether it should be included in the bill. We also saw yesterday a report in the newspapers where the Canadian Council on Social Development spoke to the issue of members of visible minorities with the skills and educational background not being able to get the same job opportunities based on racism.

You talked about multiculturalism, which I'm certainly sympathetic to. How would you see incorporating that into the bill, so that it is reflective of the diversity of our country, which to my mind will only increase?

Mr. Eugene Czolij: I think it's a broader question, and I'll refer you to the “Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement”, where there's a specific section entitled “Gender-based Analysis,” where one sees that:

Gender-based analysis (GBA) is an analytical framework that assesses the differential impacts of policy, programs and legislation for men and women and for different groups of men and women. As the procedures, exceptions and other details necessary for the administration of the Immigration Program are included in the Regulations, gender-based analysis of the Regulations is ongoing. It is anticipated that pre-publication of the Regulations and the current Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) may reveal additional gender and diversity considerations that will inform GBA. An analysis of the gender impact of the Regulations will be included in the RIAS accompanying the regulations submitted for final Governor-in-Council approval.

We believe that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration should also prepare and submit to this standing committee and to the Governor in Council a multiculturalism analysis assessing whether the proposed regulations respect the multicultural character of Canada.

Furthermore, the proposed regulations should attribute a certain number of points to individuals who have the necessary qualities or skills to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians, for instance, by speaking in languages other than the two official ones, or knowing sufficiently about a particular culture.

This is a great opportunity for Parliament and this standing committee to implement what we have inserted in paragraph 3(1)(b) of the legislation, and to indicate that this is not simply a hollow statement to satisfy or appease the ethnocultural communities in Canada; it is to seriously address the issue and to address it completely.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

You talk about educational criteria to be based on equivalencies as opposed to formal learning. Would you also look at the issue of prior learning assessment? Are you familiar with that concept?

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Yes.

Ms. Anita Neville: It's people being assessed on their abilities, which may not necessarily be focused on the job.

Mr. Eugen Duvalko (Executive Director, Ukrainian Canadian Congress): In a perfect world, that would be an excellent tool that we could provide our visa officers to assess what skills the applicant is bringing to Canada. We do have to worry about overwhelming the immigration officer with too much fine tuning or too much searching for equivalency. What is proposed in the regulations is I think too much of a rough cut, and it doesn't take into consideration some glaring inequalities in the education system.

À (1000)

The Chair: Leslie, would you comment on that one too?

Ms. Leslie Wilder: I'm familiar with prior learning. I think on paper it is an excellent idea. It's been very successful in educational institutions where it has been used.

I would share the same concern as Eugen. It is very paper consuming. The other concern I may have is that it can be quite subjective, so the evaluating officers would really have to be very well trained, and the scales would have to be as objective as possible to be used. But I think it's something that should be looked at very seriously, because it truly addresses the skilled worker and the scenario that Eugene gave of craftsmen coming from the Ukraine and eastern Europe.

Ms. Anita Neville: I have one quick question.

Both presentations spoke about increasing the number of points for community support. I can't recall whether other communities have brought that forward. I think it's a very important point. Would you see establishing a grid where out of 10 points, based on certain criteria, the points were assigned because of community support, or would it be an automatic 10 points?

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: There are two potential models for this. We have experienced good success under a sponsorship agreement holder system, where a community committed itself to support a family once they came into Canada. Granted, that was a refugee situation where we understood that a refugee or the refugee family were coming with nothing. Nevertheless, there was a mechanism for the social and emotional support a newcomer family needed, which should be transferred into the support networks we should provide to independent immigrants. That's one model.

Another model is we can take a look again at the provincial initiative in Manitoba. Right now they are recognizing a family-like support structure: a group of five individuals willing to sign affidavits that they will actually meet at the airport and work on the integration of that family into Canada.

I believe we should tap into the enthusiasm most segments of Canadian society have for immigration and let them become the promoters of immigration and show the benefits of immigration. I believe both our communities have had successes using the community initiative to attract immigrants to our country.

I guess the Manitoba situation is very specific, where they actually try to attract numbers just to get people into the country. The initiative and the good work of the community in Winnipeg is a prime example. They're interested in having members in their community. At the same time, these members are citizens of the province, and so the population objective of the province is attained.

What we're suggesting is that regulations should use that hidden resource, or not explicitly stated resource, and I would say award 10 points in lieu of that informal job offer that's offered now, because I would like the support to be much more than just a piece of paper offering a job some time in the future.

Let's get more than one person involved and have a large network of support.

The Chair: Leslie, you can offer a short comment on that one too.

À (1005)

Ms. Leslie Wilder: It will be very short.

I think a maximum should also be given for a community such as the Jewish communities across the country that have the Jewish Child and Family Services or the Jewish Immigrant Aid Services as official offices, with professional case managers and support and programs for host families and integration, because there is a structure that's measurable with outcomes. These organizations need outcome measurement for funding. It's there and it is a creditive service. And that's where the max should be applied.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'll go to Paul, but before I do, thank you, Gene.

With regard to multiculturalism, I just wanted to say I think it was the multicultural communities that impressed upon this committee the need to insert multiculturalism in the objectives part of Bill C-11, which is the legislation that talks about our multicultural character. So I want to thank you very much because it's there, and that's where it needs to be: in the legislation.

As for regulations, we'll talk a little bit about how we can do that, and I think you said it. But I wanted to make sure everybody knows who may be listening or watching that in fact the celebration of our multicultural character is in the legislation now, and that came about because of the representations that were made. I think you indicated that it was in paragraph (b) of subsection 3(1).

So thank you for that, Gene.

Paul.

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

I'd like to address the submission by the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg, and perhaps the other presenters may want to chime in as well.

On page 3 of your brief, under the impact of the proposed regulations you talk about the pass mark and you say:

The potential impact of the new Federal regulations for the SKILLED WORKER CLASS (VIII -- PART 5, DIVISION 1, AND PART 16 in the Canada Gazette Part 1, December 15, 2001) is severe for the many highly skilled individuals now making enquiries of the Winnipeg Jewish Federation.

You say:

The “pass mark” is too high for most skilled individuals. Our initial survey indicates that those who have already come and integrated into our community in the last several years would not pass. Most people would not qualify even though they are in fields with job opportunities in Winnipeg and the resources to apply. Indeed many of those born in Canada with higher levels of education would also not be eligible under the new point system, even though their skills are in demand.

You make the very clear case of the pass mark and justifying that, but then this implies that you've had a look at how the overall system works and perhaps taken various case examples and plugged them through, attributing the numbers and working it out.

So in consequence of that, what conclusion have you drawn in the end as to where that critical pass mark should be? Have you done some charting to figure out a clear recommendation as to what the number should be? Should it be 75? Should it be 70?

And on page 4 of the submission you suggest, perhaps in answer: “Add 10 points for Adaptability when a local community is involved in welcome and resettlement.” I put it to you, have you also looked at some of the categories in terms of perhaps ones that should not even be there in the first place? One comment I've heard is that this whole business of job offers creates an incentive for fraud and really is an unworkable situation in the long run anyway, and the numbers should be rejigged, perhaps eliminating some of the various categories that are providing numbers to the applicant.

So that's somewhat of a complicated question, but it gets down to the point of looking at your work and your analysis in terms of what should the number be. Also, have you done some analysis as to what are the essential factors where numbers of credit should be given and as to some of those that perhaps should be just taken off the application altogether?

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen (Planning Director, Jewish Federation of Winnipeg): We haven't reviewed items that should be taken off the application, although in our actual pre-migration consultations with people we have not provided job offers or provided contacts that would lead to job offers in advance. We've worked primarily with people who probably aren't in the position to come and do that job search and receive those offers in advance.

In terms of the level of pass mark, I was actually trying it out on a variety of people I knew last night as I added up the numbers, which has become a habit since I first read the regulations. I think we could safely say that most of the people we are talking to who have bachelor's degrees, or have a family where there are two of them--and I agreed with the comment that in some ways it discriminates against single people because you practically have to marry a spouse with a master's degree to get through the point system.

I think the mark of 70 worked very well if we didn't have those 10 points for adaptability. With the points for adaptability, perhaps it could be a little bit higher. It could be 75, and most people would still then get through, if they had that community connection.

The Chair: Eugen, do you want to address the question of the pass mark as well as the--

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: As the first phase of assessment, 70 is a good pass mark, but the pass mark is not a tool that's going to help you with the levels of how many people can apply, and that should be another system of screening or another measure. The levels control should be done independently of the pass mark of the immigrant.

Mr. Paul Forseth: In terms of the supplemental part of that, was there any particular category in assigning points that you felt was really unworkable or for which it was questionable as to why it should be there in the first place?

À (1010)

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen: I think we found that job offers were very hard to come by and very rare, and that's a rather large number of points. But there are people who of course are recruited from a distance in high-tech fields and in other fields who would certainly come with that requirement.

Mr. Paul Forseth: All right. That's consistent with some of the testimony I've heard elsewhere, that the whole category should perhaps be eliminated.

I'll conclude for now.

[Translation]

The Chair: Madeleine, you have the floor.

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

Your testimony agrees almost entirely with what we have heard. There is a lot of work to be done for the regulations to be practical and respectful of the reality in Canada, Quebec and Manitoba as a homeland.

I would like to come back to community organizations that provide services to new immigrants. I agree with you, Leslie, that the Jewish community is particularly active and effective, and provides much assistance. I am less familiar with the Ukrainian community, but I believe that it must be similar to the Greek and Italian communities in Montreal.

You have referred to the situation in Argentina. Everyone knows that for some time now the situation there has been deteriorating. The comments you made are correct, especially regarding the financial resources that are necessary to immigrate.

I have one question. I am very curious. What percentage of the Argentine population is Jewish? This is just for information purposes.

In your presentation, you have stated that one of the reasons why the Jewish community in Winnipeg should grow is to strengthen its schools, its cultural programs, its religious institutions and its vitality.

My question is somewhat particular. I look at this very objectively and I ask myself what role does intercultural breeding play here. A large country such as Canada, where we all live together, was built especially through interbreeding. I would like to know your reactions to this. I would like to hear from you, also, on the subject of cultural interbreeding because I believe that this is fundamental for there to be a true integration of new citizens who, in forty years, will be old citizens.

[English]

Ms. Leslie Wilder: I'll start. I think it's a very fair point. If you do look at it coldly, it does look as if it is for our community.

Winnipeg, I think, is a very special community, as is Manitoba. We're known for our multiculturalism. We offer the first step of being in the new country and getting connected to your faith-based organizations. Within that, there is joint programming throughout the integration process. As an example, and Faye will add on to this as well, seniors have become a special category that we are currently resettling. We have ESL programs for seniors within our Jewish community campus. Part of that ESL programming is to join with other seniors several times a year from other communities within the international centre.

The children in our community are constantly doing joint programming with other schools in the public system in Manitoba. In Winnipeg schools, we have bilingual programs--Ukrainian bilingual, Chinese bilingual, French bilingual--in the public schools. Everybody is integrating well and maintaining a pride in their heritage.

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen: I think one of the best assets of Manitoba is its multicultural fabric. What you can see is the people who arrive participate in Jewish community activities, they participate in the Spanish Canadian Club, they participate in the Russian Canadian Club and they volunteer in several of our pavilions in our multicultural festival each summer in Winnipeg, called Folklorama.

I think they become active proponents of life in Manitoba and get very involved in business sectors and volunteer work and all kinds of different sectors, not just specifically within our ethnic communities. I think that is probably true for most of our ethnic communities; that we have magnificent cross-cultural associations as well. Our kids went off to the Festival des Voyageurs just a couple of weeks ago, which is a fantastic festival that happens in winter.

I think the more immigration we have, the more it reinforces the beauty and the fabric of what we have in Manitoba now.

À (1015)

The Chair: Eugen.

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: A quick comment is that the communities we have come out of do not live in isolation. We are well integrated into the Canadian mainstream.

It's just that, in addition to being lovers of ice hockey or being really enthusiastic about chess, we also like a cultural component. And the communities we would like to have maintained are vibrant, not just on an ethnic basis, vibrantly enhanced by immigration, but also by other groups, other communities, based on non-ethnic interests--professions, sports, hobbies. This is the benefit of immigration; we get the talents from outside coming in.

The Chair: I was just adding that eating is a great past time--non-ethnic.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope you just heard the message we've received from both groups, that Winnipeg is the shining, the best, example of multiculturalism in Canada.

The Chair: And if you want to make a motion that Manitoba should receive at least another 20,000 immigrants right now, I'm sure you will get them.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think we're about ready to do that.

À (1020)

The Chair: Okay, we'll look forward to it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The irony of this meeting today is that here we are talking with people who know Winnipeg very well and how successful it has been at the integration of people from all over the world--in fact, between the Ukrainian community and the Jewish community, we probably have years and years of history and experience with actual successful integration--yet Winnipeg is desperately in need of immigrants, and our Immigration Act has not served us well.

It's useful to talk about the nominee program and to make recommendations for increased numbers under that program, but the nominee program is a mechanism used because of the shortcomings of the legislation. That's the fact of the matter.

We have to take lessons from the nominee program and apply them to the task at hand and improve the regulations. Who wants to always be doing an end run around the system? We want to institutionalize, make systemic and systematic, the task or the issues at hand.

So I have several questions, and I'm going to run out of time. Let me start with adaptability.

I think both of you are saying exactly the same thing, and I'd just like clarification of that. Both the UCC and the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg are saying that we need another 10 points to reflect the supports of the established ethnic organizations in that community and the supports of family as well. I just want a clarification of this.

Do you see us running into any trouble trying to make this recommendation happen? Do we need to come up with a mechanism for how it would work, or do we have enough knowledge, does our Immigration Department have enough information, to do it now?

The second question has to do with sponsorship based on whether we're talking about skilled workers or family members in terms of income requirements. Certainly UCC makes a recommendation around going back to the six-month LICO. But why do we keep applying a figure that reflects the cost of living in large cities, which may not apply in other parts of the country? For example, we apply a LICO amount based on large centres of over 500,000 like Toronto, which has a cost of living much higher than Winnipeg. This puts artificial requirements in place.

Would you recommend that we have some flexibility in terms of the financial requirements imposed on either the skilled worker settling here or the family sponsoring a family member to come and settle here?

Here's my last question. Yesterday a major report came out by the Canadian Council on Social Development entitled Does a Rising Tide Lift All Boats? It actually presents some pretty startling findings around the fact that a good percentage of our immigrants are actually living in poverty because we don't recognize the credentials of people coming from other countries and we haven't moved very much on substantial equivalency. This was one of the major recommendations.

I'm wondering if you've read the report or if you have some comments on this whole approach and what we can do about it as part of the regulations.

The Chair: Thank you, Judy, for the very excellent questions and for the great promotion for Winnipeg and Manitoba. That's a paid political advertisement, right?

Leslie.

Ms. Leslie Wilder: I'll just answer quickly. When it comes to clarification, Faye's the expert at that.

Going from back to front, certainly there is a need to do something about the professional accreditation scenario in every profession that I am aware of. I know it's a tough negotiation between government and the professional societies, and I encourage you to use your weight.

On the middle comment, I think it's an interesting suggestion regarding tying the dollars needed to cost of living. However, you may find that immigrants may travel, and then they may be short with some cash in their jeans. So that could be tricky.

On your first point regarding whether there is sufficient information within government as to which resettlement services are out there, I know there are national organizations of resettlement services. I cannot comment as to who's holding what information, but I think that could be a series of meetings just to see who has what and what they're offering in the levels of accreditation and professionalism. I think it's key to look at the professional levels of these resettlement agencies and make sure everybody's held to the same level of standard, which would have been my comment about immigration consultants as well.

The Chair: Further on the LICO, the low-income cut-off, as well as the 10 points on adaptability, I'll pass it over to Eugene and Eugen.

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: On the adaptability and how we measure it, I think the first comment that will come back from the department is “How do we enforce it? How do we make sure it's legitimate?” Well, I throw it back to the department. You suggested this informal job offer. How do you vet that?

To be more constructive than just providing rebuttal, a sponsorship agreement is a mechanism that seems to be working. There's a requirement for a settlement plan. So there is a model we can work with to get to work on community adaptability.

For the LICO, currently the LICO is sensitive to population. There's a population grid and there are LICO equivalents for the less populated areas. The proposal suggests a standard for all of Canada, based on the fact that people may gravitate to larger urban areas. So I guess the counter-proposal for the regulation is to maintain the LICO scheme as it is now, which would be sensitive to the lower cost to survive in less populated areas. Nevertheless, immigrants, being entrepreneurial and ambitious people, will gravitate to areas of lower expenses.

As far as integrating newcomers, we have that issue.... Most importantly, will the employer trust you with your skills? We get back to the issue of Canadian experience. There is a systemic difficulty in recognizing overseas credentials. We're chipping away at it. There are provincial governments. Ontario is working with an educational comparative organization to understand the overseas credentials people are coming with and to inform employers or industry groups and make them aware of what people are coming in with.

À (1025)

The Chair: Thank you.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First let me welcome all our witnesses, with certainly a special welcome to the Manitobans.

I have two questions. The first one deals with the selection grid. You know that the new changes are based on the human capital model, which is supposed to get rid of the old occupational listing. Supposedly, the new model meets the needs of the knowledge-based economy. On those points, do you think the government is moving a little too fast and that we need to perhaps merge the two models? There's the old occupational listing, keeping in mind that knowledge-based is about the future.

My second question deals with the adaptability factor. I certainly agree that's an important one. Under the adaptability factor, on the federal side, the non-family support is totally absent. I believe we put ourselves in a box. Even when you look at the point system of 100, when you look at the provincial nominee programs, they're more than 100. There's a maximum of something like 123 for Quebec and it's as low as 83 for New Brunswick.

On that point, in Manitoba, we give 5 points to the adaptability. Would you suggest that we increase the points, realizing that Manitoba is still having a problem with fulfilling its immigration needs with a pass mark of 55? It certainly demonstrates the contrast with the pass mark on the federal selection grid.

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen: I would point out that the 55 is on a different grid, so it's not quite exactly the same pass mark, but I think that family-like support or community support is not always just a financial guarantee.

At a resettlement forum a year ago, we heard from people who talked about coming to Manitoba and felt like they were able to settle because they made contact with someone, a cousin or a friend or a neighbour who was already there, or someone they met while they went on an exploratory and who made them feel they had the capacity to meet people and settle down in our community.

So I think it's important to recognize that community support is not just family support and it's not just a financial guarantee.

I'm sorry, but I forgot your first question.

Mr. Inky Mark: The question was about merging the new selection philosophy versus the occupational list philosophy.

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen: I don't think I can speak specifically to using the occupation list as much as I could encourage you to match the actual labour market needs with the skills of the people who are interested in coming, and not just the highly skilled knowledge workers. For instance, in regard to the needs we have, the provincial nominee program was used extensively in Manitoba to go after people in the needle trade and in the garment business, not because they had PhDs but because they were skilled sewing machine operators or could do a certain volume of work in that industry. I think it's important to match the labour market needs with the actual skills of the people who are available.

The Chair: Eugene or Eugen, do you have any comments on these questions on adaptability and the human capital model?

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: On the human capital model, let me start from the position of our experience. I've been working at this for 10 years. I've seen people succeed in Canada in spite of a lot of barriers, in spite of not having the best education and not having the best knowledge of English. I'm sure this committee has heard testimony on that type of character. The human capital model cannot predict how a person will do in Canada. You can be highly educated and have a good knowledge of English, but you can just fail in this competitive world that we call modern Canada.

I understand the intent behind having it if somebody is well educated and well versed in one of the two official languages. I just think that maybe we're placing too much emphasis on this in helping them succeed in Canada without looking to other things the person has. How do you measure that fire in the belly a person has?

Part of that measure could be a community that knows, that can sort of suss out whether that applicant or that family has the intestinal fortitude to survive. That's going to be part of the screen. The proposed grid takes a look at only high skill levels A or B or the management level, which is good and I support that part, which I see as a combination of the occupational, that you have something that you were good at once, as long as you're informed that as an immigrant you may not be working in your previous occupation for a while or that you may abandon that in pursuit of other opportunities that are available in Canada. That was the drawback of the current system: you were tied into your profession. There's reinforcement that you're as good as your profession.

Eugene wants to speak next.

À (1030)

Mr. Eugene Czolij: That's right, about the 10 points. You mentioned five. Section 71 provides a maximum of 10 points for adaptability and we're suggesting that 10 be attributed for community support.

The Chair: We'll have just three quick questions from Steve, Dave, and Mark.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Three each?

The Chair: No, one each. Pick your best one.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm not from Manitoba, but I do go fishing in Kenora, which I think is Manitoba east, with the number of Manitobans there.

On the grid system, there is some irony in the statement that:

The new regulations provide for the selection of Skilled Worker immigrants based on a human capital approach — for their flexible skills — rather than intended occupation.

Then they're awarded points based on their intended occupation. I really think we all agree that the skilled worker issue needs to be revised.

I'm wondering if either of you or both of you would agree with taking the second category, which is a bachelor's degree requiring three years, or a trade certificate, etc., requiring three years, which is at 20--and equating those two makes sense--and then subsequently making the next two levels, which only change by one year in terms of the number of years required to get your certificate, the same at 15. Would that be more fair?

The other aspect is this: are you suggesting a third single grid for 10 points for community support, or would you put that into the existing adaptability grid, where the maximum is 10 points no matter what you do? Are you saying 10 on top or 10 for adaptability as an alternative to a spouse or a family member?

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: I get first crack at placing the adaptability. The 10 points for community support would be under the adaptability category. We're trying to measure your connection to Canada. You may have a close family relative in Canada. You may have some experience living in Canada through reasons of work or study. What's your third connection? A community who is out there who's going to go to bat for you is sort of a natural place.

The Chair: It's a bonus adaptability.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's not what I'm hearing. You're saying it would be in the 10-point section. We're not increasing the score to 110. It's just another way of getting there.

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: It's another way of getting the connection with Canada.

The Chair: Another question is on the way in, the certificate, and the BA, as an example. What do you think about giving them equal stature of 20 points?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: They have it under this. My question was if you go to the next two that deal with two-year full-time studies, a total of 14 years, or one year and a total of 13 years, it's a ticket. Be it a trade certificate or whatever, you have it. You might have it from the Ukraine with a one-year study program, five years of work experience, or whatever. Would you agree to making the two categories equal?

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: We recognize they are equal tickets or passports into the economy. If you do have a trade certificate, maybe we should add in the experience.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It does down below.

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: With experience, you can start working just as quickly, or have equal access to the economy, as you would finishing a BA. There shouldn't be a 10-point section.

The Chair: I'm sorry to have to push you along, but we're running out of time.

À (1035)

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen: It's a tricky issue in terms of evaluating someone's abilities and skills. I would put it to you that my father-in-law came here more than 30 years ago because they were recruiting workers from England in the garment industry. He had experience that demonstrated he was a skilled pattern maker, cutter, and designer. It was what was needed. He probably does not have a piece of paper that says so. He may have had a certificate that indicated some lower level of skill.

I think it's a very difficult problem to evaluate someone's credentials and education from another source. While I can't speak to this specifically in terms of the points, I would say it's what we're trying to achieve. We're trying to say we know someone has the skill to work in an industry here. We want to provide the points there to make sure they get through the system.

The Chair: Thank you.

David.

Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To continue along on the skilled worker, I think you've answered a lot of the questions. If we look at the construction industry, people tend to be a bit nomadic or drift from job to job. How would you gauge the person?

First of all, I should say I mean someone who is a skilled construction worker, not with a fixed skill, such as an electrician or plumber. Construction labour tends to be quite often more than that. How would you gauge it? What do you suggest as a way of gauging it?

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: I have no clear solution for general labour. A bricklayer may have to have some sort of education or formal understanding.

Mr. David Price: We see many skilled labourers who are really good come from other countries. They have no formal education, or almost none, but have worked for ten or fifteen years in a particular trade.

You mention the furniture maker. I think of a furniture maker who actually works on his own in his basement, and has done so for years, as an artist. Yet there is no paperwork anywhere to prove it.

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen: We expect he can probably demonstrate experience. He can probably show you his product in some way. The construction worker may have a track record of working consistently that would allow you to believe he was good enough to be desired from project to project.

Mr. David Price: As I said, it's usually difficult to trace because they tend to be nomadic.

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: If I had a situation currently, I'd be looking at positive discretion, trying to lay a common-sense application on what's going to happen.

The Chair: Positive discretion--I like that.

Mark, final question.

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): I'd like to take up where Anita and Judy left off on adaptability. This is the first time I have heard of this idea of adding points for adaptability when a local community is involved. I think it's a good idea.

I just want a brief explanation of how it could work. Let's assume that either the Jewish, the Ukrainian, the Portuguese, the Greek in Montreal, or the Italian community in Toronto were a well organized community, which I'm sure you people are, and were very well structured and had resources, because you always have to have resources so you can prove to the authorities you're well equipped to handle people, be it for housing, language training, whatever. Now if a community had this, when somebody applied from abroad, because they would have these services waiting for them, the applicant should therefore be given additional points. Is it that simple?

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen: That's one aspect of it, and certainly we have that infrastructure in place. But in some cases, in some of our communities, some of that service is provided by volunteers. Again, there is a model where we could demonstrate that the supports are there, or, as Eugen has said, the connection is there to family-like sponsors. There are people who will make a commitment to care for a family and help them integrate.

I think an established service structure is not the only criteria for showing community support, although we can go back and look into our relative histories and say that the established infrastructure was not always simply a service structure, as in agencies that provided service, but it was also provided by our local communities and synagogues and churches and the involvement of the people in the community in providing that support.

À (1040)

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: The level for this adaptability program for the community support would be enhanced if we copied quite a bit, or maybe letter for letter, from the sponsorship agreement program that exists under the refugee stream, where the community has to present a settlement plan and demonstrate what its bank account is and what its track record is and what it can do. Under a similar plan, some of these are carrying a family that is very hard to settle. They're paying for all expenses for a year or two.

So there are the resources when we're dealing with independent immigrants. Of course, there is the additional bonus or benefit that we're dealing with people who are coming with something and are not completely destitute, or less likely to be.

The Chair: Thank you very much to all of you, not only for Bill C-11, because I think some of your inspiration in terms of what should have been in Bill C-11 came obviously from what you were talking about today too--a celebration, really, of what immigration not only means to Winnipeg and to Manitoba, but to the rest of the country. I want to applaud you for that and for your great insight and input with regard to our regulations.

Let me tell you that a couple of things you were talking about are some of the things that this committee is going to do. We're going to be promoting and recruiting people from all over the world to come to Canada as our next phase in the middle of April. And especially if you want us to promote Winnipeg--I'm from London, Ontario--maybe your three Manitoba members might want to carry some good stuff about why people should want to come to Winnipeg from Europe, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. We'll be doing that.

The other part of that recruitment is that we want to talk a little bit about provincial nominee programs and talk to communities countrywide as to how we can make sure we can promote our different and various communities across the country.

The last piece of what we will be doing as a committee is talking about those settlement issues. These are just as important, in order to make sure, as Madeleine says, that we welcome people and have them come to Canada, and in order to determine how we can support them, so that they can better integrate into our communities and into our economy and into our country. We hope to have your input on those matters too.

Thank you very much for a very good presentation, and good luck to all of you.

We're going to take five minutes, as we prepare for our other witnesses.

À (1042)

À (1051)

The Chair: Colleagues, we'll get started with our next round of witnesses.

We have a vote in about 27 minutes. That will allow us time to hear from our presenters and hopefully to get to a couple of questions. It may very well be that we'll come back, because the vote shouldn't be a very long one.

Anyway, let's get started. It is my pleasure to welcome the Shipping Federation of Canada and to have Anne Legars with us again, as well as the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada, represented by Dr. Anu Bose, executive director, and Karine Pelletier.

Welcome to you all, and again, thank you very much for your input during our hearings on Bill C-11. We look forward to hearing your comments with regard to our regulations.

For certain members who might be wondering where the Canadian Labour Congress is, unfortunately, they couldn't make it here today. We hope to have them on Thursday if possible.

Maybe we can begin with you, Anne, and welcome again.

Ms. Anne Legars (Director, Shipping Federation of Canada): Thank you.

I was initially invited by Mr. Lahaie to comment on the draft regulations pertaining to a transportation company's obligations. That was supposed to be published a couple of weeks ago but that has been delayed. However, I managed to put together a couple of comments based on our concerns in relation to regulations. You have our written comments, but I will try to be shorter than those.

The Chair: Anne, before you go on, the members might want to know that tomorrow or Wednesday we will be receiving part 2 of the regulations, which are directly related to the transportation issues you're going to talk to us about. But the substantive stuff is what we're dealing with now. The timing is perfect, Anne, for you to talk to us before we even get those regulations.

[Translation]

Ms. Anne Legars: The Shipping Federation of Canada represents more than 95 percent of the ocean vessels trading to and from ports in Eastern Canada, from Newfoundland to the Great Lakes, including international cruise ships. It also represents the Canadian shipping agents who deal with these ships when they stop at our ports. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act considers these agents to be transport companies.

Immigration issues are a very important aspect of our members' daily operations, and we have provided more information on this in our written submission.

The big issue regarding immigration, in the opinion of Canadian shipping agents, is their unlimited financial liability for repatriation of foreign stowaways or deserters. I have mentioned this problem in greater length in my written submission, and it is also a problem for which the Federation hopes to find a solution through the establishment of an insurance plan that would specifically cover this repatriation risk.

This being said, this is, in general, the position taken by the Federation on the matter of the regulations on immigration.

As a general comment, the federation will support regulatory amendments aimed at restating the existing law and clarifying borderline situations. We would, however, be very reluctant to support any provision that would introduce new liabilities that could jeopardize the implementation of our proposed plan.

We will support provisions that will allow prompt processing by Immigration of foreign crew members entering Canada on our members' vessels.

We will support provisions allowing some flexibility in delays in relation to foreign crew changes in Canadian ports of call. However, we will also support more stringent control measures for crew members joining ship, because of the increase of fraudulent so-called crew changes.

We will scrutinize provisions with a view to ensuring they do not have an undesirable impact on the desire or ability of international cruise ships to call at Canadian ports.

We will support provisions that will ensure a stricter monitoring of refugee claimants, because our position on this matter has always been that the shortcomings of a Canadian refugee claim process encourage individuals to stow away on ships bound for Canada, or to desert from ships docked at Canadian ports of call, in order to claim refugee status.

We will support provisions that allow for greater professional international mobility for executives and shore-based, specialized staff working in our industry.

These are the general clauses.

More specifically, our comments on the regulations pre-published on December 15, 2001, are summarized in our written submission. These regulations are not specifically aimed at transportation companies, but some of the provisions have an impact on transportation companies.

As to what the federation expects from the future regulations pertaining to the obligations of transportation companies, I will underline here four issues of concern.

The first involves the definition of transportation companies. In previous consultations, the department indicated its intention to include charterers in this definition. However, in our industry the term “charterer” includes a very broad spectrum of situations, ranging from bare-boat charterers, whereby the charterer has full control of the ship and her crew, to slot charterers or space charterers, whereby a shipper books some space aboard a vessel. Many freight forwarders who consolidate shipments, shippers, and exporters would also fall under this definition. Our position is that such a definition of a transportation company is too broad.

Second is the definition of security to be provided by transportation companies to cover liabilities under the act. The industry seeks assurance that the certificate of insurance relating specifically to these liabilities be covered by such a definition, which would enable us to move ahead with the stowaways and deserters' repatriation insurance plan.

The third concerns the liability of transportation companies in relation to medical costs incurred by passengers. We expressed strong concerns on this issue in the fall of 2000 as well as at the legislative stage, because the industry opposes the introduction of new liabilities in this respect.

The fourth issue is a concern, in the procedure of seizure for non-compliance, to be sure that such a procedure contains new checks and balances.

Basically this is the key to our position in relation to regulations for transportation companies.

Mesdames et messieurs les députés, je vous remercie de votre attention.

À (1055)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much for those, Anne. I'm sure we'll have some questions--hopefully after this, or just when we return.

We'll move now to Anu and Karine.

Dr. Anu Bose (Executive Director, National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada): Good morning, members of the committee. I thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before you.

The National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada is a non-profit, non-partisan, and non-sectarian organization, whose mandate is to ensure equality for immigrant and visible minority women within a bilingual Canada.

We have our submission here, which my colleague will distribute to you.

[Translation]

Unfortunately, it is in English

[English]

We are a very small and struggling organization and do not have the resources to have it translated.

The Chair: If I may, Anu, that's becoming more and more an excuse that is unacceptable to committees of Parliament. I can say this: if you were to get your brief to us sooner, we would then translate it. It being dropped on our desks the moment you're making a presentation is not very fair, especially for us to be able to get it, unless you're dropping it off in both official languages.

I can understand that small organizations have difficulty in translation, but that's why we're here. If you get it to us beforehand, we can have it translated, because the law of this country is that this committee only accepts submissions that are in both official languages.

For the future, I hope you will keep that in mind.

Á (1100)

Dr. Anu Bose: Yes. But, Mr. Chairman--

The Chair: I don't want to get into an argument about this. I'm just telling you what it is.

Dr. Anu Bose: No, I'm not getting into an argument. I accept what you're saying. But if there are questions in French, we will be very glad to take them.

The Chair: We can do that. I can even ask you some in Italian, if you like; that's not a problem. Okay?

Dr. Anu Bose: Which I might be able to answer.

The Chair: Thank you.

Dr. Anu Bose: We've already appeared on the bill with the National Association of Women and the Law and we've also been before the Senate.

We will keep our remarks to the principle of retroactivity, to the question of disparate impacts of the legislation, and finally to the question of the selection criteria for independent immigrants.

NOIVMWC is alarmed at the fact that the regulations are retroactive. Liberal members of the House of Commons themselves have expressed their dissatisfaction with the retroactivity principle. A member of the Senate has pointedly stated that in some 30-odd years around government, he has never known policies to be applied retroactively.

We're all aware of the vast backlog of applications to enter Canada, but the imposition of retroactivity as a means of compensating for bureaucratic failure is scarcely a solution. It will only open the federal government to court challenges and create a further drain on scarce resources of both challenger and government.

We believe that retroactivity is repugnant to democracy. It's tantamount to moving the goalposts and sets a dangerous precedent. It will do little to enhance Canada's reputation in the eyes of the world and diminish her in the eyes of her new Canadian population.

NOIVMWC supports the Canadian Bar Association recommendation that Canada continue its traditional practice of locking in eligibility criteria at the time of application.

NOIVMWC maintains that there is both a women-centred and diversity-centred perspective on all issues of public policy. This flies in the face of wisdom in the domain of public administration that sees most issues as both gender and diversity neutral.

Let all citizens enjoy equality of treatment, regardless of gender, race, and ethnicity.

The federal government supports this principle of inclusiveness. It has brought in its own gender-based analysis perspective.

Secondly, the Canadian Charter of Rights of 1982 outlines the duty of state institutions to protect Canadian citizens who belong to the various ethnic and visible minority groups.

A bill as sensitive as this one and its regulations has had, and will continue to have, a disparate impact on new female Canadians, especially those from ethnic, religious, and racial backgrounds different from those of the Fathers of Confederation.

We note with regret that in spite of our earlier recommendation and that of the National Association of Women and the Law, the federal government has failed to apply its own gender-based analysis to this bill and its regulations. It has therefore failed to honour its obligations under the Beijing Platform for Action to mainstream a gender perspective into national immigration and asylum policies.

We therefore recommend that the committee ask the minister to put in place a gender-monitoring process to assess the impact of the act and its regulations on immigrant women and men, especially those from the visible minorities.

The Chair: Anu, I would like to ask you--and I've asked this of all of my witnesses but I forgot to ask you and Anne, the other Anne. If you read this word for word, we're going to be in trouble time-wise. If you could cover and summarize what's in the brief, perhaps with emphasis on the recommendations--obviously we will read it. I now have less than 10 minutes before I have to go to the House where we must vote.

So if you could cover the recommendations and summarize, that would be great.

Á (1105)

Dr. Anu Bose: As I said, Mr. Fontana, we want to keep our remarks to only three points on the selection criteria for independent immigrants, and then I will conclude.

Under the proposed regulation, the points required for the selection of independent immigrants are to be raised from 70 to 80, NOIVMWC has in the past been critical of the point system because of the inherent gender bias in the classification of occupations and the assessment of skills. Raising the requirements would intensify this bias and discriminate against women who in general have less access to advanced education and high-tech training.

We maintain that Canada does not only require male, single, high-tech workers or people with master's degrees and doctoral degrees. The proposed regulations would intensify the present trend towards the progressive de-skilling of immigrants. Were Canada to accept a flood of highly educated immigrants, would she be able to provide them with work commensurate with their qualifications and experience? Experience would suggest not. There are thousands of immigrants with PhDs and master's degrees working at low-paid, dead-end jobs that require more muscle than brain power, or, if lucky, they're making do in a series of short-term contracts in cash-strapped immigrant service agencies.

We ask you to look around at your colleagues in the House and the Senate and see how many would qualify for entry into Canada under the proposed regulations. The Alliance critic for immigration was very forthright in a radio interview when he said that he would fall at this hurdle were he to apply under the proposed regulations.

In our brief to the Senate we said there were systemic barriers to entry into the professions and academia. Canadian regulatory and producer interests have consistently failed to recognize the education and skills of the immigrant population.

I came here as an independent immigrant from the U.S., and became a Canadian citizen in the 1970s. When I got a PhD in 1990 from a British university, I was put through hoops in order to get this degree recognized.

The point we are making is reinforced by a study funded in part by the federal government and released yesterday by the Canadian Council on Social Development. It writes that part of the reason is that racial discrimination has indeed become more of an issue as new immigrants are increasingly drawn from visible minority groups who are more vulnerable to racism. They believe that racism, combined with the failure to recognize the education and skills of recent immigrants, explains why immigrants are doing less well in the job market than in the past.

Therefore, we recommend that the government re-examine the restrictive and discriminatory selection criteria in view of the findings of the CCSD report. We also recommend that the recognition and accreditation of professional qualifications and academic degrees earned abroad be given urgent consideration in the dialogue between the federal government and the provinces.

I will now move to the conclusion. We believe that the regulations for this act were bureaucratically inspired and are not consistent with the Canadian way. We are wary of such a restrictive set of regulations that were drafted in the aftermath of 9/11. When techniques such as racial profiling are gaining respectability, we feel that many sections of these regulations only pander to the fear and loathing that certain sections of the population now feel towards visible minorities, especially Muslims and/or Arabic speakers.

Minister Coderre has set his heart on a July 1 proclamation date for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I ask you, do new Canadians really need such a Canada Day present?

Thank you.

The Chair: Whether or not it's a present or whatever will all depend on what the final regulations are.

Thank you both very much for your presentation.

I think we have about five or seven minutes.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: All right, I'll go to a short one.

You recommend the complete elimination of spousal sponsorship.

Dr. Anu Bose: Yes.

Á (1110)

Mr. Paul Forseth: If that's the case then what is the system you propose to make that whole category work? If we eliminate the current system, then you have to replace it with some kind of new criteria of consideration or process. What would that be?

Dr. Anu Bose: I would say that they should come in as I did. I was married to somebody then, but I came in as an independent immigrant. Therefore, when the marriage broke up, I was able to strike out on my own. I was not a sponsored immigrant. I personally believe that in order to promote the equality of the sexes people should come in not as sponsored immigrants but as independents, especially women.

Mr. Paul Forseth: My first reaction would be that it would just eliminate thousands of spouses. The sponsorship allows someone to come essentially on the merits of their spouse, even though individually, personally, as an independent, they would not make the system concerning education. So that would eliminate all kinds of people, especially women from certain cultures who have not had the advantage or the opportunity for the highest levels of education. That would preclude them from coming to Canada, would it not?

Dr. Anu Bose: Mr. Forseth, if you were to keep the connection to Canada criterion and weight it, that would be one way of bringing them in. They have a connection to Canada. The regulations are already proposing that they have a connection to Canada, family living here, etc. You could weight it that way.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. The other recommendation you make clearly says:

...that the recognition and accreditation of professional qualifications and academic degrees earned abroad be given urgent consideration in the dialogue between the Federal Government and the provinces.

This is a problem that everyone recognizes. The dentist, the civil engineer, and so on, are driving taxis. But beyond dialogue, how do we break the nut of this problem? The federal government and the provinces talk constantly about this. Every federal-provincial ministers' conference talks about it. So for you to recommend more dialogue doesn't seem to get us anywhere.

I'm wondering if you've gone any deeper into the issue to propose how this difficulty of provincial regulation, gatekeeping over provincial certification, such as becoming a society of professional engineers or the college of dentists, or whatever.... Have you looked at the deeper issue, beyond just consultations, which we seem to always have?

Dr. Anu Bose: How do you break the power of monopoly interests? That is a question for public administration. NOIVMWC did a study of overseas-trained teachers and overseas-trained social workers, and dialogued with the government and with the professional associations for three years, and they're still at square one. How do you break monopoly power? Possibly the same way, by deregulating the market.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Such as eliminating the union or the power of the union to be exclusive, or perhaps providing some incentive for unions or other control to develop a special immigrant program as part of their plan. I take it that some nurses' unions are doing this. They're assigning a whole segment of union officers to look at the foreign worker issue.

Do you have any further thoughts in that regard?

Dr. Anu Bose: I would agree with you that there should be some kind of fast-tracking, but it isn't only the unions. I'm talking about the professional associations. They're much more powerful than the unions. Or even the universities.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay, we'll leave it at that. Thank you.

The Chair: Let's break for a few minutes while we go and vote. I think it's only one vote. Have a coffee, relax. We'll be back. I know we have some more questions for you. My apologies for rushing everything this morning, but unfortunately, when that bell rings, that means we have certain duties to do. But both of your briefs are very good and provide us with some guidance.

We'll be right back. The committee is adjourned till the call of the bell is over.

(1114)

(1140)

The Chair: Colleagues, welcome back, and thank you to our witnesses for waiting so that we could vote.

We started with questions, and I'll move to Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman

My first question is for Ms. Legars.

In your submission, you refer to provisions that would institute stricter monitoring of refugee protection claimants.

During the hearings on Bill C-11 (The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), when we heard the previous Minister, it was clear that Bill C-11 (The Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act)had to quickly establish whether a person was eligible or not for refugee protection status. We'll believe it when we see it.

How can we ensure proper monitoring if a lot of time elapses beforehand? Do we have to put people into prison? What can be done? You have alluded to costs that your industry must cover when things go wrong, but there are also other inherent costs. People who are not granted refugee protection are not necessarily criminals.

I would like to hear your response and I would also like to hear Ms. Bose.

Ms. Anne Legars: Thank you.

We never stated that persons who are claiming refugee protection are criminals. In fact, as an industry, our position is not based on whether the Act is right or "wrong" regarding the granting of refugee protection. Our concern as an industry is that we wish to see as few people as possible deserting within Canadian ports to claim refugee protection. One of the reasons why these people desert is to request refugee protection. We also wish to minimize the number of stowaways on board ships. In both cases, this is a security risk for the ship.

The problem that we very often talk about is that the Canadian legislation encourages these cases. In any case, it did encourage it in its previous version.

At the time that we were dealing with economic refugees, and not political refugees, for those persons arriving and claiming refugee protection, this provided a very convenient way of by-passing the normal Canadian immigration procedures, which are also lengthy and demanding. When a person set foot in Canada and claimed refugee status while clearly ineligible under the normal criteria, that person could remain within the country for several years without a problem. Even if the person did not receive refugee status, in the end, by remaining in Canada, there was little chance that person would be arrested and repatriated. This was a magnet for crew members who would desert in Canadian ports, or for persons travelling as stowaways on board ships bound for Canada.

Obviously, this represents just a small percentage of immigration flows. But for our ships, this is a major risk that is a concern for our industry. It is for this reason therefore, that our industry has repeated for years that it would like the Act to provide for stricter monitoring of cases that appear to be organized immigration, and that there be provisions for preventive detention.

We would also prefer that persons be monitored so that we know where they are, so that they cannot disappear during the process. Thus, when a decision is made, these individuals will appear because the decision will have been sent by mail. If the person does not receive it or if they do not agree, they only need remain where they are. Perhaps one day, if they are stopped for speeding and their identity is checked, they will be identified and eventually repatriated.

In our opinion, verification is not satisfactory. This is where the regulations should provide for monitoring. The first thing to accomplish is to ensure that there are provisions to verify a person's identity upon their arrival, and take their fingerprints so that they can be eventually traced. Afterward, it would be important to know where they are for monitoring and, if necessary, expulsion. All the better if the individuals obtain refugee protection.

Our problem is that we do not wish to see the legislation act as a magnet for certain persons who should normally use other means than deserting our ships or travelling as stowaways to enter Canada, because this entails risks for the safety of the ship and the crew.

Á (1145)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

Ms. Bose, in your document you state that you agree with the landed immigrant card. Generally, we agree. What would worry us is what it would contain. There are a certain number of stipulations in the regulations. Are you generally in agreement with the requirements that are contained for obtaining this card or do you have any reservations on issuing it?

Mrs. Karine Pelletier (Member, National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada): We have no reservations as long as the criteria are respected.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Nevertheless, some things are quite extensive, such as, for example, the list of addresses for all places of residence, how much one earns, etc. There is really a lot of information here, but this does not disturb you. OK.

Thank you.

[English]

Dr. Anu Bose: I think we would do well to follow the Swiss system. I lived for a long time in Switzerland. That was more like an internal passport. It had your name, your present address, your citizenship, photograph, where you lived. And each time you changed your address you had to let them know. But it did not have any medical information. It did not have colour of eyes. It just had a photograph. That was a long time ago; maybe those have changed since then.

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to ask my questions and then run to the next committee. I apologize for that.

I do want to ask generally about the whole impact on women of these proposed regulations. You've touched on that in your brief. I would like to know, from you an elaboration either now or at some point in the future, about the areas where there would be the greatest, disproportionate, and negative impact on women. And in that context, I am wondering if the committee could give a copy to the organization of the gender-based analysis chart done by the department as a reference point with a request to get some information back. That's one question.

What the other has to do with is the issue of equivalency, of recognition, of credentials, which we touched a bit. I think it's important to talk about that in the context of women, because of the report that just came out yesterday by the CCSD showing the gap that is growing between recent immigrants, especially women, and non-immigrant Canadians. I think it's important to note that in fact the amount of the wage gap is such that recent immigrant women in 1998 were earning $12.50 an hour--still $3.20 an hour less than the wages of other Canadian women and $7.20 less an hour than those of non-immigrant men.

In that context it's important to get at the root of the problem. We need clarification. I don't think we should leave the impression, and I'd like Anu Bose to comment on this, that it's the unions that are the barriers. We're talking about professional associations that set those kinds of standards and we're talking about the lack of leadership of governments to finally come to grips with this issue.

These are some pretty wide open questions, but I would appreciate some general comments.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Judy, the general analysis is now available on the main website of CIC, and therefore anybody who wants to take a look at it and test it and comment on it is free to do so. It is on there.

Anu.

Dr. Anu Bose: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, I'd be quite happy to read that document and get back to you on this.

But I do not want to leave this committee with the impression that it is only the unions that are setting up barriers to entry. I think the professional associations are even more guilty across the country in keeping outsiders out. And women happen to be in double jeopardy because they are not only women but they also happen to have degrees from somewhere else, even if it happens to be from Britain, as in my case.

Having said that, this is a systemic problem, which I think it is very difficult only for government to espouse. After September 11, I'm afraid attitudes have hardened, and there is a climate of fear and loathing, which is making things even more difficult. It's about the first time in the last six months that I have ever heard somebody telling me to go back from where I came. It never happened to me before, and I was quite shocked.

It's a systemic problem, and not only government can address it; NGOs have to address it, and political parties and their membership have to address it. It's too large a thing to be left in the hands of government.

But I will take a look at the CIC website, download it, and send my written comments in to Mr. Fontana in two languages.

The Chair: Thank you.

Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville: I'm okay right now.

The Chair: Inky.

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

I have two questions. The first is directed to Ms. Legars. You talked about our refugee system encouraging crews and stowaways to jump ship. At the same time, I think you suggested that you're concerned about repatriation. You can't have it both ways, so my question is, to what extent are the carriers accountable for the passengers they carry? Shouldn't that come first?

Ms. Anne Legars: When you have a stowaway or a deserter, it's mostly a shipowner or ship operator who is concerned because it brings risk to the management, security, and safety of a ship. So ship operators and shipowners want to have fewer of these cases.

When you have repatriation, it's the shipowners who pay for it. But the ones who bear the bigger risk are the Canadian agents. They are based in Canada, so they are the first persons Immigration will go to and ask for the money on the spot when the incident happens, and years later when the person is repatriated. So this is a different group of persons.

The more effective repatriation varies, the more they will be liable to pay. So from this point of view they would prefer to have less repatriation because they would have less to pay. But from this side, we want to take care of this by an entrance plan. That's the way we will tackle it.

But if we put safety first, and I think that's what we should do, the first thing is to have fewer cases of stowaways and deserters aboard ship. We regularly hear reports of stowaways dying in containers because nobody knew they were there. When there are human lives at stake, the first thing to do is to address the problem so that you have fewer stowaways and fewer deserters.

Someone has to pay for repatriation, and what we want to do is to be able to implement this plan and to have this kind of insurance plan covered by the regulation as an admissible security covering transportation companies' liabilities.

Á (1155)

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

My second question is with regard to the comments made by Dr. Bose. The whole issue of professionals, immigration, and females as well is really a systemic problem. I have problems like that in my own riding. Because of the way the system is operating, the rural communities are really being penalized. Even with Canadian graduates, we're having a difficult time attracting them to smaller rural communities, because everybody wants to live in Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal.

If fact, there's a case we're dealing with right now. An Iranian pharmacist wants to come here. She has had her application approved several times over the past year and a half. This country is short 2,500 pharmacists for this coming year. She's still having problems. She had a job. This isn't even about immigration. This is about temporary work visas. So we can't even fill the jobs that are already in this country for professionals.

Other than the lobbying direction, is there any other way more pressure could be put on the system to voice the concerns of all professional groups in this country?

Dr. Anu Bose: That's a very difficult question, Mr. Mark.

There is lobbying and there is lobbying. But there also has to be political will within the provinces and the federal government to bring in people. But bringing in qualified professionals is only a short-term answer to Canada's long-term problems.

Having said that, I think if you have difficulty attracting people to the north and to smaller rural communities, you could make it incumbent on immigrants, especially those with professional qualifications, to say that if you come in, you will have to spend x number of years...and hold them to it. I think you would find that most of them would be willing to come.

Immigrants have been very undemanding in the past, and I think that only now are they beginning to emerge with a voice. When I first came to this country, we were told go, and we went.

I think most people would still come and live in remote areas without any problem. But they should be held to it.

The Chair: Before I thank you, may I just ask two quick questions of you, Anu.

With regard to the principle of retroactivity, we all agree retroactivity should not be applied. But what is your solution other than saying it's not part of the Canadian tradition? What are you suggesting we do with either the intake or the inventory we have in place or about how we deal in the future with regard to whether the regulations change or not? What are you suggesting: that we maintain two systems, one to deal with the applicants who are already in place, some 250,000 skilled worker applications? I'm not sure your brief tells me anything more than that you don't like the principle of retroactivity. Ninety-nine percent of Canadians don't like retroactivity, but what's your solution, please?

Dr. Anu Bose: We really don't have one except what the Canadian Bar Association says; that's locking in eligibility criteria at the time of application.

I would also personally--and I'm speaking personally now--call for a moratorium on immigration applications until the backlog can be dealt with.

The Chair: Okay. Secondly, with regard to sponsorship, I would agree, and I think the gender analysis was applied to Bill C-11. I'd like to think that in terms of regulations and any suggestions you may have once you take a look at it.... Judy asked you the very same question, whether or not in the regs there is a gender bias against women that will impact them even more so.

And I get to the issue that, in sponsorship especially with regard to social assistance, anyone on social assistance won't be able to sponsor even their spouse, which seems rather curious to me if in fact what you want to do is bring families together. With families you build social reinforcement and may be able to bring the family perhaps out of the trap of social assistance. With regard to sponsorship, I know you told us you don't believe there needs to be a sponsorship of one spouse by another, especially as it relates to a man sponsoring his female spouse.

Â (1200)

Dr. Anu Bose: This is a very difficult one and my own board is divided on this. There are people who feel more and more, when I talk to immigrants at large, that people on social assistance should forfeit their right to sponsor anybody, because they themselves are more or less sponsored by the state.

But then again, the principle of reunification of families is also a very important one, and hopefully the arrival of a spouse would allow the other spouse to go and look for work. But I think more and more, Mr. Fontana, we see something called the masculinization of poverty, in which there are more jobs in the service sector and fewer jobs in manufacturing. So women, even from immigrant backgrounds, are being forced into the breadwinner position. And I'm not sure that Canada can support more angry, hurt men and boys.

I lived for a long time in the United Kingdom where the Asian community, usually seen as very docile, erupted in the north of England over the issue of jobs and education. So I am very fearful for the communities, especially in the light of 9/11. Maybe family sponsorship should be a category unto itself, but as I say again, I am not a lawyer; I'm not speaking as a lawyer.

The Chair: Thank you.

With regard to your comments on 9/11, I think this committee, which immediately moved to look at border security issues post-9/11, would agree with you that there is a perception or notion--and we found this out as we moved across the country, and it's unfortunate--that the bad actions of a few unfortunately taint the great qualities of the greater majority of people, the 99% or so who are either refugees or immigrants, who are not terrorists, who don't want to do any harm to anybody, but who in fact want to help build a nation and a community. We understand what you're saying, and hopefully our report talked a little bit about it.

Thank you very much, both of you, for your input into these regulations. It's much appreciated. Hopefully some of your good thoughts and wisdom will find their way into our review of these regulations. Thank you very much.

The committee is adjourned until Thursday morning.