CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 22, 2001

• 0904

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues.

We are hearing witnesses on Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted, or in danger.

We have a group of four witnesses this morning between now and 10 o'clock. They are the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, and the Coalition of Regulatory Related Agencies.

• 0905

I want to welcome you to the committee hearings.

Michael, how could I miss you over there? Also with us is Michael Murphy from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I'm sorry about that. It's my eyesight this morning.

The usual format is that we ask each of the groups to take about five or seven minutes.

We do have your submissions. We thank you for giving them to us in advance. I think we all stayed up late last night reading them, so we're well briefed on your briefs. Maybe you can summarize them for us. The important thing is that we would like to ask you some questions as to how we can all work together to make sure we have a good bill and that immigration continues to be a very positive aspect in our country.

Having said that, I'll go to the Association of Universities and Colleges. Sally.

[Translation]

Ms. Sally Brown (Senior Vice-President, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to be here.

AUCC is going to talk about Bill C-11 from the point of view of its impact on international students.

[English]

So I want to speak about its implications for our international students.

As you may be aware, Canadian universities are increasingly looking to internationalize their campuses, and international students play a key role in this regard. International students bring significant economic benefits to Canadian universities and their local communities, but as well to Canada as a whole. DFAIT has estimated that international students contribute some $2.7 billion to the Canadian economy. More importantly, perhaps, bringing these students to Canada has enormous benefits for Canada's longer-term trade and diplomatic interests.

Yet Canada is falling behind other countries in this area. Other countries are benefiting from a more coherent international student recruitment strategy, more investment in promotion, and more competitive approaches with regard to their immigration policies and practices. We believe Canada can and must do better and that this bill is an important place to start.

Unfortunately, the bill as it's currently written gives relatively little prominence to the importance of international students to Canada or to the goal of facilitating the recruitment of international students to our institutions, so it isn't giving a very strong signal about the importance of this issue.

We would draw your attention to our brief. We've undertaken quite a bit of research comparing immigration policies and practices in Canada with those of our competitor countries: the United States, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and France. Our research shows that with the notable exception of Canada, these countries have adopted or are in the process of adopting a more strategic approach to international students, a government-wide approach, and that the importance of this goal is clearly reflected in the policies of their respective immigration departments.

We believe, then, that we're missing an opportunity through the bill and its regulations to make the kind of policy shift needed if Canada is to become a real player in the global international student recruitment market. We would therefore recommend that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act place a stronger emphasis on facilitating international student recruitment as a major objective for Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Specifically, we'd like to suggest that under “Objectives and Application”, paragraph 3(1)(g) be divided into two. The second objective would relate specifically to the recruitment of international students and would facilitate their entry into Canada in recognition of the academic, economic, and cultural benefits they bring to Canada.

With regard to the regulations being developed to accompany Bill C-11, one regulation being proposed concerns allowing international students to apply for permanent residence status from within Canada. The department is proposing to make this provision available to “recently graduated foreign students who meet the criteria for economic immigration, have a permanent job offer and have been working in Canada for one year”.

We support this change, and we're encouraged by the wording. But we are concerned that if dual intent is allowed, then CIC immigration officials overseas might feel compelled to assess students both according to criteria for student authorization and as potential immigrants. This could have the effect of slowing down the student authorization process—I don't think it's the intent, but it could have that effect—an area where our research shows that Canada already has one of the slowest student processing times among competitor countries.

• 0910

You will note in our brief that we've suggested taking a look at the Australian model as one possible approach for striking a balance between keeping the student authorization process as simple as possible and better tapping into this immigration pool. We're therefore recommending that there should be an in-Canada landing class for international students, and that a clear distinction be drawn in the regulation between the student authorization process and the process of becoming a landed immigrant.

We have also recommended in our brief four areas where CIC might consider implementing new recommendations, new regulations to the act, to address several other areas where Canada is falling behind. Today, in my talk, I'll just focus on two of these four recommendations and would refer you to our brief for more information.

First, studies show that work provisions are an area of importance to international students when they're making their decision about where to go. The AUCC's research shows that Canada is the only country that does not allow international students to pursue part-time, off-campus employment opportunities during their term or the holidays—and we're just talking about 15 to 20 hours per week. We therefore recommend that CIC allow international students to work part-time off campus during the school term and over the holidays.

The second point I would raise is that all countries face the challenge of finding a balance between facilitating the entry of genuine international students and maintaining the integrity of the immigration system, and AUCC fully understands the balance that's required here. Anecdotal evidence and some data suggest that there are fewer concerns with respect to risk for fraud, non-compliance with visa conditions, and failure to return home when it comes to university students. Some of our competitors have changed their approach to recognize this differentiation in risk. For example, Australia is moving away from its single student visa regime to introduce a system of student visa subclasses: tertiary, vocational, secondary, and English as a second language. These new subclasses will be assessed according to a set of risk factors for each target market in each education subsector.

We think that a similar approach in Canada to risk assessment and streamlined processing would significantly improve our processing times and yet not result in increased risk for applications from genuine students. We therefore recommend that CIC modify its current single student visa class to develop and implement a system of student visas differentiated by education subsector.

[Translation]

In conclusion, international students are very important for the future of our universities, of our students and of Canada. In the long run, international students who attended a Canadian institution become important representatives, not to say ambassadors, of Canada, of our values and of our trade. For our member institutions, international education is one of the most important priorities, and attracting international students, one of their first objectives.

The federal government must look at this issue strategically. One of the first things to do is to give CIC better tools to process requests in Canada, while changing the way the Department develops its policies and practices.

The federal government committed itself to increase Canada's presence abroad. The trade missions of Team Canada have always had an important education component because the government is well aware of its economic benefits. I have personally joined two of those missions and, each time, I saw that people were extremely interested in increasing the mobility of students in Canada as well as abroad.

However, we can all see that our immigration policies are not in sync with our trade policies. We believe that Canada can do better in both of these fields.

• 0915

[English]

We think that the modifications we're proposing to Bill C-11, if adopted, would make that important signal about the importance of international students to Canada and would be the engine for making the kinds of changes we need to meet the expectations we're creating around the world in Team Canada and other missions.

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Sally, for an excellent brief and some excellent recommendations. I look forward to asking you some questions.

From the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers we have Marie Lemay, chief executive officer; Noel Cleland, chairman; and Digvir Jayas, chairperson.

Who's going to speak?

Ms. Marie Lemay (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council of Professional Engineers): Mr. Fontana, may I ask you if we could ask CRRA to go first? We're a member of the coalition, and instead of repeating it will be easier if we do it that way.

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Marie Lemay: Is that a problem?

The Chair: No, not a problem at all.

We'll go to the Coalition of Regulatory Related Agencies. We have Wendy McBride, Claude-Paul Boivin, and Charles Brimley.

Go ahead. Thank you.

Ms. Wendy McBride (Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Schools of Nursing; Coalition of Regulatory Related Agencies): Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Wendy McBride, and I'm executive director of the Canadian Association of University Schools of Nursing. With me are Claude-Paul Boivin, executive director of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, and Charles Brimley, who's executive director of the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists.

On behalf of the Coalition of Regulatory Related Agencies, or CRRA, it's a pleasure for us to appear before you today to present our members' views on proposals for Bill C-11 and its regulations.

CRRA represents the agencies that license, certify, or regulate most of Canada's 500,000 professionals. Included among our members are architects, engineers, nurses, physicians, technologists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, pharmacists, and several other professions.

Canada, along with other Commonwealth countries, has a system of self-regulation for certain professions, in particular those that directly affect the public's health and well-being. It is a system that is as old as our country itself. In effect, the various members that make up CRRA maintain a safety net that was built by the provinces and territories through their delegation of regulatory authority. The fabric of this safety net is woven from the high professional standards that have been developed for more than 130 years.

However, this is a silent safety net, which most Canadians are not actively aware of. They are not aware of the level of protection they are afforded by Canada's 40-plus regulated professions. Yet generations have put their trust in those who deliver health care, design and build their bridges, dispense medicine, and touch their lives in many other ways.

CRRA's members are proud of the role they have played in maintaining this safety net. We keep the net strong by imposing the same high standards on all who apply, whether they are domestic or foreign graduates. But we stress that we are not gatekeepers. We do not have a role in managing the supply of Canada's professionals. Indeed, CRRA is unanimous in its condemnation of measures that exclude individuals on the basis of measures other than qualifications and abilities.

To outline CRRA's response to the bill, I will turn to my colleague from the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude-Paul Boivin (Executive Director, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association; Coalition of Regulatory Related Agencies): Thank you, Wendy.

Mr. Chairman, our Coalition believes that it is high time to amend our Immigration Act. The present legislation has not succeeded in filling the manpower needs of the country and has not met the expectations of our immigrants. Our brief to the Committee has been prepared with one goal in mind: to provide our immigrants equal opportunities to get into their profession in Canada while preserving the standards that have contributed over the years to the safety, welfare and quality of life of all Canadians.

We support the general intent of Bill C-11, Mr. Chairman, which is to contribute to Canada's economic prosperity. Furthermore, we recognize that we need to welcome highly qualified men and women from abroad to achieve this goal. However, Mr. Chairman, despite our general support for the Bill, we have a few concerns, in three different areas.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, our first concern has to do with the concept of related work. Bill C-11 is based on the assumption that immigrants who were professionals in their home countries will be satisfied working in a related occupation if they are not qualified to be licensed or certified in Canada. This, Mr. Chairman, is and runs counter to what we know. In fact, many immigrants who arrive in Canada hoping to secure work in their former professions are not satisfied accepting related work. Many express their frustrations by challenging decisions in the courts or with the human rights commission. Worst of all, some—knowingly or unknowingly—practise their profession illegally in Canada, or offer services they are not licensed to perform.

• 0920

Our second concern, Mr. Chairman, results from the proposal that we understand will be in the regulations, and that proposal is to eliminate occupation from the selection criteria for economic immigration. Without occupation as a factor in selecting immigrants, we believe this may unintentionally shut off the flow of information to prospective immigrants on Canada's standards for professional certification, licensure or practice.

Governments have a duty to all potential immigrants to provide full disclosure of the processes and challenges they may face. Early and direct contact with Canada's professional regulatory bodies is vital—vital to ensuring the prospective immigrants are aware of what it takes to legally practise in Canada. Without early and accurate information, the results could include an increase in illegal practice, greater pressure to license or certify unqualified people, or, more importantly, raise false expectations that will result in settlement problems for those who are unqualified.

I will ask my colleague, Mr. Charles Brimley, to detail our third and final concern.

[Translation]

Mr. Charles Brimley (Executive Director, Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists, Coalition of Regulatory Related Agencies): Thank you, Claude-Paul.

[English]

Our final concern, Mr. Chairman, involves the referral of professionals to the network of provincially mandated credential assessment agencies as part of the immigration process. These agencies are capable of providing general equivalencies for foreign education and determining the level of skills required. But, to be clear, they are not able to assess qualifications for licensure or certification, especially in professions with complex educational requirements. These assessments, produced by credential assessment agencies, are fundamentally different from those completed by most regulatory bodies. The discrepancies between the two processes can create confusion and incorrect expectations in the minds of immigrants seeking to become licensed or certified in Canada. Again, the result could be settlement problems or an increase in illegal practice.

CRRA believes Bill C-11 has the potential to provide a very solid foundation on which to build Canada's future immigration policies. That said, it is essential that this standing committee ensures that the bill and its regulations manage the expectations of prospective immigrants, and that they direct them to the professional regulatory body that can provide a meaningful assessment of their qualifications.

In addition to that general request, Mr. Chair, CRRA respectfully makes the following four recommendations: one, that Bill C-11 make direct reference to the regulatory agencies and recognize their legislated role in the protection of public safety; two, that Bill C-11 require immigrants to make direct contact with the appropriate regulatory body prior to making an immigration decision when their education and/or their work experience is in a regulated profession; three, that Bill C-11 recognize the established expertise, the experience and the statutory authority of the existing regulatory and licensing bodies to evaluate the professional qualifications and credentials of all those who seek to be admitted into Canada's professions; and four, that Bill C-11 add the following as a factor under the adaptability section of the skilled worker selection model:

evidence that the applicant has met or has a reasonable expectation of meeting the requirements as determined by the appropriate regulatory body in Canada.

• 0925

In closing, Mr. Chair and committee members, we at CRRA want immigrants with professional qualifications to settle successfully in Canada. As Canada's regulatory bodies, we look forward to playing an important role in achieving this goal.

We thank you for this opportunity to provide the views of our members.

The Chair: You've provided an equally impressive brief, and some excellent suggestions, so thank you, Wendy, Claude-Paul, and Charles.

We'll now move on to Marie Lemay and the professional engineers. Welcome.

Ms. Marie Lemay: Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this committee, Mr. Chairman. My name is Marie Lemay, and I'm the chief executive officer of the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. With me today are Noel Cleland, our president, and Dr. Digvir Jayas, the chair of our qualification board.

As I said, we represent the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. Our members are the 12 provincial and territorial associations that regulate the engineering profession in Canada. Through them, we represent more than 157,000 engineers across Canada.

[Translation]

As a member of the Coalition of Regulatory Related Agencies and as a signatory of its brief, the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists fully supports the Coalition's recommendations.

My colleagues have clearly identified our concerns and the problems that could be created by the Bill, as well as the solutions we suggest.

I would like to take a few minutes to repeat our main concerns. We believe that the regulations that will be developed with the Bill as drafted will create more settlement problems for immigrants who would expect to be able to work as engineers in Canada but who, unfortunately, would not be sufficiently qualified to be licensed here.

Secondly, we believe that we will be faced with even more pressure to admit into our profession people who would not necessarily have the required qualifications. This could jeopardize the qualifications and standards of Canada, which are recognized the world over.

Finally, and this may be even more important, we fear that more people will end up practising illegally, voluntarily or not, either because they are not aware of the requirements or because they are simply frustrated. Obviously, the illegal practice of our profession would create a direct danger for public safety.

That's all I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to repeat what my colleagues have told you.

[English]

Instead, Noel Cleland, our president, will tell you about what happens now with prospective immigrants whose education or experience is in the engineering field. It's a process that is largely occurring because engineering is on the general occupation list right now.

By walking you through some of the key elements of the process, we hope to convey to you three concepts. The first one is how much contact we have with some of the prospective economic immigrants prior to their decision to immigrate to Canada. The second is the complexity, consistency, and value of our regulatory system. The third concept is settlement difficulties that will likely result from the total removal of the occupation from the selection criteria for a skilled worker wanting to work in a regulated profession if no other measures are put in place.

Noel.

Mr. Noel Cleland (President, Canadian Council of Professional Engineers): Thank you, Marie, Mr. Chairman.

CCPE has a lot of experience in this area, and that may surprise this committee. In fact, under a 1981 memorandum of understanding with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CCPE began its initial assessment program to help the department evaluate foreign engineering qualifications. During the 20 years of the program, CCPE has reviewed the academic credentials of an estimated 120,000 prospective immigrants. Each year, the number of people seeking assessment grows. Last year alone, we processed 24,000 applicants and handled inquiries from thousands more.

First, we have to assess what they're doing. The definition of what constitutes engineering varies from country to country. For example, people who rightfully call themselves engineers in China may be considered engineers in Canada, but they may equally be chemists, agronomists, or technologists. The point is, they're not all engineers in Canada. Under the current system, we are in contact with most economic immigrants with an engineering background before they make their final decision to emigrate.

• 0930

Second, once we've determined that they're actually engaged in the field of engineering, then the question becomes how well do they meet Canadian standards for licensure. Graduation from a foreign engineering program doesn't guarantee a sufficient level of skills. In Canada, the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board conducts rigorous evaluations of universities' engineering programs. If the programs do not meet the standards set by the profession, they lose their accreditation.

What this means is that students who obtain degrees from unaccredited programs are required to write a series of examinations to ensure they are qualified to practise engineering in Canada. In the same way, graduates from foreign engineering programs are required to write some or all of the same examinations.

The last concept we wish to raise in relation to Bill C-11 is a question about the premise that professionals from other countries will willingly accept employment in a related career. Obtained after years of study, examinations, and experience, the professional designation attests to an individual's qualifications, and is a legal requirement to practise engineering in Canada. Without prior contact with the profession, people will arrive in Canada only to find out they can't independently practise as engineers without a licence, and as such cannot take legal responsibility for their own work. It is both unsatisfying and frustrating to find this out after the fact.

Speaking personally, before I emigrated here in 1954, I spent seven years in Australia studying to become an engineer. I spent four years in university and worked for three years under the supervision of engineers. After arriving here, I worked to obtain Canadian experience before applying for registration as a professional engineer. Under no circumstances would I have settled in Canada if I could not work as a fully licensed engineer.

My colleague, Dr. Jayas, has also experienced the profession's licensure system as a foreign-born and foreign-educated engineer, although perhaps a little more recently than I have. Although there is not enough time for him to speak formally on this, Dr. Jayas has told me that his own immigration experience and others he has been involved with in Manitoba show that the people who are qualified have not had problems with writing exams or going through experience assessment, but for those who are under-qualified, there is the perception of some rough edges.

The profession has recognized these rough edges and made changes accordingly. We've worked hard to remove barriers that were discriminatory or simply unnecessary. Most recently, our B.C. association has joined the B.C. government and the federal government in a pilot project for immigrants to get the language training and work experience they need so they can get licensed.

As we are drawing to the end of our allotted time, I'll conclude with our three recommendations.

First, Bill C-11 should make direct reference to the regulated professions, and recognize their legislated role in the protection of the public.

Second, eligibility for admission to a licenced professional certified occupation in Canada should be part of the factors determining skilled-worker selection into Canada, if the individual's education or experience is in a profession that is regulated in Canada.

Finally, immigrants should be directed toward the regulatory body, rather than a provincial credentialling agency, if the individual's education or experience is in a profession that is regulated in Canada.

That concludes our formal presentation, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions the members may have regarding our submission.

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent submission.

We'll go now to Michael Murphy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Michael, welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. Michael Murphy (Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of all the members of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, I am very pleased to be here today.

[English]

As our short brief has indicated, the chamber has some significant concerns with Bill C-11. Our concerns are going to relate specifically to how the bill could, in its current form, undermine some of our efforts to attract immigrants and maintain a healthy immigration system in Canada.

While the legislation has a number of difficulties from our standpoint, I'm going to call on my colleague, Ben Trister, from the firm of Borden, Ladner, Gervais, who also is a member of the Chamber of Commerce, of course, and chairs our task force on immigration. He will provide us with a bit of an outline here of some of our significant concerns.

The Chair: Thank you. Welcome, Benjamin.

Mr. Benjamin Trister (Chair, Immigration Law and Policy Task Force, Canadian Chamber of Commerce): Thank you.

• 0935

I'm first going to address the leave provision. As you know, presently under immigration law, if a visa officer makes a negative decision, an applicant has the right to go to the Federal Court for a judicial review of that decision. Bill C-11 provides that before an applicant would be able to go to the Federal Court, the court would have to grant leave. We're very concerned about this provision.

Admittedly, at the moment the applications for judicial review number in the hundreds every year, not in the many thousands. But we believe the ability to go to court has a chilling effect on officers. They understand that their decisions can be reviewed by an independent authority now, and since other quality control mechanisms have been proven to be lacking—in fact, approximately two-thirds of the cases that go for judicial review are successful in one form or another—we think judicial review is the essential quality control mechanism in the department. It's the most effective one as things stand right now.

In his most recent report on Citizenship and Immigration Canada last year, the Auditor General said that if you give the same application to ten different visa officers, you'll get ten different decisions about the applicant's qualifications.

The department has been greatly challenged in terms of resources. It's had to shut down a lot of offices. It's had to move some preliminary decision-making to locally engaged staff. All of these things have caused problems with quality control.

Our particular concern is that because the new selection criteria for immigrants will be coincident to the implementaion of Bill C-11, and it's going to take some time to adjust to entirely new rules, it doesn't make sense to get rid of your essential quality control mechanism at the same time.

The position of the chamber on the leave requirement is that it not be implemented. Even if you want to pass it, you shouldn't proclaim it until there's been a year or two for the situation to shake out. Then the department can make sure the officers understand what they're doing.

I have to give you an example of the importance of this. The importance of the ability to go to court to shake out new changes is illustrated by the fact that when the government moved to implement the national occupational classification for immigration, part of the NOC stated that you had to meet the educational requirements of the job. The NOC normally makes reference to the educational requirement as what is “usually” required. If you want to be a director, you are usually required to have a degree in fine arts, for example. The department sent out a policy instruction to officers to interpret the word “usually” as “must be required.” It was obvious that this was not consistent with the law, and we said this to the government. It was intent on doing it anyway. Such a situation could only be resolved by access to the courts.

Even an issue as simple as the plain meaning of the word “usually,” if it has to be litigated, the leave provision is going to make it harder to get such issues considered. Alternate methods of dispute resolution have to be put in place and the new system has to have a shake-out period before the leave provision is implemented. That's our first issue.

Our second issue relates to the granting of permanent resident cards. There is a movement to a “permanent resident card”, away from the current document that does not expire, the “record of landing.” Once a person comes here, that document is proof of their status for as long as they are here. So if you're in Canada and you want to prove your status as an immigrant, that's the document you would normally show.

There are important changes between Bill C-31 and Bill C-11 that may not be readily apparent because the wording is tricky. Under Bill C-31, the permanent resident card was supposed to function like evidence of your permanent resident status, so that if you came back to the border and you showed the card it would function like a returning resident permit does today.

Bill C-31 got rid of the returning resident permit, which made people confident that they could come back after extended legitimate stays abroad. The government said we're going to get rid of returning resident permits, but the card's going to have the same effect.

• 0940

Well, under Bill C-11, the card no longer has that effect. They've de-linked the validity of the permanent resident card to the evidence that you've maintained your status. So if you come back with a valid card, but you've been away for more than two years out of the five before you return, an officer can form the view that you're not an immigrant, notwithstanding what your card says, and put you into a process where you have to prove your status to a judge. The problem is that there's some confusion. You can expect that a Canadian who has a card that happens to be valid for five years, which is the same period of time as residency, might legitimately be confused and have problems when showing up at the border.

As regards Bill C-31, we know the government thought the only people applying for the card would be people returning to Canada. But it was brought to the government's attention that there are other reasons to have evidence of your status, especially under Bill C-11, where employers, like our members, are under a positive obligation to exercise due diligence to make sure people can work in Canada. So we have to look to a card. If somebody shows us an expired card, we're going to tell them to get a new one. We're not going to be happy with that, nor would a bank be if you were applying for a mortgage, nor maybe would OHIP be if you were applying for health coverage.

So we now know, and I think Citizenship and Immigration Canada would admit, that everybody is going to be applying for these cards, because of the many purposes they fulfil. In that context, Citizenship and Immigration Canada is going to inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people every year by imposing this card.

We understand some of the reasons why the government wants to do it. For example, one of the motivating factors is that some people stay away from Canada longer than the government would like. But we think the reasons as a whole apply to only a small number of people, and to inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people every year is something we can't support. It is unduly onerous, and it hurts immigrants generally.

We would support having a card that has security aspects to it. This is something we should pursue, to replace the record of landing. There's no need for it to have an expiry date at all. If it must have an expiry date, it could be like the American one, which has 10 years. It doesn't have to be every five years. That's a lot of work. It certainly doesn't make sense to have it at five years, when the residency period for citizenship is six years. So you're always going to have to apply for a card, even though you might even qualify for citizenship at the first instance.

So at a minimum, we'd like to see the five-year time period extended. And it has to be absolutely clear to people that the residency requirement, the five-year period, is not at all tied to the card. You're going to have significant transitional issues—educating the public, really huge signs at the airport. The Americans allowed many years for implementing the new card.

We're also concerned, I'll say very quickly, about returning residents. If you are outside Canada and you don't have a card, you want to apply to get back in and you've been gone for more than a year, an officer could say to you, under Bill C-11, “I don't think you're an immigrant any more; you can appeal my decision.” If you are of a nationality that would have required you to have a visitor's visa if you were a visitor, then you have to stay outside the country while your appeal is being heard. You can't go back to your job, you can't go back to your family, if they're in Canada. But if you're from an exempt country, like the U.K. or the United States, and you can make it to our border, we'll let you in. These people are still permanent residents of Canada. Bill C-11 shouldn't discriminate against permanent residents based on their nationality, which it clearly and indisputably does at the moment.

The last point, to keep it brief, is that right now our policy acknowledges that foreign students are allowed to go outside Canada and have the right to re-enter. Their residency status is preserved. If we have an immigrant who wants to study abroad, we'll let them do that, and we'll make sure they have the right to come back in. Bill C-11 takes that away, though I don't know if it's going to be in the regulations. Certainly it's important that we allow people to develop, to better their skills, so they can return to the labour market in Canada and make a greater contribution.

The Chair: Thank you. Thank you all, in fact, for some impressive briefs, studies, and insight. I'm happy to note that you're all in favour of strong and increased immigration, but obviously you're looking at how we can remove those barriers. We appreciate all of your recommendations.

• 0945

I'm going to open it up to questions. With regard to the regulated professions, it's something we've already been talking about at length as committee members, so I'm sure we will have some questions.

I'll go to Inky.

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

The Chair: Maybe you can split your ten minutes into five and five, and we'll do the same thing.

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

First, let me welcome all our witnesses. It's good to see you here this morning. This is a very important bill, and it will certainly have an impact, probably over the next 20 years, as the last bill has had in this country.

My first question I will ask to the CRRA group and the professional engineers. All of us, as members of Parliament, have the same problems. We're usually asked to get recognition for new immigrants in our ridings who are professionals. This is an age-old problem. I remember first encountering it back in the late sixties at university as a professional teacher. Even back then there was a debate over what was a qualified teacher from another country. Obviously that hasn't disappeared. I know in recent times the arrival of South American doctors has caused a lot of problems for me personally, and I'm sure for other members as well, in the matter of accreditation. I've also found that the way the provinces certify creates another set of problems.

I said to some of our witnesses this morning that Denmark this past year set up a commission to study the whole business of accreditation of immigrants and come up with some solutions across the board, at least federally, so it applies to the whole country. As you know, we have provincial barriers and accreditation problems throughout this country. Would you be supportive of such a commission's being established to deal with this matter once and for all?

Ms. Wendy McBride: Thank you.

Perhaps I can start. All the professions have been working together because of the agreement on internal trade, and have engaged for the last few years in many efforts to smooth out the differences across provinces. A lot of progress has been made in that way. Many professions, for instance nursing, having national exams. The same exam for licensure is applied across the country. The registration takes place at the provincial level, because it's a provincial responsibility, but the standards applied are national standards. Similarly, when it comes to accreditation of the actual educational programs, there are national standards that are applied by the professions. So there's a lot of progress in this area.

In our brief we've tried to say that if people have the information early on, then they will be able to understand before they come what the system is in Canada and what requirements they would have to meet. Once they're here, that information is all very available as well through the websites of the various organizations and through the regulating bodies.

Perhaps the engineers have something to add.

Ms. Marie Lemay: One thing that's important to say here is that we understand the problem you're going through. We read those newspapers too, and we don't like what we're seeing. So we've been trying very hard to work in the last few years. We believe strongly that a key in solving the problem is, as Wendy said, getting the information about our system to the immigrants prior to their decision to emigrate.

We have a system that is different, a system we should be proud of. Other countries are looking at our Canadian system and trying to do the same thing. We have brought the qualifications of the professionals in this country up to a high level, and that has served to protect the public and to provide Canadians with the quality of life we have today.

As I said, we need to explain the system to the prospective immigrants before they get here. Once they understand, we think, the settlement problems will be diminished. Once they get here, we acknowledge that there is a role we have to play too. We have to help them, and we would like to play a bigger role in this.

• 0950

Just recently the B.C. government, in conjunction with the federal government and the provincial association in B.C., put a pilot project together to actually work on that part of the problem once the immigrants get here, to try to help them and work them through the process in order to ensure they are licensed. Our goal is to get them licensed. We want them in our profession.

Mr. Inky Mark: My second question is to the chamber.

I have a hard time trying to understand the section on returning residents. We deem immigrants to be legitimate or genuine as permanent residents, yet the word “permanent” seems to have no meaning, because when we talk about them we deem them to be foreign nationals when they want to come back to this country. I'd like to ask you, Benjamin, what you would like to see. Should we get rid of the term “foreign national”? Would you like to comment on that?

Mr. Benjamin Trister: If I can make just a general comment from my own personal experience, one of my oldest friends is a film director. I never knew he was just an immigrant until he applied for citizenship so that he could go work in the States and work in Canada too. He was born in the States.

The point is, my sense has always been that once you're here as an immigrant, society treats like you're Canadian, like you're an equal. You can't vote, and if you commit a crime you're gone. Other than that, you're pretty much like a citizen.

Doing what the Americans do—their concept is “resident alien”, our concept is “foreign national”—is something I personally think is inconsistent with our history. I think it also illuminates the dialogue, shall we say, on how the government feels about permanent residents today.

Our view is that freedom of mobility, even internationally, is something that can be in Canada's economic interests. You don't necessarily have to say to an immigrant that you want to nail them down here for a while first if that person is going to be going out and doing things that can benefit Canada.

This bill certainly would have a chill. I know already that just the mere prospect of Bill C-31 passing kept some multinational executives from accepting positions abroad because they didn't want to risk their Canadian status. There will be limitations on mobility, and a diminishment of the perception that they're equal to Canadians.

The Chair: Thank you.

Gurmant.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join my colleagues in welcoming the witnesses and thanking them for their comments and recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, there is no shortage of underemployed people in Canada, particularly professionals. With that in view, I have a private member's motion in the House on March 28 to debate two elements. One is—

The Chair: This is not a prepaid advertising sort of thing.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Sure, Mr. Chairman, I'm fully aware of that.

The Chair: You always have great ideas, but ask the witnesses some questions.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I'm fully aware of that, Mr. Chairman, but one element in that motion is about the standardization of education of professionals within Canada, from province to province. They are not standardized. The second part is recognizing foreign credentials or degrees in Canada. The motion is very much relevant to what we are discussing. That's why I mentioned it, Mr. Chairman.

The first question I would like to ask is whether there is anything being done to standardize the education or professional credentials within Canada so that there is easy, free mobility within Canada.

Also, I notice that CIC doesn't coordinate very well with other departments, particularly HRDC, Agriculture, Health, or DFAIT, with respect to prospective immigrants when they come to Canada in terms of recognizing the immigrants' credentials. CIC does give them points for independent immigration to Canada, but when they arrive here, other government departments, like Environment, HRDC, or Health, don't recognize those credentials. What can be done with respect to standardizing or with respect to coordinating these different departments?

I also notice that—

The Chair: Gurmant, your time is running out, and I'd like to hear the answers.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: The answers, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Let's deal with your first two questions first, if we could.

Who is going to take... Charles.

Mr. Charles Brimley: Sure, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Gurmant, the concept that the standards aren't equivalent across the country is a little foreign to me. I use the word “foreign” because in our profession and in many of the professions that are here, the standards are equivalent. They are national standards, and they are applied equally in every province. They are applied not only to the licensing of individuals or the certification of individuals. The same national standards are also applied when we measure the educational programs in Canada through an accreditation process. So I'm a bit confused by your question, because national standards are indeed applied from coast to coast in the professions.

• 0955

The Chair: You only have time for a quick follow-up, because your ten minutes are up.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: The standards are applied nationally, but if you mean within Canada, the thing is that some of the professionals cannot practise. One example is real estate agents. If you do a real estate course in one province, you cannot practise in the others. It was in light of this that I wanted to mention this.

Another quick thing, if I may follow up, is on dual intent. I think the dual intent issue that was mentioned earlier was very important. It think it will be putting a strain on getting a visitor's visa for those who are prospective students. Do you think the number of prospective students in the future will be less because of that dual intent restriction?

The Chair: Sally.

Ms. Sally Brown: I think there's a risk that immigration officials will feel compelled to take longer to assess a student because they feel that, indeed, they're assessing them for their immigration status, not just for a student visa. I think the act and the regulations have to clarify that if we move in this direction under the regulations, then for students who are applying this will not slow down their processing times because of the changes to the regulations. It's a risk, and it's a risk we feel is quite significant, given discussions we've had in the field. In many countries it's already the way student visas are assessed, so we're just saying we think this issue has to be recognized.

The Chair: Thank you, Sally.

Steve Mahoney and Gurbax Malhi, splitting time.

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

It's a shame the Canadian Alliance didn't support national standards for apprenticeship training, but I digress.

The Chair: We're talking about immigration here, thank you.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If I could, I'd like to go to the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers and to CRRA—and you can decide who wants to answer it. I do appreciate your attempt to address the concern that many of us have heard expressed by people arriving on our shores. I'm curious that they arrive here thinking they can automatically practise. Maybe there's something we can all do together to solve that. It doesn't necessarily require a change in legislation, just some advertising, some pamphlets, and some information overseas.

I'm concerned about your suggested amendment to paragraph 3(3)(c). You suggest adding the words “provincial and territorial regulatory authorities” to that clause. We will undoubtedly be accused of provincial interference by certain members here, and certainly by the provinces—notably the Province of Quebec, although I suspect all provinces would be concerned that the federal government, particularly in terms of legislation, would be casting something in stone in a bill that clearly does venture into provincial jurisdiction. I wonder if you can help us with any thoughts. Have you talked to your provincial governments about this? Is there some kind of support that we might be able to look to?

The Chair: Wendy.

Ms. Wendy McBride: Thank you.

Perhaps I could respond by saying that if you look at the section in our recommendation, what we're asking for is recognition, that's all. That section talks about facilitating cooperation between the Government of Canada, provincial governments, foreign states, international organizations and non-governmental organizations.

We're asking you to simply recognize that there would be cooperation with provincial and territorial regulatory authorities, because we also exist. It's no different from recognizing the cooperation that needs to take place with a provincial government, a foreign state, or an international organization.

The provincial and territorial regulatory authorities exist. They have legislative authority, and they have a key role to play in this area of the accreditation or licensure of professionals. That's simply what we're asking: that this be recognized by adding them into the list of those with whom the federal government wishes to facilitate cooperation.

• 1000

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I guess a good example would be the addition of the NGOs that are already there at the end of that clause. Although most of the NGOs do tend to deal directly with the federal government, they're non-governmental, so perhaps there's some justification for at least recognizing the role you do play.

I have two questions, and then I'll pass the mike. I have heard some criticism—it doesn't come from me—that regulatory authorities in certain areas actually restrict the ability of new immigrants to practise their profession because it tends to open the flood gates or increases the membership, and thereby dilutes the existing membership. I'd like you to respond to that.

My second question—and I guess this one comes from the Association of Universities and Colleges—concerns the issue of working part-time on and off campus. Are you suggesting that we allow it, but put in a cap of 15 to 20 hours? Is that just a statement of reality, or are you suggesting we actually put that cap in law?

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Marie or Noel could deal with the first question, and then Sally with the second.

Ms. Marie Lemay: The perception that you refer to is just that, a perception. We really have to work on getting rid of that perception, because it is not the case. As I said, we really do welcome immigrants, foreign-trained people, into our profession, and the standards they have to meet are the same as those our Canadian people have to meet. So it really is merely a perception, and that's where we have to do a lot of work.

The Chair: Sally.

Ms. Sally Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the question. The reality is that even for Canadian students, working 15 to 20 hours a week is probably ample. I don't think it needs to be stated as a restriction in the act, unless that would give some comfort to legislators that students are not working full-time as well as studying full-time. But certainly that's the norm, and I think it would be acceptable either way.

The Chair: Okay. Gurbax, you have the remaining four and a half minutes.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: I have a question for the Canadian Council of Professionals. You mention that the immigration authorities abroad do not give a full disclosure for the professional concerning the demands of the profession and the country. How do you leverage this one? Also, what suggestion do you have about ensuring full cooperation and communication between immigration authorities and the professional who applies for immigration abroad?

Mr. Noel Cleland: I could answer that, Mr. Chairman.

There is a system in place now that works very well when the foreign immigration officer puts that potential immigrant with a professional background in touch with the profession in Canada that he may wish to join. It works extremely well. The problem is that we don't make contact with them all, and if we can improve the situation, so that we have more contact through the foreign immigration offices, then I believe the system will work even better than it is currently.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: There are a great many immigrants who have high qualifications and also long experience back home, but when they come over here, they face a lot of problems. They're driving a taxi, or working in a restaurant or as a pizza delivery person. What do you think about those, when they have a lot of experience and good qualifications? What can you do about that?

Mr. Digvir Jayas (Chairperson, Canadian Council of Professional Engineers): From the engineering profession's point of view, the same standards are applied to Canadian graduates and graduates from foreign countries. If somebody has applied to the association and has been assessed, and at that time they do not have the qualifications they think they have, that's where the problem is.

• 1005

A lot of times people think they have engineering qualifications, but when you apply the Canadian standards, which are applied to both Canadians and foreign nationals, they do not meet the requirements. The profession is not shutting them out. The profession basically encourages them to write two, three, five examinations. Once they pass those examinations, they are considered academically qualified, and they can practise their profession in Canada.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: In the medical area, for example, there are limited opportunities for them. If they have no chance to write the exam, how can they qualify?

Mr. Noel Cleland: I can't answer that one. Wendy.

Ms. Wendy McBride: I could try to answer that one. I'm not from medicine, but I can say that they have the assessment as well. They assess the educational background and experience of anyone who is applying, and then they have to make sure they meet the kind of requirements that are applied to anyone from Canada who wishes to practice medicine. Whether they are educated in Canada or outside, they're the same kinds of qualifications. They have to apply. We know that there are limitations with the number of seats in the schools, and this is a problem.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Wendy McBride: But the exams, the qualifications, are the same.

The Chair: Steve. I'm sorry, Gurbax.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I want to add an important point on that. I wonder if you're aware that there are conferences run overseas for prospective immigrants on this issue. In fact, CIC policy currently... It's not in legislation, and I guess that's a question, whether it should be in legislation. The policy currently makes prospective immigrants sign a form that explains the professional credential system in Canada, in addition to the conferences and the meetings that are held. It would appear there's a lot of effort on the part of CIC to get this message across. Maybe there's a reason it's not sinking in, and I wonder if... Again, this is policy, not a legislative requirement.

Ms. Marie Lemay: You're quite right when you say there's a lot of effort on the part of CIC, and a lot of the change and enhancement we've been effecting to the service we're offering has come in the last few years. So there is a lot of work being done on that aspect.

For us, the best way of doing it would be if we could ensure that the prospective immigrants are, in a way, forced to get in touch with the professional association in their regulated field before they make the decision. If we could find a way to put that in the regulation and ensure that the prospective immigrant will have to talk to the association, then we can ensure that we will give the information. We have to work together and force that contact. Once we have that, we can give that information out. We'll provide the services, we'll work very hard with CIC, and we'll make this work, because we want it to work.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

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

I have listened closely to all our witnesses and I must say that they were all very interesting, especially since I have been a college teacher and that I am a nurse. You will understand that this issue is close to my heart.

I would like to ask two questions. The first is to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. You suggest that the student visa should be in several sub-sections. I can't understand your objective—I don't know if it's because I come from Quebec and that I am very wary of the Charter—but do you think that it would be acceptable from a Charter point of view? Could that not be considered as discrimination? Even though a university student might be a better choice because he would be less exposed to all sorts of bad things, coming from a foreign country and being already at a university level, could that not be considered as discrimination based on economic wealth since one has to come from a higher social level, generally, to be able to attend university? That is my first question relating to the Charter. It is purely theoretical but I would like to have your opinion on that.

• 1010

Here is my second question. I was quite pleased to hear that engineers have taken steps to obtain mutual recognition between different states. Has the same process started or is it being considered by other professions? I know that some steps have been taken by nurses but I would like to learn more about that.

Of course, the responsibility of a state like Canada or Quebec, in the case of immigrants moving to Quebec, is to open their doors. But we must also make sure that we make the best possible use of the skills of people coming from abroad, and delaying their use of those skills would ultimately be a loss to them and to us.

[English]

The Chair: Sally.

[Translation]

Ms. Sally Brown: Thank you very much for your question.

[English]

I don't think there are any charter implications. If you're saying in terms of where we're drawing our international students from or for what purpose, international students are drawn from around the world, from both developing and developed countries. The students are coming not only into universities but also into colleges, CEGEPs, and technical and vocational programs. Canada offers English and French as a second language training in order to make Canada more attractive to students from countries that don't have English as a first language.

CIDA and other departments offer help to ensure we're not just attracting students who can afford to pay, but that we also attract students who actually need financial assistance to come and study in Canada.

I hope that answers your question. I certainly don't think there's any charter issue involved here.

The Chair: On the second question, Wendy.

[Translation]

Ms. Wendy McBride: If I understood correctly, your question related to credentials, to the training of professionals, and to the recognition and certification of professionals.

I am a member and co-chair of an association of credentialing agencies in Canada. More than 20 professions belong to the Association and share information on the various credentialing systems. That is one way to ensure that foreign degrees are recognized.

As Mr. Cleland explained, there are national standards which are applied to each education program for the various professions: engineers, nurses, doctors, architects. They all have their own credentialing system with standards and procedures to assess the quality of their members.

There are also various systems in each province. In Quebec, for example, there is an approval system under the jurisdiction of the province, the Department of Education, to make sure that the training programs of professionals and of faculty reach some minimal standards. As far as certification is concerned, national standards ensure the highest quality and excellence of our education.

The process used to ensure the excellence of our education and training may be different for each institution. In nursing, for example, there are some statements which must be included in the training but it is up to each institution to decide how to do it. However, the skills, the qualifications, the training and the knowledge are described in detail.

The Chair: Do you have a final question? No?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, I will meet with them afterwards.

[English]

The Chair: Sally.

Ms. Sally Brown: I think I need to better understand your question. Are you saying with regard to us differentiating between university students and other—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

[English]

Ms. Sally Brown: I certainly don't think it's a charter issue. All the evidence suggests there's a much lower risk for university students than, for instance, for English-as-a-second-language students.

Where we know there's much less risk for certain streams of students, why don't we differentiate our processing times? It's a procedural issue. We're not saying they're a better class of student. We're just saying that we know the risks associated with the different types of students. Why don't we design our system to be able to reflect the lower and higher risks?

• 1015

The Chair: Judy, for five minutes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and thank you to all the presenters. I'd like to focus in on the issues of credentials and the recognition of the education, training, and experience of people coming into Canada.

I'm having some difficulty with the recommendations, because we especially hear constantly from people—and Dr. Jayas will know this from Manitoba—about the frustration on the part of immigrants who feel this terrible disconnect between the reality presented about Canada overseas and what they experience in Canada. We probably agree on the problem. There is tremendous frustration in terms of coming to this country as a doctor and ending up driving a taxi, or coming to this country as an engineer and ending up delivering pizza. That's a tremendous problem and a frustration that we have to address.

I think that problem exists now, and I think that problem will exist under Bill C-11. I'm not sure fiddling with the questions of economic criteria and occupation is the answer. It seems to me we have to get at the deep-rooted barriers to recognition of foreign-trained professionals. We have to find ways to deal with those barriers, and maybe look at our whole system in terms of how we recognize foreign credentials, whether or not we've eliminated all the bias in the system, and whether or not we're truly open to different experiences, different training, and applying those things to this country. I think we have to. In this competitive world, we're losing too many people to other countries that are prepared to open their doors and recognize different credentials.

I'm asking that of anybody.

The Chair: Listen, you've asked the question that's been on all of our minds this morning. It gets right to the point. Is there a disconnect? Is it myth more than it is reality?

Perhaps as the professionals on the front lines, you can all help us through this. Perhaps maybe either Marie or Charles can take a stab at it, but we have to get moving because we're a little late.

That's a very important question. Thanks, Judy.

Ms. Marie Lemay: Thank you very much.

I would like to address the question about credentials. Our concern with the way the bill is presented is actually with what we understand the regulations are going to be.

Our understanding is that what is proposed is that prospective immigrants will be assessed. Their educational qualifications will be assessed by credentialing agencies. In the case in which you're dealing with somebody who wants to work in an area that's regulated—you have to have a licence to practise in Canada in that area—we feel the people who will issue the licences are the ones who really should be assessing the credentials. That will diminish, limit, or avoid the chance of having a disconnect from the evaluation from a credentialing agency that doesn't evaluate the same way the profession does. It will set the expectations of the immigrants at the right level.

So if we from the professions could assess their... For example, when we say say an engineer in another country can't be an engineer in Canada, there are some who can call themselves engineers in another country—and very rightfully so, because they are engineers in that country—but it just happens that in Canada they may be missing one or two courses or examinations. As Dr. Jayas was saying, they might have to take an extra exam just to join the profession. We're not saying they're not engineers and are not capable, we're just saying we need to bring them through that extra step.

So if that assessment is made by the professions—

The Chair: The answers have to be as short as the questions.

Ms. Marie Lemay: I'm sorry.

The Chair: Charles, and then Ben, please.

Mr. Charles Brimley: Claude-Paul?

Mr. Claude-Paul Boivin: You talk about barriers. I think what we have to talk about are standards to protect Canadian consumers. There are standards that must be met, and they're the same standards whether you're from another country or whether you're born in Canada or educated in Canada.

So we're talking about standards, and what we're talking about is ensuring these people are aware of what the standards are before they make a decision to come, so that they understand what steps they will need to go through to obtain licensure. But I don't see that as a barrier. I see it as the high standards that Canada has built over the years to ensure the protection of Canadian consumers. Canadians have, over the years, come to expect this from their country.

The Chair: Ben, you had a comment.

Mr. Benjamin Trister: In the comments of one of the presenters, it was stated that people who cannot come to practise in their professions would be hesitant to come. I'm not certain that's the case. Neither is immigration, and I think that's probably one of the reasons why they're going away from the occupation-driven system.

• 1020

We want people who are willing to come to Canada to work, to enter the labour market at whatever level, if they meet a certain level of basic skills that makes us confident they can adapt to the Canadian labour market. That's what the new selection system is about. It's not focused on occupations, because occupations are not meaningful selectors of your overall adaptability any more, and that's precisely because so many people come here and end up not getting into their profession. Many of them don't get into their profession just because, sadly, when many employers are faced with a candidate who has more recognizable qualifications, they will default to those, possibly out of their own ignorance.

There are many societal factors that result in immigrants taking a while to adjust. I would say that when you discuss the new selection system you must keep in mind that the core of the debate has to be whether or not you agree with Citizenship and Immigration Canada's contention that it's about adaptability, not about occupation. On that score, the chamber will agree with CIC.

The Chair: Thank you.

Thank you all for some very impressive briefs and suggestions, all of which we will obviously have to take into account. Judy posed a related question that really gets at the nuts and bolts. There are an awful lot myths out there. It's a reality.

You could help us, the core group and everyone at the front table, by letting us know exactly how, in fact, to help. We hear about all of the problems in terms of accessing the system. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider settlement issues. Once immigrants get here, perhaps they need the additional courses. They need the additional experience, to get the right paperwork, to get the right job they've come here to do.

You can help us by giving us a piece of paper that states exactly what needs to be done in that area. It would be helpful to us—because Mr. Mark and others have asked—to know whether or not there are some mobility issues within our country. We hear that all the time, too. If you're a teacher in B.C., you can't teach in Ontario. If you're a nurse in Alberta, you can't work in Ontario.

There are an awful lot of perceptions out there that Canadians and their parliamentarians would welcome hearing about. Your help in this area would let us get through the misperceptions, or myths, and get to the nuts and bolts. We want to make sure this thing works well. It's a very competitive world out there, and we want to invite, and make sure that Canada can attract, the best and the brightest in the world. We need to; our population and our country demands it.

With your help, we'll be able to make sure that those qualities and standards are in fact in place. Thank you all very much for your input this morning.

• 1023

• 1025

I apologize to our second group of witnesses. We had some very good questions and answers, and there's never enough time. This bill is very important and we have some good experts at the table. We want to make sure that we can ask them as many probing questions as we possibly can, with the hope of improving the bill.

I have the pleasure of welcoming the Canadian representative for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Judith Kumin, with Regional Legal Officer Kim Mancini; and FatherCraft Canada's executive director, Glen Cheriton. Welcome also to Jonas Ma from the Chinese Canadian National Council, as well as Firdaus Karas, private witness.

We've read some of your briefs, and you've summarized some briefs so we could ask questions. I'll go now to Judith Kumin. You've been an invaluable source for this committee before on our refugee study, as well as on Bill C-31. We welcome you again for Bill C-11.

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

Thank you for inviting UNHCR to appear once again before this committee, this time to participate in your review of Bill C-11.

You have already introduced my colleague, Ms. Kim Mancini. She is UNHCR's legal officer based in Montreal.

As you have indicated, we have already submitted quite detailed written comments on Bill C-11, dated March 5, which I hope you have had a chance to look at. I will refrain from repeating what is set out in that paper. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take five or six minutes to situate the context in which Bill C-11 is being debated from the international viewpoint, and make a few comments on the bill itself.

By way of introduction, and for those of you who were not members of the committee when we were invited to testify a year ago, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees is the UN agency mandated by the international community to provide international protection to refugees, and to help governments to solve refugee problems.

More specifically, and perhaps of more direct relevance in this context, we are responsible for supervising the application of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which Canada and 139 other countries have ratified.

Our agency is working today in more than 120 countries around the world, and we've been present in Canada since 1976.

With regard to Bill C-11, we very much welcome Canada's effort to modernize its immigration and refugee legislation. Our interest in the bill, of course, concerns those provisions that relate to refugee protection in general, and to Canada's obligations under the 1951 refugee convention more specifically.

As Bill C-31 points out in its statement of objectives, one very useful way of responding to refugees' need for protection is through the establishment of resettlement programs, programs whereby refugees are selected and admitted from overseas. At the outset, I would like to say that UNHCR applauds Canada's longstanding commitment to refugee resettlement. We value very highly the day-to-day cooperation we enjoy with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, both in Canada and around the world, on refugee resettlement.

The bill sets out a continued commitment to refugee resettlement, and there are very transparent and inclusive consultations going on as we speak today, on the regulations that will pertain to resettlement. However, organized resettlement programs are not enough. Like most other industrialized countries, Canada is grappling today with the phenomenon of irregular migration. Bill C-11 deals extensively with this issue in a number of its provisions.

We live in a world in which borders are increasingly disappearing for the movement of capital, for the movement of goods, for the circulation of information, so it should come as no surprise to us that growing numbers of people—refugees, migrants, asylum-seekers alike—seek opportunity and protection outside their own countries. In response, governments, and Canada is no exception, have adopted a variety of control measures, measures designed to limit entry to their territory.

• 1030

It would be, I think, disingenuous of us not to recognize that barriers erected in response to irregular migration are also hurdles for persons in search of protection. Because these hurdles make it difficult to secure entry, many refugees have no alternative but to resort to the services of agents or smugglers in an effort to reach safety.

For this same reason, it is important not to confuse undocumented claimants with uncooperative or abusive claimants. Many refugees have no choice but to travel with falsified papers or even without documents at all.

Similarly, state and government measures to intercept improperly documented travellers overseas, en route to potential countries of asylum like Canada, need to be accompanied by safeguards, to ensure that interception does not result in return to a country where their life or their liberty would be in jeopardy.

At the same time, I would urge you to keep things in perspective. Despite globalization, the overwhelming majority of the world's refugees—around 12 million of them—remain in countries of the developing world. All in all, last year just over 500,000 people applied for asylum in 28 countries in the industrialized world, that is, in North America, Europe, and Asia. Just under 7% of that total applied for asylum, for refugee status, here in Canada.

So the challenge in Bill C-11—and it's a challenge faced by most industrialized countries—is to respond to these migratory pressures without closing the door on persons in need of protection.

I would like to remind you that access to asylum for persons in need of it, and protection from being sent back to a country where one's life or one's freedom would be in danger, are the single two most important values of the refugee protection system. Both are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in its article 14, which reads, “Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution.”

Now, implementing this basic human right of course requires national systems to distinguish people who are refugees from people who are not. Canada's system of refugee status determination is fundamentally sound, and we believe it will be further strengthened by two new measures contained in Bill C-11. First, it will certainly be strengthened by the introduction of a refugee appeal division. This will enhance the credibility of the refugee determination system, because an appeal mechanism is a basic element of due process. You will certainly recall that UNHCR has advocated for the establishment of an appeal mechanism in Canada for the past decade.

A second very positive step is the introduction of consolidated decision-making. This means that the refugee protection division of the Immigration and Refugee Board will consider an individual's need for protection under both the 1951 refugee convention and the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This will help to make sure that all persons at risk are properly identified.

Before closing, I would like to ask you to give your attention, as you consider the provisions of Bill C-11, to a number of particular issues that will have an effect on refugee protection. I will outline just five of them among the many that are set out in the brief we've submitted to you. These five comments are made by UNHCR, but they've also been made, in various forms, by other advocacy groups.

First is the question of access. We appeal to Canada, and to all countries, to keep refugee determination mechanisms accessible to all persons seeking protection. Statutory barriers to refugee determination carry with them a risk; namely, that persons in need of protection may not be identified as such. And this is why UNHCR has long maintained that eligibility issues are best dealt with in the context of a refugee determination procedure, rather than up front.

Second, as a minimum safeguard, any person who is denied access to a refugee determination procedure must have access to a pre-removal risk assessment, to be done by a qualified decision-maker. Bill C-11 is not entirely clear on this point.

Third, we ask states to refrain, as a rule, from detaining asylum seekers. I don't need to tell you that deprivation of liberty needs to be a highly exceptional measure. It should be limited to the shortest time possible, and ordered only for carefully specified, limited reasons. Asylum seekers should not be held with common criminals, and asylum-seeking children should not be detained.

• 1035

Fourth, we urge you to support the constructive measures that will facilitate the reunification of refugee families, which we understand will be included in the regulations to the bill. Family unity is a basic right, and we know from experience that settlement of refugees is much more successful and refugee integration is much more rapid when families are intact, when they're not separated.

Finally, on a related point, I would like to urge you to consider measures to resolve the longstanding problem of refugees in limbo—that is, of persons who have been found by the Immigration and Refugee Board to be convention refugees but who do not benefit from all the rights set out in the refugee convention and are not eligible for landing because they don't possess satisfactory identity documents. Such persons cannot apply for family reunification, cannot receive refugee travel documents, and are required to pay foreign student fees for post-secondary education.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Canada has a tradition of helping refugees, of which we believe this country can be justifiably proud. Canada's procedure for determination of refugee status is of high quality, Canada's refugee resettlement program is the world's second-largest, Canada takes a keen interest in human displacement, contributes financially to the UNHCR's programs, and is an active member of our governing council.

Canada has worked persistently to keep human security issues on the political agenda. And for all of these reasons, Canada's laws and policies in the refugee arena are looked to by many as examples. Bill C-11 will be no exception.

Once again, thank you very much for inviting us to be here today, and we are at your disposal to try to answer your questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Judith. And, as usual, thank you very much for your most impressive brief and letting us know and Canadians know where in fact Canada stands in the world, in terms of our refugee determination system and how we help in the global refugee system.

I'll go now to FatherCraft and Glen Cheriton. Five minutes, please.

Mr. Glen Cheriton (Executive Director, FatherCraft Canada): Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you here with regard to a fairly specific issue. I'm focusing very specifically on a part of Bill C-11 that, as I understand it, gives the minister the authority to remove the right of a person to sponsor an immigrant under the family reunification if that person is in default of child support payments. It is the understanding I have from newspaper reports, and also from the press releases of the minister herself, that this is the intent of the bill.

I'm sure you appreciate that primarily this targets fathers. This was actually listed as a priority ahead of the war criminals. So in fact it seems like the bill is designed to target fathers rather than actual war criminals.

The Chair: No, we just want people to look after their responsibilities, that's all.

Go ahead, Glen.

Mr. Glen Cheriton: I'm sure we could apply that to an awful lot of other areas, people paying taxes and a lot of other areas.

What I wanted to go into is specifically the details of how this will actually be done. Certainly this is being done under the regulations, where there's an awful lot more liberty to this. But I wanted to point out on Bill C-11 this indication of the objectives. This is under “objectives of this Act” in paragraph 3(2)(d):

to offer safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group

You will note what is absent from that is sex or gender. It seems like the very intent of the bill is to violate the commitments Canada has on an international level on safeguarding people from discrimination on the basis of gender. I'm very concerned that this bill seems to be targeting people who in fact—and I'll go into this later—have been actually the most successful immigrants to Canada, the men who have often come over here as single men and worked hard, worked to bring over the rest of their family, worked to bring over a wife, and have contributed enormous amounts to Canada. This has been the most successful form of immigration, the most successful contribution to Canada. To me it seems that overall this bill is a gratuitous and offensive attack on people simply because of their gender, and simply because they're poor.

• 1040

First of all, the minister is supposed to provide, by government policy, a gender-based analysis of any policy where this is relevant. I've tried to get this policy. It doesn't appear to exist, and the minister does not seem to be aware of the necessity for doing this prior to any new policy initiatives. This concerns me.

I wanted to figure out approximately how many would be targeted by this. In fact, the number is extremely small. The actual number of defaults, according to Carolina Giliberti of the Department of Justice child support team, is less than 10%. The overwhelming reason why those are in default is because they are poor. Those poor men are unlikely to be actually trying to sponsor immigrants. So the number that's going to be targeted is very small.

I also wanted to look in and ask what it is going to cost. What sort of mechanism can you do in order to fulfil what is clearly the intent under Bill C-11? First of all, you'd have to have a definition of “default”. But there isn't any definition of default.

In terms of this idea of people making up the responsibilities here, according to some provincial governments you're in default if your child support obligations are not paid right on time at the beginning of the month. But if your paycheque comes through and it's automatically deducted from your paycheque on the eighth, between the first and the eighth you are in default by these provincial government standards.

Every provincial government and every single agency, even from year to year, has different measures of what constitutes default. There is a fellow in Vancouver who was jailed. He was the custodial parent of his children. He was jailed for non-payment of child support. That money was supposed to go to the provincial government. This idea of requiring a man... This isn't a matter of making him live up to his responsibilities; this is profoundly offensive that you would jail the custodial parent—

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Cheriton, we're talking about the immigration bill here—

Mr. Glen Cheriton: Right.

The Chair: —not child support, which is an entirely separate issue. The justice committee is dealing with that issue. I think you should stick to your topic.

You have a minute and a half left, please. We would've appreciated your brief so we could have reviewed it in advance. Unfortunately, we weren't given it in time. So if you could proceed...

Mr. Glen Cheriton: I wanted to deal with the whole question of safeguards. If this is not the intent of the bill then the minister has misled Parliament very severely, and the public in those press releases.

I note this question of the rules of interpretation in my brief, which I've e-mailed and faxed to her, and which I've provided copies of to the gentleman over there. In regard to the rules of interpretation, the bill states that “The facts that constitute inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37 include facts arising from omissions”—which seems to reply to child support non-payment—“and, unless otherwise provided, include facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are occurring or may occur”.

So if somebody believes that you might incur a child support obligation in the future, you could lose that right. We're not talking about immigrants and refugees; we're talking about Canadian citizens who will lose these rights under Bill C-11. I'm quoting from Bill C-11. You may not think that this is relevant, but in fact there's also built in this balance of probabilities proof.

We've thrown out all of the basic judicial system. Instead of deciding on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it is suggested that they can decide any of this on the basis of the balance of probabilities. This is really just a cover for a vast amount of belief that passes for decision-making but really covers up an awful lot of bias.

In my brief I mention the fact that the department already has a program that expedites women as refugees, but men are not eligible for this program. So there's an entire series of events that lead me to believe that this is part of a general policy and direction of the government that says to men, we don't want you. I've met lots of men who have left this country—

The Chair: Excuse me. Listen, you're entitled to your opinion, but that's a bunch of hogwash. I'm sorry. Thank you very much for your intervention.

Mr. Jonas Ma, please.

Mr. Jonas Ma (President, Chinese Canadian National Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Jonas Ma. I represent the Ottawa chapter of the Chinese Canadian National Council. In the interest of time I would focus my presentations on two areas of interest to our community, family class and the status and rights of permanent residents.

• 1045

I must mention that other issues, such as the treatment of migrants from Fujian Province in China last summer, which was based on group status instead of consideration of individual circumstances, are also of great concern to our community. But I trust the standing committee will be conducting consultations in other parts of the country where the immigrant community resides, and I'm sure you will hear very eloquent presentations in this area when you visit them.

Overall we found that there are a number of proposed changes, especially with regard to family reunification, that are positive and supported by the community. These include the creation of an in-Canada class for sponsored spouses and partners, raising the age of dependent children from under 19 to under 22, exempting sponsored spouses and dependent children and partners from medical inadmissibility, and reducing the length of sponsorship from ten years to three years.

We support the inclusion of parents under the new bill, which is an improvement over the previous bill. We are encouraged by the intended expansion of the family class. However, we would prefer to see this included in the bill rather than in the regulations. We think greater public consultation would be advisable, especially with the immigrant and refugee communities, on how the family class should be defined.

The bill includes only the main overall rules, with most of the details left to regulations. Even though there are a number of intended changes included in the bill, I think the majority of changes are still left to the regulations. This opens the door for the department to change the rules outside the parliamentary process and without sufficient public consultation. One example is the situation of those granted temporary resident permits. The bill does not clarify how they can apply for landing after a period of being on temporary permits. I think a clarification in the legislation rather than in the regulations is preferable.

The other point is that the discretionary powers of immigration officers will be increased, while access to the appeal process will be reduced in many cases. I will go into a bit of detail in the next section, when I talk about the status and rights of permanent residents.

One of the changes introduced in the bill would be the introduction of an ID card. The re-entry of permanent residents to Canada can be denied by immigration officers at the port of entry if the requirements of the act are not met. The requirements include satisfying the immigration officer that the immigrant has physically resided in Canada for two years in a five-year period, and proof of resident status through the carrying of an ID card that must be renewed every five years. We believe the potential for erroneous denial of entry is considerable. We have seen examples of that in the past where certain groups have been asked for excessive documentation to prove that they have been in Canada. The bill addresses facilitating re-entry of those who are absent for less than a year without a valid card, but I think the mechanism for doing that should be clarified in the bill.

The bill also says it will set a higher threshold of examination of permanent residents than other foreign nationals, but we don't know whether this will be left to the discretion of the immigration officer or whether it will be clarified in the regulations. We feel that it should be spelled out in the bill.

Permanent residents can be deported without an appeal process and without consideration of their circumstances, as the result of a single criminal sentencing and for reasons of security. This can cover many individuals who, in their home country, could have been members of an organization once perceived as a terrorist group. An example is the ANC in South Africa.

I also want to point out the right of economically disadvantaged groups to family reunification. People on social assistance would not be allowed to sponsor family members, including spouses and minor children. This is obviously blocking family reunification and contravenes many of the international covenants that Canada has signed. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The bill also simplifies the procedures for the government to go after sponsors when the persons sponsored collect assistance. It does not make any distinction between individuals who are unable to pay because of circumstances beyond their control and those who are able but unwilling to pay.

• 1050

As we know, immigrants and refugee communities are always at a disadvantage because they are more vulnerable to layoffs in an economic downturn. We have to take into consideration the circumstances that led to sponsorship breakdown.

The last point I want to make is about the medical inadmissibility of the independent class. While the bill proposes to exempt sponsored spouses and partners from the conditions related to excessive demands on health and social services, it does not address the current situation in which the application of the whole family under the independent class category will be denied because of a medical condition of one member of the family. Often this can be a very minor medical problem.

In conclusion, we support many changes introduced by the bill in the family class, but we would prefer much clearer definition of the expanded family class in the bill, with sufficient public consultation. We feel that greater clarification in the bill will avoid inconsistent application that would be only to the disadvantage of the immigrant and minority groups, especially if they are racially visible and economically disadvantaged.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Jonas.

And finally, to Mr. Karas, welcome.

Mr. Firdaus Karas (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

When I received the invitation from this committee to appear, I did not specifically write a brief, because I thought it might be more interesting to have a dialogue and answer specifically any questions that any members might have.

Let me give you a two-minute background on myself. In 1980 I wrote a draft convention against torture as part of my research essay at Carleton University. I was one of very few Canadians involved in the drafting of the convention against torture.

By the way, my draft was subsequently not used by the Canadian delegation but by the Swedish delegation to the United Nations. It was discussed considerably. This was about four years before the actual convention against torture was created. So if there are any questions about the convention against torture, I will be happy to answer them.

After that, I wrote a self-help manual on how to immigrate to Canada. Then, for five years, as the head of staff, the executive director, of the United Nations Association in Canada, I dealt quite a lot with all the issues on the plate of the United Nations, including, of course, to an extent, refugee and immigration policy, especially refugee policy.

Then for a short while in 1988, Mrs. Barbara McDougall was appointed minister of what was then called the CEIC, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. As you know, the Singh decision had been given by the Supreme Court. Our refugee decision-making process, as it existed in 1988, started to collapse completely. I was a non-partisan consultant acting as a policy adviser on immigration and refugee issues to the minister and was responsible in large part for the creation of the various amendments that we put forward to make what was then the bill go through Parliament.

As you might recall, the bill was then ping-ponging between the Senate and the House because the Senate had serious reservations about the bill. NGOs were in an uproar about the bill. This is the bill that created the Immigration and Refugee Board and the system that we more or less have today.

We had created actually a two-tier system at that time, and that two-tier system then disappeared. We are now going to go back to a two-tier system, and I want to make some comments about that in a second.

We had a huge backlog of refugee cases. The minister and the cabinet decided what to do. As you know, at that point many people were being put through what was called the “credible basis” test, which was just the first stage of the two-stage system, with an adjudicator and a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I was an assistant deputy chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board that headed the backlog subdivision of the board. I had 50 board members working with me from coast to coast, dealing with oral hearings on the credible basis test, not on the full convention definition test, dealing with adjudicators and trying to get rid of this backlog. The backlog of refugee claimants in Canada finally turned out to be approximately 121,000 claimants from 115 countries around the world.

That took about three and a half to four years. After that, for a year or so, I was the assistant deputy chairman in charge of the Ottawa and Atlantic district of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I then left because I had a fixed five-year term. I left the field of immigration almost completely.

• 1055

I wanted to give you a two-minute background so that if there are any questions related to what I'm about to say on this bill, you can understand where I'm coming from.

The two points I want to make with regard to this bill are that throughout the public documents I have read, the word “faster” is used quite often. This is in the various background papers and so on. Are we really creating a faster system by this? Please understand what we're doing with Bill C-11. We're going back in time to a two-level refugee determination system, which we used to have. This is not something new.

Now what you have, as I understand it, is a system that's going to go through this kind of process. A refugee comes, and he may or may not be assessed for the expedited process. If he's not assessed for the expedited process, he'll go for the refugee convention determination by one person instead of two. In the documentation it says that having one decision-maker at the Immigration and Refugee Board instead of two makes it a faster process. I don't understand why that is the case. Whether it involves one or two people, the time required to process a case is going to be pretty much the same. In fact, I think the time required is going to be different because they're going to have to apply two conventions rather than one.

Then they go before the one-person panel. If that one-person panel says no, it will then go on a paper review to the appeal division. It then might have a pre-assessment hearing for the first time. This used to be called the H and C hearings. For the first time we've introduced the possibility of an oral hearing at the removal assessment level. It might have an oral hearing process; it might not. I don't know what the criteria are. It simply says in the bill that we might have an oral hearing of that process. Then there's leave to appeal and finally going to the court.

Under Bill C-11 this has again become a multi-tiered system. We tried to truncate that system some years ago when we set up this system. We had a multi-tiered system, and it collapsed on us. Previously, we had 121,000 claimants coming from 115 countries.

So I just throw out the problem here that if I were the committee, I'd be watching very carefully that either we're not going to go to so many expedited processes to make sure there is no backlog, that we're doing away with what we should be doing under the convention and making good determinations, or that we start developing backlogs because there are so many levels in the system for somebody to go through.

The second point I want to make is with regard to the application of the convention against torture. I'm sure that almost all the people who have appeared before you spoke of the refugee determination system, as will those who are going to appear before you. But now for the first time we have introduced a second convention for the Immigration and Refugee Board to deal with—that is, the convention against torture. I know from my own history in dealing with the creation of the convention against torture that one of the most difficult things the international community had to deal with was the definition of torture. If you want, we can go into that.

No doubt Canadian jurisprudence will come about as to what does or does not constitute torture in the Canadian context. No doubt the Immigration and Refugee Board will then follow that jurisprudence in its decision-making. But that jurisprudence will take some time to develop. There will be a fairly large body of appeals on the issue of the convention against torture, including the definition of torture and the applicability of the convention on various cases, and so on. It will be just as in the refugee determination system, where we've had this kind of jurisprudence build up.

What worries me about the applicability of the convention against torture and giving it to the Immigration and Refugee Board... I understand why we've done it. I know the article it involves. I know what's happening in the U.S. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. All I'm saying is be cognizant of the fact that when you create a whole new convention with a different definition of who it does and does no apply to, you have all the inherent inefficiencies and problems that creates, just as it did with the convention on refugees.

• 1100

Those are the two questions I wanted to bring up, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that might come up.

It's quite odd, because I have a background in immigration, refugees, and torture, and that's probably fairly unique among your witnesses. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Karas. I know you didn't have a submission, but even though we've had it translated and we've heard it, perhaps between now and when we finish our hearings you might want to send us something based on what you've just said.

Mr. Firdaus Karas: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I think it would helpful. Your experience and expertise are of course something to be taken into account. Thank you.

We'll move quickly to the questions. I'm going to get into five-minute rounds. Inky, do you have a question?

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll keep my time brief so that other members will have their time as well.

Thank you for being here. Your comments certainly will keep us focused, in that it's necessary to secure borders but more important to ensure that the legal rights of genuine refugees, immigrant applicants, and even permanent residents are protected.

I just came back from China, where I had a chance to speak to a number of our officials about their challenges. One of the challenges is the whole issue of proof and validation of documentation, not only as it applies to refugees but also to economic immigrant applicants, and now, with the changes in the bill, permanent residents. I'd like to hear your comments on this whole business of documentation.

The Chair: Judith, I know that you talked about documentation in your brief. Do you want to talk about it for a moment?

Ms. Judith Kumin: I would talk about just one aspect of it, and that is the issue of certification of identity. What we have asked for is a realization of the fact that a person who is fleeing persecution or serious harm in his country of origin may or may not be in possession of original, valid identity documentation.

This is completely different from the expectation you would have of an immigrant, someone who is asking to enter Canada through a legal immigration procedure. In that case it is of course absolutely normal to expect the person to supply identity documents and all of the certifications required by the immigration procedure.

But attention needs to be given to the fact that some refugees, though not all, may not have this documentation. Similarly, in presenting a refugee claim, the individual needs to be able to demonstrate that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution, and this may or may not be backed up by documentary evidence. That's why the assessment of the decision-maker is so important, and that's why in some cases the benefit of the doubt needs to be given to the claimant. A refugee is not always able to supply the documentation one would hope to have, as an immigrant is.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Thanks for raising the issue of documentation. In the Chinese-Canadian community we have heard many times of the inconsistent application of the documentation requirement. Some offices seem to require an enormous amount of documentation; other offices do not. We feel there is almost a bias in some cases. For example, in the case of China—where the majority of the immigrants in our community come from, instead of Hong Kong or Taiwan—there is a distrust that the individuals who are making application under the economic class or the independent immigrants are trying to cheat the system. Their documentation always seems to be insufficient, and there would be new demands for documentation.

That's why we request that it be made clearer, rather than leaving it to the discretion of the immigration officers in individual offices to make that decision. People seemed lost, and they felt they were being treated differently, because they have friends who are applying in other countries, and they don't have to go through the same kind of excessive requirement on documentation. This supports my earlier point that I think it needs to be spelled out instead of being left to the discretion of the individual officers or even in the regulations.

• 1105

The Chair: Thank you. Follow up? No one?

Jean.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too want to compliment you on the brief, especially the sections of it that I think are pertinent.

But I have a letter here that again goes to Mr. Ma's concern, and that is on the response that is given. The individual coming to Canada is not bonded to the individual country. They are unemployed, they're living on a small pension, they can't afford money for the trip. It's an expensive trip coming to Canada. They might come here to work, etc., etc. How do you see Bill C-11 in terms of that kind of application request? How do you see Bill C-11 responding to the very serious concern that families have here in the matter of reunification.

The Chair: Jonas.

Mr. Jonas Ma: We feel that the change introduced by the bill to remove the right of people who are economically disadvantaged to sponsor their family is very serious, because it contradicts our commitment to many of the international conventions we have signed. I mentioned the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We feel this should be taken out of the bill, that people should have the right to be reunited with their family, despite their social and economic status. This is discrimination on social and economic status. It's very clear to us.

The Chair: I wonder if the committee will permit me, for a colleague, Judy—because I know that she has to go—to do a quick flip here. Judy, do you want to ask your question?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you. I appreciate that. I've got to quickly run to the health committee, and I'd like to be in touch with the opposition—

The Chair: I'm very sensitive to the requirements of the other parties, having to be at three committees at once.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you so much.

I'd like to ask one question of Judith. I think you've verified today what we've heard from previous presenters, that under this bill Canada remains in contravention of the refugee convention and the convention against torture. You can comment on that if I'm wrong. What are the two most important amendments we could make to this bill to make Canada fully consistent with the UN conventions?

Ms. Judith Kumin: I certainly didn't say that, so those are your words, not mine.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay.

Ms. Judith Kumin: There are two areas that are highlighted in our brief where you might give your attention. Perhaps you were present at the lunchtime meeting we had not long ago, courtesy of Senator Lois Wilson, where we talked about this.

One has to do with the availability of identity documentation for persons who are recognized as convention refugees. The 1951 refugee convention has three articles, 25, 27, and 28, that pertain to the status of a person after he or she has been recognized as a refugee. Article 25 says the country of asylum will provide that person with administrative assistance, substituting itself for the country of origin. Article 27 says the country of asylum will issue the refugee with an identity document. And article 28 says the country of asylum will issue the refugee with a travel document. I remind you that this pertains to people who have already been recognized, with legal force, by the Immigration and Refugee Board as refugees. We're not talking about claimants.

One change that would certainly be very gratifying would be simply to implement those articles without further ado. The current Immigration Act, in section 46.08, I believe, requires that a recognized refugee have a valid and subsisting passport or identity document to be eligible to apply for landing. That passage doesn't appear in Bill C-11. We'll have to see what's in the regulations, but Bill C-11 certainly gives us a chance to take a giant step forward in solving that problem. Recognized refugees, in our view, according to the convention, should be able to obtain an identity document from the country of asylum, Canada, and a travel document upon recognition.

• 1110

Another concern that's outlined in our appeal has to do with access to the refugee determination procedure. Canada has long had up-front screening and statutory barriers to the refugee determination procedures. Certain people are screened out up-front. Under the new bill, those people who are screened out up-front, in our view, will need anyway to have a risk assessment before they're removed. If you're found not eligible to go into the refugee determination procedure, because you're suspected of being a war criminal, a member of a terrorist organization, or whatever, you still need to have the risk you would face on return assessed.

We have two concerns there. One is to make sure this risk assessment takes place. The wording in the relevant provisions of Bill C-11 is hard to follow on that. So that would need to be confirmed. The other is to make sure the screening that takes place up-front, to determine who will have access to the refugee procedure and who won't, doesn't cast its net so widely that it screens out people who ought to have a chance to assert their claim and tell their story to the decision-makers of the board. Casting the net just on the basis of membership, which is undefined, or relationship with a specific government, is a very wide cast indeed.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

[Translation]

Madeleine.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You have expressed some concern about Bill C-11 and our international obligations under the Convention on Torture. If you say so, it must be true. However, what would you suggest to make sure that the Bill agrees with our international obligations?

I suppose this is a major concern of yours, considering your responsibilities and your knowledge of the issue. We heard recently about a young Tunisian who was returned to Tunisia.

The goal of the legislation is to avoid mistakes as much as possible. So, could you help us and give us some idea of potential solutions?

Ms. Judith Kumin: Unfortunately, there is no magical solution. Mistakes are always possible. The decision-makers at the Immigration and Refugee Board are human beings who have to assess each case before making a decision.

Obviously, the training of those decision-makers is extremely important and we will clearly have to provide additional training on the Convention Against Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. In fact, the Bill implements an obligation that Canada has already accepted under article 3 of the Convention which states very clearly that any signatory country cannot return someone to a country where there would be a high risk of torture.

There is a sort of discrepancy between Bill C-11 and the Convention Against Torture, since article 3 of the Convention does not allow for any exception. According to the Convention, there is no exception to the prohibition of returning anybody to a country where they would risk being tortured. In the Bill, there is an exception, of course, based on matters of safety or danger for the public, and this might create problems as to the way Canada meets its obligations under the Convention Against Torture.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Steve. Sorry, I feel bad you missed your turn.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr, Chairman, I have a couple of questions.

The first goes to Mr. Ma. Sir, are you aware that subclause 12(2), on page 7 of the bill, does allow for parents to be included under family class, which is contrary to...

Mr. Jonas Ma: That's why I welcome this change.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm sorry, I thought you were saying here, “One example is that parents are not included under family class in the Act”.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Do you have the right paper?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have the paper I was given.

Mr. Jonas Ma: It's headed “Submission. Bill C-11...”.

• 1115

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, that's what I have. It says:

The Bill includes only the main overall rules, with most of the details left to regulations. This opens the door for the department to change the rules, outside the parliamentary process and without sufficient public consultation. One example is that parents are not included under family class in the Act, even though this is expected to be in the Regulations.

Mr. Jonas Ma: That's interesting. I made the changes. I'll give you copies of them.

The Chair: Yes, maybe you could just table what you have. What we have may be different.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have two copies of this, so maybe we've got the other stuff.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Okay.

The Chair: Maybe you wanted to expand it from parents to grandparents, and that's all right for some of us too.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: In fact, that was actually my next point. If you read subclause 12(2), it also says

or other prescribed family member of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident.

I don't know exactly what that means, but I presume it could include siblings, it could include grandparents. I'm not sure it would go so far as to include fiancés, which you referred to, at least in this document—and I'm not sure it should. Including a fiancé in a family class definition might open the door to some pretty obvious abuse.

Mr. Jonas Ma: I feel the definition of family class should be based on public consultation, as my revised submission has indicated. We should look at it in a more diverse cultural context. I know the North American standard of nuclear family has been the norm that governs the legislation, and we feel that in the age of a more diverse Canada, we should have more public consultation on this. This is my view, but I think the decision should be based on public consultation.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Good. I'd like to ask a question of Judith.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that probably one of the most incredible experiences I've ever had as a member of Parliament was travelling with the minister into Kenya, and then going out into the refugee camp with 110,000 souls and seeing the tremendous work done by UNHCR and Canada, as well as many of the other nations there. So I really do congratulate you and respect the work you do.

I'd like you, though, to tell me why you made the statement—if I wrote it down correctly—that the PRRA must be maintained. I think that's what you said. And when I look at clause 112, which refers to pre-removal risk assessment, it outlines four areas where a foreign national may not apply for PRRA, under the Extradition Act or under paragraph 101(1)(e), etc. Are any of those specifically of concern to you, or are there other reasons you made that statement?

Ms. Judith Kumin: No, I think you put your finger on the passage that is of concern, in particular paragraph 112(2)(c). It may may be a question of wording, and we will be having discussions on Friday with Citizenship and Immigration precisely to hear more about how they expect the pre-removal risk assessment to work. But our concern is that if a person is excluded from the refugee determination procedure because of the various exclusion criteria in the act, that person needs, nonetheless, to have the risk on return assessed by a qualified decision-maker, to make sure that person isn't being sent back to death, to torture, or to inhuman treatment or punishment. I believe it is the intention of the minister that all such persons will have access to a pre-removal risk assessment, but I find the language of the bill not entirely clear on that.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thanks.

The Chair: Gurbax, one question, please.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Just one?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Okay. Then my question is to the Chinese Canadian National Council. As you mentioned the family class, what do you think—or does your council have any thought—about that remaining member of the family class abroad?

Mr. Jonas Ma: Are you talking about who should be included in the family class?

• 1120

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: No. Sometimes, not in the family class, there is a single individual, for example, a nephew or niece. As the minister mentioned last time, they will look at this point. So what is your council's opinion about that?

Mr. Jonas Ma: We have been—

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: It's a one-time opportunity for one member.

Mr. Jonas Ma: Yes. This is actually an issue our Vancouver sister chapter organization has been talking to the minister about, and I think, from what I hear, from the consultations they have conducted in the Vancouver community, there is tremendous support for such a consideration. I remember back in the early nineties the government was able to support the immigration to Canada of unmarried siblings, despite age limits, and there was tremendous support for that. I think we want to see a more liberal interpretation of the family class—this has been our position. But again, we feel we should have more consultations in the community. Perhaps other communities have other views we should listen to as well.

The Chair: We've got an answer to your dilemma, Jonas, about your submission. I should tell you that we had your submission for Bill C-31, we also had your submission for Bill C-11, but because we didn't get it in time, we weren't able to translate it, so the only thing that people have is that one we had from you on Bill C-31. So the mystery has been solved, and we've got it.

I wonder, Judith, if I could ask you one question. Under Bill C-31, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees would have been entitled to take part in any proceedings concerning claimants for refugee protection. In Bill C-11—similarly to the current law I might tell you—UNHCR is restricted only to observation. I wanted to know if you had any particular comment on that. Have I got it right or wrong, or are you concerned about it?

Ms. Judith Kumin: You have it partly right, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: The story of my life—partly right.

Ms. Judith Kumin: Under Bill C-11, UNHCR is entitled to observe proceedings in any division of the Immigration and Refugee Board—that is, before the immigration division, immigration appeal division, or the refugee protection division. This was important to us, and was something we discussed at length with Citizenship and Immigration Canada and with the board, particularly as proceedings before the immigration division and the immigration appeal division, under the new law, are to be in camera. We felt it important that at least one international observer should be present.

The bill also provides that UNHCR will be able to make submissions at the appeal level in the new refugee appeal division. The provision of the former subclause 161(2) of Bill C-38 has been split into two provisions, so you have to look for it in two places in the new bill. It gives us access, as observer, to all levels, all proceedings, as at present, and it adds the possibility for us to make submissions at the appeal division in refugee determination cases. That was something very important to us, because it's at that level that certain decisions will be precedent-setting, and since we do have a role in interpreting international refugee law, we felt that was the proper level for us to make our views heard.

We discussed the wording of Bill C-38, “take part in,” and we also—I'll be very honest—had some concerns about this wording, because since we are a diplomatic institution in Canada and we are not subject to judicial process in Canada, we can't really be a party to a proceeding. But we can make submissions, and so the wording in Bill C-11 is entirely acceptable to us.

The Chair: Thank you very much for that clarification.

Mr. Karas, if I may, I think you raised the question, not only in our pre-study...

What I think the minister is trying to achieve, what I think we're all trying to achieve, is the expediting of a system that tends to go on forever for an awful lot of people, who are stuck in limbo, not knowing whether or not they're refugees, whether or not they're going to be sent back, and so on. I think we wanted to create a much more equitable system, but a system that can move fairly quickly, at the same time taking into account the rights people have when they touch this soil.

Because of your experience, as you indicated you think we're going back to a two-tier system, are you saying that's going to be cumbersome? Is that going to be lengthy? Is it wrong-headed to set up two separate tracks to determine whether or not a person is a refugee? Or should it be a single-tier system with everybody going in through the same door, being assessed on the same basis, and then have a system that can adjudicate fairly and equitably but make that determination a lot faster?

• 1125

Mr. Firdaus Karas: I think we all agree that under the new bill we want to get to the genuine refugee who needs the protection of Canada, or the person who might face torture now, as fast as possible. We want to give that person the right to stay in Canada and so on.

What concerns me is that we've actually not just gone back to a two-tier system, we're going back to the multi-tier system that we used to have. The multi-tier system now is a two-tier refugee and convention on torture system, plus the pre-removal, plus the appeal to the courts, and so forth.

When you're trying to get to somebody who does not deserve the protection of Canada, that might become the problem. You must recall that when our system collapsed, we had a huge number of cases from countries such as Portugal and Trinidad that I actually had to deal with in the previous backlog. I actually went through the system. Not many of them, if any of them, were found to be genuine refugees.

The problem is that it becomes a cycle, because the more those kinds of people are attracted to Canada because they think our refugee determination system is protracted, and they can get to stay in Canada regardless of whether they're really refugees or not, the more the system collapses—and, in turn, the more it attracts more such people. It becomes a cycle that quickly spirals out of control.

In some countries, of course in Europe, in the Ukraine, and so on, they've now developed very substantial backlogs. I'm not saying that they have manifestly unfounded claims or anything, I'm just saying there is this problem of backlogs that develop. When you introduce more and more tiers into a refugee determination system, or into a system that ultimately determines whether a person gets to stay or the person has to be removed from Canada, that becomes a more and more inefficient system.

I would agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that if we could have a quick, efficient system that makes a final determination as fast as possible, but one that is fair, one that protects the charter, one that accords people everything under our Canadian system that should be accorded to those people, that would be the best system.

What worries me about this system is that we will get only to those people who deserve protection fast. I'm worried that we will not get to those people who do not deserve Canada's protection fast. Ultimately, they're the ones who might backlog the entire system.

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

Ms. Judith Kumin: That is precisely the challenge facing the gentleman you heard from on Tuesday, the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

It will indeed be a challenge to implement the appeal in a way that does not lead to undue delays. We still feel, as we have for the last decade, that establishing an appeal mechanism is necessary if one is to have a procedure that is entirely fair.

Precisely for the reason that was outlined earlier, mistakes are made in the first instance. Having another person to have a look at the decision is a safeguard that we think is worth the trouble. Of course the hope and the expectation is that with the introduction of a rapid paper appeal, there will be fewer persons having recourse to the courts looking for judicial review, and that the Federal Court will be able to deal more expeditiously with requests for leave to appeal knowing that there have already been two examinations of the claim.

Mr. Firdaus Karas: Mr. Chairman, may I just add that we had a system that was based on paper. That was the old Refugee Status Advisory Committee, RSAC, which existed until the Immigration and Refugee Board was created.

Before the Singh decision, we had just an appeal. It was called an examination under oath. He went and did an examination under oath, and then the decision-maker took a paper review. All I'm saying is that process bogged down for whatever reason at that time.

The Chair: We're talking about back to the future.

Thank you all very much for your great input. Thank you very much.

We're adjourned until next Tuesday.