CIMM Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 11, 2003

1800

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

1810

Ms. Ajit Deol (Member and Past President, Singh Sabha of Winnipeg)

The Chair

1815

Ms. Ajit Deol

1825

The Chair

Ms. Ajit Deol

The Chair

Ms. Ajit Deol

The Chair

Ms. Ajit Deol

The Chair

Ms. Ajit Deol

The Chair

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck (Program Director, Thunder Bay Multicultural Association)

1840

The Chair

Dr. Vedanand (University of Manitoba)

1845

The Chair

1850

Dr. Vedanand

1900

The Chair

1905

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck

1910

The Chair

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

Ms. Ajit Deol

1915

The Chair

Ms. Ajit Deol

The Chair

Ms. Ajit Deol

The Chair

Ms. Ajit Deol

The Chair

Ms. Ajit Deol

The Chair

Ms. Ajit Deol

The Chair

Dr. Vedanand

1920

The Chair

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

Dr. Vedanand

1925

The Chair

Dr. Vedanand

The Chair

Dr. Vedanand

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Dr. Vedanand

1930

The Chair

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

1935

Ms. Ajit Deol

1940

The Chair

Ms. Ajit Deol

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Ajit Deol

The Chair

Ms. Ajit Deol

The Chair

Ms. Ajit Deol

1945

The Chair

Dr. Vedanand

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Dr. Vedanand

The Chair

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

1950

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck

The Chair

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck

The Chair

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck

The Chair

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck

The Chair

1955

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck

The Chair

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck

The Chair

Ms. Ajit Deol

Dr. Vedanand

The Chair

Dr. Vedanand

2000

The Chair

Dr. Vedanand

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck

The Chair

2015

Ms. Fatima Soares (Excutive Director, International Centre--Citizenship Council of Manitoba)

2020

2025

2030

The Chair

Mr. Tom Denton (Co-chair, Manitoba Refugee Sponsors)

2035

The Chair

2040

2045

The Chair

Mr. Jim Mair (North End Sponsorship Team)

The Chair

Mr. Jim Mair

2050

Mr. Howard Engel (Board Member, North End Sponsorship Team)

2055

The Chair

Mr. Jason Fuerst (Employer Liaison, Employment Projects of Winnipeg Inc.)

2100

2105

2110

The Chair

Mr. Bob Gabuna ( As Individual)

2115

2120

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

2125

The Chair

Ms. Fatima Soares

2130

The Chair

Mr. Tom Denton

2135

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Tom Denton

2140

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Fatima Soares

2145

The Chair

Mr. Tom Denton

2150

The Chair

Mr. Tom Denton

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Tom Denton

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Fatima Soares

2155

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Fatima Soares

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

2200

The Chair

Ms. Fatima Soares

2205

The Chair

Mr. Jim Mair

2210

The Chair

Mr. Bob Gabuna

The Chair

Mr. Bob Gabuna

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 025

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 11, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¼ (1800)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good evening. It's nice for the committee to be here in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The province and the city have an awful lot to be proud of. I know Cathy's from Thunder Bay, but that's close enough to be a Winnipegger, right? One thing's for sure, it's consistent. We just came from Toronto. It's cold there, too, and it's cold in Ottawa. We're going west, so hopefully it's going to get a little warmer.

It's nice to see Judy here. Of course, we're in her home city. She has now gone on to a bigger and better job as finance critic, but it's nice to have her back with us. She made an invaluable contribution to our committee over the past number of years.

Of course, our other member who also comes from Manitoba is Inky Mark. As you know, he's recuperating from a pretty serious operation, and we wish him well. Andrew spoke with him, and slowly but surely, he's getting back up to speed and will hopefully be rejoining the committee soon.

We're here tonight with the first panel to talk a little bit about Bill C-18, An Act respecting Canadian citizenship. This is the third time that a committee of the House of Commons has dealt with a citizenship act, but for one reason or another, it has never gotten through the Senate or been given royal assent, because there have been elections in between and all kinds of other things.

We want to make sure we get it right, so your input is very important. I know you've submitted briefs. What I'd like you to do is perhaps summarize what's in the briefs. You can take five, or seven, or eight minutes, and then we can ask you some questions. So let's get started.

I'm happy that we have the Singh Sabha of Winnipeg with us, represented by Ajit Deol, a member and past president.

Ajit, welcome. I look forward to your input and presentation.

¼ (1810)

Ms. Ajit Deol (Member and Past President, Singh Sabha of Winnipeg): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Although it's cold out, it's still a good evening to be together here.

My approach has been very different. As a matter of fact, I really feel honoured to be able to participate in today's session about Bill C-18. As I look at the name of the bill, I highly appreciate the purpose and the title of it. The act deals with the citizenship of Canada, rather than as it was before, just as the Citizenship Act. I give credit to the government for that.

I read all of it, and then I felt that if I had to speak about everything, I would need an hour myself. That not being the case, since I was told I had five minutes, I won't talk any more than five minutes. I decided to touch upon precisely three sections. The first is on page 13, clause 20, “Citizenship for certain women”. I appreciate that. I will sum up by saying...do I have time to read all of what is on my page?

The Chair: We just say five minutes because if I said half an hour, people would take forty minutes. I think we're fine, though, Ajit, so take as much time as you need.

¼ (1815)

Ms. Ajit Deol: Thank you.

What this clause signifies is the prestige and the status given to a woman, and not just what the husband was or something that comes about due to the husband. That is what I appreciate. I've taken special notice of the clause on citizenship for certain women:

A woman who notifies the Minister, in writing, that she elects to become a citizen shall be granted citizenship, effective from the day on which the Minister receives the notice, if the woman

(a) because of a law in force in Canada at any time before January 1, 1947, had, by reason only of her marriage or the acquisition by her husband of a foreign nationality, ceased to be a British subject....

That tells us how modern thought is now, and that's what I appreciate.

And to continue with paragraph 20(b):

(b) would have been a citizen, if the Canadian Citizenship Act, chapter C-19 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, had been in force immediately before her marriage or the acquisition by her husband of a foreign nationality.

This paragraph will definitely give a woman respectable status, independent of her husband. That is what I would like to emphasize about it.

The second clause I thought about, clause 21, is under the title “Prohibitions” and the subtitle “Principles of a Free and Democratic Society”. I believe the prohibitions are very strongly illustrated:

(1) If the Minister is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has demonstrated a flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society, the Minister may submit a report to the Governor in Council recommending that the person not be granted citizenship or allowed to take the oath of citizenship.

That speaks about the values of democracy.

To continue:

(2) The Minister shall not submit a report unless the Minister, at least 30 days before submitting it, notifies the person who is to be the subject of the report.

That again tells us that Canada, under this bill is really reiterating what the real value of democracy and freedom is in this country. Although the minister has everything about a person, that person still has been given time.

Then:

(3) The notice must include a summary of the grounds contained in the report and state that the person may, within 30 days after the day on which the notice was sent, make written representations to the Minister.

Again, that strengthens the values of democracy and freedom to an individual. Given a fair chance, if that person wants to make a representation, he has been given the chance to do so.

Turning to clause 22:

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, the Governor in Council may, if satisfied that the Minister's report is well-founded, by order, prohibit the granting of citizenship to the person who is the subject of the report or the taking of the oath of citizenship by that person.

What is the effect of that?

(2) The Minister is, on the making of the order, deemed to reject any application for the grant or resumption of citizenship made by the person who is the subject of the order.

A fair chance was given to the person concerned, and now the action will be taken as a final order.

Then:

(3) The order is final and, despite any other Act of Parliament, is not subject to appeal to or review by any court.

I think that establishes a fair point for the person given a chance. Again, freedom of speech comes in here, but once the order is final, that is it. I very strongly think that's a very good point.

Then:

(4) The order is effective for five years after the day on which it is made.

It is not that the person makes a mistake or has some problem, as said in part 1, in that the person never improves or can never make changes in his attitude toward life or about the country where he lives. I think it's very fair to have those five years after that day. If there is improvement, the person should be given a fair chance for citizenship.

Finally:

(5) Despite anything in this Act or any other Act of Parliament, the order is conclusive proof of the matters stated in it.

I will be simply reiterating that it is final, and that is the way citizenship will be considered for the person.

The next one is very long, “The Right to Citizenship”, so I will just simply say I appreciate certain parts of it on the status of the deserted child. A child is born and for seven years that child is given a chance to be brought up here, and then it is to be decided about his right to citizenship.

On minors and adopted children, you will find all of this information on pages 3 to 4 and then on pages 5 to 6. I think all of this needs to be discussed in detailed perspective with the committee.

I would not say any more than that, but I certainly feel we should be concerned about one more point, and that is the identification card. Why do we have to follow what has been done maybe in some other country? I have been in Canada since 1967, but now I need an identification card to prove that I am a worthy citizen? Do we approve of that? Should we approve of that? I would like to know more. There are very wonderful speakers who are much more capable than my humble self, but I really have a big question about that. When we have that discussion, I would like to take part in it.

So I say that the pages all about citizenship from, as I said, pages 3 to 7, are very important for the general public, and I would request that time be devoted explicitly to those clauses, which really mean the duties of and the powers given to the judges and to the commissioners. They are just part of the process, but they will be there and I know they will do their duty well. But the public really needs to know about citizenship and how to go about it and all the other clauses I have just pointed out.

Every page, every clause, is full of important information. I don't think I can do justice to them or even talk about all the sections all by myself. I can only wish that we could do it, but I think we should try to understand the main concerns. The others have duties and responsibilities and they will do them, but the public has to know the right to citizenship. How will they lose it? How can they regain it? How do we assure that those things are part of this bill?

I don't know how much time I've taken, but I think that's enough.

Thank you very much.

¼ (1825)

The Chair: Can I just ask you something, Ajit? In point 3, you talk about concern about certificates of citizenship. What specifically are you referring to there? I don't think you addressed it. If you did, I didn't quite catch it.

Ms. Ajit Deol: Actually, it's the only one for which I don't have a page here.

The Chair: In your submission, you say pages 3 to 7 are very important for the general public. You also mention a certificate of citizenship, though, and I didn't know what you were specifically referring to. You seem to have forgotten that part, and I just wanted to—

Ms. Ajit Deol: I just didn't go into details of that, but I will as we go on.

The Chair: Take the opportunity now, if you could.

Ms. Ajit Deol: I had it all marked, but....

The Chair: Take a moment, and we'll come back to you so that you can get into it.

Ms. Ajit Deol: Sure. Thank you.

The Chair: Next we have the Thunder Bay Multicultural Association, represented by its program director, Cathy Woodbeck.

Welcome, Cathy.

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck (Program Director, Thunder Bay Multicultural Association): Thank you very much.

I'm very thankful for this opportunity to present our views, concerns, what we like that has been included in the bill, and what we would like to see changed. I appreciate the process in which you hear community organizations and individuals on the issues.

I am the program director of the Thunder Bay Multicultural Association. The programs that we provide are for immigrant and refugee clients, for newcomers to the country, but we also are very involved in the process of citizenship. We help newcomers apply for citizenship, we provide them with classes to prepare for the citizenship test, and we then also host the citizenship ceremony. We plan and host that. From then on, we provide information and anything else that new citizens might need.

There are a few topics I would like to discuss. First of all, what we do find very pleasing about the current bill is that individuals who have been charged with indictable offences are not going to be given citizenship. Having worked with victims of domestic violence and victims of crime and tragic circumstances, we appreciate seeing that prohibition included.

The ineligibility of such offenders is commendable. The only caution we would have here is possibly the evaluation of an offence from another country, how that would have equivalency in Canadian law, and how the laws would measure against each other. I think that could be very difficult.

On the length of residence, the expanded term of six years in which to have resided three years in Canada is welcomed. There may be cases in which a case could be made for attachment and commitment to Canada even though there were not three years of residence here. My point is that we are always concerned with out-migration and the brain drain out of Canada to other countries. Here, we might be disallowing our brightest and best because of a rigid classification within physical presence requirements. It may be the young people who spend more time working outside of the country, but who are still significantly attached and committed to the country.

Some of the clients we work with certainly have found small errors within their citizenship papers, whether it's a name error or whatever. The ability of those people to have those errors corrected through a much easier and more convenient process than one that takes up time is critical. We may not think it's a big deal, but to many people when something is not correct on their citizenship papers, it is very critical. They're concerned about it and the timeframe involved in having to go through a lengthy process for that. The shortening of that is welcomed.

On the question of potential statelessness, I think I would leave that in the hands of some of the comments that have probably already been made by the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants and the Canadian Council for Refugees. I would say, however, that we support their statements and their positions on statelessness. We would just once again caution that if one of the acts or one of the principles in the act would cause someone to become stateless, that would be a concern. I do know Canada has not signed the convention on the status of stateless persons, so I would also encourage that the country continue with that.

I have many concerns about the whole process of the loss of citizenship. I think this issue is something that has been brought up at many panels as well. I have serious concerns about removal orders being closely linked to the loss of citizenship, about them being one and the same. I do believe a removal order should be separated from the loss of citizenship, and that it would be necessary to hold an examination or an admissibility hearing on the latter, apart from the issue of citizenship. That should continue to be a separate process.

Permanent residents who face removal due to allegations of misrepresentation have the right to appeal. I see that it appears citizens would have fewer rights than permanent residents with those same proceedings. In the case of permanent residents, the review of humanitarian and compassionate circumstances is considered, but the citizen applicant loses both the application for citizenship and their permanent residence in one fell swoop, as you would put it.

On the power to annul citizenship, I see that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would be given some new powers to annul, and that an individual who obtained citizenship to Canada would lose that without fair process and without the right to an appeal or a hearing. If it does come down to a question of costs and the appeals process being costly, then I'm ashamed that this would be included in this bill. I think the right to bring your appeal and that process to hearing would be critical.

With respect to the actual powers of the minister, whether it would be the ministers themselves or civil servants or bureaucrats having the ability to annul citizenship, it's our belief that should be a judicial concern, a judicial responsibility. The ability of any given minister or civil servant to make those decisions would be questionable, so I think it should be left in the hands of judicial rather than political decision-makers.

I know the question will probably come up about a judge using all of the information but not disclosing information to potential citizenship candidates in various circumstances. It seems there is now no longer the ability for someone to appeal to a review committee, and that should be reconsidered. I don't think we should let panic after either September 11 or any other terrorism event or other issues cause us to make judgments and to pass laws that are reactionary. They should be well thought out.

Full disclosure of evidence is one of the issues that is quite concerning to us. The right of a citizen to see what has been alleged against him and all information that has been gathered against him is critical. We must apply the full judicial rules of evidence in this entire process. As a Canadian-born citizen, I am assured of the fundamental right to justice and the rule of law. I do believe naturalized citizens should be given the same rights under the charter.

On one of the issues that was already brought up about the notification within thirty days of a person who is considered...I do believe that's under the loss of citizenship in “Prohibitions”. Thirty days is commendable, although I think it should be thirty days from the time the person receives this.

I do have one question on this. It's one thing to have a language level with the ability to pass the Canadian citizenship test and to understand that procedure. I think it's an entirely different thing to prepare a written representation in defence of yourself on this issue and the possible refusal of citizenship. The legalese itself would probably be too much for someone to try to understand, and the cost of appealing would leave the applicant unable to defend himself in this situation. That's something that should be looked at.

In the new, proposed act, on the changes to the oath, we have been asking new citizens to respect the fundamental values that our society is based on, that our country upholds. I think it's reasonable to ask the country to do the same with respect to the new citizens and to offer them the same ability to access the full process of the law.

The language requirement is the next issue. This is just something we've noticed through working with newcomers and citizenship applicants. In some cases, the knowledge of one of the official languages is quite a barrier to many applicants who might otherwise be fully qualified, other than the ability to obtain language. I would cite the elderly who don't have the capacity to attend classes and to learn either English or French; victims of trauma or torture; and those with learning or other disabilities. I think they are challenged in that area. As a language assessor, I often see permanent residents who have verbal communication skills on a quite high level, but they don't have the reading and the writing capability, due to the fact that they might be illiterate in their own language, which makes things a bit more difficult.

On the issue of refusal of citizenship, already mentioned was the phrasing of the description of “a flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”. It's our request that this be defined a little more clearly, possibly under the charter. The lack of definition could lead to broad interpretation, and the defining factors—the links to case law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—should be spelled out and defined comprehensively. The wording seems too vague when dealing with these principles, and it leaves too much room for interpretation. The fact that those making such decisions would only have to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds that a person displayed this as yet undefined conduct, is not quite enough. Clarification in this area is quite necessary, so in this case we're not satisfied that the minister being satisfied is quite enough. A little more work is required there.

It would be a much more responsible and feasible issue on the part of government, when evaluating the act, to present final wording that would make an effort to define areas more clearly and to separate issues that have been grouped together, possibly for expediency. The act shouldn't be viewed as an issue of ownership or authorship, but should be developed through evaluations, submissions, and suggestions made to this committee. The committee's knowledge, the review, and the non-partisan spirit should be put into place, so that the final act that is presented is of the highest possible quality and so that the clarifications can be made. That Canada is putting this forth as an act of Parliament will no doubt later be studied. The act will be scrutinized and could possibly be modelled upon by other countries around the world, so I think it's our collective responsibility to make sure it can live up to successful and effective implementation, as well as scrutiny .

The issue that I left until last is one that we find quite important to us in Thunder Bay, and that's the appointment of citizenship commissioners. On the new job description, the new definition of citizenship commissioners, we would recommend that the appointment of such commissioners reflect the demographics and diversity of the country. The new citizenship commissioners would be men and women who promote Canadian citizenship and the responsibilities of citizens. Gender and cultural sensitivity training should be a part of this. Those making the decisions and those participating in the ceremonies should have some of that education.

Smaller communities and under-serviced areas of our country would certainly welcome a change both in the position and in the appointment of commissioners. We certainly would be glad to have someone in the city who is a commissioner. In Thunder Bay, we have an itinerant citizenship judge who travels into the city twice a year, and we see them two times a year during citizenship ceremonies. Our recommendation would be that this would be a local person who lives in the community, who spends their time there, who would promote active citizenship, and who would be aware of the community services and non-profit organizations that are doing the work, such as ours. They'd have a relationship with and connection to that community. They would be approachable and the public would know who they were.

I think this would lead to more active participation by new citizens, and to more comprehensive education of potential citizens if a commissioner was an appropriately chosen member of our community, according to some of the qualifications I already listed. They would be more beneficial to us in promoting community participation and the full integration of newcomers into Canadian society and into our community.

I would encourage you, as a committee, to look at the way in which commissioners are appointed, where their regions are, and if it's a full-time or a part-time position, so that smaller communities could have a local commissioner who would be able to participate and to encourage citizens and to look at the best interests of a community and the newcomers in that community. The commissioner would then be recognizable to the newcomer community.

And after all that, that is my submission.

Thank you very much.

¼ (1840)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Cathy. That was very substantive and comprehensive. I'm sure we're going to have a lot of questions for you.

Dr. Vedanand, from the University of Manitoba, welcome, sir.

Dr. Vedanand (University of Manitoba): Thanks for this opportunity that the committee has given me to appear before it. I'm appearing on my own behalf, I'm not representing any association or cultural group. I have been part of various groups for a long time. In fact, I appeared before the joint parliamentary committee at the time of the 1977 act.

Let me begin by saying I am very happy to be here to present my views. What I would like to do is not repeat the same things you've been hearing everywhere, but raise some different kinds of questions in the context of Bill C-18.

Immigration policy has come to acquire a central place in the agenda of most developed liberal democracies today. Although there are concerns, the movement of people from south to north, and also within various regions, has created a new dimension to the population dynamic. Immigrants are being called a transnational community, and their movement itself is being interpreted as part of globalization. The globalization paradigm suggests that movement of capital and goods is taking its free way of going where it wants. Similarly, I think, labour also, as a factor of production or as a change agent, is moving wherever it wants to go for a better life and better opportunities.

This indeed is a fact of life, but the global paradigm also raises evidence perspectives. Oftentimes, you see that there are many kinds of effects taking place that are not very beneficial to the communities, where there is a big drain of capital and technology and also of the people themselves, a brain drain. On the other hand, the issue is further compounded because people are going into developed democracies, particularly in Europe and North America, and they're going in the context of the labour supply-and-demand situation. Therefore, they are being accused of bringing down the wage rates.

The perceptions and stereotypes that the public begins to have begin to affect the public policy. Every time there is a situation of race wars, etc., suddenly the policy becomes much more restrictive. And Canada's immigration policy, it has been suggested, has a split personality. There is a self-imposed paradox. This paradox suggests that we want the people, because without the people coming in, our labour market needs cannot be fulfilled. At the same time, we also want immigration to be restricted.

Interestingly, this is part of the globalization process itself. However, at the international level, new concerns are being raised. These concerns are related to what are called global public goods. The rights of individual human beings anywhere are supposed to be a global public good. On the other hand, there is a great emphasis on what have been called global public bads, including environmental degradation, illiteracy, disease, public health issues, HIV/AIDS, and you name it. The World Bank is supposed to have also now added global terrorism as a global public bad.

Bill C-18, it appears to me, is an anti-bad measure primarily focused on taking care of security problems. If that is so, I guess some of the clauses that have been included in the bill reflect that concern. What I would suggest, though, is that you take a look at that notion or perception as too tight. An international conference on population development recommended poverty reduction as a suitable policy to prevent large-scale immigration from the least developed countries to developed countries. But if you take a look at the present income differences between north and south, you will be left to conclude that poverty is a major cause of migration. Hence, more poverty would mean more migration. In fact, the damage of international migration has to be viewed in the overall context, where the poor are not the ones who move. They can't afford to move. Those who move are the ones who belong to the upper-middle class. They cannot pay the entry fee that is being imposed now.

In this context, I will now take some time to...by the way, I think...[Inaudible—Editor]...more time than just five minutes, because—

¼ (1845)

The Chair: We have a lot of questions for you. Don't worry, we have two hours.

¼ (1850)

Dr. Vedanand: That's good.

Immigration policy is always the vision of a community, and also one of national identity. That's the way most nations, and Canada particularly, of course, have been looking at it. If we take a look at the vision and this nursing of a new identity, through a process...[Inaudible—Editor]...etc., then we can see how the bill will affect would-be immigrants. For example, if they are told citizenship is not a right but a privilege, the question is whether it will affect the inflow of immigrants. Or will this information be presented to the would-be immigrants abroad? That is one of my concerns. So far, the changes have to be brought into the communication channel so that would-be immigrants come to know the truth of Canada's great liberal democracy, and also some of the restrictions that are being put in place now.

The second point that I would like to make is that if you take a look at Canada—and I said I would not like to repeat the same things again—we find today a tension between the government and its citizenry, and tension between the government and the market. This tension is emerging in most liberal democracies in which you have a good share of immigrant population coming in. Europe is full of it. These days there's so much tension in Europe that anti-immigration parties have come up. In fact, in the Netherlands, such a party had 26 seats and held the balance of power. In Germany, in France, and in most places, these issues have come almost right to the top of the agenda.

When I say there is tension between the government and the citizenry and the government and the market, I'm looking at how the market looks at this issue and how the market ensures that the rights and also the benefits in a society will really be available to the new immigrants. Will the government play a role or will it be left out? I'll come to that a little bit later.

While the bill has, for the first time, put in comprehensive enactment toward many things, it has added new issues. New issues are the ones in which new powers have been given to deny, revoke, and annul citizenship, in clauses 16 through 18, in part 2. Some critics have called these draconian measures. Unfortunately, the spirit of this vision seems to be guided by the current concerns about terrorism. Nevertheless, care must be taken to ensure that the fundamental rights of Canadian citizens or non-citizens, as enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are not invalidated. One of the fundamental principles of a modern democracy is a respect for human dignity and basic rights in the context of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While the state has an obligation and a duty to ensure national security, it must also ensure that human rights and basic values are safeguarded. It should be Canadians who are zealously safeguarding those rights.

Here is where I see a real problem. This problem comes in the context of the elements of those rights that are much larger than the legalities put into an act without freedom of speech. Will freedom of speech be curtailed? Will that be a violation of fundamental principles or basic values? It presents a kind of Orwellian metaphor, where people's rights and liberties may be either constrained or may not be as much as they used to be.

I now come to something I call the larger issues. These larger issues are related to, again, citizenship and diversity, citizenship rights, and also the notion of identity. That's why I call it “pathology of diversity”. Some of these issues are being raised primarily in that context. When the doors begin to be closed because those who are coming are not desirable, and when the market needs more bodies, somebody should start explaining them, so that those who are desirable will be able to enter.

What should we do here? If we take a look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and some of the things in which the international community is involved—protecting, safeguarding, and also enlarging that vision all over the world—those issues become main concerns for average citizens, for intellectuals, and for scholars looking at the act. I would say international migration as a fact of life would create these tensions still further. For all we know, international migration is a fact of life and is here to stay. We'll need more immigration, not less.

Whether or not the new act will really ensure the possibility of the inflow as it has been in the past is yet to be determined. I'm not sure how it will work out, but it certainly does raise very serious concerns. Therefore, the two main elements in citizenship are identity and rights. Are the rights being curtailed? There's one question. And what about identity?

A United Nations report suggested that, in the future, we will not have only one identity. In fact, they're looking at multi-ethnic identity or ethnic identity. The bases of ethnicity themselves are under debate. It is said that, in a couple of generations, perhaps the only determinant of ethnicity might be colour. If you look at the crisis that appeared in the former Yugoslavia, even colour could not really be the determinant of ethnicity.

Therefore, as I said earlier, the issues being raised are in the context of the notion of rights versus privilege. Is citizenship now going to be a privilege? Therefore, it's to be decided, either by a minister, by the bureaucracy, or by judicial process. Surely it would be better if the role of the judiciary is not minimized and there is fair process.

On the right to appeal, wherever this curtailment is taking place, it should be available.

If we see that the erosion of rights might be there, what communication or strategy should be there so that, number one, the future inflow of immigrants might be well-informed of the new situation? Secondly, when we paint a very rosy picture of the dreamland where you want to go, is it fair to say these are the new changes that are there?

Already in our immigration policy, we let them in based on, say, an economic strategy, that being independence. Those who come under the economic and independent category are left on their own, post-arrival. Go find a job. Spend seven or eight years delivering pizzas or driving taxi. If you can't get your qualifications accepted, so be it. This certainly is a very serious issue. I'll address it again tomorrow, but I'm mentioning it because it is also a kind of erosion of rights.

The third point I have is the notion of...legal experts are looking at the notion of personhood. In particular, the international community is looking at the personhood in which a person, male or female, has rights within the context of legal terminology. Therefore, the rights accrue to the residents, because once the rights come in, you begin to get most of the benefits. You won't be able to vote, you won't have political rights, but rights are there in terms of the social and economic. You can perhaps get a job, and with that, you are supposed to function perfectly. However, the same rights that you're talking of are being restricted.

It is in this context that I will say the international community, the United Nations, will be looking at the rights from a very global, universal perspective. At the global level, the universality of rights has been accepted. Therefore, I would say this universality of the rights of the individual human being, male or female, adult or child, has to be guarded and protected. That's what the liberal democracies have always done. If you fail there, then I think there's a major failure on our part. I'm not saying this is the main intention, but certainly this is the way it could read.

These developments are very challenging. What are they challenging? They are challenging the traditional models of citizenship. It is in this context that the identities are also taking a new shape. Who is changing whom? Robert Park, a sociologist at the University of Chicago in the 1950s, said that, in a few years, all the Chinatowns would disappear. They would all be assimilated. They would be part of a melting pot. No such thing happened there, and no such thing is going to happen anywhere else.

The identities are ethnic identity, racial identity, and religious identity, and the United Nations report therefore said that, in future, we are going to have multinational identities, multi-ethnic identities, identities that will be assimilated, and identities that will dissimulate. For example, a group may be known as a pan-ethnic identity of some larger group, or a group could be called a hyphenated community. So Indo-Canadian and all those names will still be there.

As I said, what we are seeing is the beginning of a new era in this 21st century, and we're also seeing the beginnings of new forms of identities and new models of citizenship that are going to evolve. That is why the state, the citizenry, the market, and the government will all be involved in this creative tension. A creative tension is going to be there, and that's what such legislation has to contend with and perhaps come up with solutions for. In today's global society, policy-makers should look forward in order to meet these challenges, and they should try to find reasonable and acceptable solutions for the citizenry.

I think I will stop there.

½ (1900)

The Chair: Thank you, Doctor.

In fact, thank you all. Obviously, we've heard some things before in our travels, but we want to explore your thinking on some of these suggestions. But you've all brought a different and sometimes very unique perspective to what citizenship is and should represent, so I'm sure we will want to canvass those perspectives.

I'll go first to Lynne.

½ (1905)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

I would like to mention, Ajit, that if you think the women were put in, there's still a clause in there that's very upsetting, and that's the one about the lost children. I don't know if you know very much about them, but they were children born to fathers who worked abroad at a time when wives and children were the property of their fathers. If they were born in Canada—we met two of them at committee—when their fathers went abroad to the United States to work, for example, they would take their children and wives with them, and the wives and children were considered the property of the father.

One particular lady came back to Canada to work and live and get educated. She then went to Switzerland with her husband. They had children there, and when she tried to have her children become Canadian citizens, she found out she was not a Canadian citizen. She is a lost child. There are about 10,000 of those in Canada because of a law that was not fixed between 1947 and 1977.

So you're right to pick up on this matter about the women in the Citizenship of Canada Act. It is good that they are recognizing women and citizens, because this is a part of the law that is really obsolete and a very sad thing for these children. Actually, our party has a bill in front of the House right now, and we're trying to fix that for these lost children. As I said, there are about 10,000 of them, which is really quite a thing.

Cathy talked about commissioners. I'd like all of you to outline what you think the duties of a commissioner are. As you know, the job of citizenship judges is going to be turned over to commissioners—if I'm right about that, and I think I am. One thing was brought to our attention. Cathy said the commissioners should reflect gender and diversity. We had one witness suggest that there be requirements that they “must have reached a level of reasonable proficiency in both official languages”; that, in the ceremony, they “emphasize the equality of English and French as official languages and as a fundamental Canadian value”; and therefore, that “the Citizenship Commissioner shall ensure that the citizenship ceremony is conducted in both of Canada's official languages.” That has to do with the ceremony, but it's particularly emphasizing that the commissioner should be bilingual.

I would then just like to ask a really broad question, because this was brought up in Toronto. Some people there said we don't need a new citizenship act. Was the former one good enough and just in need of some fixing, or is it good to have the overhaul that it has just undergone? That's my broad question to all three of you.

I just want to speak to you for a minute, too, Doctor. You mentioned how immigrants may not want to come to Canada if we don't make it easy for them, and that an act like this makes it difficult. That was the one thing we found out when we travelled to Europe. This was the one thing we had to offer to people when we found out we're competing for immigrants. Canada has citizenship to offer these people after three years. That was really something when we got to Germany and countries like that. They will never allow people who go there to work to become citizens. We have that as an offer, and I really was pretty proud of Canada when we found out that we can compete very well for immigrants just because of that specific offer.

So those are my comments. I'd like to hear your comments on all three of those.

The Chair: Let's start with Cathy on the first question, if we could, with regard to the role of the commissioner vis-à-vis the judges that we have now and what you would expect these people to do.

Just as a follow-up to what Lynne was saying, I might comment that I found it incredible that we only have 24 judges in the whole country. Now I find out that, in your particular case, he or she might come twice a year. I don't know how many citizens you process. Apparently, you're doing an awful lot of good work there in Thunder Bay.

Maybe you can tell us your experience. Is there a backlog because this person only comes around twice a year? Should local communities have their own?

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck: I think local communities should have their own commissioner. The backlog that we have to squeak in is 120 per ceremony, and sometimes up to 240. Others will take the oath and not appear at the citizenship ceremony, so it's a crowded, long process twice a year. The judge who does come in at this point doesn't really know the community. He makes a speech, but the people have no real connection to that person. They have a connection to our staff and to the Citizenship and Immigration staff in Thunder Bay, but the judge comes in specifically for that occasion.

We feel having a local commissioner would be much more useful, especially based on what I see being proposed in the act, if they're going to be involved in communities and involved in promoting active citizenship. You can't really promote active citizenship if you're there twice a year to make a five-minute speech.

Someone residing in the community, if they were retired from another position, worked at this part-time, or had the time to do that, could be very involved in the community. They could be involved in the citizenship classes, in helping immigrants who are contemplating citizenship, in answering questions, in being a part of all the things we do at this point. Having someone local, someone who is visible in the community, who the immigrant and refugee community can see as a visible proponent of citizenship, and someone they can ask questions of and get information from, would be helpful.

½ (1910)

The Chair: Here's a second question. If we couldn't amend this act—although I'm always an optimist—would you rather have the present act or this one? Hopefully it will have some amendments, but that was a very good question that Lynne posed, because some of our witnesses have asked what's wrong with the one we have now.

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck: Personally, I feel—and this would also be our association's perspective—that this one is an improvement on the last one, because it does address several issues that never were addressed before. There's room for improvement in areas in language and in clarification, but it is an improvement upon what we had in the past.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: [Inaudible—Editor]...some real specifics. You talked about the—

The Chair: Those are terms that you've raised that have to be fixed. That's what you're saying.

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck: I feel they should be, but I think some areas are more defined in this act. The length of residency within a six-year period rather than four years is commendable. A lot of areas are now addressed in the act that never were before, and some of the issues that are starting to be valued and looked at and remedied, particularly in the cases of women who were not—

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: We've heard so much about the revoking and the annulling and the denial that we almost feel like throwing up our hands and asking what we're doing here. Those things have been the ones emphasized by all of the witnesses. To hear your testimony today suggesting that there are parts of this act that you really commend—

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck: We do.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: —such as the prohibition part that you talked about, in regard to violence and women, was interesting. I'm glad you brought that up.

The Chair: Ajit, can you answer the same questions?

Ms. Ajit Deol: I just want to add a little bit to the discussion that's going on. I had my citizenship ceremony in Thunder Bay. I have had a taste of both provinces, Ontario as well as Manitoba. I think the times have changed, and we should be taking into consideration the immigrants in Thunder Bay. I think there is a need for a commissioner. That's what we have as a term now, rather than “judge”.

In Manitoba, we have had gender parity. I don't want to name names, but we had a woman as a commissioner or citizenship judge. We've also had diversity, because we have one of the immigrants doing that in Manitoba. If we have all those things, we do not really think about the ones who do not have them. So I think the point should be well taken that this is needed, because there are more immigrants now in Thunder Bay, as compared to what there used to be in the 1960s and even in the 1970s. There is a need for recognition of that point.

Also, taking into account freedom of speech, I think freedom of speech also is a very important factor in one's life, but if a person feels they have freedom of speech to the extent that they can say anything to anybody, anywhere, that also needs to be a little restricted. Human rights are human rights and should be a given. At the same time, there has to be scrutiny. I'm on the Manitoba Human Rights Commission here, so I deal with all these things myself. Certain cases should be treated as rights of the person. In others, when you extend the liberty of having freedom of speech and its recognition, then I think we have to have those restrictions as well.

As for accreditation of people, of the immigrants coming from other countries, we have also come from a different country. I'm not a born Canadian. At the same time, I fully realize and make it known to new immigrants that they cannot step into a land and say everything is now according to their will and their wish. They have to follow the regulations in the family, so why not in the country? Liberty falls within limits.

Too much permissiveness sometimes also brings difficulties, so I would say the new act that we have is giving more to the immigrants, as well as to citizens. But my point...can I speak now about the point you asked me about earlier?

½ (1915)

The Chair: Yes, of course.

Ms. Ajit Deol: This is about certificates. I want to know more about them. Subclause 35(1) says:

The Minister shall, in accordance with the regulations, issue a certificate of citizenship to new citizens and, on application, issue a certificate of citizenship to current citizens.

I need a little more—

The Chair: I'm not sure it changes anything. It's not presently in the act. Right now, when you're given citizenship—like you were—you're given a certificate and you're given a citizenship card. That's all this says. It has nothing to do with the national identity card. That's another whole issue that we will talk about—

Ms. Ajit Deol: I have written out both on the paper I have printed in my hand. It's not printed in the copy I submitted.

The Chair: No, this is about the issuance of a citizenship certificate.

Ms. Ajit Deol: Just the citizenship certificate, and nothing else? I took it for granted that you get that certificate and then—

The Chair: Oh, you'll get a certificate, of course.

Ms. Ajit Deol: Yes, I do know that, but I wanted to know more about it. Is there anything special about it now, or is it the same as it was?

The Chair: It's practically the same as it was in that section.

Ms. Ajit Deol: Okay, thank you.

On the other concern that I had, I was writing down some points.

I think we should not just blame or even say that government should do it all the time. We should do something, too, as a community, about the language when someone goes for citizenship and about knowing about Canada. Those conditions can be waived, too, but I don't think we should just disregard them completely. We should have those, but where they are restricting persons from getting the citizenship, they can be waived off.

The Chair: Doctor, do you have anything with regard to this same question that Lynne posed?

Dr. Vedanand I personally feel there are definitely some improvements in the act. Also, if there are people who have come here in some fraudulent manner or by giving wrong information; if they have been associated with some terrorist group; or if they have criminal charges against them and they obtain citizenship here because of misrepresentation, I think that's something that needs to be corrected. I think this is a very positive measure in the sense that if such people do not measure up to the standards of civilized behaviour in the country from which they have come, they have to be revoked in some way. All those people who were involved in Nazi Germany were part of the same war machine and crimes that were being committed there. Even now, they are being asked to pay for their crimes.

In this context, for internal security, it's an improvement that will be a helpful move. However, care must be taken that this should not become a witch hunt or should not be zealously pursued with a lot of enthusiasm just because this is what is being demanded from you by some other power because you have a porous border and things are happening. That would be my concern. In that sense, I think this certainly is an improvement. However, as I've already mentioned, care must be taken to make sure the rights granted under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada should not be violated.

On the other thing you raised about competing for labour in the European market or elsewhere, that's true, and I think that is what Canada is doing very well. However, this competition in the future is going to be more intense and much more severe. I think Germany allotted 20,000 or 30,000 visas for people from Southeast Asia primarily in information technology, they want programmers from India, and all that kind of thing. They could not fill those numbers, because many people do not want to go to Germany. Many Turkish workers who have been working as guest workers in that region have been permanent residents, but they didn't want to become citizens.

So the notion of citizenship or residency is very interesting in Europe, as compared to Canada. We also have a lot of temporary and guest workers. Of course, the United States is the premier example. Right now, the U.S. is saying that if they have been there temporarily working for a number of years, they perhaps should be given an opportunity to become residents and to later apply for a permanent visa, permanent residence. Those are new developments that are taking place.

But in terms of competing, surely that's the kind of market that you are in. You are competing in a very tight market, but really for the professional and the skilled workers. I think that will be intensifying in the future. In the whole of Southeast Asia, this is the real issue now.

½ (1920)

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I'd love to pursue this general issue that you've raised, Dr. Vedanand, on what kind of message this proposed Citizenship of Canada Act sends out to the world in terms of what we stand for as Canadians. If this act does more in terms of keeping the bad guys out and responding to the threat or pressures from the United States in the face of the September 11 terrorism that's so vivid in our minds to this day; if it does more about that than actually encapsulating our vision of ourselves as a nation, as a sovereign state in a global community, and about entrenching that notion of citizenship as a right; if, through this bill, we have in fact moved a step away from that and are paying lip service to the notion that citizenship is a right and are treating it instead as a privilege to be doled out on the whim of the government of the day or according to the norms of the times; then I think we've done a great disservice. I think we need to know if that is the case with this act, and how we can change that.

Dr. Vedanand: I agree with you on this point. You put it very well. I would hate to see this act being a real penalty as a response to the pressures from another government, or as a mechanism to do things at the bidding of somebody else. If it is a national concern, so be it. Let the government look at it. That's why I raised those questions about competing for labour supply.

In the globalization paradigm, these things are likely to happen, but suddenly, because terrorism has become the main focus of the policy agenda, we have therefore come out immediately with an act to meet that demand. That would be sad. On the other hand, if it is a measure looking at what I call the anti-bad, let's take a more positive and proactive view. Let us look at the global public goods of citizenship, of human rights, and the rights of Canadian citizens and residents. That will be something that will be laudable and that will certainly give us a far better, more positive image worldwide, where you compete for the labour supply. But if it is seen that this was demanded and Canada therefore enacted this act, that would be very sad and very tragic.

½ (1925)

The Chair: If I could, Doctor, I think you raised a couple of issues, but this act didn't just come about because of September 11. We've been trying to pass a new citizenship act for the past three years. There's no doubt that certain things are in here, but I want to make sure it's not construed that all of a sudden this act appeared because of September 11. We've been trying for two or three years. It's true that it has been changed from the original version, perhaps as a response to certain things, as some witnesses have said, but I just want to make sure we put it in the proper context.

Could you answer the question Judy asked you? Do you believe it's a right or a privilege?

Dr. Vedanand: Let me just—

The Chair: No, I want an answer. Do you believe it's a right or a privilege? We have a lot of questions, but I want answers.

Dr. Vedanand: I think citizenship should be a right, but I am not saying this has come primarily out of September 11. I know there was a citizenship act that died when the election was called. It was being worked on, but the speed with which this has been presented is giving the impression to the public that maybe that's what this is. I believe it is not, and I would certainly be happy if it is viewed in that context not only here, but outside and abroad, where you compete for the supply of that immigrant population.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: What we've heard from many folks over the last number of months has in fact been that, whether we're talking about the new immigration bill, a citizenship act, the national identity card, or Bill C-17, the latest response to this terrorism threat, there is in fact some truth to Dr. Vedanand's point about—

The Chair: I feel the same way. I just want to make sure there isn't the impression that this just came about because of September 11.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think the point he's making is that, in fact—as he puts it so well in his paper—we're dealing with, in a way, a self-imposed paradox of a government that wants people to come and wants to have a multicultural society, yet at the same time we seem to be spending a lot of time trying to figure out how to keep people out or to send them back where they came from. I think that's an important point.

The question is, in terms of its context of a vision and our obligation in terms of universal rights and global collective response, does this bill in fact respect the basics, i.e., due process, rule of law, right of appeal, etc.? I think Cathy may want to answer that as well, but that's an important point.

Dr. Vedanand: I did mention in passing that the fair process, rule of law, and role of the judiciary should be strengthened. Certain parts of this, such as deporting someone or annulling somebody's citizenship rights, should be taken most seriously. That is where I'm looking at the larger issue of citizenship as a concept. As a concept, it is a very sacred thing. You may live in a country and may not be a citizen. That is what is happening in Germany. All those guest workers are there, and they themselves choose not to be or they cannot be. Germany has changed its laws. At one time, anybody could jump out of a plane, claim the rights of a refugee, and then be there for months before they could come to Canada or the United States, despite whatever they might have done back home, even if they had committed crimes.

Those things became real havens, but they are no longer there. They are...[Inaudible—Editor]...while we have to create this positive image of a real liberal democracy that is looking at these issues proactively and positively.

½ (1930)

The Chair: Cathy.

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck: To go back to the issue of citizenship as a right, I do think citizenship is a right, but I believe it's a right with responsibilities, in that there are responsibilities connected to that right. I also think we have to distinguish between immigration law, the IRPA, and citizenship law. What one can do, the other doesn't necessarily have to do after the fact. Those two must work together very closely. Immigration law will do one thing, but citizenship law is a different process altogether. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would cover a lot of the areas this act doesn't have to cover, but I do think the universal rights of due process, the rule of law, and the right of appeal, as you mentioned, do have to be very seriously considered for inclusion in this act.

The Chair: Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can't help hearing about Thunder Bay and getting nostalgic. Minister Robert Andras was from Thunder Bay, and he was the one who put through the last major act in which the colour barrier was taken away from immigration. It was there before.

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck: We sponsor a scholarship named the Robert Andras Memorial Scholarship.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: He did very good work, and he was one of the best ministers of immigration this country has seen.

And while I'm being historical, I would also mention that it was Winnipeg's city council that, back in the late 1920s or early 1930s, refused to hand over to the federal government the names on the relief rolls. The federal government used to go through those to see if there were immigrants on relief, and if there were, those immigrants would be deported from Canada. That's a proud piece of history for Winnipeg in terms of immigration.

The chair mentioned that Inky Mark is not here. Inky has done a lot of work related to rights of citizenship. He actually moved one of my private member's bills that basically put citizenship rights under the charter. The reason the previous bill did not see the light of day was that there was enough of a concern that the revocation process on citizenship was not just.

September 11 happened fairly recently, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed on April 17, 1982. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very clear. It doesn't talk about privileges. Some people would like to think about citizenship as a privilege, maybe to the point that you grant it. Even that's questionable, though, because if somebody fulfils all the requirements for citizenship and citizenship is going to be denied to them, it has to be done under the rule of law. It can't be done because the King, an absolute monarch, a minister, or perhaps a bureaucrat, might think otherwise.

Clause 21 talks about Canadian values. What is more fundamentally a Canadian value that we have a consensus on in this country than the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? John Bryden, who is a member of this committee, has been bugging members of this committee about something as much as I've been bugging it on other issues. He wants the citizenship oath to contain the basic principles of the charter so as to make sure the charter is reflected in this piece of legislation.

My question to you is on section 7 of the charter, and I'm going to read it because I think it's very important:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The principles of fundamental justice have evolved in Canada and in common law and are found in our criminal courts. Nobody is better able to ascertain if someone committed fraud, yes or no. Basically, when we want to revoke citizenship, the charge is that you committed fraud. Surely that's very simple to determine, because we unfortunately have thousands and thousands of fraud cases going through our courts every year. But the courts are the best determinants of that, and they include the right to appeal.

Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo had the right to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, yet somebody who is a citizen in this country could have been here for fifty years, have done nothing wrong in this country but is accused of wrongdoing elsewhere, and can be accused of coming to this country fraudulently. Surely that person deserves the same benefit as Mr. Olson and Mr. Bernardo.

I say this with the full knowledge that people look upon those two individuals as very heinous folks. But besides those two, we also have Guy-Paul Morin, wrongfully convicted and imprisoned but having the benefit of that standard for many years. We have Donald Marshall. And of course we have Steven Truscott, who got to the Supreme Court. There's the struggle for justice.

As a society, we have made a decision on balance. That is the issue. Once you have citizenship—and even if you don't have citizenship—you have rights. They're nothing special, but they are rights to have a fair hearing. My question to you is whether the Charter of Rights and this Citizenship of Canada Act—things we hold up as a country that should be a beacon of human rights and civil liberties and inclusiveness to the rest of the world—should be given to people who are citizens by choice or by naturalization. Should they have the benefit of the charter when it comes to their citizenship? That's the basic question, and very clearly I would like an answer from all three of you.

½ (1935)

Ms. Ajit Deol: I think the Charter of Rights is the basis of our democratic rights. That's why we have it: because it has some value. If those values can be reflected in this bill, that will be appropriate.

I've dealt with a case that I think is very pertinent, if you give me two minutes to talk about it. The wife was a citizen and they had three children. The husband was not a citizen, he was just an immigrant. There was a reason why it was so, and that was because of his property in India, so there were different rules.

Anyway, this young man was wrongfully charged and the order was that he was to be deported from Canada. The family asked me if I could help them. I have always said that whatever the truth is, that should be told. Even if you have committed a murder, I should know. Then I will see how I can help you.

In this case, they gave me every detail of the case, and then the case was being heard in the court. I appeared on behalf of that gentleman. I'm not a lawyer, I just help people where there is a need, whoever it is. Colour, creed, and nationality don't mean anything to me.

After all that was done, the judge asked me if I had any more questions. I said I had a question, but I wanted to ask her, the judge, that question. My question to that judge was who would bear the cost of bringing up these three children if this person, the husband of this lady, was to be deported. They were all aged six and under. This mother would bear a responsibility of what? Where was she going to get the bread for these three kids? If she went to improve her qualifications to be able to work, then who was going to pay? What about these children?

There was a long dialogue, but my last question to the judge was what Canada would gain by deporting this person. I knew he hadn't done what was being proved there. The judge looked at me and said, “You claim you are not a lawyer?” I said, “I'm not. I'm telling you I am not a lawyer, but I am standing to defend this case.”

Now, is there any way that you can improve that person who has or hasn't committed the crime or has wrongfully been involved in it? The judge asked me if I would take the responsibility for taking care of that person to ensure that he improves himself. I asked her to give me one second to talk to the gentleman. I told him I now had a question for him. Would he do what I told him to do in order to save himself and his family? It was not a question of just having a right or a privilege. He said, yes, he would. The judge went into chambers, came back, and the judgment was that this person would not be deported because all those four people, the wife and the children, would be on welfare if the father was deported.

½ (1940)

The Chair: Remind me to send you some clients. You probably did better than a lawyer could do.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Ajit Deol: Anyway, I told that person that he was on probation, and that for the two years of his probation he would be my responsibility. Two years! He had to call me three times a day. I would call him at any time to know what he was doing, and I was also responsible for all his community service. So that's why I was saying the community also has some duties.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Well, that's the humanitarian and compassionate consideration.

Ms. Ajit Deol: That is right, and that family is very thankful to me today. We have to take some responsibility.

The Chair: I'm not sure what that has to do with citizenship. I agree—

Ms. Ajit Deol: It has to do with citizenship because the children were born here.

The Chair: I know, but even if he was a citizen, it wouldn't have mattered. The fact is that if he had done something that he had been accused of, he might have been gone anyway.

Ms. Ajit Deol: That's right.

½ (1945)

The Chair: My point is that I think you've raised a good case in terms of how humanitarian and compassionate you are, and how the system should be and can be in order to help the situation. I would agree totally.

Doctor, can you answer Mr. Telegdi's question with regard to the charter being reflected in this citizenship act?

Dr. Vedanand: I have one concern before I answer the question.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of our constitutional template. If this act is in some way contrary to the provisions of the charter, then I would have very serious concerns because the charter is fundamental, in that it defines the values, rights, and many other things that go with citizenship.

The act per se does not look at citizenship primarily as a conceptual, intellectual point of debate when it says how we can acquire it, how it can be taken away, how it can be revoked, or how it can be annulled. Those are the problems that have come up in this act.

Insofar as they are not in contradiction to what is given in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then I think my concerns are very minimal. On the other hand, if they do contradict, then I have serious concerns.

I don't know whether I have answered the question or not, but—

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It makes for a contradiction when it talks about the security of the person. Few things are more involved in the security of the person than one's citizenship. Therefore, if you're going to take away citizenship, you're taking away the security of the person, which someone is “not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

If you look at clause 17 of the bill, you have a situation in which a person is accused of a crime but doesn't know what that crime is. He doesn't know the details of the crime, doesn't know who is accusing him, is not there for the hearing at which that decision is made, and there's absolutely no appeal of the decision of the judge who revokes his citizenship and throws him out of the country.

That's what I mean by rights: the right to know what you're accused of, the right to confront your accuser, and the right to test evidence. The bill says very specifically that the rules of evidence do not apply under clause 17. We have a very draconian kind of process here that flies in the face of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Dr. Vedanand: I would just—

The Chair: Excuse me, Doctor, but I have to give everybody a chance and not have a debate between you and Mr. Telegdi. I'd like to hear it, but unfortunately I have other people who want to answer his question, too.

Cathy.

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck: Earlier, I made the point that Canadian-born citizens are afforded all of the rights. Should not those who have acquired citizenship through the immigration or refugee process be afforded the same rights? The judicial rules of evidence, the right to the safety and security of the person, due process, the rule of law, and the right to appeal should have no exceptions. Would that clause not face a charter challenge if it was in the act? I think it would face a charter challenge. I believe there would be serious court time taken up with challenges to that, because it would contravene.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Just as a matter of information, it's very difficult for an individual to get to the Supreme Court on a charter challenge. It takes a long time and it takes a lot of resources. The suggestion made before was that we, as a committee, refer it to the Supreme Court if we had a question about that.

The Chair: You're the only one asking for that test. That's why we're asking our witnesses. So far, a lot of witnesses have said it would trigger a charter challenge by virtue of what's in there.

We're more interested in what you think. Andrew, of course, would like for the committee to recommend that we send it to the Supreme Court. I'm not sure they would hear it before a bill is actually passed and a challenge is actually put forward, but that's a debate the committee will have at some point in time.

Right now, I know what Andrew thinks, but I'm interested in what you think.

½ (1950)

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck: I think it would develop the question of which citizens have the right to appeal, have the right to a fair hearing, or have the right to hear the evidence against them, and which ones don't. And why would some have those rights, but others not?

The Chair: I just have a couple of questions.

Cathy, in regard to the prohibitions, some concerns have been raised by others with respect to summary convictions that may in fact impact some people who could have been here for 15 or 20 or 25 or 30 years. They may have never applied for citizenship, or as Andrew might have said, they may have found out that they may have had a charge sometime way back in their history but they knew absolutely nothing about it. They could be barred from getting citizenship until such time as....

I know you talked a little bit in your submission about the fact that you agree that for people who have caused domestic violence, who have left victims of crime in tragic circumstances, and so on, a fair punishment is to deny citizenship to them. We couldn't get rid of them. They're still permanent residents, so we couldn't do that. However, I'm trying to figure out how you think it's a right but are now prepared to take it away from them or not grant it to them on the basis that they may have.... I'm not talking about domestic violence, because I understand where you're coming from on that. But a person could be charged with two counts of shoplifting or of impaired driving and they'd never get citizenship, at least for four or five years in this country.

I want to understand where you're coming from. You spoke so highly of it being a right, yet all of a sudden you want to punish someone.

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck: In the case of indictable offences—

The Chair: The bill refers to summary convictions. We're not talking about indictable offences.

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck: On summary convictions, as well as on charges in other countries, I cautioned about how we value the evaluation of that and how the laws of other countries compare to Canadian law. I think that's something lawmakers are going to have to look at more than we can with our submissions here, but I do think there has to be some division between the indictable offences and the more summary convictions that don't hold the same weight in the process. Of course, I do think the more serious crimes should be—

The Chair: They should be dealt with by the court system. Again, this is where it comes down to whether or not we use the citizenship bill to get to war criminals or terrorists. To tell you the truth, if we found a terrorist, why would we want to get rid of him? Why wouldn't we just imprison him? If the terrorist was leaving Canada, I'm sure he'd go someplace else to do whatever he wanted to do. So it's a matter of distinguishing the criminal act from a citizenship that is conferring a particular benefit on someone, and probably the best benefit that a country can confer. I think this kind of issue needs to be—

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck: Those divisions need to be made in the case of offences and charges. As I said earlier, they also need to be made in the case of immigration law as opposed to citizenship law, criminal law as opposed to citizenship law, and war crimes and all of that. I don't think we can group all of those together and pass the act with all of those.

The Chair: You have a lot of experience dealing with citizens, and I must applaud your group for taking the time to take them through the test, through the language stuff, and through letting them know certain things, certain rights and responsibilities, and for working so closely with the citizenship court. I've not heard much on that, but I know that's what happens in many communities.

This bill takes away the judges. The citizenship judges, as we now know them, have certain discretionary powers, such as the residency rule, such as sitting down to talk, like you and I are doing here. They may in fact use their judgment to say someone has a thousand days, or that they think someone knows the country pretty good and deserves citizenship. All of that is going to go away because the citizenship commissioner is not going to have any discretionary powers at all. It's going to be a ceremonial and marketing and promotion-type position. I'm just wondering if, based on your experience, that's good or bad.

I know people say the judges make too many mistakes, that they cause too many problems, and that we therefore ought to get rid of the judges and replace them with commissioners. I'm interested in what your experience has been and what your view is on whether or not we ought to have that discretionary power within a quasi-judicial judge or an administrative person such as a bureaucrat.

½ (1955)

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck: I don't think it should reside in the position of a bureaucrat. Either a judicial or a quasi-judicial position is necessary. What I've seen from the act is that the commissioner would be in a very different position from that of the judge previously. Having those bureaucrats taking on a role in the decision-making process is a concern. If you have a judge with experience, someone who has at least the talent, the ability, and the experience in making those types of rulings, they would still be doing that. I don't think the commissioner would be—

The Chair: Let's be clear that the commissioner is not going to do that anymore. The commissioner is essentially going to show up and make a nice speech in both official languages. He'll go out to schools and communities to promote citizenship. But the day of a judge or an independent person having an interview and granting citizenship is going to be gone.

I want to make sure I ask that question, because there seems to be this whole notion that we're only changing the name but the function stays the same and so on. That's not the case at all, and that's why I think it's important and why I want to hear from the community on what you think about it.

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck: From our perspective, the ability of that judge—in this case—to look at an individual case and to make the decision would be welcomed in that position. As far as the commissioner is concerned, as you say, the position of commissioner is a much reduced position. From our perspective, we would like someone to be in the community, but we would certainly prefer it if that person was a judge.

The Chair: Do you have any comments on that, Ajit?

Ms. Ajit Deol: I would go for the judge, because with political and.... I personally feel the judge would be better qualified than an ordinary citizen, unless you have a training period for that person. That could be. If you give that person that judicial training or whatever, it might be okay. But I would prefer that the person have such a background.

Dr. Vedanand: I wondered why this was being brought in. I thought it was one of those downloading efforts by the government, one in which you would perhaps save some money.

A citizenship judge would certainly have all the dignity and all of the ceremony that comes with being a judge. The machine model of bureaucracy, if it goes only by the rules, will have no grounds for compassion. I would prefer a judge.

The Chair: Finally, I need to ask you a question, Doctor, because you raise an awful lot of interesting questions. You didn't give me too many answers, though, but perhaps that's the role. So far, I think you have answered the question of whether or not it's a right or a privilege.

I understand your point of view right now, because you talked an awful lot about making sure we don't erode citizenship rights and about distinguishing whether or not there should be a distinction between a resident and a citizen. We now know you can be a permanent resident in this country and never acquire citizenship, yet you essentially have all the rights except two or three. You can't vote and you can't hold public office, but everything else is the same.

Therefore, in your debate in your talk about these rights and the pathology of diversity, I'm just wondering whether or not you think that, in a new world, maybe we will all become global citizens as opposed to citizens of any particular country. Our country believes in dual citizenship. We don't ask anybody to forgo their other citizenship. Do you think it's more important to distinguish ourselves as residents or citizens, or both?

Dr. Vedanand: What I really briefly stated there—and I will restate it—is that the nation-state itself is facing a challenge. In the 21st century, the traditional model of citizenship therefore has to be reviewed. The reason I am saying this is that if you want to encourage good citizen behaviour in the country, with all kinds of responsibilities that are supposed to be there and with a belief in values, etc., then I think it is important to make sure that the rights are enshrined in some form, number one.

Secondly, I also said that in the future, perhaps the identity that is itself a part of the national scene is something that will have to be debated in the context of nation and citizenry, the government and citizenry, and the market and government. These two are facing discreet attention.

What I mean is that, yes, citizenship is a very important and sacred right, but for those who may stay for thirty years and not become citizens, either there is some problem or perhaps we should have a much better communication strategy to encourage them. That is one of the things stipulated in law, in the act: that they must be encouraged to become citizens and fully participate. If there is no participation, they are living in an isolationist mode, in their own community cocoon. They're not being full participants on the national public scene. They have to be and they should be. That's why I think that if you want to vote, if you want to have political rights, that's part of the duty.

¾ (2000)

The Chair: So you're saying our bill ought to be more proactive in wanting to make residents become citizens and not be very passive.

Dr. Vedanand: Yes, that's right.

Ms. Cathy Woodbeck: In a lot of cases, it may be that the country they're originally from would revoke their citizenship if they became Canadian citizens. We have dual citizenship, but many other countries don't, so it might mean that person would be giving up citizenship in their country of birth.

The Chair: Well, thank God we have people like all three of you trying to help to bring us through this evolutionary thing of immigrants, refugees, permanent residents, and citizens. You've been great contributors, and I want to thank each and every one of you for your great insight and your input.

We're going to take a short break, and then we're going to be back with our next panel.

½ (1959)

¾ (2013)

The Chair: Colleagues and guests, in this session we're going to talk a little about our Canada settlement and integration programs. Let me just give you some background as to why we want to do this.

As you know, when we passed our new immigration bill last June and went through the regulations, we travelled across the world to find out how Canada's doing and what we can do to attract more immigrants. I know Manitoba specifically has a great provincial nominee program. You're very active. I must applaud an awful lot of what not only the province, but the city and the community groups are doing with regard to immigration. But what we also wanted to do as a committee was study the next phase. It's one thing to attract people, but what is it we can do or are not doing with regard to helping them settle and move towards citizenship?

Therefore, we're very interested in your experiences with regard to settlement and integration programs, so that we can issue a report to Parliament and to the minister with, hopefully, some innovative and creative ideas from you as to how best we can serve permanent residents and new immigrants to this country. So I want to thank each and every one of you, not only for your input with regard to the immigration bill some time ago, but more importantly, for the services you provide and are involved with now. We want to hear what more we can do as a country, as a province, and as a community with settlement programs and provincial nominee programs. Is it working? What more can be done?

Let's start with the International Centre, the Citizenship Council of Manitoba, Fatima Soares. Welcome, Fatima.

¾ (2015)

Ms. Fatima Soares (Excutive Director, International Centre--Citizenship Council of Manitoba): Good evening.

I'm with the International Centre of Winnipeg, also known as the Citizenship Council of Manitoba Inc., which is the corporation. We have a settlement service organization that offers a comprehensive range of programs to immigrants to Winnipeg, particularly family class, independent applicants, provincial nominees, and business class, whenever we get them and they need assistance.

The nature of immigrant services has become ever more complex over the last few years, and we are noticing an increase in demand for services that are more specialized, that require a different type of programming to cater to the individual needs of this new wave of immigrants. I notice that you began by indicating that you were interested in finding out more about the programs and services sponsored by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, particularly the host program, LINC, etc. I think those programs serve the purpose at this point in time. Right now it's important for us to revisit these programs, reassess their effectiveness in addressing the needs of the new immigrant groups we are working with, as well as using a more balanced approach to looking at the delivery of English or French as a second language, as may be the case.

The reality is that we have people from the low end to the high end and everywhere in between, and we cannot have a program that is one size fits all. We do have to look at tailoring and customizing our programs to serve the broad range of needs and requirements immigrants have once they settle in the province of Manitoba, particularly the city of Winnipeg. There has been a lot of attention dedicated to the delivery of programs for the low end clientele and some in between. Now we are seeing, especiallly with the increasing independent applicants, as well as the provincial nominee program, that a lot of the needs they bring to the forefront are different. They do have a specific command of the language, but they do need the language and culture of the workplace, so we need to tailor our programs to specialized needs, maybe the terminology they need to enter employment in the labour market.

As we all know only too well, effective settlement cannot be accomplished without employment, That's what we are seeing at our doors. Time and again what troubles our immigrant clients, relative newcomers, here a week, two weeks, is the labour market and the opportunities for them to participate in and contribute to the economy of Manitoba. So we need to be very mindful that these people have different requirements when it comes to programming, and we need to also be very creative in using our resources in a way that maximizes the effectiveness of programs. So I would certainly recommend that a second look be given to the programs and who they are catering to, making sure those who actually have the language skills also have access to programming.

I would also feel that it's very important for us to take a look at the capacity to identify regional trends and better forecast labour market needs, because supply and demand dictate the types of opportunities newcomers are going to get in looking for employment. We are finding that a lot of the people landing in Winnipeg have skill sets that are not required by the labour market, because of timing. There is a lag between the time they are assessed and the time of landing. The labour market has changed, demands have fluctuated quite rapidly. So we need to pay very close attention to forecasting labour market needs and to take a look at identifying those strengths we do have, with a better ability to gauge how to match those requirements with the newcomers coming in.

We also have to take a look at adopting new strategies not only to address the feeling among many of the older communities, but also to raise awareness of the benefits and contributions immigrants make to the economy, to the community, and to society as a whole. I think a media campaign that is positive, targets the types of contributions, and heightens the awareness of the population at large is critical to bringing about change in a meaningful manner.

¾ (2020)

The other area I would like to talk about is the need for government to embrace and adopt plain language. We are working with immigrants who may have the language, but are not that sophisticated. Governments operate with a bureaucratic system that really processes more and more forms, feeds us more and more paper, and expects us to be all literate in the use of the technologies, being able to use a call centre. We used to have user-friendly mechanisms. We have now moved 180, if not 360, degrees, putting the burden on the people to search for the answers. In essence, we need to bring back the personal contact.

Furthermore, government offices are restricting their hours of operation. People do not know that, and if they are operating from 9 to 3 or whatever, we need to make it known that those are the hours of operation.

We need to look at introducing changes when we bring about new policies that are phased in. We cannot expect organizations such as settlement agencies to be constantly researching changes within the government structure so as to be able to respond to the needs of our clientele. We need to be mindful of these changes and their impact. In particular, with the introduction of the new permanent resident cards and new application forms, in six weeks there have been two changes, and we are not alerted to the fact of those changes occurring, we have to take the time for research on the web. We also have to download the information constantly. Clients go to CIC and they are asked to go to the web, read the pamphlets, do this, do that. Well, they are not yet able to function independently, so our expectations are in conflict with the realities of people's lives, and we need to bring some harmony or reconciliation within those areas.

I heard that before I came in there was someone talking about citizenship, and I didn't really get the full scope of the information. However, I think it's very important that we address the issue of citizenship education and preparation. It is a no person's land, to say the least. It is a federal jurisdiction. The federal government is collecting fees for the processing of applications and for adminstering the tasks. However, whenever we ask for assistance to create the conditions in which people can learn and be comfortable and confident in what they are doing and how they are undertaking those tasks, we are told, it's not our responsibility; education and training is a provincial jurisdiction. We are bouncing back responsibility. I would ask that we look at it very carefully and ascertain whose roles and responsibilities are those of citizenship. Do we have the responsibility to pass on this information, which is critical to forming the foundations of future citizens?

We are one organization, and I must complement the province for having given us some funds to pilot citizenship education and preparation. In the past it was done for many years, and all of a sudden, all the supports were removed. If we are to become a nation of nations and a country that prides itself on its citizenship, we should be looking at putting the money where the needs are.

I also think it's very important to look at new ways with the host program. The host program served a purpose, but it now needs to be revamped and rebuilt, re-engineered, if you wish, like anything else.

We need to take a look at mentorship. We are looking at working with professionally trained individuals, individuals who have skills and qualifications in the trades, in the technologies, you name it, some of them holding multiple degrees and not having opportunities in the labour market. We need to take a look at supporting these individuals by putting moneys towards mentorships. Mentorships are critical to helping people develop confidence and the understanding of what it's like to be involved in an engineering position in a Canadian workplace etc.

We also need to tap into the brain-gain and try to emphasize the gains we are making in bringing people with excellent qualifications and expertise to this country, which offsets the brain drain.

We also need to take a look at how can we best provide incentives to the business sector. We are working very closely with labour and business and government to bring about meaningful changes to the issue of qualification recognition etc., but I believe employers are still very hesitant and very reticent, and we need to provide meaningful ways through which they can bring in people with the skills and give them an opportunity to demonstrate that they are capable and competent in their fields of endeavour, perhaps tax breaks with incentives of a greater dimension, or even a training allowance, whatever you feel would be adequate.

¾ (2025)

Last, but not least, I would like to mention that it is very important for us to take a look at building into programs a more fair and equitable way of facilitating access. Right now most of the immigrants under the categories I named are not eligible for training and opportunities, because they are not social assistance recipients or are not on employment insurance, and very few of them qualify under the national child benefit program. They are falling through the cracks. They must have the income to pay for their own tuition and upgrading costs, and perhaps take a student loan, or they will have to flounder, taking positions that are well below their qualifications and skills.

As to settlement service providers, I would like to make a couple of points I feel are very important. One is to recognize the value of settlement service providers to the community and support their efforts by engaging in sustainable means of funding. I believe the time has come for governments to take a look at the track record of these organizations. We are exercising due diligence, we are accountable. We have been in the community for 20 or 50 years, yet we are put on one-year programs. We are like kids demonstrating that we can manage our day-to-day activities if you give us a budget. The time has come for meaningful change that supports the work we do, that values who we are, and that credits us with doing a good job, at a time when governments are offloading more and more onto the voluntary sector. So I believe it is critical for us to take a look at this and really work with other departments to ensure that this project-based funding and this need to reinvent oneself year after year after year comes to a halt and we have the ability to design and plan for the long term.

Manitoba is one of the most innovative and creative provinces. We have the ability to work together to bring capacity to the community. We stretch our dollars and try to bring in key programs through partnerships and create problem solving strategies. However, it's not good enough. I think the federal government has to begin looking at the needs of newcomers, and it is important to look at developing a national strategy to support immigrants and fast-tracking them back to the workplace. It is not a provincial responsibility alone. The provinces can identify their needs and customize the training to the needs of those learners, but we need funding that really allows for the development of programs that cut back on the frustration, the despair, and the broken lives we see.

We have seen stories featured in the media about doctors doing cleaning in hospitals, engineers driving cabs, etc. Those are the true facts of life when you are in service delivery and you are working with people's lives. People in decision-making are removed from the fact that people's lives are affected on a day-to-day basis. What do I say to the individual who has no bread to eat because he lost a job and doesn't have a cheque, or because he's been evicted from an apartment, or whatever.? There are a lot of issues. The moneys are not sufficient to support the needs. That's the reality.

I did provide a brief, which is quite extensive. I didn't go through all the things, but there are a lot of recommendations. I wanted to make it very clear that I'm not here to just raise the problems. I have made recommendations that can be considered for further integration in whatever meaningful way you can.

Thank you.

¾ (2030)

The Chair: Thank you so much, Fatima.

From Manitoba Refugee Sponsors we have Tom Denton. Welcome.

Mr. Tom Denton (Co-chair, Manitoba Refugee Sponsors): Thank you.

This is a different issue, a different tack. I make this presentation as a Manitoba member of the national working group on the so-called small centres strategy. The particular objective of this working group is to explore what can be done to encourage immigrant newcomers, including refugees, to settle in smaller centres, rather than Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, or even Calgary or Edmonton. The working group sprang from the first national settlement conference in Kingston in June 2001. Four hundred selected delegates attended this conference, drawn from Immigration offices across Canada, provincial government immigration departments, and a broad representation of the NGO sector, including settlement agencies, multicultural societies, and language training institutes. It was an excellent conference, financially supported by CIC, the federal voluntary sector initiative, and provincial governments.

The second national settlement conference will be held in Calgary next October, and our working group is now preparing for this. The group has broad government and NGO representation from across the country and has been at work for almost a year now preparing a paper to frame and guide discussions next October. I'm the writer of the paper.

¾ (2035)

The Chair: You will give a copy to the members, of course.

You will probably have it well in advance actually. The working group felt it was important that your committee know of its work, and I have been assigned the task of giving you this brief description. The complete paper will be available in English and French, probably in May.

The full title of our work is “Regional Dispersion and Retention of Newcomers (the small centres strategy)”. The paper, while recognizing the well-documented realities associated with Canadian immigrants settling primarily in the major centres of population, focuses on the development of a framework for achieving a more successful regional dispersion of immigrants and their retention in the smaller communities of settlement. It challenges communities wanting immigrants to develop strategies that are appropriate to their circumstances and to implement them. It suggests ideas that might be employed.

There's been considerable discussion about what is meant by smaller centres. Consensus has shown the inadequacy of the phrase. There needs to be an element of self-identification by those parts or places of Canada that wish to receive immigrants or more immigrants. The entire province of Manitoba is clearly such a part, the cities of Kingston and Winnipeg such places, even though these entities may seem larger rather than smaller to still smaller divisions or communities wanting immigrants.

Here in Manitoba you can get a foretaste of the demographic meltdown facing Canada 30 or 40 years hence, maybe sooner. We are at the leading edge of the aging demographic. Our birth rate mirrors the Canadian experience, save for the aboriginal population. Out-migration exceeds in-migration from the rest of the country. Were it not for international immigration, we would be in population decline already. Our industries are healthy and growing, and each year they need more workers. It is not surprising that we always rank among places with the lowest unemployment in Canada. Manitoba may well be Canada in microcosm three or four decades from now.

Since our working group's agenda was set in motion, the topic has moved from the periphery to the centre of the national stage. Last spring a publication of Citizenship and Immigration Canada examined the efficacy of strategies to achieve a more balanced geographic distribution of immigrants and reached discouraging conclusions. The report “was commissioned to investigate whether there are reasonable and viable options for dispersing immigrants beyond the three largest metropolitan areas.” While recognizing that there were things that might be done, it was not optimistic. By mid-summer the Minister of Immigration was speaking about it and musing on the possibility of social contracts with would-be immigrants to require them to settle in target communities. The Metropolis Project will focus on the topic at its next national colloquium at the end of March in Edmonton. There is even an Internet site devoted to it under the Metropolis aegis.

Recently published books that have joined issue with current Canadian immigration goals and policies have caused regionalization to become an important subset of the wider debate. Because of the many and frequent occasions when the topic has come to the fore, it has become a moving target. Our working group therefore recognizes that its work may be in a state of flux until its paper requires a degree of finality in preparation for the conference in October.

Notwithstanding the obvious and documented difficulties, we recognize the intense interest in the topic in many so-called smaller centres across Canada. We believe efforts must be made to strengthen Canada in all its regions through a more balanced redistribution of immigrants. We believe this is of the essence of a successful future for our country. We believe in a positive approach driven by collaboration between national and regional stakeholders. We believe there are things that can be done to make a difference. We believe governments at all levels, the settlement sector, and the target communities all have roles to play.

Our paper looks at these roles under three main heads, “Employment”, “Welcoming Communities”, and “New Initiatives”. The ideas offered are not exhaustive, nor are they appropriate to all situations. They are intended to show what has worked or could work where a community, of whatever size, determines to seek and retain newcomers.

Under “Employment” the paper notes:

Whatever the reason for newcomers' initial selection of their first Canadian community, the most compelling reason an employable, able-bodied adult person has for staying in that community is early acquisition of acceptable employment.

Under “Welcoming Communities” the paper observes:

Beyond employment, the hospitality offered in the new and perhaps very strange environment will have a profound effect on successful settlement and retention. This factor affects the entire family, whether bound for the workplace or school or life at home.

It is under “New Initiatives” that the paper describes a number of current programs, like the provincial nominee programs and private refugee sponsorship in this city and province, or new program ideas for attracting and retaining newcomers. It is in this section of the paper that comment is made on Minister Coderre's ideas about social contracts. In brief, tying people to an initial term of two or three years required settlement in a designated community would tend to see many put down roots in their adopted community and enhance the likelihood of their remaining. This creative idea, while popular in smaller centres, has been met with some controversy elsewhere, even characterized as un-Canadian. But despite the so-called mobility rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it would seem there is no legal impediment to admitting persons on a temporary visa that is capable of being converted in some term of years to permanent resident status when the conditions of issuance have been fulfilled. It has been pointed out that assessing consequences, like deportation, for failure to comply with the conditions of issuance is more problematic. As an alternative, our working group observes:

It would seem that a more generous development of the existing temporary worker program and a smooth process for conversion of their visas to permanent residency status might accomplish the same result as Mr. Coderre's social contracts, but without the controversy.

It also ensures that the employment prerequisite has been met in the community.

¾ (2040)

So with this brief introduction, we alert you to the existence of this national working group and to its work, which will come to fruition and be available to you sometime this spring. It is, of course, only one piece in the policy debate that surrounds the topic, but we hope you will find it useful.

Thank you.

¾ (2045)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Tom.

Indeed, we've started to hear some comments with regard to the contract in Toronto. I want to applaud you and your group for starting to think about where the country needs to go in so many areas with regard to immigration, and I'm sure there will be some questions on that.

Next is Jim Mair from the North End Sponsorship Team. Welcome.

Mr. Jim Mair (North End Sponsorship Team): Thanks a lot. I've got Howard R. Engel with me tonight. We're going to do a tag team act, if that's all right.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today on this very important topic. NEST, North End Sponsorship Team, is a coalition of five Lutheran Churches and two United Churches in the north end of Winnipeg. We are a non-profit organization composed of all volunteers. Since 1986 we have been involved with or sponsored over 80 refugees. Many of these sponsorships were fully funded by NEST and the rest by CIC. We're also signatory to a number of family-linked sponsorships, where the Winnipeg family look after their refugee relatives.

We're the ones who meet the people at the plane, we're the ones who deal with their problems, but unfortunately, if some of these issues aren't addressed, there isn't anybody to meet at the airport. So I'm just going to go through a bit of this. We have some other information to add, and if it's still possible, we're probably going to want to write up another presentation and submit it in writing.

The Chair: Of course.

Mr. Jim Mair: Okay. We do have some things we want to add that are not in the presentation we'll mention tonight, but will be more fleshed out in our additional presentation.

I want to mention two examples here that are quite close to my heart. I know one of them is historical and there have been some changes in letting people in now with medical problems, but I want to give you a flavour of what we have dealt with over the years.

The first one is about a family of five, mom, dad, and three boys, from the Congo. The application for sponsorship was originally submitted in January 1999. They were interviewed in August 1999 and had their initial medicals in late 1999. We were informed in February, June, and November 2000 that the medicals were furthered. In January 2001 I got a phone call at home at 7 o'clock in the morning from Africa from the father asking what was taking so long and hoping we had some good news. I told him we hadn't heard anything official, but we would continue inquiring and would hope for the best. The very next day we were notified that the sponsorship had been declined for medical reasons.

Have you ever received a phone call from a refugee in Africa or from anywhere else? I received two. The second one came after the family was notified that they were not coming to Canada. I hope no one ever has to take a call like that one. It was unethical to encourage false hope by unnecessarily long delay, only to dash their hopes by informing them of their ineligibility fifteen months after their initial medical. Thank goodness, things have changed somewhat in regard to allowing people in with medical problems, but unfortunately, it was too late for that family, and it was very difficult to talk to him on the phone that day.

The second example is one we're dealing with as we speak. It's been going on for two and a half years, and it involves a mother, daughter, and two nieces from Sierra Leone. There was supposed to be a nephew as well, but he's disappeared, and we're not sure if he's dead or alive. This sponsorship is a blended sponsorship. That's where the first four months were to be sponsored financially by CIC, the next eight months by ourselves. Blended sponsorships were supposed to be fast-tracked, given the grave situation in Sierra Leone. Although the family has not always been easy to find, unfortunately, they've had to provide passport pictures two or three times. There have been long waiting periods between initial interview and subsequent interviews and their medicals and security checks. Documents have gone missing and important letters been sent to the wrong places, and unfortunately, there's been turnover of visa officers at the most inopportune times. All the while the woman's sister here in Winnipeg has had to send money to them over and over to help with their survival, even though she can't afford it. She was a refugee from Sierra Leone herself a few years ago.

We're not blaming any one individual, but the system, the bureaucracy. Something has to be done about the time it takes to process applications. These are human beings. Two to three years and more is unacceptable.

We have a retired visa officer as part of our group, who advises us on many things like this, interviews family-linked potential sponsors, etc. I was talking to him tonight. He retired after 30 years in the service; he was in there from 1964 to 1994. He was saying, and I have to agree, there's no quick fix in this. More money and more visa offices would certainly help. The more offices you open, though, the more people come forward. Canada is being recognized around the world as a place to come. The number of people coming to Canada has gone up a lot over the last 40 years. The demand is high, and the number of officers affects the processing time. We need to put more resources where the need is greatest, particularly in places like, in Africa, Pretoria and Nairobi. In the 1960s, of course, 80% or 90% of the immigrants came from Europe, 10% to 20% from the rest of the world. Today it's about the opposite. We need to simplify the process, and we obviously need more funds for more officers.

Now Howard is going to do some in French.

¾ (2050)

[Translation]

Mr. Howard Engel (Board Member, North End Sponsorship Team): Good day, Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen.

My name is Howard R. Engel. I am the former president of our organization, NEST, and before proceeding with our formal presentation, I would like to state that in order to welcome refugees, we need to dismantle as quickly as possible the barriers that prevent them from coming to Canada.

Furthermore, we are concerned with the recognition of the United States as a safe third country. Refugees who land in the U.S. before they come to Canada are liable to be sent back to that safe third country. However, the danger for the refugees is that they would likely be deported back to their home country, which we find unacceptable.

Our last area of concern today is that since September 11, the public has understandably focussed on security as a priority, often at the expense of newcomers. We would not like to see anyone, least of all our government, take unscrupulous advantage of this vulnerability in the public who seem to be so prone to view newcomers with suspicion, to condone ethnic profiling and to xenophobia in general.

Rather than appease such sentiments by focussing on security measures like identity cards and even detention centres at ports of entry, we would like the government to take more of a leadership role and advocate more strongly on behalf of immigrants and refugees.

In the midst of fear and uncertainty, the government would do well to remind the public of the overall benefit of increasing immigration in general and refugees in particular, that in an insecure world, Canada can be counted on as a truly safe haven for bona fide refugees to the benefit of all Canadians.

Moreover, the natural increase of our population is inadequate for economic growth and prosperity. We need immigrants—and many refugees among them—to ensure our country continues to grow and fulfill more of its potential.

A common thread among these issues is that Canada seems to be closing its doors to refugees by making it harder for them to come to Canada or, once here, harder for them to stay and settle successfully here. Refugee sponsorship appears to be less and less encouraged by the Canadian government by stagnant if not falling annual quotas.

Manitoba is attempting to increase our quota of immigrants to match at least our proportion of the population, i.e. about 4% of the Canadian total. I think it is safe to say that a much smaller number are refugees. There is no reason why a significantly higher proportion of these newcomers could not be refugees.

NEST represents a strong local constituency of people who believe in and work for a humanitarian response to the world's refugees, as defined by the Geneva Convention of 1951 and to which Canada is a signatory.

Please do what you can do: ensure refugees are processed in a timely and fair fashion; that refugees are not turned away and sent to a supposed safe country and that refugees are treated like all Canadians want to be, with respect and dignity.

¾ (2055)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Howard and Jim.

We'll now go to Jason Fuerst with Employment Projects of Winnipeg. Welcome.

Mr. Jason Fuerst (Employer Liaison, Employment Projects of Winnipeg Inc.): Thank you, and good evening.

This evening I and my colleague Magaly Diaz, who will actually be presenting tomorrow, are representing Employment Projects of Winnipeg. EPW is a 25-year-old, provincial government-funded, not-for-profit agency that serves and meets the needs of approximately 3,000 clients each year. Among those 3,000 individuals approximately half represents immigrant clients. EPW focuses primarily on a female and immigrant clientele and provides free employment counselling, career planning, job search assistance, ESL training, computer classes, and a variety of workshops, courses, seminars, that type of thing.

This is more of a micro presentation, as opposed to the broader view. Specifically, we focus on employment services. In providing these services, without question, every one of the 20 individuals in our agency continues to encounter similar problems and barriers on a daily basis, or more particularly, our immigrant clients face these barriers. I think it's important to take the opportunity to reiterate many things you've probably heard before, and hopefully, as I do not want to sound too negative about it, somebody will take note.

Credentials recognition continues to be, in our estimation as an employment serving agency, the single largest challenge facing immigrants, especially those of a professional background. As an example, the provincial nominee program targets high-demand occupations that may, as has been alluded to earlier, not in fact be in high demand. These demands vacillate from year to year. With the, shall we say, Y2K non-event, IT is suddenly a very flat and declining industry. Immigrants in these areas are faced with educational institutions and professional and trade associations that do not readily accept or recognize foreign experience, training, or credentials. Those bodies that do work with immigrants possessing foreign credentials are often slow to react, grant relatively little credit for those credentials and experience, and entail a costly and time-consuming process to achieve credentials recognition.

I myself belong to one profession in particular and certainly recognize the need for standards, whether that is engineering, legal, or medical. Most people working in the area, however, address the issue of the process involved, not so much the fact that there are standards. If you have to write an exam that costs $1,000 to write for a new immigrant who has brought a family at the cost of, say, $35,000 for airfare to reach Canada, that $1,000 can be a monumental barrier. With processes such as PLAAR, prior learning assessment and recognition, it is often more efficient for an individual to retake a diploma or certificate program than to endure the lengthy process of assessment and furnishing a proof of capacity, not to mention the cost involved, even if credit is indeed given for previous credentials.

Further, immigrants must often accept what are known in our service delivery area as survival jobs. This affects newcomers' self-esteem in dramatic ways, as you might expect, and is pronounced among immigrant professionals. Quite often this is the most pronounced among men, who have traditionally been deemed the providers and the family support. This adds to a type of culture shock.

Moreover, a lack of familiarity with the job search process is certainly a barrier. It raises the basic issue of simply requiring a resumé. Many individuals from overseas have never had to deal with a formal job search, let alone the extra formality of having a piece of paper to articulate their credentials and skills. Additional to this are the need to have fluency in English or French to convey this in an appropriate document or resumé, the ability to fill out forms, the ability to conduct an interview, including what is appropriate to discuss at that interview or meeting, and cultural characteristics, such as eye contact, modesty in expressing credentials, experiences, and so forth on the resumé or in person at an interview.

Another issue expressed by many of our counsellors is a lack of knowledge of resources available to newcomers, and I believe my colleague will address some of this tomorrow. It means arriving at an international airport and not knowing what to do, arriving at midnight, when all resources are essentially closed at the airport, and not knowing necessarily what service agency, like ourselves, might be available, or settlement service providers, like International Centre.

Language barriers, obviously, continue to be a major issue and affect newcomers in their ability to secure services and resources, while preventing their full participation within the workforce. Most occupations require high levels of proficiency in English or French, such as engineers and programmers. These are very good examples, because they illustrate the fact that while you need programming skills, while you need the basic, say, P.Eng. designation, the professional engineering designation, in most cases today you need the ability to function at a high level, because these jobs are not just a matter of professional capacity, but there is a consulting capacity, direct client or customer interaction. This is certainly something that would preclude many professionals from even being considered by large multinational companies, for example, without naming names.

¿ (2100)

Immigrants also have needs in the areas of basic food, shelter, language training, health care, and mental health. Services are not always available in the newcomer's first language, which creates psychological and actual barriers for newcomers. In the province of Manitoba, certainly, there is a shortage of qualified medical practitioners who are at least licensed, and this further exacerbates the issue, when you consider finding medical practitioners who speak the native language of newcomers. There are too few doctors to begin with, let alone finding someone who speaks your language.

As was discussed by Fatima earlier, language training for specific purposes is integral to the integration of newcomers to the labour market. If an engineer or an accountant understands the profession's principles, but can neither express them nor speak the customer's language, as I said earlier, employers will simply not hire them.

The desire to have quantifiable Canadian work experience is a mechanism by which many immigrants are screened out during recruitment competitions. Further to that is the desire for local references. Trying to check a reference that's twelve time zones away necessitates a great deal of effort from somebody coming into work at 6 in the morning or working at 6 in the evening, trying to make contact with somebody in India, for example. Quite often, this is the extra step the employer will not take when they have 25 other resumés sitting on their desk that don't require that.

That's from one side. The other is personal accountability. Personal accountability is simply not always understood. Many do not understand that even with impressive experiences, it may be difficult to find work in Canada at comparable levels, given that individuals might have basis knowledge that is integral to a profession, but not necessarily integral to the practice of that profession in Canada. A lawyer from Russia, as an example, may not have a basic grounding in corporate and commercial principles, family law principles. Some things might be transferrable, like administrative law, but 80% is not. Clearly, this can lead to added frustration, and over time, we would say, a sense of failure in some cases.

So to conclude in that regard, accurate information should most certainly be provided to prospective immigrants before they arrive in Canada, specifically, accurate labour market information, and this has been commented on earlier.

Additionally, some newcomers are resistant to studying English or French and taking additional language training broadly speaking. Some have an expectation that employment should be provided to them, with no effort on their part. Others do not understand the Canadian concept of appropriate work ethics. But this is a slim minority. Our experience is clearly that people are trying to make a fresh start, a new life for themselves, and expend a great deal of energy trying to achieve these goals. Having to see someone with multiple PhDs, a former secretary of state of a southeast Asian country, delivering free press newspapers is painful.

One answer to many of these concerns and barriers is sufficient education and information, as I mentioned, before people arrive in Canada, so that they do arrive with the necessary tools to make the transition essentially on their own, but with assistance, admittedly, from agencies such as ourselves. The answer will come back to the delivery of services that are appropriate both in content and with culturally sensitive service providers. EPW, for example, reflects, culturally and linguistically, our clientele. I believe 10 out of our 19 permanent employees have been immigrants themselves at one time or another, and they speak a myriad of different languages.

¿ (2105)

The availability of resources to offer sufficient levels of, as well as sufficiently comprehensive, service is a constant issue. Immigration numbers continue to increase, particularly with the success of the provincial nominee program in Manitoba. So the need for the services EPW offers continues to increase. It is the same for other agencies. Resources remain tenuous, though, and seemingly, more often than not, are rolled back. So we see the funding cut and the need increase within the same year. Numbers for the provincial nominee program have gone up by about 25%, resources have gone back by 10%. So more services are being offered with fewer resources, placing extreme burdens on counselling staff, in our case, in respect of both volume and comprehensiveness of service. Clients require more and more ancillary services relating to non-employment issues. This requires referrals to other agencies and consultation on issues like taxation, child care--you name it, we field it. It's difficult to say to a client who's in your office with a child in tow, well, maybe give a call to the agency down the street.

In conclusion, there's clearly a need for more resources and service providers. These, combined with the comprehensiveness of a new orientation material package, resources, and presentations prior to immigrants' departure from their countries of origin, would lessen the social and economic shock of a transition to life in Canada.

To catch a note that Fatima did make earlier on plain language, personal contact, and service, I ended up being contacted over the proposed HRDC pulling of kiosks, job banks. I had the opportunity to chat on the radio about this, and didn't fully address it in five or seven minutes, but it raises the question whether clients of ours, immigrants, broadly speaking, job seekers of any flavour, colour, language, would always have the technological know-how, the ability to surf the web and use the HRDC site on-line. Consider someone who has a visual impairment. The HRDC kiosks have an audio component, which allows greater access simply from that perspective. You don't need the same level of proficiency surfing the web, you don't need a computer. It is a device that is more readily available than a computer that also has to be in a facility that is open. We're not talking about a person in this case, we are talking about a device that facilitates service delivery.

We're all looking for resources, but finances are one component of that. In order to keep talented individuals working within organizations like ours, the International Centre, Success Skill Centre, the myriad of agencies that deliver services to immigrants and Canadian-born individuals, you need to be able to provide them with professional development opportunities, to provide them with the financial resources themselves, salary. So it all comes back to finances, but directed to the right places.

Thank you.

¿ (2110)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Jason.

Now we have Bob Gabuna. Welcome.

Mr. Bob Gabuna ( As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am attempting to recount my 15 years experience as an immigrant in a two-page document.

It is a given that human movement is part of human nature. Even the good book recorded how Abraham, the patriarch of the Jews, the Muslims, and the Christians, born in old Iraq, moved and settled on the shores of Palestine. I do not have statistics on how many people live outside the country in which they were born, but I know Canada, my adopted home, needs a fresh influx of people to boost our birth rate and our entrepreneurial energies and to man our service industries. I say the mingling of colours in Canada, white, black, brown, red, is the defining picture of the country today and in the age to come, particularly in this era of globalization.

Leaving one's birth land to settle anew elsewhere is a life-changing event. Immigrants desire a better life for their children and themselves. Their decision to migrate is variously founded on economic and political reasons. Canada is a great nation, so we heard, so our expectation is high. As new Canadians, we went through a long painful process to adapt in our new home and become an integral part of society. As we move on to integration, the process is a continuum, sometimes ad infinitum, beginning with adjustment to the culture and the nuances of the official languages, but more importantly, the elusive question of how to overcome the series of barriers prior to getting decent jobs.

To pursue a job in their lines of interest, training, or experience, newcomers must be pentathlon athletes and marathon runners. Newcomers must be endowed with the ability of a pole vaulter to overcome the bars, which become higher and higher every season. In time past a secondary graduate not literate in either official language could enter Canada as a sewing machine operator. Today a newcomer with a doctoral degree has to repeat all over again his or her academic studies.

Taking a glimpse at Canada's immigration history, I learned that the early fathers from Europe who settled in the Maritimes had barely $100 in their pockets when they arrived. From a certain point of view, it seems immigrants of yesteryear would turn out dismal failures, but look where they are now. Their descendants became business and political leaders in this nation. In contrast, newcomers today, particularly from third world nations, must be extremely wealthy to come to Canada. The Settlement Fund is a subtle, but eloquent message that unless you are a millionaire, you shouldn't bother entertaining the thought of migrating to Canada. To illustrate my point, by third world standards, Canadians who own a house and a car, purchase appliances, and have in their name RRSP investments, with the current exchange rate of 53 pesos to the dollar, would be multimillionaires in the Philippines.

In the light of the above and insights offered by other speakers, Canada cannot pretend that things are going well in the immigration settlement program in general. I do not deny that across the country, notably in the province of Ontario, there are programs in place that assist newcomers to enter the labour market. Some of these initiatives, like loan programs for budding entrepreneurs or monetary grants for those who wish to re-enter university for further training, are great. Conversely, however, many of these initiatives are ad hoc, short-term, or narrowly focused on select occupations. In Manitoba, with my apologies to Fatima, settlement agencies mandated to provide services to immigrants upon their arrival to facilitate their settlement, tragically, have to continually scrimp for funds to sustain their programs and pay the wages of casual workers.

¿ (2115)

The out-migration of professionals from third world countries is an emotionally charged issue, with the brain drain from their native lands, but upon arrival in Canada, the same professionals are drained or de-skilled. Thus, medical doctors are impelled to deliver pizza, rather than engaging in health delivery, in order to survive, albeit in pathetic conditions. Foreign trained nurses and other holders of academic degrees earned offshore have no occupational points when they arrive in this land. De-skilling foreign trained professionals is immoral and obscene in the context of the brain drain issue, as they come from impoverished third world countries that are in dire need of their precious services, only to be lost forever, ending up working as cleaners in fast food outlets or as aides paid minimum wage in affluent countries like Canada.

I am aware that there are sectors in our society that are uneasy about opening our doors for migration. Reasons vary from erosion of economic stability to the risk of compromising public safety and national security. However, we must be reminded that this country is a land of immigrants, and we must accept the fact that Canada's world influence and multicultural traditions depend solely on maintaining openness with the rest of the people around the globe.

So in this era of globalization, imposing barriers to new arrivals is not helpful, but is wasteful of human resources. That being said, I hereby propose that we have a new debate about migration, with the end view of addressing the real fundamentals of immigration and settlement in Canada. Let this presentation be the starting point for stimulating a new debate, to make Canada a totally welcoming place for newcomers.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¿ (2120)

The Chair: Thank you, Bob, for your personal experience. I think we have entered a new debate. It started two years ago with the new Immigration Act and is continuing with our new Citizenship Act.

Listen, I can understand your frustration. When we came here as a committee, when we were talking about immigration, as I said before, Manitoba was doing a lot of darn good things, and it wants to do a lot more. Every one of the issues you've brought up, from credentials to regional dispersion--call it what you will--resources, refugees, has been addressed by this committee in one way nor another. The members around this table and those who are travelling out east have on at least three or four occasions addressed them, and in fact, they have made some improvements to the Refugee Act and to the resources. When we went around the world, we found out that it's taking us far too long to process paperwork, five, seven years in certain parts of the world, two or three years in Europe, for good qualified skilled workers and professionals. That's unacceptable, we know that. Resources are one of the answers.

So I can tell you that everything you're saying tonight rings true with this committee and has found a place in our report and, hopefully, in certain changes to the legislation. That's why we wanted to come back and talk a little about immigration and settlement and some of the things we need to do based on the new realities out there and our new Immigration Act.

I'm sure we've got an awful lot of questions for you, and we'll start with Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you.

I want to tell you that when we were abroad, Manitoba was mentioned as having one of the best programs in Canada, and that is because of the way you handle your partnerships.

I think our mandate has to change. I don't think we can follow through on Denis Coderre's idea of compelling immigrants to go into these areas, but I think for the first six months or a year we should ask him to land our immigrants in cities like Winnipeg and Saskatoon. I think we have lots to offer. We have gymnasiums, we have schools, we have things that are half empty in these provinces. If they go into the rural communities, these people could have a very good beginning in Canada for the first six months to a year. In Toronto today they were asking for money for the infrastructure. We have the infrastructure, we need the immigrants. They don't need the immigrants in Toronto, we do in these places. We have the infrastructure, we have the people, we have the resources. That's where I feel really rich, in my community. I don't feel rich in the sense that we have a lot of money, but we have a lot of resources. We have schools that are half empty. That doctor who's washing walls in Toronto, if he were washing walls in Saskatoon, it wouldn't be long till he had a job there; they would need him, because we are so short. We don't have foot doctors, we're short of orthopedics, we're short of neurologists, we're short of all those people, and we probably have them all down in Toronto.

So I'm saying these people, when they land, for the first six or eight months should probably be in the smaller centres, and then have the option voluntarily to go into the bigger cities, where they'll inevitably land. I think we have to concentrate on that.

I'm fascinated by how well you are doing here. I think we need more partnerships of all levels of government and with industries and with our churches. I was thinking how much we do have to offer.

I come from a village of 300 people, and we had 15 sponsored immigrants. We have only two remaining. The rest have gone into Saskatoon, but they have not wanted to go to Toronto or to Vancouver. They come from Sarajevo and Zagreb, and they miss those cities, but they don't want to go back to big cities now. So I think we should get our minister to have them at least spend the first six or eight months within our rural and smaller regions, without taking that freedom away from them to go on.

One thing we really have to work on, and you mentioned it, Fatima, is recognizing the value of settlement service providers and communicating how important immigrants are. I think that's one of the more important things. That's what we're always up against, even in rural areas, where we recognize that we need them, and I don't know how we can initiate a national media campaign such as you suggest. That is one thing I'd like suggestions for.

I don't really have much more to say. I just wanted to say that. I just wanted to see how we could do it so we're not taking away immigrants' rights. I realize they want to land in Toronto, because that's where their families are sometimes. Perhaps that's something we should not encourage.

¿ (2125)

The Chair: I wonder, Fatima, if you could answer the question with regard to the national media campaign and having Canadians and communities understand the value of immigration. Because let's face it, in the media sometimes that raises certain issues. And Tom, maybe you might want to address, because you were part of that round table, what some of those issues are with regard to attracting people to places other than the big three, small town Canada.

Ms. Fatima Soares: I would like to address both the topics.

As to the national campaign, for the longest time I've been wanting to do a local one, but I haven't got the means to develop one. Two years ago, perhaps, the federal government put together a strategy to heighten the awareness of communities across the country with regard to the importance of embracing and welcoming visible minorities to the workplace etc., and I didn't find that the impact was there. I think we need to learn how to develop a campaign that has the impact and really changes the audience's view, that captures their attention so they say, hey, this is something I can do, perhaps something that can break barriers to access. Human stories are always important and can be featured in a very positive, very striking manner--an immigrant professional who succeeded in contributing to the workplace, a business featuring it, just snaps we can use to highlight the important contributions of immigrants to the community in general.

This is just a suggestion, but I think we have a responsibility to break down barriers to access, to communication, to understanding and to really take a look at bridging the gap between who we are and what we do and how we expect people to come to our doors and be integrated and fully participate and contribute to our communities. It is both a responsibility and a privilege to be able to feature these types of stories that communicate a message that can be very powerful and can be life-transforming for those in the audience. It can be an employer, it can be human resources, it can be a church, a group, a common citizen, a person just listening to it, but I think we need to do something about it. I don't have all the answers, but I believe it can be dealt with in a positive manner. Resources have to be allocated for it, and it has to be commercially designed, because it has to be used with a business approach to communicate the impact, and that's the reality, not a social services approach.

The other aspect you mentioned is validating, supporting, and recognizing the contribution of settlement service providers and, by the same token, any service-providing organization that has a role to play in a nation building capacity, community building, etc. Settlement service providers in the immigrant field are critical. They deliver essential services and they can help one person at a time to be better integrated, to better communicate, and to embrace changes within their life and those of their families. For so long we have been put on these one year contracts that really take away the energy, the resources, and the creativeness that could be directed to visioning and long-range planning and innovation in trying to amass proposal after proposal after proposal to seek the funding. We are an organization that's dealing with multiple funders. By the end of the year I have a minimum of eight proposals and eight funders I have to report to with different accountability mechanisms, different expectations, different reporting on a monthly basis, and that's very time-consuming.

So we are asking governments, while exercising due diligence, to look at multi-year contracts, where we still have the accountability and requirements, where you will review year-end commitments and contractual obligations, but re-negotiate on a yearly basis, without the need to re-invent oneself and present the same case and the same need time and again.

¿ (2130)

The Chair: Tom.

Mr. Tom Denton: The province and the city are very much aware of the need for immigrants. This is not a knowledge possessed only by the politicians and two levels of government, it is widely distributed in the community. Over a period of time a lot of talk has probably accomplished that. So curiously, even though we are actively looking for immigrants, I haven't heard anyone advocating Mr. Coderre's approach to assign people here. I haven't heard any opposition to it, but I haven't heard anybody advocating it either. Why? Because we don't need it, because we are sufficiently successful in the initiatives we've undertaken already that if they are pursued to their ultimate, I think we will get the kind of numbers of immigrants we need. We're only halfway there.

The provincial nominee program is up to 1,500 files this year. That's probably, if you figure two and a half people per file, 3000 to 4000 people once they get here. Of course, there is a long lead time needed. That's a number that has been permitted to the province by the federal government. We have been on something of a short leash. We started with 250 cases three or four years ago and have been moving it up quite aggressively. That's fortunate, but we have tens of thousands of applications in the provincial nominee program. So what we are doing with the provincial nominee program is a quick paper shuffle on these people, and if they have two prerequisites, a match to a job here, and a family link here, they go into the important pile, and if they are not either of those things, you might as well stick them into the round file. We know we don't have to just get them here, we have to keep them here. It's not good enough to have them come for six months and then move on to Toronto. We want to hang on to the people.

¿ (2135)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: The money the feds give should probably just go for the first six months, so that the immigrants can get adjusted to Canada and not worry so much about getting a job. Usually, they land and are desperate to get a job, but I think perhaps that money should go into trying to help them adapt.

Mr. Tom Denton: We're focused on the job. There has to be a link to the job. As you may know, from the papers out yesterday, unemployment is only 4.9% in Manitoba, the lowest in the country.

I want to pause on that point for a moment. We have been hearing about credentials recognition this evening, but I have been hearing about it for 20 years. I understand the issue, and I think we are making some important progress here in Manitoba on it, but I think we have to guard against the assumption that if you have your credentials recognized, there is automatically a job there for you. That tends to be a lie. Over the years in this country our immigration policy has been geared to the skilled immigrant, and there is beginning to be a body of comment currently that says what this country needs, or any developing country, is not skilled immigrants, but unskilled immigrants. I think we have preached the skilled argument for so long because to the masses out there, it's an easy sell. They think those are upscale immigrants, they will be accepted and fit into the system. But actually, when we hear about the PhD who is delivering pizza or working at the 7-Eleven, and there are lots of stories like that, we think it's dreadful that the PhD isn't employed at his or her level. What we are forgetting is that there was a job at the 7-Eleven, an unskilled job.

We in Manitoba have the largest program for private sponsorship of refugees in the country, particularly in Winnipeg. We bring in more refugees under private sponsorship than anybody else. A lot of those people tend to be what we would call, looking at the independent or economic criteria, unskilled. We don't have a problem with employing these people in the factories and the service industries in the city, because they're needed. I could take you to Palliser Furniture, which is the largest employer in this province, and most of the people in there come from a refugee background, because they are needed to make furniture.

So I think this is something we should focus on in the wider debate in this country. Are we kidding ourselves that what we need is skilled immigrants? That wasn't what built the country. As Bob was saying earlier, the people who built this country didn't come here as skilled immigrants in the sense we're using today, they came here because they were good workers and they wanted to make a life for themselves, and they did. The skills thing has been a trap.

¿ (2140)

The Chair: We'll talk about that in a minute.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, it's an important point. As you said, Tom, and others have said, if it weren't for the provincial nominee program here, the private sponsorship program, and the work the church and the non-profit community do, Manitoba wouldn't have seen an increase in numbers at all in incoming population. So taking the information you've just provided about the focus on skilled workers not necessarily serving or being the best interest of the province of Manitoba, it's likely that the whole new thrust of this government in Bill C-11, the whole focus on highly skilled people, proficient in many languages, highly educated, is not going to serve Manitoba at all, I would dare say. I throw that out for anyone's comment.

The other issue that runs through all the presentations is something, as Joe said, we've heard for a long time. Whether we're talking about recognition of credentials, accreditation programs, or coordinated settlement programs, this is truly no-jurisdiction land, as Fatima mentioned in regard to citizenship education. Unless we can figure out how to get coordination and participation of all levels of government, especially the federal government, which is not really an active player on this front, I'm not sure how we'll be able to address those gaps. We've been studying this forever, and we're not getting anywhere. The question is, what do we do as a committee to take these recommendations back to Ottawa to get things moving?

Ms. Fatima Soares: I just want to agree with Tom. This problem has been on the shelf for 25 years. From day one with the Chilean refugees I witnessed the same. There were programs that fast-tracked individuals into their professions and trades. There was a lot more in wage subsidies and programs that supported the integration of immigrants into specific fields. It just seems that education is a good predictor of labour market performance, when in fact it is not. There's a discrepancy between what the labour market is demanding of today's workers and what we are receiving as part of the immigration flow, and we need to reconcile that difference. With the growth in jobs in the sales and service industries, we have to target semi-skilled individuals to come to the province, and we do not need to demand double degrees or triple degrees. We do not need those high numbers of individuals with multiple degrees, we need individuals who are solid workers with a good work ethic and have the ability to be integrated and participate and contribute in the Canadian economy, and in the same way, the Manitoba economy.

We really need to adopt a balanced approach. Otherwise, it's what we call the seduction and abandonment process. When you are looking at attracting someone, you seduce them, you give them all the opportunities and provide them with all types of incentives. When they come here, they are abandoned to their own devices, and it's survival of the fittest. It takes ten years, on average, for an immigrant professional to regain some level of professional recognition in his or her designation. There are some who are successful in landing in their professions much more rapidly, but if that's the case, we need to take a look at what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong.

¿ (2145)

The Chair: This committee spends a lot of time giving advice to the government with regard to the point system for the independent. I think what we were saying is that we wanted to move to a human capital model, as opposed to an occupational model, and look at the person's potential. I think Bob was talking about that. Maybe we are using the wrong words. The point system, in our opinion, was too heavily weighted for education, and even language, to the point that you are never going to get anybody. We're going to review our new act, but I predict that we'll probably start attracting lower numbers than we wanted. This committee heard far and wide that this is exactly what we need do, we need to attract people.

You use the words skilled and unskilled. Can you give me a definition of what that might mean? An awful lot of employers would love to train a person to work at a particular job, and perhaps we're getting hung up on these terms. I can tell you right now, if the national campaign out there says that Canada is looking for unskilled workers, and that's what we are going to spend $30 million on, because that's how much a national campaign would cost, I'd rather give you the $30 million to do your settlement programs and let your community, employers, labour, and people like Bob talk about the value, as opposed to giving it to CBC or CTV to spend it. Can you imagine a national campaign that says Manitoba and Canada want unskilled workers? Do you know what would happen? My office lights would go crazy--are you absolutely crazy, you want to bring in who to this country?

So I'm talking about education and everything else, and perhaps we ought to talk about people as workers. You're absolutely right, Tom. I came from Italy, and my father was a policeman. He ended up digging mine shafts, because we were attracted to Timmins, Ontario--minus 40 degrees, by the way, today--as opposed to London or Niagara Falls, where most Italians wanted to go, or Toronto.

When we were travelling across the world, one thing they said about Manitoba was that they took the leading edge. But nobody was promoting Manitoba. Your provincial nominee program says, Manitoba will take 1,500 people, here's our point system, here's the kind of person we're looking for, but nobody was promoting Manitoba. The people Lynne and I saw and interviewed, at the end of the day, wanted an opportunity in life, and they were prepared to go anywhere in Canada. Believe it or not, while most people want to get to Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, the Winnipegs and Saskatoons and the likes of London, Ontario, or Kitchener-Waterloo are great opportunities for those people. But they don't know anything other than Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal, because those cities are in there promoting the living heck out of their cities.

If Manitoba or Winnipeg want more immigrants, you should have them. That 1,500 is a piddly amount from a provincial nominee agreement. Ask for 3,000, 5,000, show that you can integrate them and that you want them, and then promote in Europe, southeast Asia, South America for all the workers you want. Temporary workers is the way to go, I would agree with you totally. People want an opportunity to come to Canada. You have to sell them, once you get them here, on staying in Winnipeg or in Manitoba, and I think you can, because I believe, once people get their roots in the soil, they will do that, especially with a welcoming community. I think that makes the difference.

But maybe you can tell me about the skilled and unskilled, because I think, Tom, you started to address it. I'm not sure that's a good marketing strategy. I'm trying to think of the term that would get us to what you want.

Mr. Tom Denton: There's a pejorative quality to both those words, skilled and un-skilled. Maybe we just walk away from them.

You say we could market ourselves. Manitoba doesn't need to spend a penny on marketing itself. There are so many applications out there. Our problem is the constriction in the numbers allowed under the provincial nominee program right now and the constriction overseas in processing. The refugee sponsoring here is huge. It's a match for the provincial nominee program. The numbers we could bring in under that program--I don't know where it would end. Every refugee who arrives identifies three more he or she wants us to bring in. We have hundreds and hundreds of requests from people who are already here to bring in their relatives and friends who are refugees.

So once again, we don't need to promote, we just need to have some mechanism that stops the constriction in the supply overseas. It's almost as though the federal government doesn't like the program, so this is the way they limit the numbers under it. We have hundreds of applications waiting in Nairobi, for example. Just one sponsor in this town, Hospitality House Refugee Ministry, has 372 right now sitting in Nairobi, applications, not people, it's more people than that. We're lucky if somebody gets here in two years, it's usually longer. So we could have these numbers without any advertising, because we've got them. There are hundreds of thousands of hits on the provincial website every year on the provincial nominee program.

¿ (2150)

The Chair: On resources, I can only tell you what our field officers were saying. You're absolutely right, they can only handle a certain number of cases. The provincial nominee agreement, in respect of priorities, from skilled workers to family reunification, is right up there. But maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. With a true partnership in immigration between the provincial government and the federal government via the provincial nominee agreement, maybe we ought to look at how we can jointly use resources to process the paper, because it is an unacceptable delay.

Mr. Tom Denton: One of the good things that's happening with the provincial nominee program overseas is that the expertise of the provincial bureaucrats is such and the professional way they're doing the paperwork is such that it is pretty well rubber-stamped overseas. So it's moving fairly well. If we could only work a system that was similar to that and as successful for the private refugee sponsorship program, it would be wonderful.

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The one matter I was trying to get at it is that whether we're talking about sponsorship, accreditation, settlement issues, whether it's jobs, family support, language training, whatever, we seem to have a problem with jurisdiction. We have jurisdictional games going on, and we don't have a centre of responsibility. So we keep dealing with things in silos and different levels of government. How do we advance in this? I guess the best example is accreditation. We went through this whole thing again with Bill C-11. We talked about it, we urged action. The federal government says it's a provincial responsibility. Then there's supposed to be a federal-provincial meeting on it, and that gets delayed. Nobody takes responsibility. So whose responsibility is it? How do we make it happen on any of these issues we're dealing with?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: They don't seem to think that's a problem.

Mr. Tom Denton: Oh, I do think it's a problem, but I'm saying we're making some progress here in Manitoba.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We've dealt with it a bit provincially here in Manitoba, but it's a big issue nationally.

Ms. Fatima Soares: I think the province has been very forthcoming in bringing together labour, business, and the regulatory bodies. There's a lot still to do to get where we want, and I think the next step we should be looking at is identifying the key professions where we have the highest numbers of immigrants coming, be it engineering, accounting, pharmacy, and working with maybe four to six progressive bodies, trying to pilot a competency-based approach with them. We have to get success, and if we can provide some sense of partnership with these types of regulatory bodies and get them to succeed, they will be the role models and the ones that will pave the way for others to come and join them.

But we need to actually begin piloting some strategies that will ensure success. Right now there are a lot of inconsistencies and unfair practices. There's also no accountability. There's no appeal process. You may have two people who graduated from the same institution, with similar work experience, assessed. One is given one level of, for example, CGA, the other one is given another. That creates a lot of inconsistencies and inequalities within the system, so we need to bring about some way of working together to grab the momentum, and the provinces have begun the process. There's still a lot to be done.

¿ (2155)

The Chair: Thank you.

Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much for your presentations. You folks have done fantastic work with refugees and social justice, and it's really nice to see the faith community involved in this, because that is an expression of faith in action.

Fatima, I couldn't help but think you probably came after Allende got overthrown. When did you come to Canada?

Ms. Fatima Soares: 1975. The Chileans came in 1977; that's when I began working with them on a volunteer basis.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I mentioned that because we've got the safe country agreement, which would have stopped a lot of Chileans from getting to Canada, because they couldn't come through the States.

It's a love-hate relationship we seem to have with immigration. I don't know if we'll ever have 100% support for it, but I think overall it's fairly good support.

Joe came in 1954, I came in 1957 as a refugee. I just mention that, because I think it's important. Probably, when I came, it was Immigration officials working at their best, including the minister, who was Jack Pickersgill, who packed up from Ottawa, went to Austria, took charge, and made things happen. He settled 40,000 refugees in a couple of years--an extraordinary effort. We didn't have to pay any money, we got supported when we came over, and there was quick integration, and I think it's a real payback over time. I'm sensitive to what you are saying, that it's very difficult to come to the land of opportunity.

On accreditation, I live in a community, the Waterloo region, where we have 50 doctors, internationally trained, who have passed a Canadian medical exam. So it has nothing to do with lowering standards, whatever else, the only thing it has to do with is that the province won't let them intern, and if you don't intern, you don't get into the system. So, Lynne, if you want some doctors who are dying to work--it's a real tragedy for them and it's a tragedy for people in my community--we can't get doctors. If you want doctors any place in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, I can start supplying you from my community. It's an incredible tragedy what's been happening. We need some kind of accreditation system that's nation-wide. It makes no sense in this day and age, with the high-tech. It's mind-boggling.

I can go to any place in Ontario and I'll see Sikh businessmen running small businesses. They didn't go to Toronto, they didn't go to Vancouver, they didn't go to Montreal, they didn't even go to communities my size, they went where the opportunity was. They might not have all the requirements under today's standards to come into the country, but they certainly are good business people and they make things happen. Where there is an opportunity, they will go. We don't value those skills with our looking for degrees, and so in some ways we are missing the boat. We want people to come to this country who want to succeed. It doesn't do us any good to bring someone into this country who cannot get recognized for their degrees, can't get employment. They get frustrated, and it makes them look bad, it makes us look bad. They tell us they were lied to where they came from when they were recruited. It becomes a real tragedy. I hope we are going to review that system, because it becomes incredibly frustrating.

But to you folks working in that business, it is very much appreciated. Fatima, I feel for you with respect to the yearly funding. I have an organization in my community that has been operating for 27 years with Human Resources, and all of a sudden, bang, they are cut off at the knees, they are not getting refunded. It's incredible. I think it's exploitation of the voluntary sector in a way to do that. We have to value the voluntary sector as much as our public service.

À (2200)

The Chair: Maybe we will finish it off in keeping with that.

We heard it also in Toronto, as we were talking about settlement. It's about a holisitic approach, it's about customizing each client. You need a horizontal model, as opposed to silos and vertical stuff. You need federal, provincial, municipal, business, labour, everybody working together to develop a client-based system.

You would know better the immigration and refugee population that comes into your community. Is there a model you can give us, how much money per person you need to give them the language, the training, all that stuff? If you had 100 immigrants and refugees, just as a baseline, how many would need your services? Would all 100 would need all the services, part of the services? Would it be 5%, would it be 10%? Of those perhaps some would have jobs, some not. Let's face it, for someone who arrives here to get fully integrated could take some period of time. We are trying to look at what that model is. We charge people $975 a person to come here now, and we are spending $350 million on settlement programs. We are getting more immigrants, but the money is going down. We need to understand what kind of system we need, how much money per person, recognizing, though, that each person is a little different and you can't just have one plan to fit all. We need to have an understanding of how your organizations can work a heck of a lot better. Is it on a per client basis that we ought to be looking at this? Perhaps you can shed some light as to how we can deal with settlement and resettlement programs that relate to immigrants and refugees.

Ms. Fatima Soares: Ideally, the single window concept would be the most practical one, because it brings together different sources of resources and programs, eliminates overhead costs, simplifies the cost of equipment, creates the capacity to best address the needs of clients in a centralized manner. But people must have choices, and we are working with consumers who are adults, who have life experiences that challenge and change them, and if they do not like the approach that is used here, they should have a choice. The single window initiative would allow you to bring language programming, employment, counselling, all the services together, with the ability to do a needs assessment at the point of intake, and then redirect them to the services and programs they need, not to all the services, but those that meet their needs at the point of arrival. If it's not language, but employment, they should have those types of supports. If it is credentials assessment, they would be directed to that specific department.

It is happening. There's a lot of interagency cooperation and referral, a lot of working together, but there are issues of territorialism, survival of the fittest. The competition for dollars is fierce at a time when resources are dwindling, and they are stretched to the limit.

I'm very much for the holistic model, and I think it is a very important point to take a look at. Immigrants' needs are not compartmentalized. They are ever-changing, and they affect individuals and families. It may be that they need settlement, housing, and orientation, but they also need employment. I'm not talking about refugees, who have a different set of needs and expectations, I'm talking about the broader immigrants group. Their concern is to have their basic needs met. I look at the hierarchy of needs and the foundation on which they are going to be moving forward to higher learning and greater opportunities. The foundation is having a roof over their heads and the ability to be self-sufficient and independent contributors to their community and to their family.

So in essence, we want to work with the holistic approach. Can we do it, realistically? At the centre we have a continuum of services that range from settlement to adult education to employment to nutrition to volunteer supports and mentorship programming. It's like a smorsgasborg: you can choose the pieces that are important for the individual to meet their needs.

À (2205)

The Chair: Jim, could you comment? And perhaps, Bob, you could comment on whether that kind of model would have helped you out a bit more.

Mr. Jim Mair: You know very soon, when refugees arrive, if one year is going to do it or if you're going to take two or three, what their needs are. We had one family, a mother and dad and two girls. They had been engineers in Afghanistan, they went to India, and then they came here. They still haven't ended up in engineering jobs, but they didn't need a lot from us. On the other hand, we had four young people from Sudan. They needed parenting. My wife and I were the parents for the first year they were here. Unfortunately, they moved to Calgary, where there was a large Sudanese contingent. In fact, I'm sure about the first or second day they were here, in July 2001, they were getting calls from Calgary to go there right away. We held them off for a year and tried to parent them as best we could for that year and keep in contact, but they had much broader and bigger needs than the other folks I talked about. So we've had quite a range even with refugees.

I was going to also mention about the one year thing. There's so much to do for some of the refugees, the work, the transportation, the English, education, budgeting their money, credentials--the list just goes on and on--and one year for some folks just isn't enough. The money they get from CIC is the same as welfare, so it's not going to change much. Once they're off the one-year or two-year sponsorship, they go on welfare, and both the CIC money and welfare are below the poverty line. They have to use some of their food money or some of their other money to try to get decent housing. So you find a lot of refugees in Winnipeg congregated in certain areas that have cheap and not so decent housing.

As to jurisdiction, in my day job I work for the federal government. I work with first nations. I've worked with first nations who take over their own health care. They take the money from the feds, they take the money from the province, they take the money from HRDC, INAC, wherever they get it, and there's still accountability with all those funds, and then they use them for the benefit of everybody in the community. We let them go and do what they can with what they've got, and the jurisdiction doesn't get in the way. With those moneys, they provide health care to off-reserve, on-reserve, treaty, and non-treaty people. So one way of trying to get away from the jurisdictions is for all the funders to give the money to an organization you're comfortable with, so there's still accountability for the moneys, but they themselves don't have to worry about the jurisdiction, but about the clients they serve.

À (2210)

The Chair: Bob.

Mr. Bob Gabuna: I am a member of the Philippino community, where we have very strong cohesion. Most of the members of the community don't avail themselves of settlement agencies. They would rather stick with their family members or the church group they belong to. But these kinds of experiences sometimes lead to erroneous information. My wife's aunt was a sewing machine operator, and so were others. I was trained differently. I had a big quarrel with my sister-in-law. It took me 15 years to convince her that I would not be working in a factory. If you have settlement agencies such as Fatima's, with learned and seasoned staff workers, that is the model I would like to see. It is unfortunate that funds are not around. I was able to get a good lead 15 years ago, when one of my counsellors referred me to a program where I got my break. If I had relied on the knowledge of my relatives, I would have ended up as a bundle carrier in a factory.

The Chair: So the lesson is, don't always trust your family. I'm being facetious, but you need other support mechanisms besides your family. You need organizations that are here to help you look for the opportunities and get the training and stuff you need.

Mr. Bob Gabuna: Precisely.

The Chair: Thank you, all. It's been instructive, you've given us a lot of good information, and we appreciate it.

Meeting adjourned.