CIMM Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

0930

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

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Tami Friesen (Advocate, West Coast Domestic Workers' Association)

The Chair

Mrs. Rivka Augenfeld (President, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes

Mr. Richard Goldman (Member of the Executive, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes)

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

The Chair

0935

Mrs. Karen McBride (Vice-President, International Affairs, Association of University and Colleges of Canada)

The Chair

Mrs. Karen McBride

0940

The Chair

Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

0945

The Chair

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

The Chair

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

The Chair

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

The Chair

Ms. Tami Friesen

The Chair

Mrs. Karen McBride

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mrs. Karen McBride

0950

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mrs. Karen McBride

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mrs. Karen McBride

The Chair

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

The Chair

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

0955

Mrs. Karen McBride

The Chair

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

1000

Ms. Tami Friesen

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Tami Friesen

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1005

Mrs. Karen McBride

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.))

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

Mrs. Karen McBride

1010

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Tami Friesen

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Tami Friesen

1015

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. Richard Goldman

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

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

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Tami Friesen

1020

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Tami Friesen

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Tami Friesen

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Tami Friesen

Ms. Anita Neville

1025

Ms. Tami Friesen

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Tami Friesen

Ms. Anita Neville

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. Richard Goldman

1030

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. Richard Goldman

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.)

Mrs. Karen McBride

Mr. Mark Assad

Mrs. Karen McBride

Mr. Mark Assad

Ms. Karen McBride

Mr. Mark Assad

The Chair

1035

Mr. Richard Goldman

The Chair

Mr. Richard Goldman

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Alana Klein (Research Associate, Canadian HIV-AIDS Legal Network)

The Chair

Mr. John Fisher (Executive Director, EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere))

The Chair

Ms. Chris Morrissey (Co-founder, LEGIT, (Lesbian & Gay Immigration Task Force, Vancouver))

1045

The Chair

Ms. Deb LeRose (LEGIT, Lesbian & Gay Immigration Task Force, Vancouver)

1050

Ms. Chris Morrissey

1055

The Chair

Mr. John Fisher

1100

The Chair

Ms. Alana Klein

1105

1110

The Chair

Mr. Forseth

Mr. John Fisher

1115

The Chair

Ms. Chris Morrissey

The Chair

Mr. Michael Battista (Lawyer, EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere))

The Chair

Mr. Forseth

Mr. Michael Battista

Mr. Forseth

1120

Ms. Alana Klein

Mr. Forseth

Ms. Alana Klein

The Chair

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1125

Ms. Chris Morrissey

The Chair

Mr. Michael Battista

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. John Fisher

1130

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Chris Morrissey

1135

Mr. John Fisher

The Chair

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

Mr. Michael Battista

Mr. Mark

Mr. Michael Battista

The Chair

Mr. Michael Battista

The Chair

Mr. Michael Battista

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

1140

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Ms. Alana Klein

The Chair

Ms. Chris Morrissey

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Chris Morrissey

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

1145

Mr. John Fisher

The Chair

Mr. Michael Battista

The Chair

Mr. Michael Battista

The Chair

Ms. Alana Klein

The Chair

Ms. Chris Morrissey

The Chair

Ms. Chris Morrissey

The Chair

The Chair

1205

Mr. Warren LLoyd (Vice-President, Organization of Professional Consultants Inc.)

Ms. Jill Sparling (President, Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants Inc.)

1210

1215

The Chair

Ms. Robin Seligman (Canadians for Fair and Just Immigration Policy)

The Chair

Ms. Robin Seligman

1220

The Chair

Ms. Robin Seligman

The Chair

Ms. Robin Seligman

The Chair

Ms. Robin Seligman

The Chair

Ms. Robin Seligman

1225

The Chair

Ms. Robin Seligman

The Chair

Ms. Robin Seligman

The Chair

Mr. Mendel Mr. Green (Chair, Immigration Law Specialty Committee, Law Society of Upper Canada

1230

1235

The Chair

Mr. Mendel Green

The Chair

Mr. Forseth

1240

The Chair

Mr. Warren LLoyd

The Chair

Mr. Warren LLoyd

The Chair

Ms. Robin Seligman

The Chair

Ms. Robin Seligman

1245

Mr. Mendel Green

The Chair

Ms. Jill Sparling

Ms. Jill Sparling

The Chair

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

1250

The Chair

Ms. Robin Seligman

1255

Mr. Mendel Green

The Chair

Ms. Robin Seligman

The Chair

Ms. Jill Sparling

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Jill Sparling

Mr. Jerry Pickard

1300

Ms. Jill Sparling

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Mendel Green

The Chair

Mr. Mendel Green

The Chair

Mr. Mendel Green

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Mr. Mendel Green

1305

The Chair

Ms. Robin Seligman

The Chair

Ms. Jill Sparling

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Mendel Green

The Chair

Mr. David Price

Some hon. members

The Chair

Ms. Robin Seligman

1315

The Chair

Mr. Assad

The Chair

Mr. Assad

The Chair

Ms. Jill Sparling

The Chair

Ms. Jill Sparling

The Chair

Ms. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Mendel Green

Ms. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Mendel Green

The Chair

Ms. Jill Sparling

The Chair

Ms. Jill Sparling

The Chair

Ms. Jill Sparling

The Chair

Mr. Mendel Green

The Chair

Ms. Jill Sparling

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 045

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0930)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues and guests. My apologies for not having the symbol of authority, my gavel. You'll have to listen to the tinkle of a glass.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): You're the symbol of authority, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Why thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.

Let me take this opportunity to welcome back some of our guests. The witnesses we have today, as you know, played a very significant role in shaping improvements to Bill C-11, through their interventions, insights, and experiences. We look forward to their presentations this morning on the regulations.

I think some of you have told us to watch out for the regulations, that the devil is always in the detail. You're absolutely right, so that's why we're here reviewing our regulations and hopefully improving upon them. As I said, all of you gave us some good ideas on Bill C-11, with regard to the groups you represent.

So without any further talk from me, let me introduce the West Coast Domestic Workers' Association. We have Tami Friesen with us. We have the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, represented by Rivka Augenfeld and Richard Goldman. We have Karen McBride from the association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

I'd like you to not necessarily read your briefs--we thank you very much for providing us with those briefs in advance--but take seven to ten minutes to summarize them, and more importantly, give us some of your great ideas on how we might improve the regulations.

There's another thing the committee would perhaps like you to answer. As you know, the minister and his committee previously talked a little bit about whether or not we ought to regulate immigration consultants. Perhaps you have ideas on how we might do that. Obviously, the main principle of that is to protect the very clients they serve, we serve, and you serve. If you have any ideas on how we might do that, your comments would be greatly appreciated.

So let's go to Tami, from the West Coast Domestic Workers' Association.

Ms. Tami Friesen (Advocate, West Coast Domestic Workers' Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Tami Friesen, and I'm the advocate and the staff lawyer for the West Coast Domestic Workers' Association in Vancouver, B.C.

We thank you for this opportunity to present our concerns about the proposed immigration and refugee protection regulations, and in particular the live-in caregiver program.

The West Coast Domestic Workers' Association is a non-profit organization that has provided education, counselling, outreach, and free legal assistance to domestic workers and caregivers in British Columbia on immigration and employment issues for the past 14 years. We have over 430 members and see first-hand the problems of the live-in caregiver program in the current immigration system.

Many of the recommendations contained in our brief on the proposed regulations are quite similar to those contained in our brief on Bill C-11. The proposed regulations still do not take into consideration the unique circumstances and vulnerability of live-in caregivers, nor do they contain any changes that will make any meaningful improvement to the experiences of domestic workers.

I would like to highlight the key concerns and recommendations contained in our brief.

We start with the proposition that the evaluation system contained in the proposed regulations for potential immigrants must include recognition of gender equality and the economic inequality of women in the value of women's traditional work, and in particular domestic work.

Despite their often high levels of education, the gender bias in the point system leaves women with backgrounds in traditional women's work, such as caregiving, teaching, and early childhood education, to immigrate to Canada only as domestic workers under the live-in caregiver program. The evaluation system fails to recognize the value of domestic workers to Canada's economy and society, and it also fails to recognize the high demand for their skills in the Canadian labour market.

However, if a specialized program for domestic workers is to continue to assist, it must undergo substantial changes to protect these vulnerable workers. I would just like to give you a couple of examples.

Helen had a poor experience with her first employer in Canada. Although her employment contract stated that she would work an eight-hour day and receive her own furnished room, she worked 12 to 14 hours a day without receiving any overtime. She had no privacy. She shared a room with her employer's child, and had to sleep in the basement on the floor, with no mattress, when her employer's relatives came to visit.

Cathy also suffered exploitation, isolation, and a lack of privacy in her first position in Canada. She worked very long hours without any overtime pay. Her employer threatened that she would have to return to her own country if she tried to change employers. Her employers would not give her the security code for the house alarm, so she was not free to come and go as she pleased.

The regulations introduce a requirement of an employment contract for both the employer and the live-in caregiver. This is a positive step, as it gives recognition to the caregiver's employment rights and it may also help clarify the employment relationship. However, we question where the enforcement of this contract will fall. We also get the feeling the department sees the contract as a solution to a lot of the problems experienced by live-in caregivers.

The existence of a contract is not the only change needed. It is extremely important to get clear information to domestic workers, before they arrive in Canada, about their rights. However, that's not enough. The root causes of the exploitation of domestic workers are: the fundamental conditions of the live-in caregiver program; the caregiver's temporary status; the live-in requirement; the need to complete 24 months within three years of coming to Canada; and the single-employer authorization.

These requirements operate to prevent domestic workers from exercising their rights for fear of jeopardizing their legal status; losing their jobs and homes; and not being able to find new employers in time to complete 24 months of work and be eligible for permanent resident status. We agree that information and the existence of a contract are important factors. However, it's also important that the program enable caregivers to access the rights they have in a meaningful way.

Therefore, we request the following changes to any specialized program for live-in caregivers. First, they should receive automatic landing for domestic workers on arrival in Canada. They should have the option to come to Canada as immigrants, with permanent resident status and access to full rights and benefits, including the freedom to study, without permission from Immigration, access to immigrant settlement services, and the ability to arrive with spouses and children.

Under this type of program, the domestic workers may still have to complete a certain amount of caregiving work. However, having permanent resident status on arrival would do away with the need for temporary permits, give greater job mobility, and make it easier to change employers. It would also give more recognition of the value of domestic workers to Canadian society and the Canadian economy.

Second, domestic workers should have the option of living in or out of their employers' homes. As discussed, this is one of the main causes of exploitation and isolation of domestic workers. This requirement should be changed.

Third, domestic workers should receive a single work permit or employment authorization for the entire period of any specialized program. For example, they would receive a work permit for the full three years and it would not specify any single employer. They would be able to change employers at will, without any need to apply for a new permit or any delays. They could change employers, as necessary, without fear or penalty.

Fourth, the requirement to work as a domestic worker should not exceed one year, as there appears to be no rationale for the two-year requirement.

Fifth, illness or a legitimate break in employment should not affect a domestic worker's status in the specialized program. Currently, if a domestic worker is short of 24 months of work, her only option to pursue permanent resident status is to make an application for landing on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which has a very discretionary approval rate. She must make this type of application even if she is only two weeks or a month short of the requirements of the program. We submit that the requirements of the program should be flexible enough to extend the time to complete the requirements for legitimate breaks, so domestic workers are not penalized for leaving abusive situations.

Finally, the regulations contain restrictions on the ability to receive a work permit if there's a past period of illegal work. The regulations require one year to pass from the time of illegal work, in order to qualify for a new permit. They do not contain any discretion to consider the reasons for this breach, as do the current existing regulations.

We're particularly concerned about this requirement, as many domestic workers are encouraged by employment authorizations and employers to begin work before they receive permits. Also, the way the system is set up right now, with the delays in getting new work permits, it tends to encourage the workers to start working before they receive work permits.

So we submit that the regulations should not necessarily contain a blanket prohibition of a one-year wait before you get a new permit. They should allow for the circumstances and reasons for the breach to be taken into consideration by immigration officials.

Domestic workers make an invaluable contribution to the Canadian economy and society. They perform a wide range of tasks and assume wide-ranging responsibilities for the well-being of children and the elderly. Immigration has continually said there is a high demand for this occupation in Canada. Domestic workers make a genuine valuable investment in Canada, with their labour. Their intelligence, courage, higher education, and willingness to work hard also ensure their presence in Canada will be of continued value after they finish in any specialized program.

The regulations must ensure fair treatment and basic human rights of domestic workers as a fair exchange for their labour.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you again, Tami, for your very thorough brief and some excellent suggestions on the regulations.

We'll now go to Rivka and Richard from the Table de concertation de Montréal au service des réfugiés.

[Translation]

Mrs. Rivka Augenfeld (President, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

The Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes is a group that today now serves not only Montreal but all of Quebec. We have 132 member organizations. The number of members has greatly increased, especially since Quebec began sending throughout Quebec refugees selected overseas.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having agreed to hear us. We have no brief for you. We fully support the comprehensive brief tabled by the Canadian Council for Refugees. We are members of the CCR and we are very active within this organization. As we speak, there are other meetings taking place with officials and our group.

During the limited time available to us, Mr. Chairman, we would like to deal with two issues, after which if you wish to talk about consultants, we will be at your disposal. We have some comments to make on that issue as well, but we would like to begin by dealing with the two aspects that follow: the oral hearing and the right to a hearing at the pre-removal risk assessment stage, and the matter of permanent resident status for persons accepted as refugees.

I will now give the floor to my colleague, Richard Goldman.

[English]

Mr. Richard Goldman (Member of the Executive, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes): Mr. Chairman, honorable members, I wish to speak briefly about one aspect of the pre-removal risk assessment, or PRRA, and that is specifically the decision to grant or deny an oral hearing.

Many of us who appeared before you in the hearings on Bill C-11 stated that we were very concerned about a number of bars to access to the refugee determination process--that is to the IRB--that were included in Bill C-11. Although we seemed to get quite a sympathetic ear from the committee, unfortunately that battle was largely lost. Many of the claimants we would like to see go to the IRB for full hearings will now be relegated only to the PRRA. So we're here to look a little bit at their situation, once they are in the pre-removal risk assessment.

It may be worth taking just a moment to recall one or two of the examples that were raised when we talked about Bill C-11. For example, a woman might come to Canada, claim refugee status, but then feel there has been a change in the condition in her home country--maybe free elections were called. She withdraws her refugee claim before her hearing has been called and returns to her country, but finds out, unfortunately, that she faces persecution there--the situation hasn't changed.

If she returns to Canada she will be barred for life from making a refugee claim. Although almost every other law we know of has some kind of statute of limitations or prescription period, she would actually be barred for life, even though she had done nothing wrong and had simply withdrawn her application.

Perhaps when she returns to her country she joins a movement, such as the African National Congress or the FMLN in El Salvador, which are former liberation movements that have joined the democratic process. Perhaps she joined them at a time when they renounced violence. If she returns to Canada after that she will face another bar to access to the Immigration and Refugee Board, which is membership in a group that had engaged in acts of terrorism, paragraph 34(1)(f) of Bill C-11, even if she had never personally condoned violence or participated in any violent act.

With that in mind, I'm here to speak to one of the briefest briefs that will ever be presented to you--one paragraph. I've handed this out in both official languages. It's an excerpt from the landmark Supreme Court decision of Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration. I wish to speak to paragraph 59, which appears on the opposite side of the cover page, if you can even call it that. I'd just like to read some of that paragraph. This is Chief Justice Dickson, at that time, speaking for the majority.

I should note, however, that even if hearings based on written submissions are consistent with the principles of fundamental justice for some purposes, they will not be satisfactory for all purposes. In particular, I am of the view that where a serious issue of credibility is involved, fundamental justice requires that credibility be determined on the basis of an oral hearing. Appellate courts are well aware of the inherent weakness of written transcripts where questions of credibility are at stake and thus are extremely loath to review the findings of tribunals which have had the benefit of hearing the testimony of witnesses in person.

Then he finishes by saying:

I find it difficult to conceive of a situation in which compliance with fundamental justice could be achieved by a tribunal making significant findings of credibility solely on the basis of written submissions.

Mr. Chairman, as I asked the committee in May, if an oral hearing was required, for purposes of fundamental justice, to assess credibility in 1985, why is it not required today?

If we look at section 159 of the regulations, which deals with the decision to grant or deny an oral hearing in the context of the pre-removal risk assessment, we see that it sets out a confusing array of criteria for arriving at this decision. It actually seems to have been drafted only to deal with refused refugee claimants and not persons who were denied hearings before the IRB.

Let's just step back a minute and remember that some of the people who are in the pre-removal risk assessment will be refused refugee claimants, but some will be people who have never had hearings, who were denied access--the sorts of people I gave the examples about just a moment ago.

As I mentioned, it seems to have been drafted only to deal with refused refugee claimants. It talks, in paragraph 159(a), of the existence of evidence that raises a serious issue of credibility.

Since refused claimants, under paragraph 113(a), must present new evidence that arose since the time their claim was rejected, maybe it's reasonable to require that this new evidence involve a significant question of credibility. On the other hand, if a claimant has never had a hearing, all of the evidence is untested as to credibility. I don't understand what sense it makes to say there must be evidence that raises a serious issue of credibility. It seems to me all of the evidence raises an issue of credibility.

Those of us working with refugee claimants find it almost impossible to imagine a refugee case that doesn't involve an issue of credibility. We understand that the members of your committee, Mr. Chairman, spend a great deal of constituency work on immigration matters, and we wonder if your perspective on this is any different.

If we move on to paragraphs 159(b) and 159(c), paragraph 159(b) mentions that the evidence has to be central to the decision, and paragraph 159(c) mentions there's a sort of sufficiency of evidence criteria. I would submit to you that the fact the evidence does not appear to be sufficiently central or substantial is a very unfair basis for deciding on paper that someone should be denied an oral hearing.

These are also matters that I believe can only be properly dealt with in the context of an oral hearing. Let's remember that in the real world many claimants may have very poor legal support for the documents they submit. Access to legal aid is very sketchy. I know you want to talk about that and the related issue of immigration consultants.

Many people may have only been helped by inadequate immigration consultants, who have not prepared them properly. So to say they don't appear credible or the evidence is not central or sufficient, just on the basis of what they've handed in, seems to be extremely unfair and absolutely contrary to the Singh decision and the Canadian notion of fundamental justice.

To sum up, we suggest that section 159 of the regulations be reworded to provide for an oral hearing of right to anyone who has been denied a hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board. This is perhaps one of the most important changes you could suggest to the regulations, concerning the post-removal risk assessment, if not the entire immigration regulations. I would submit that Supreme Court jurisprudence and Canadians' inherent sense of fairness require nothing less.

I'll just pass it over to my colleague, Rivka.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to briefly address the issue of permanent residence for people accepted as refugees.

We were very disappointed that there was nothing in the regulations, despite long discussions we've had with the department, that would allow people accepted as refugees to then go on to automatic permanent residence.

Even when there are no problems of ID and no problems of any kind, it takes a very long time. We don't understand why and we feel it's wrong. When people have been accepted as refugees and it has been acknowledged that they have suffered in some way--they have been either badly treated, tortured, or imprisoned--they need to get on with their lives. They need to have their families.

Our organization did a very thorough study of the effects of family separation on the mental health of refugees. We found, in a nutshell, that the more a person has suffered, the more they will suffer the absence of their family. Everyone needs their family, it's true, but a refugee who is really very fragile needs their family even more, and they can't get on with the healing process, as we call it.

In the new system, where security and criminal checks start at the beginning, we can reasonably expect that by the time a person is accepted as a refugee, the security and criminal checks have been done. Of course, all of this takes resources. None of this will work without resources. Then the person can move on to permanent residence and bring in their family as quickly as possible.

If, for some reason later on, the department finds out that the person lied or misrepresented, they can always vacate refugee status, which will result automatically in losing permanent residence. So that mechanism is there for those few people who may in the future be found to be not credible.

On the ID provision, we don't understand again why this undocumented now protected person in Canada class has been continued. The department's own study on the undocumented convention refugees in Canada class found that none of the objectives of that class have been attained. When Madam Robillard announced this class a number of years ago, it was with the idea that it would allow people, from countries where they couldn't get documents after a horrible five-year wait, to go on to permanent residence. She implied--and we have those documents--that somehow these people needed to be watched because they might be criminals, they might be terrorists. It was a terrible message to the public.

None of this turned out to be true. People were not found to be terrorists. They weren't found to be criminals. They had just waited for a very long time.

Madam Caplan reduced the period to three years from five, but we don't think there should be any period. We think there are ways to proceed, consistent with the Aden agreement, to verify people's ID. There are ways of getting statutory declarations from people who have known these people. In subparagraph 171(1)(b)(i), of the regulations it says that a statutory declaration of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, attesting to the applicant's identity, could be satisfactory. We propose to you that it should at least include “or any other person satisfactory to the department”. Somebody living in another country, a U.S. citizen, or some other credible person could also attest to the person's identity. We think subparagraph 171(1)(a)(i) should be consistent with Aden.

I'll stop there. We'll be happy to answer questions about consultants or anything else.

The Chair: Thank you, Rivka and Richard.

Rivka, we're going to fix both of those points, I hope. I thought I'd make that point.

Karen, welcome.

¿ (0935)

Mrs. Karen McBride (Vice-President, International Affairs, Association of University and Colleges of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Honourable members, good morning.

I'm Karen McBride. I represent the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, which is the national association representing the 93 universities and degree-granting colleges across the country.

We'd like to comment on the new act and its regulations in terms of its implications for international students. I know you have the brief we prepared for this meeting. In the interest of time, I'm not going to speak to every recommendation, but I'm going to elaborate on a few key points. I'll also, of course, be pleased to take any questions you may have on this issue.

Let me begin by saying that AUCC and the university community are interested in the issue of international students for several reasons. For example, Canadian universities view as a priority their efforts to bring an international dimension to their teaching, research, and community service, for the benefit of the relevance and quality of higher education we offer in Canada. International students play an important role in this regard because they bring an international perspective and more diversity to the classroom and campus, thereby allowing our own students to gain that global perspective they're going to need.

In addition, it's important to point out that international students bring significant economic benefits to Canadian universities and their local communities and are important connections for Canada's longer-term trade and diplomatic interests.

Presently there are around 130,000 international students with visas in Canada, for education at all levels, and approximately 50,000 of them are in the universities. It's estimated that the total value of the economic contribution of these 130,000 students, if they each spend an estimated $27,000 a year in tuition, accommodation, and what have you, is over $3.5 billion annually. This is a trade sector that's larger than many others, so it's very important for the country.

Let me turn very briefly to a comment on the act itself, if you'll permit me, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

In reviewing the Act, we noted that there was very little emphasis given to the importance of international students to Canada or to the objective of facilitating the recruitment of international students. We would draw your attention to the fact that most of our major competitor countries have adopted an overall government-wide approach to international student recruitment and that the importance of this goal is clearly reflected in their immigration policies.

[English]

We therefore recommend that the federal government place stronger emphasis on facilitating international student recruitment as a major objective for Citizenship and Immigration Canada, among other departments, such as the Department of Foreign Affairs, thus reflecting the long-term academic, economic, and cultural benefits international students bring to Canada.

Canada has fallen behind other countries. In the United Kingdom, for example, Tony Blair has played a key role in catalyzing a national effort to recruit more international students to Britain. In France they've recently launched an organization called EduFrance with the same kinds of objectives. Immigration policies are important factors in students' decisions where they want to study abroad. It really tells the difference about whether they're going to be welcomed in the country or not.

So we'd urge you to take any opportunities available to you to raise the profile of this issue with your colleagues.

The Chair: Thank you, Karen. Are you done?

Ms. Karen McBride: No.

The Chair: I'm sorry. I thought you led me right into that challenge. Go ahead.

Mrs. Karen McBride: The segue was there, but I'm not quite finished, Mr. Chair.

I have a few comments with respect to the regulations to the act. First of all, on the issue of off-campus work, we're very pleased in fact with the department's commitment to change its policy concerning part-time off-campus work for full-time international students. As you may recall, our research had found that Canada is the only major host country that does not allow international students to work part-time off campus. This is something that's putting us at a disadvantage vis-à-vis our competitors. The university community is very supportive of this proposed regulatory change, and we wanted to point out that we feel this is a good step in the right direction.

[Translation]

Due to the many questions that were raised concerning the implementation of the new regulations as they pertain to off-campus work for international students, CIC and its partners suggested that a small working group be struck to develop guidelines for implementing this new regulation. AUCC volunteered to lead this working group responsible for addressing concerns related to, among other things, eligibility criteria, the establishment and monitoring of students' “good standing“, and other such issues.

¿ (0940)

[English]

This working group is composed of organizations very experienced in the matter of international students, and we will be presenting a series of recommendations to the department in the coming months. We hope this will be of assistance in terms of developing an effective implementation plan for this regulation.

You asked how the regulations could be improved. We have a specific idea we want to draw to your attention. We are encouraged by the comments of the department at its most recent advisory committee meeting on international students and immigration, to the effect that the department is willing to further examine the issue of allowing people in Canada as visitors to obtain a student authorization from within Canada.

[Translation]

AUCC and other organizations in the field have long argued before CIC for this regulatory change for a number of reasons. First, we strongly believe that allowing change from a visitor's visa to a student's visa from within Canada would put Canada on a more equal footing with our major competitors in the international student recruitment market.

[English]

The United States, England, Australia, and New Zealand all permit this change because they recognize that students here on short-term visitor visas, whether they be, for example, here studying English as a second language or French as a second language, or participating on a short-term academic exchange, are potential full-time international students. This proposed regulatory change would send a clear message to international students that our country is genuinely interested in facilitating their educational experience in Canada by making it easier for them to obtain the proper documents.

The current approach is inconsistent with international students' otherwise positive impressions of Canada and often discourages them from pursuing further studies in our country.

For these reasons, we strongly urge CIC to make the necessary changes in the draft regulations to allow for in-Canada processing of international students who wish to pursue longer-term studies after having arrived in Canada on a visitor's visa.

[Translation]

In conclusion, we would like to reiterate our firm belief that international students are vitally important to Canada's future. They make an enormous contribution to the academic endeavour and bring to Canadian campuses a global perspective that benefits Canadian students.

International students also contribute significant economic benefits to Canadian universities and to the local communities they live in.

[English]

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to express these recommendations in the spirit of ongoing dialogue with the committee, the federal government, and the university community. We're committed to working with the immigration officials as the department moves forward to implement new and welcomed approaches.

We look forward to continued progress on some of the issues I've outlined.

Merci.

The Chair: Thank you, Karen.

We agree. I like your idea. But we're going to do a lot better than Tony Blair, because after we get done this phase of regulatory stuff, this committee will be fanning out and crossing the world, marketing our country and building this nation. We'd welcome anything you can do to help us when we go--I think it will be the middle of April or the first of May, precisely to do this, to market and promote Canada as the place to want to be. Obviously, your organization and others could play a very meaningful role in helping us as we go across the world and do that very thing.

They were excellent presentations from all of you--some very great suggestions. I thought to a certain extent we had addressed some of these things in Bill C-11, but that was framework legislation. Now we can get down to the nitty gritty and the details.

We'll go to Lynn first.

Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm very interested in what was in the introduction when we talked about immigration consultants and their regulation. I wanted to know what each of you think of the consultants and whether some people think they should be eradicated, that there shouldn't be immigration consultants. We have people who want a body set up to help the immigrants who need help. I'm wondering if you've had experiences, if you've seen that there's a real need for them, and if they should be regulated.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: I'll start. A consultant is not a bad person per se, but we think even the best consultants need regulation. They need to be encadrés. They need to have some kind of association. There should be rules about who can call themselves a consultant and what kind of knowledge you need to have as a base to be a consultant. There needs to be a code of ethics, a complaint process--more or less the kinds of things that I think the Ontario association said they would like to have.

It's a provincial matter, it seems. A previous version of this committee studied the matter and came to the conclusion that the regulation of consultants is provincial in the same way the regulation of lawyers is.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Who said that? It wasn't this committee, I'm sure. We're much more forward looking than the previous committee.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: It was a Liberal committee--

The Chair: Even if they were Liberals, that's a terrible idea, leaving it to the provinces.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: Well, it seems that's what legally they would have had to do, because lawyers are regulated by the provinces as well. You have the Law Society of Upper Canada. You have the Barreau du Québec. They're the ones who regulate lawyers.

However, having said that, because of this free-for-all situation, there are some...we used to call them “unscrupulous” consultants. Then Immigration told us we could call them “dishonest” consultants, so we do now. But there are some people who are beyond any pale that you can imagine.

And it's ironic. We've had discussions with the RCMP about this situation--we have a very good relationship with the RCMP. We had a meeting in Montreal with Immigration where, if you hadn't known who the RCMP person who came to that meeting was, you'd have said he was a passionate NGO person. He was so upset about the situation that people who have been the victims of consultants find themselves in.

It's very difficult to figure out how to go after people, because it's not illegal for somebody to sign a contract for a lot of money for services from a consultant. So how do you figure out where the line is? Promises are made; things are implied. Some consultants imply that they're lawyers. They don't quite say it, but they let that.... Others imply that they have privileged connections with Immigration--

The Chair: We'll have to move more quickly, because there are only five or ten minutes for questions and answers, and unfortunately, if you take too long, Lynn won't be able to ask you anything else.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: Okay.

I think what we've seen is that there are threats; there are denunciations of clients when they withdraw from the consultant. We've seen people who have decided it's a bad idea to be with a consultant, and then a letter goes to the IRB, suddenly denouncing them. We've seen the worst of this. People spend huge amounts of money and are threatened and very badly treated. So we think if consultants are to continue to work, they must be regulated.

The Chair: Tami, Karen, do you have any comments on that one?

Ms. Tami Friesen: I would echo some of the same comments. We've seen some clients, again, come to our office after they've been dealing with consultants, and the consultants have sometimes put them in a worse position than they had been in the first place. Also, we have had clients tell us their consultants have told them that they have connections with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, that they're going to be able to fix their problems for them, that they have inside connections, and so on.

On the other hand, with legal services being very expensive, consultants may be an option to provide more affordable services to some clients. However, if they are going to exist, I agree again that they do need regulation, something similar to the regulation of lawyers by the provincial governments.

The Chair: Karen.

Mrs. Karen McBride: International students are here under a student study permit really only for the period of their studies. So we don't have any particular comment on this issue.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I have a few quick questions because I do have to leave.

Karen, I understand a lot of students come into Canada on a student authorization and they don't go to university. There has been a complaint that some universities won't give that information out because of the Privacy Act, which they seem to govern under or work under. I want to know if you believe that's true. They do come into Canada, they register as students, but they never show up at the universities and they're never reported back to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration because the universities feel that's confidential information. Do you know anything about that?

Mrs. Karen McBride: I have to say I haven't heard of episodes as you describe. We do know the universities have privacy concerns with respect to releasing information. We do understand, however, that standard practice is to let Immigration Canada officials know when a student who had been issued a visa does not in fact register.

We have very limited knowledge of this issue being a problem. The academic qualifications of international students are, of course, scrutinized. They have to prove that they have a financial capacity to come to Canada, approximately $10,000 U.S. per year of study. They have to show that they have the health coverage. So there are a lot of steps that an international student has to go through to come to a university. I think the instances of a student not actually registering would be quite rare. I have to say I haven't heard of many examples.

¿ (0950)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I will follow up on my resource.

There is another thing that was brought to my attention. Apparently, when we are deciding to let international students work, we're doing it because some other countries allow it. Do you know if this is common when students are accepted in other countries? If it is, good.

Australia was supposed to have been used as a model, and if it was, then they say that Australia also pays for their own domestic students' tuition. So they feel there's some sort of a balance there.

Some students have come to me about this concern. I want your comment on that.

Mrs. Karen McBride: Can I clarify the concern of the domestic students?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: They don't want to be competing for jobs with international students in Canada. One of the reasons this apparently was set up in regulations is because countries such as Australia allow students to work and so Canada says we'll allow our students to work. However, Australia apparently helps their own people with tuition. It would be helpful if Canada helped our students, is what they were saying.

Mrs. Karen McBride: We certainly would like to see more help with tuition. In fact, it was not only Australia. Our research revealed that it was Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and in some circumstances France. So Canada was really the odd country out in terms of not allowing international students to work.

We knew from our research as well that international students really take this issue into consideration when they decide whether or not to go to a certain country to pursue their studies.

On the issue of whether they take jobs away from domestic students, I think that needs to be seen in context and to be balanced with the amount of economic benefits these international students bring. As I mentioned, each of them spends approximately $27,000 a year in their local economies. We're also talking about part-time work, not full-time work, so up to 20 hours a week.

Ultimately, we understand, the decision to allow this regulatory change also had the input certainly of the Department of Human Resources Development, which is in charge of monitoring the labour force. We assume they've looked at the labour market conditions and decided this would not be an issue.

So I think it has to be looked at in terms of the economic benefit that international students bring and the opportunity cost we incur as a country for not being competitive with all these other host countries and for not losing the students who really become our long-term business and trade partners as well when they go home.

The Chair: Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Please go to somebody else, because I'm just working this out.

The Chair: Okay.

David.

Mr. David Price (Compton--Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you. I guess my questions and comments are on the student side, since I have two universities in my riding. We have a very interesting program, to follow what Lynne was saying about jobs.

CIDA actually funds quite a few programs in universities. In particular, I'll just talk about the University of Sherbrooke. They're putting money into a special co-op program, where the students from our university go to the universities in other countries that are having difficulties, and vice versa--those people come back to the university in Canada. But in the off times, they have jobs in their own countries that are supported by Canada. They're forming cooperatives. I'm not talking about student co-ops. They're forming actual cooperatives in business. It's a business program.

I just wanted to mention that, because there are things...and Canada is putting a lot of money into programs like that. In fact, a week ago the University of Sherbrooke announced a new program for $5 million. It's a five-year program, and it's a continuation of another program that has been going on for a while.

You mentioned the problem of applying for visas from within, but you didn't mention at all the problem of extensions, which I deal with quite a bit in my area. I was wondering if that's something you do have a lot of problems with. I hear a lot about it, and it's something we're definitely going to be looking at in the regs. Once a student is in and needs to go for more credits or something like that, if they have difficulty, they have to go back to their country to get their extension. Is that something you run into also?

¿ (0955)

Mrs. Karen McBride: Thank you for your comment and question.

On the issue of the students who are here in a co-op program and then when they go back they're actually working as part of that project.... As I mentioned, we are going to be organizing and participating in a small working group to advise the department on some of the issues around how to implement this new regulation. One of the things we'll be looking at is what the eligibility should be for students. If they're being supported by a government scholarship funded through CIDA, for example, or if they're here as part of a CIDA project, should they be as eligible as students who are funding their own way? This is an issue we'll certainly be looking at, and I'll take your comments on this particular situation to that working group.

In terms of extensions, we have a generalized concern about facilitating international students getting the proper documents, and certainly extensions is the same type of issue. It makes it very unwelcoming and difficult for students when they have to leave the country in order to extend, if they decide to pursue their studies for a longer time or what have you.

One of the issues mentioned in our brief is that we've asked that CIC clarify this issue of people having to apply at a post at their habitual place of residence. It makes it difficult, if not impossible, for students in circumstances like that when they have to get out of the country in order to get an extension. Many, for example, have gone to Buffalo to apply for that extension. Unless this particular regulation is clarified to indicate that it doesn't apply to students, that is going to be a real problem in the future.

Of course, what we'd like to see is regulations allowing students to make all these changes to their documents from within Canada. It just seems to make sense to keep the work in Canada, to keep the students in Canada. They're not trying to be deceptive; they just want to make certain the documents are in order.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Good morning everyone. I thank you for being here this morning. My first question is for Tami Friesen. The domestic workers' file is most certainly an important one, and I have several questions to ask you.

You rightly say that the choice of persons wishing to come to Canada as domestic workers on a temporary basis is clear. However, some of these workers come here with the hope of remaining in Canada, their new country. In this context, you say that we should not require that they obtain a working permit. Furthermore, with the grid that is presently part of the regulations, how do you think a domestic worker, even with the best intentions in the world, will be able to qualify with a mark of 80%?

I therefore wonder if this grid is not elitist and if we should not recognize that, even though we need workers of all fields and levels of ability in order for a country such as Canada to grow, we do not seem, at the present time, to be placing emphasis on domestic workers. What should we do in order to facilitate the entry of workers in good faith who are ready to work, even if they do not hold a doctorate and all that goes with it, in order for them to be admitted to Canada if they are not able to enter under the live-in caregiver program?

À (1000)

[English]

Ms. Tami Friesen: I guess our point is that the way the point system is at the moment, it doesn't recognize traditional women's work. If the point system were changed so that women with experience in caregiving, in domestic work, were given the proper experience levels, the same as anyone in a skilled trade is given the experience for their years of work in their area, then women would be able to come to Canada as independent immigrants under the point system--come here as permanent residents and be able to work as domestic workers.

Right now, domestic work is given no points, no recognition under the HRDC's occupational criteria. In fact, the majority of women who do come here under the program do in fact want to become permanent residents of Canada. The majority of women from the Philippines have a university degree, have bachelor's degrees, and have 14 years of full-time education and four years of university or college, so they are very highly educated. The scale simply doesn't recognize what their degree is in and their experience in caregiving.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have a second question for you. In your presentation, in paragraph 8 of the French version, you state that the Regulations should not contain a time limit regarding previous illegal work. I would like to know what you mean by that exactly.

We are a society that is regulated by laws and if there are laws, then these laws are meant to be respected. Even though I am very broad-minded, it seems that to pretend that there is no such thing as illegal work is to venture onto a slippery slope. I would like you to explain what your thoughts on this are based upon.

[English]

Ms. Tami Friesen: The comments are, I think, that domestic workers are in a particularly vulnerable situation when it comes to illegal work.

The way the system is set up right now, it can take two to three months for a domestic worker to get all the papers in place to be able to start working for a new employer. They must get job approval from the human resources department and then apply to the immigration department for a new work permit. Sometimes the employers don't get the documents right, so it could take even longer for them to apply.

As well, a lot of domestic workers make use of employment agencies in order to find a position. Employment agencies are quite notorious for encouraging domestic workers to start working before they receive a work permit. Employers will encourage them. Often employers won't offer the domestic worker a job if she's not willing to start right away, and oftentimes, due to the need to complete 24 months of work within three years, due to the fact that she's supporting her family who's in the Philippines and they rely on her for an income, the whole system works so that it's very difficult for a domestic worker not to work before they receive a work permit.

Another situation is that sometimes the domestic worker isn't fully aware of or doesn't fully understand the immigration regulations.

Those two situations operate, and we're suggesting that the regulations should recognize the reasons why the breach occurred and that the immigration officer be able to take that into consideration in deciding whether or not to issue a work permit when there has been illegal work in the past, whether it has been two months ago or one and a half years ago.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: My third question is for Karen. I am personally convinced that the contribution of foreign students is a plus for any society that purports to be open. But since September 11, 2001, people working on the front lines of foreign student registration have told me that it is becoming extremely difficult to accept students, especially in fields such as biotechnology and engineering, when they come from certain countries. This is part of the fall-out of the events of September 11.

I would like to hear your views on this. Could you share with us your thoughts on this? This troubles me, bothers me.

À (1005)

Mrs. Karen McBride: In October, I believe it was, there was an article stating that as of September 11, there was an embargo on students from Tunisia and Libya, for example, or from some other countries, and more particularly in certain fields of study.

We have checked with the department so as to ascertain if there were not new rules in place. The minister tells us that there is no ban on students wishing to obtain student visas, but that in certain cases, such as that of students coming from certain countries and wishing to study in certain fields, there may be a stricter study of the application than in the past.

In our view, there must be a balance between security issues and the matter of access for students. I believe, based upon our observation, that the minister's attitude is to maintain that balance. If this is the case, we have no problem with it, but if there is a ban applied to certain students, then we do see a problem.

I believe that the advice to be given to students is that they should start the process sooner than in the past, and I also believe that there must be a balance between the two objectives.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)): Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I would like to follow up first on this issue because it is an area in which we're getting more and more reports about students being actually turned away because of their race and because of what they're studying. I think it's becoming a serious issue, and you've acknowledged that.

I'm wondering how we actually do protect against any kind of racial profiling in terms of students seeking to further their studies here in Canada, so that they're not unnecessarily and unfairly put through an extra layer of checks simply because they're of Arab descent, they are Muslim in faith, and they're wanting to study engineering or something in the biotechnology field. Is there a way, through the Association of Universities and Colleges, to actually monitor the situation and to keep us informed so that we can then keep the pressure on the minister to prevent this?

Mrs. Karen McBride: It is certainly a concern for our university presidents. I have to say that the preliminary statistics that we had from CIC, post-September 11, in terms of number of visas issued, indicates that there has not been a drop-off, at least at a macro level, of the number of visas issued. In fact, it might even be a bit higher than in the previous year.

That said, I think the issue is certain countries and certain disciplines. We are of the view that, perhaps now more than ever, we need to make certain we are welcoming students from all parts of the world, because it's important that we understand different cultures, different faiths, different perspectives. Therefore, we certainly want to guard against this situation.

As I said, we recognize that there has to be a balance between the two. We at AUCC have a number of affiliate associations, one of which is the registrars at all the universities. I understand you'll be hearing later at another hearing from the Canadian Education Centres Network, which has offices in 18 to 20 countries around the world trying to promote Canadian education. They're also well placed to keep you informed. We'll certainly endeavour to let you know if we sense that there's a systemic problem emerging.

We have certainly written to the former minister, Minister Caplan, to say “Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater”, and every indication we've had from the department is that they don't intend to put in place additional steps in the student authorization process. They feel what they have in place is adequate, and they don't intend to target students unfairly. But it is of concern. We will monitor this and will, I guess through the committee chair, let you know if there are any problems that emerge.

À (1010)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you for that commitment.

I have two other quick questions. One is to Tami on the live-in caregiver program, because I share her concerns. In fact, at the committee level on Bill C-11 we tried to amend the bill to actually do what you are asking for, which is to ensure automatic landing and granting of permanent resident status upon arrival in the program. That was defeated here. I think there was probably some hope that through the regulations we might be able to at least improve the situation.

I think the argument we keep getting back is that this is one way to get people who desperately want to come to Canada into the country quickly, because they wouldn't otherwise be eligible. In fact, it's being presented to us as if it's a great service to women in the Philippines and other countries who need to start a new life and here's a way in the door.

I guess what I'd like to hear from you is an argument for the whole committee in terms of dealing with that, so that we can, at least through the regulation process, get some changes.

My question to Rivka has to do with the oral hearings issue. I gather section 159 now, I think you said, allows for an oral hearing when credibility is an issue. You're saying that's absolutely not sufficient, that we need to allow for oral hearings any time a refugee has been refused. I need that clarified so that we know which section to amend and how to do it.

Ms. Tami Friesen: So you're asking for support for the argument that domestic workers get automatic permanent resident status on arrival.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, and how to make the case. I think we have another chance here.

Ms. Tami Friesen: Well, if I can go back, there is actually a historical precedent for what we are asking. Up until the point system was introduced in the 1970s, domestic workers, live-in caregivers, were often coming from England and eastern European countries, and during that time, domestic workers, live-in caregivers, would get permanent resident status on arrival for the promise to work as a caregiver for...in the early 1900s it was on promise to work as a caregiver for six months; in the mid-1940s it was on promise to work as a caregiver for one year. This all changed in the mid-1970s with the introduction of the point system and the temporary work visa, and then finally, with the introduction of the foreign domestic workers program in the 1980s, which took away the ability to come here as a permanent resident.

So I guess we start from the fact that what we're asking for isn't completely out there; it has happened in the past. It's just in the past 20 years that things have changed, and we're asking for it to be put back. Immigration has said there is a need for this; there is a really high demand for this work. Women who come here under this program are educated. They go on to be very successful participants in Canadian society--nurses, home support workers, teachers. So they should be given the same entitlements to permanent residence as an entrepreneur, an engineer, or anyone else. There's no reason to treat them any differently.

À (1015)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

Mr. Charbonneau.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Is it possible to get a quick answer to the question on oral hearings? I know my time is up, but....

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Very quickly, please.

Mr. Richard Goldman: Okay. The point I was addressing was not refugee claimants who have been refused by the IRB, but rather people who have never had the opportunity to have a hearing because they were declared inadmissible or ineligible.

My point is that almost any case--in fact, every case--would meet the criteria here of raising the serious issue of credibility anyway; therefore these criteria--paragraphs 59(a), (b), and (c)--are essentially redundant or confusing and appear to give some kind of a discretion to a bureaucrat, which is probably a dangerous thing, because in some cases people will be refused, whereas in fact my point is that everyone who has never had a hearing has untested evidence and their case raises a serious issue of credibility. So it's just confusing things to have this list of criteria, and section 159 should be changed to read that where someone has never had a hearing, they should be granted an oral hearing.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much for that.

Monsieur Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman

If I understood correctly the meaning of the statements we have heard this morning, you seem rather satisfied with the regulations suggested for foreign students, whereas in the case of domestic workers, you seem unhappy. I will therefore concentrate mostly on the second issue. This is a program I am not familiar with. As an MP, no case under this program has ever been brought to me. I therefore wish to fully understand what you are telling us here this morning.

How many people are involved in this program? Are we talking dozens of thousands or of just a few thousand people? Where are these people? I imagine that they are mostly in Toronto and in Montreal. Could you give us an idea of their distribution between Ontario and Quebec, for example, or British Columbia?

Ms. Friesen, in the conclusion to your too short brief, you state the following:

WCDWA submits that Canada has continued to perpetuate a discriminatory, exploitative foreign domestic worker program with no true justification.

I would like to give you the opportunity to explain more fully what leads you to this conclusion. What must be done in order for the system to no longer be discriminatory nor exploitative? Is it appropriate to have such a program given your recommendation 3, and I quote:

WCDWA recommends that, if a specialized program for domestic workers is to continue to exist, it must include the following:

Does that mean to say that you would prefer that there not exist such a program?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Ms. Friesen.

Ms. Tami Friesen: I can try to answer these questions as briefly as possible.

The majority of domestic workers come to Canada and reside in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia. I believe there are approximately 2,500 domestic workers who get landing each year by Immigration.

The numbers in British Columbia show there have been about 5,000 domestic workers registered with the ministry of labour in British Columbia since 1998. So we're talking about a few thousand in British Columbia. I think the numbers are similar in Ontario and Montreal.

How the program discriminates against domestic workers is essentially that the basic human rights of domestic workers are not acknowledged or allowed by this program: there is a restriction on movement; they don't have a right to choose where they live; they don't have a right to bring their family unit with them here to Canada; they're often in situations of grave exploitation and abuse, working extremely long hours under minimum wage.

The majority of women under the program are women of colour from third world countries. We estimate about 98% are women, the majority from the Philippines.

This program operates to treat them differently, to give them a temporary status, to not give them the same rights as other immigrants bringing valuable skills to the Canadian society and economy.

What should we do? In our brief we start with the proposition that the point system should recognize domestic work and allow women with experience in domestic work to immigrate to Canada under the point system as domestic workers, as independent immigrants. That's sort of our starting point. However, if that's not going happen, if the specialized program is going to continue to exist, then we say that domestic workers should get permanent residence on arrival and have the option to live in or live out. That would solve a lot of the problems of exploitation. They would be allowed to change employers at will very easily. They would be allowed to study freely, so they would be able to maintain their skills in nursing, teaching, whatever, and they would be able to bring their family unit with them.

À (1020)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

First let me thank you, Richard and Rivka, for the points you made. I think your presentation of Justice Dickson's comments were important for the committee. I want to thank you.

My original questions were on international students, but I'm going to focus a little bit right now on the domestic workers program, if I can. The domestic workers program was designed as a temporary workers' program. There are many other temporary worker programs in Canada, not only designed for domestic workers. I have some sympathy for some of the issues you're raising, but certainly not all of them.

I'm wondering whether you've looked at other temporary worker programs. Are you suggesting that all temporary workers should be landed upon arrival as well? Then I'll ask you a further question.

Ms. Tami Friesen: I guess we would have the same concerns with any temporary worker program. Whenever a temporary worker is here and they have their temporary worker status, they're required to complete a certain amount of time within a certain number of years in order to be eligible for permanent resident status. This really leaves that temporary worker open to a lot of exploitation and abuse, no matter what profession they're in.

If Canada is saying “We need your skills, we want you here, you're going to make a contribution to our economy and we really need you”, then why not give them all the rights and benefits that go with bringing them here in order to have their labour utilized in our workforce?

Ms. Anita Neville: By definition, what I'm hearing is that there shouldn't be a temporary worker program, that there should be a grid that would allow anybody, whatever the skill set is.

Ms. Tami Friesen: We don't say there shouldn't be a temporary worker program. We say there should be the option.

There are some people who do want to come to Canada and work and not gain permanent residence. So that option should be available to them. But if the real intention of the temporary worker is to come here for permanent residence--and Canada is saying they can come here, with the promise that they'll be eligible for permanent residence within a couple of years--if that is their intention all along, then those people should have the option of getting permanent residence on arrival in Canada. And those people who want to come to Canada just to work and travel or whatever for two or three years should also have that option available to them.

Ms. Anita Neville: I would take it back. By definition, anybody who wants to come to Canada as a resident should not have to come in under a temporary worker program. Is that what you're saying?

Ms. Tami Friesen: We take that position, yes.

Ms. Anita Neville: Going back to the domestic worker program, you identified a number of issues that I thought had been addressed, notably the issue of education. My understanding was that somebody coming in under the temporary program could begin their education immediately upon arrival, could continue doing educational upgrading, and could actually begin to look at it--I'm thinking of the Philippines--from the country of origin.

My understanding as well is that there have been implemented, or there are certainly in the planning stages, extensive programs advising temporary workers--again, I'm looking at the domestic worker program--of what is involved, what the conditions are, what the expectations are, and some kind of upfront...I don't know whether training is the right word, but upfront information. You're telling me that hasn't happened.

À (1025)

Ms. Tami Friesen: I'm not sure if it's been implemented extensively, as far as getting information out to them is concerned. We did focus groups in the summer. We travelled throughout B.C. to a lot of different regions. Our legal support worker did focus groups there with domestic workers, and there were many domestic workers who informed us that they had not received any information before coming to Canada regarding their rights. They hadn't received information on the British Columbia employment standards rights. They hadn't received clear information regarding their rights to immigration.

I think before the domestic worker comes here...first, there's the issue that they may not fully understand their rights. I think it's really important to ensure there is clear, translated information--maybe it could get out to them through the embassies--regarding the province they're going to, so the domestic worker gets clear information about the employment standards rights before they come.

Ideally, we'd also like to see some sort of orientation program when the domestic worker arrives in Canada, or at the very least, have that information given to them at the airport.

Ms. Anita Neville: The chair is urging me to move faster--or you, I'm not sure.

I was in the Philippines last spring and I saw large numbers of women applying to come in under this program. My understanding was that there would be the orientation, that the education rules were certainly going to be changed.

There are also options for women, and you spoke about many who had nursing or other training and degrees. I do know that, for instance, the Province of Manitoba has a program going on in the Philippines to certify nurses so they can come over as nurses. Are you aware of people seeking those opportunities as well?

Ms. Tami Friesen: There are people seeking some of those opportunities, but again, as I said, not all domestic workers are nurses. There are many who are teachers, have experience in caregiving, or have other social science degrees. So the fact that nursing credentials are being looked at isn't going to address the problems and assist domestic workers.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

The Chair: Quickly, Steve, a question, and then Jerry and Mark.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'll just ask one question. It has to do with the issue of consultants.

I've had reports from constituents of mine who have travelled overseas about some of the abuses and the problems that are going on in the consulting business in India and in other places abroad. While I tend to think, whether we like it or not, if we get into licensing we're probably going to have to involve the provinces, I wonder how it really solves the problem if we license them here in Canada but we have no ability to control the abuses. I've seen copies of newspaper ads from India that are just unbelievable with the stuff they're promising, and people are paying tens of thousands of dollars going into the system and then getting abused and getting ripped off.

Do you have any comment on this and how we might solve this particular problem?

Mr. Richard Goldman: If we're talking about somebody putting an ad in a paper promising something they can't deliver for $10,000, I think it is a matter for the RCMP. I think it's a fraud issue.

I'd like to mention a couple of ideas, including licensing, which I think is a good idea. If you have to be licensed to be an electrician, it seems to me you should to be an immigration consultant as well. But there are probably a few things that can be done short of going to licensing, and rather quickly.

One of the aspects is involving refugee claims. I know that's not the whole picture. If it were a requirement that somebody be a member of a provincial bar association to appear before the Immigration and Refugee Board, that would clear up some of the problems.

In Quebec, it seems kind of funny that if you are facing eviction or your welfare cheque is cut $100 and you go to the appropriate tribunal, you must be represented by a lawyer. You can't have a friend or a volunteer.

Another thing that can be done is to talk to the provincial bar associations themselves about working on this problem.

For example, we had a former volunteer at one of our organizations who decided to set up shop giving information about rental housing matters and representing people at the rental board. She was successfully prosecuted at the initiative of the Quebec bar for illegal practice of law, and this is a much less pressing social issue than whether somebody is--

À (1030)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are you suggesting it be the exclusive domain of the lawyers to be consultants, that this would be the first requirement?

Mr. Richard Goldman: I would say to appear before the Immigration and Refugee Board, yes, and perhaps the bar could talk about which services they would view as the exclusive domain of lawyers and initiate prosecution for illegal practice of law in some areas.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you.

The Chair: Mark, one question, please.

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Ms. McBride, do you work in conjunction with, or are you under the umbrella of, the Canadian Bureau for International Education?

Mrs. Karen McBride: No, CBIE is actually a totally separate organization specifically concerned with international education issues. We're the national association so we cover the waterfront in terms of our universities' concerns, including international education and international students. So we work closely with them, know them well, but are not affiliated at all.

Mr. Mark Assad: But when students come from abroad, they come through the program of the CBIE, through the universities you represent, don't they?

Mrs. Karen McBride: CBIE, from what I understand, has a number of programs whereby they do bring students over on, say, foreign government-funded scholarships. That would be a very small percentage of the overall number of international students who come to Canada, the vast majority of whom pay their own way and make their own way into the university systems. So there's a clear distinction between the general crop of international students who come and those few who are sponsored or come through a program administered by CBIE.

Mr. Mark Assad: I see. I have one last question

Have you had the same kind of problem as the CBIE did when CSIS at times had reservations, and although they had nothing concrete to put on the table, at times they objected? I know a lot of universities across Canada have expressed their dismay at this, and they claim they're losing out on hundreds, if not thousands, of students from abroad because of suspicion and no proof. Have you been exposed to this in any way?

Ms. Karen McBride: Not with particular programs, such as the ones CBIE administers. We don't administer similar programs. We have heard from our university community that a number of students that they have accepted into the university are denied a visa with no explanation. This example is particularly an issue in China and some other countries. It's just said that it's a security concern.

There are a lot of concerns around that issue, because the universities take particular care to select and admit the students. The students have to prove that they have x number of dollars to support themselves. The university accepts their academic standards and then suddenly, with no reason given, the students are told they can't have a visa. That is particularly frustrating, yes.

Mr. Mark Assad: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you all very much for some very good ideas.

Richard, with regard to Rivka's comments on moving refugees more quickly to permanent residence, we heard it through Bill C-11, and I think the committee will seriously consider how that can be done, as well as the undocumented.... You know, there are special programs for Somalis that went from five years to three years, and I think we're going to take that into consideration.

Richard, with regard to paragraph 101(1)(c), when a person withdraws or abandons their refugee claim, to tell you the truth, I don't know how that got by us. I think there is a difference between an application that's been submitted and denied and a person deciding to abandon or withdraw their refugee claim or application. That is an exceptional circumstance, and why we would penalize them for a lifetime....

I must admit that paragraph 101(1)(c) of the bill.... We might be able to get it covered off in the regulations, because I think it is a fundamental question of justice. I just want to know how you would see that. I know you talked about section 159 of the regs. I wonder whether it can be handled there on a denial or a withdrawal, because it's addressed at that point in time.

Can you give us some insight as to where we might be able to fix that little problem with regard to withdrawals or abandonments of claims? Why should we penalize these people? In fact, could we do it through the PRRA? Could an oral hearing be dealt with through the PRRA because they've abandoned or withdrawn their application?

À (1035)

Mr. Richard Goldman: I think you're absolutely right that the real problem is with the article of the law. We're not talking about that today, unfortunately, because it is the law. These people will always be penalized until that's changed, in that they will only have access to the PRRA, which we view as providing much fewer procedural safeguards than the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The idea would be to amend subclause 101(1) of Bill C-11. Short of that, what we are asking for is quite simply a provision in section 159. The article of the law in paragraph 113(b) says that an oral hearing can be granted based on prescribed conditions. There's nothing restricting you as to what conditions you're going to prescribe there. You have a lot of leeway.

All I'm saying is that one of the conditions can be that where there has not been an oral hearing before the IRB or where the person has been denied an oral hearing or been declared inadmissible, ineligible, whatever the term, they be granted an oral hearing as part of the PRRA.

The Chair: I think the two examples.... A person decides they want to abandon or withdraw their refugee claim, and they're lumped in the same category as those who were denied and so on. I think that's absolutely absurd.

Mr. Richard Goldman: Human rights and criminality....

The Chair: Okay. Leave that with us, because I think that's a very good point.

I'm sorry, I have to go. We're already late. Again, thank you very much for your interventions and for your great ideas and your hard work for the people you represent.

Colleagues, we'll break for two minutes while we bring our next witnesses.

À (1037)

À (1042)

The Chair: Colleagues, I wonder if we could resume with our second set of witnesses.

We have with us during this session: EGALE represented by John Fisher and Michael Battista; we have LEGIT from Vancouver, Ms. Chris Morrissey, co-founder; the Canadian HIV-AIDS Legal Network, represented by Ms. Klein.

There are a lot of good Kleins in London, Ontario, by the way . What's the first name? I can't read it.

Ms. Alana Klein (Research Associate, Canadian HIV-AIDS Legal Network): Alana.

The Chair: Alana.

So welcome all, and thank you again for your hard work here on Bill C-11 and for your work in submissions as it relates to these regulations.

Can we start with EGALE, John.

Mr. John Fisher (Executive Director, EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere)): Actually, if it's all right with the committee, we had arranged for LEGIT to start, as we may be referring to some of their submissions.

The Chair: Of course. We'll start with Chris Morrissey. Welcome.

Ms. Chris Morrissey (Co-founder, LEGIT, (Lesbian & Gay Immigration Task Force, Vancouver)) Thank you. We certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here and to address you on these issues today.

The last time we were here before this same committee was in Vancouver with respect to Bill C-11. At that time, we, along with many others, expressed our concern that in Bill C-11 there were only the broad strokes and there was no detail, and our concerns were with the detail. It appears that we certainly had reason to have those concerns, particularly with regard to the issue of family class and the sponsorship of same-sex partners.

We're frustrated and somewhat outraged that after ten years of work and after eight years of processing same-sex partners through the back door, using independent applications and H and C, the current regs don't regularize and don't bring into the family class that particular experience. It certainly was our understanding by comments that were made to us by the then Minister of Immigration, Madame Robillard, that in fact one of the strategies the department was looking at was to regularize and bring into line within the regs the processing of same-sex partners.

What has happened is that in the proposed regs we now have a definition, and the definition is “an individual who is cohabiting with the person in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year”. And certainly that's a definition that is in line with the modernization of the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act.

However, we have consistently said during the last ten years that the immigration context is different from the in-Canada context and that there need to be some exceptions for that, primarily since the main obstacle to people reaching a cohabitation requirement, the main barrier, is the immigration rules and regulations themselves.

The only exception that appears currently in the regs is that of people who are unable to cohabit because of persecution or any form of penal control. That's very vague. The concern we had when we were talking about the act, and the concern about its lack of information we now have about it as well with respect to the regs, and the lack of information in terms of what does that mean, how does that get applied.... We wonder what in fact will determine whether that's persecution. What does that mean? Is it different from...? The way it's written here, it sounds as if in fact it's a more stringent criterion than the one applied for people applying as refugees where they're required to demonstrate that they have a reasonably well-founded fear of persecution. Even the wording is different.

So this definition is really problematic for us because it doesn't fit the experience of the majority of same-sex partners of Canadians who are not able to cohabit. Deb is going to give a few examples of what that experience is like.

À (1045)

The Chair: My apologies, Deb. I didn't introduce you.

Welcome.

Ms. Deb LeRose (LEGIT, Lesbian & Gay Immigration Task Force, Vancouver): That's no problem. I'm Deb LeRose, also with LEGIT.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Deb LeRose: I have some very brief examples, typical situations that gays and lesbians find themselves in. This will help demonstrate some of Chris's points and perhaps give you an idea of what is typical.

For the first example, a Canadian and a Filipina have lived together for two years in the U.S. The Canadian finished her studies in the U.S. and returned to Canada. They lived apart for seven years while maintaining the relationship. During that time, the Canadian has had to find a job and re-establish herself in Canada. Under the proposed definition, they're not considered common law and they're not considered family, although this relationship has lasted for nine years.

A second example is of a Canadian and a Guatemalan. They met in Guatemala while the Canadian was there on a work visa. They maintained a relationship for six months in Guatemala, until the Canadian had to leave when her work visa expired. The Guatemalan cannot get a visitor's visa to come to Canada, even for a short duration--a visit--and under the proposed regulations, they're not considered common law and they're not considered family.

A third example is a Canadian and a Lebanese man. The Canadian is on a work visa in Lebanon. They've been in a relationship for four years in Lebanon, but they have not cohabited. The Lebanese man cannot be out from his family. It's dangerous for him to be out. He's expected to live with his family until he marries. So there's no opportunity for them to cohabit there, but they've maintained this relationship for four years, and under the current proposed regulations, they're not considered common law.

The last example is of a Canadian and an American. This is probably one of the most typical examples we see. They met on vacation while in the U.S. They spent their holidays together, vacations together--sometimes in the U.S., sometimes in Canada. After about a year, maybe a year and a half of this, they decided they wanted to live together in Canada, but under the proposed regulations, they're not considered common law and they're not considered family.

These are not extraordinary examples. These are very typical examples. They're real examples of the majority of same-sex partners we've seen through LEGIT. We've seen thousands over the last ten years.

What we see is that most couples have been able to maintain a relationship for at least a year, but they're unable to cohabit for that year. I'd say probably 75% cannot cohabit.

Chris.

À (1050)

Ms. Chris Morrissey: This is the reality that the majority of Canadian gays and lesbians who are in relationships with non-Canadians experience as they come to face the immigration process. We learned yesterday--we saw in the Canada Gazette and in the regs--that something called “intended common law” is being introduced, which is a parallel and an equivalent to a fiancé(e). However, as it appears, it says the minister can recommend that such relationships be processed either under public policy or under H and C.

Bear in mind that at least 75% of the situations would fall into the “intended” category that Deb has described and therefore would be processed under H and C or under public policy, which is exactly what has been happening for the last eight years that they've been processed under H and C. The difference is that there's now a small majority of people who can be processed under the family class, those who can in fact meet the cohabitation requirement.

So definitely there is some change and some improvement in the sense that this certainly has met the minimum requirements of the Supreme Court decision calling on the federal government to end the discrimination against same-sex partners. However, it's only the tip of the iceberg, and there's this huge majority of people--at least 75%--who are in a situation that it does not cover.

We learned there is the possibility of them being processed under public policy. What happens now is that people apply as independents and they're processed in H and C. Under the current regs, it appears that they may in fact apply as family class with a family class application, but because they don't meet the definition and the criteria, they would be processed under public policy, again without being members of the family class.

There's no right to appeal and there's no waiving of the excessive demand on the medical system. The processing times are slower. All of those things we were concerned about under H and C, we're still concerned about in the new process. On top of that, the thing we've talked about for years is the lack of information, the lack of transparency. It appears that this process continues with a lack of transparency.

One of the huge differences is that it looks like this is fairly okay. Fiancé(e)s, heterosexual couples, are not in the family class either. They've been moved out to this new class, whatever it is, so that intended common-law partners will also be there. So fiancé(e)s, which under the current system are part of the family class, will no longer be part of the family class. Therefore, instead of moving us into the family class, they've moved us out.

There's one significant difference between the majority of heterosexual common-law couples and all of same-sex couples, and that is that we do not have the benefit of marriage at this time. For an opposite-sex heterosexual couple, they can cut through all of this by marrying, for the majority. For us, none of us can do that. So we have the compounding of the very strict definition with very narrow exceptions, compounded by the fact that we have no other option.

The solution for us is to move the intendeds into the family class, with all the rights and obligations that go with it. Thank you.

À (1055)

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'd like to note that even in Italian families, fiancé(e)s don't cohabit for a while, at least not while they're living at home, especially not in my household with my mother there.

John.

[Translation]

Mr. John Fisher: Thank you very much. We greatly appreciate the opportunity of appearing before the committee.

We should have apologized at the outset for the fact that, our brief being rather long, we were not able to have it translated in its entirety in time. We have at least given you a two-page summary of it, and the rest will be forwarded to you as soon as the translation is finished.

Á (1100)

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, Michael, you're going to have to wait for the questions. John has taken up all the time allocated.

I only want to say one thing, John, if I could. I wouldn't underestimate what LEGIT and EGALE and other groups have done. It's one thing to say that the regulations are just not right yet, and that's why we're here--to make sure they are. But you've made fundamental progress in terms of getting the legislation to recognize common-law relationships and partnerships. That was a fairly significant barrier that didn't exist before. So Bill C-11 at least did that. Now it's a matter of making sure that the regulations reflect that spirit of Bill C-11, and that's what we're here to do. Some of your input has been very valuable.

Alana.

Ms. Alana Klein: Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the committee for letting the Canadian HIV-AIDS Legal Network make this presentation.

We were also here for the consultations on Bill C-11 itself, and we appreciate the opportunity to consult with you on the regs as well, particularly since a lot of the nuts and bolts and issues we're concerned about are contained in these regulations. I'd particularly like to mention some welcome changes, or at least some movements in the right direction, in terms of the two main things I'm going to be talking about today.

First of all, we're very pleased to see that finally there's a definition of the term “excessive demand on health and social services” included in the regulations. At this point, it looks as if HIV-AIDS is not going to be considered generally a threat to public health and people won't generally be excluded on public health grounds if they have HIV, as then Minister Caplan assured us last June. Therefore, it looks as if excessive demand is the primary ground on which people with HIV will be excluded from the country. We're glad that it's finally being defined and defined clearly, but we do have some concerns about the content of the definition, which I'm going to go into later.

We're also pleased that there's a framework for determining when an applicant's health condition is likely to be a danger to public health. I think there has been a lot of confusion on that issue up to this point, so we welcome the inclusion of a framework for that determination.

I'll begin with my concerns about the definition of “excessive demand” in the regulation. That's contained in paragraph 32(1)(a) of the regulations, and the first concern we have with that, as mentioned in our brief, is that currently it says the period over which expected costs will be considered will be five years but that it can be extended for up to ten years in the case of chronic illnesses. This would include, for example, HIV-AIDS.

We strongly submit that a ten-year projection period is inappropriately long, especially in the case of HIV-AIDS, but also for many other illnesses. The costs for treatment are extremely variable over time. This is a result of medical advances and marketplace considerations, which are constantly in flux, such as the prices of drugs, which are changing all the time. We are concerned that projecting beyond the five-year period would likely be inaccurate, and for people to be excluded--and permanently--based on an inaccurate projection raises a lot of concern.

In addition, having a ten-year projection period for some diseases and a lower projection period for other diseases does raise some constitutional issues. Pending charter scrutiny, this could be considered discrimination based on disability, once again particularly considering how much the cost of treatment might change and how inaccurate those projections might be. For that reason we submit that projected demands on health and social services shouldn't be assessed over anything more than five years and that same standard should be applied to everyone.

Our second main area of concern with the definition of excessive demand is that it only includes the expected costs a person would be expected to impose on health and social services. We submit that in order to make a real individualized assessment...and that's one thing that's very positive about Canada's immigration tradition, that it's always looked at each individual separately and treated them as such. If you only look at the costs someone's expected to impose without looking at the contributions they're going to make, it's almost tantamount to a stereotype, because if you look at each individual, in order to determine whether costs are excessive you need to compare those costs, but to what?

When that comparison is only made with regard to other Canadians, it doesn't take into account the fact that many people with HIV, especially given the new treatments that are being developed, will lead very long, very productive lives, and they'll make very important contributions. Sometimes those contributions will be economic, and in those cases it won't be very hard to measure them any more than what we already measure.

We already look at, for example, what kind of tax revenue a person is expected to generate, so the same thing could be done with respect to someone with HIV. We could project how long they're likely to work, what kind of work they're expected to do, and what kinds of revenues they would be likely to generate for Canadians. Not to consider that, we submit, would be a mistake.

Á (1105)

If the goal is really about protecting the public purse, then the whole public purse has to be looked at--not just what is being spent, but also what's being taken in.

In addition, the network submits that non-economic contributions should be considered. I know you just listened to some speakers talking about domestic workers and the kinds of contributions they make.

We know these kinds of contributions are important. Courts have recognized that these kinds of contributions are important. For that reason, we submit that non-economic contributions should also be considered. This would also be in keeping with the UN and the WHO's positions, which state that someone should be excluded on their health status only if, globally, the contributions that person would be expected to make were outweighed by the costs.

We also have some comments about the threat to public health provision--the definition of a threat to public health--which is contained in section 29. We're very glad that HIV will no longer be considered generally a threat to public health, except in particular circumstances.

Section 29 of the regulations provides a framework for determining when someone will be considered to be a threat to public health based on his or her medical condition. A letter was sent out to the medical practitioners explaining to them that HIV is not to be considered a threat to public health per se, and that only in exceptional circumstances should people with HIV be excluded on that basis.

We think that's helpful, but what we'd like to see put in the regulations, which you'll see in the third recommendation in our brief, is that medical practitioners and decision-makers should consider whether diseases are casually communicable when deciding whether they're a threat to public health--not just the communicability of the disease generally, but particularly whether the disease is casually communicable. If it's not, there are other measures that could deal with this problem.

A third big area of concern, which I know must have been brought to your attention by refugee organizations, but which we'd like to bring to your attention as well, is that, as you know, subsection 38(2) of the act itself exempts refugees from inadmissibility based on excessive demand, but it doesn't exempt refugees from inadmissibility based on threat to public health. Now, as you know, there's still some concern that some people with HIV might still be considered a threat to public health. We don't believe this should be the case, but it is, so we're very concerned that the refugees would still be excludable based on their being a threat to public health.

First of all, it's a very big step backward, because under the old Immigration Act, refugees were not excludable based on their health condition in any way whatsoever. This was in keeping with international law and the principle of non-refoulement, which, as you know, is a very basic principle of international law. In addition, it's unnecessary, since threats to public health can usually be dealt with in this country, rather than by returning people to situations of persecution.

I'd just like to conclude by saying we did also have similar concerns with regard to common-law partners, that the definition is too narrow and the cohabitation requirement prevents people from taking advantage of the exemption. So in that respect, we support the comments that were made by our colleagues from LEGIT and EGALE.

Thank you very much.

Á (1110)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Alana, and thank you all for your input. You have questions.

Paul.

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

To those from EGALE, obviously your recommendations are not made in a vacuum, and you understand the large sociological problem the government has. Perhaps you could help them out a little by providing some other option.

What about the whole concept of registered domestic partnership? Does that have any solution to the larger reality? I heard your testimony and the advice you gave about changing the regulations, but there's a larger political problem here that the government has. Would that discussion, which I'm certain you're well aware of, be any help at all to your recommendation?

Mr. John Fisher: We are aware of the larger debate. Our core position is, and I think the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court is, that in devising fair policy, a distinction shouldn't be made based upon whether a particular relationship is married or unmarried to same sex or opposite sex. That's where we feel these regulations fall short.

There are a number of solutions to those, and we've identified some within the existing framework of the regulations. So we targeted our response in terms of what's the current structure and how can we best adapt that structure to provide a fairer framework.

However, if there were an alternative structure that treated everybody equally and fairly, then I think, in the immigration context, that could work to enable those who had registered their relationships to be treated equally for immigration purposes.

One of the additional points we've made in that brief, which we didn't address during oral submissions, is that currently there are a number of countries internationally that do enable people to register their relationships. In the Netherlands, at the moment, you can actually legally marry. In a number of jurisdictions, you can certainly register your relationship. Whereas for a heterosexual couple, a marriage internationally is of course recognized straight off, for a same-sex couple who have done everything they can to register their relationship and then obtain recognition in a different jurisdiction, no recognition whatsoever is given to that. So they still have to jump all these hurdles.

I'd be interested in the views of others, but certainly we feel that recognition should be given internationally to registered relationships.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Chris, do you have anything to say? Then I'll get back to you, Michael.

Ms. Chris Morrissey: I would say the same thing. I think we certainly have concerns within the national context with respect to registered domestic partnerships because that's not the direction that we're moving in, because it still creates a second class of citizens. However, in the international context, there certainly are possible places where people can register, where people can go through domestic unions of various types. As John said, there is no context within the current regs that enable that to be recognized. And that would certainly be a useful thing.

The Chair: Michael.

Mr. Michael Battista (Lawyer, EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere)): I think the best response to your question really does come from the Supreme Court, because in their decision in M. and H. they identified that the characteristics of a conjugal relationship include a number of factors and not just one particular factor.

In that decision, they identified shared shelters, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support, and children, as well as the social perception of the couple. The court said it was recognized that these elements may be present in varying degrees, and not all are necessary for the relationship to be found to be conjugal.

What the regulations do is they take that one element of cohabitation or shared shelter and they base the entire definition of a relationship on that. It runs totally contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in M. and H., and I think that's what makes it so highly subject to legal challenge.

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I have a supplemental on that. I can understand it from your point of view--you want to advance your point of view--but the problem is that the government is in an administrative difficulty because we have some hundred million people on the move around the world, and capacity creates its own demand for fraud. There's such incentive to take any opening and use it for a malevolent purpose. So I think the government is having great difficulty in trying to come up with some hard lines of definition in order to, basically, provide any semblance of integrity to the system.

Mr. Michael Battista: But the way the system works right now is very much consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. What an immigration officer does is look at all the evidence that's been submitted on the relationship--testimonials from friends and family, any evidence of cohabitation, any joint property assets. They look at the total picture of what has been submitted to them and they base the decision on that. And it's been working quite well for many years. So that's what we're asking for.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I have one question, a supplemental related to the AIDS issue. Do you see any situation where there's a legitimacy for having a health standard? Can you supply us with some information where indeed a denial would be made of some category because of health?

The average person who is not really involved in the technical details of the act, the average voter out there, feels that if someone doesn't meet certain health standards, they shouldn't be here. That's the attitude of the voter out there, that there should be some clear way of setting a reasonable health standard to be admitted to the country.

A lot of your arguments appear to be that we should try to move it a little bit here and move it a little bit there.

Do you accept any basic standard of health that then would exclude anyone from coming?

Á (1120)

Ms. Alana Klein: Yes, of course. We're not arguing that no one should ever be excluded based on his or her health condition. The only group that we'd argue that about would be refugees, because of Canada's international humanitarian obligation towards refugees. But for independent immigrants, for example, certainly the network isn't opposed to imposing this notion of excessive demand and saying that some people might in fact impose a demand on health and social services that will outweigh their expected contributions, both economic and non-economic.

We're not asking that no one should ever be considered to be imposing excessive demands. On the contrary, what we're arguing for is a fair standard where demands will only be considered excessive when they are in fact excessive compared to what that person will contribute. You'd be measuring things like what kinds of taxes the applicant would pay, what kinds of particular social contributions the person would be able to make.

For example, you might say that someone--a great poet, for example, or a wonderful scientist--might then, despite the fact that this person would end up imposing high costs, still have those costs not be considered excessive. But there would still be plenty of times when costs could be considered excessive.

Mr. Paul Forseth: So what you're really looking at then is more of an individualized assessment, rather than some kind of paper, unfeeling standard. Would you also include in that standard the word “communicability”, how contagious the condition is?

Ms. Alana Klein: Absolutely. Basically we support the maintenance of the two major grounds for exclusion based on medical condition, which are, one, excessive demand, as I mentioned, and, two, the public health reason for excluding someone.

In that case, certainly we're not against, for example, exclusions based on public health for airborne diseases such as tuberculosis. In that case, there's really nothing that can be done to prevent the communication of the disease. So until such time as it's no longer communicable, we consider it acceptable that those people be excluded for that reason.

But HIV, we argued--and fortunately then Minister Caplan agreed with us--shouldn't be considered, because it's not casually communicable, a threat to public health per se; it's behaviour. So, still, doctors are told, if for some reason...if, for example, the person might intend to have unprotected sex and conceal their HIV status from their partner willingly, that might be a good reason to exclude someone, but short of that....

The Chair: Thank you, Alana.

Madeleine, any questions?

[Translation]

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I want to thank all of you for coming. I have a number of questions to ask.

I am a member of a riding with a large immigrant population. It goes without saying that, among all the files we need to deal with, we get a large number of cases of people in very difficult situations, for example that of a man who is truly married and who has been waiting for three of four years for his wife to be allowed to join him. The most recent case of that sort was settled around Christmas, where the husband had been waiting for four years while being legally married.

I agree with you that the ability to marry makes things easier for heterosexual couples, but it does not necessarily shorten the process, which is very lengthy, a fact that everybody around this table deplores. So, this is one issue.

Beyond that, I fully share your concerns for we are all convinced, in Canada as well as in Quebec, that fairness and justice require that things be spelled out clearly and that the words “same sex partners“ be indeed included in those provisions.

But you will certainly agree with me that some relationships are for convenience only, whether they be same sex or opposite sex couples. I think the summary of the brief by EGALE mentions that these things happen, whatever the sexual orientation. How could we deal with this problem of relationships of convenience, which we need to recognize as a possibility we need to address?

I have a question about one statement in the brief of LEGIT. You mentioned that same sex applicants are required to follow a different process if they plan to immigrate to Quebec. As you can imagine, everything dealing with Quebec is of special interest to me. Based on your expertise, I would like to know if the process these applicants follow in Quebec--I am choosing my words carefully--is rather more positive or rather more negative as compared to the rest of Canada.

Á (1125)

[English]

Ms. Chris Morrissey: Merci.

With respect to what our brief says about Quebec, the concern is that currently, because same-sex partners apply as independents, those same-sex partners who live in Quebec apply through the independent process, go through the Quebec selection criteria, etc. The goal was to have same-sex relationships recognized and part of the family class so that there would be a standard of treatment for all same-sex partners across the country, regardless of where they live and so that it's clear.

I have to say that there is a group in Quebec, in Montreal, that is a LEGIT partner or a member of LEGIT, Immigration pour conjoints des gais et lesbiennes. That group assists gays and lesbians with bringing their partners into Quebec. I hesitate to actually make any comment on whether it's more positive or less positive. I can't draw a conclusion. However, I would like to say that the process in Canada has been extremely positive in terms of the actual processing of cases, and I believe the same is true in Quebec.

The reality is that there are concerns, certainly among the gays and lesbians we have contact with through ICGL, that they would like to be included in the family class as well and have their relationships recognized.

The Chair: Chris, could I just ask you something? I don't believe your sister organization in Quebec has asked to appear. Do you think you might be able to ask them to respond to Madeleine's question and perhaps convey that to us through the clerk?

Ms. Chris Morrissey: Certainly.

The Chair: Thank you.

John or Michael, did you have something to add?

Mr. Michael Battista: Yes. I just wanted to address the concern about relationships of convenience.

When an application is submitted, there are two hurdles that it really has to meet. One is the legal hurdle. Does it match up with what's written in here? If it doesn't, it's simply rejected at that stage.

Even if it passes that legal hurdle of matching up with what's in the regulations, the immigration officer has to make a factual determination of whether it's a bona fide relationship. So that's kind of the second hurdle, the factual hurdle. That hurdle will always be there. No matter what kind of a relationship it is, the immigration officer is always going to have to be convinced that it's not simply a relationship of convenience. That's a test that will always have to be met, and indeed has been met by giving the immigration officer full discretion to consider all the factors that have been presented.

The Chair: I'm sorry. I can't have two people from the same group respond to every question, as much as I'd like to. Time is obviously a problem for us all.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That is fine. He can give me his answer later.

Mr. John Fisher: I would just like to answer your first question on marriage. Yes, we recognize that marriage is not necessarily the ideal solution in every case. But you need to understand that for same-sex partners, the barriers are even greater. Very often, they do not have the right to marry or to live together. So they encounter additional barriers which do not exist for married couples.

[English]

Just to add to Michael's point, we acknowledge that there is a regulation 3, which deals with bad faith relationships, relationships of convenience. Neither EGALE nor LEGIT want to seek entry for couples who are not in genuine relationships. We wouldn't touch regulation 3. We think it provides an adequate existing safeguard.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Good.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let me just carry on with this point. I think what in effect you're saying--and you're raising a serious issue with us today--is that in fact there is a double standard, a very clear, built-in inequality, in the way the regulations are worded.

In the case of a marriage and an opposite-sex union, we are saying it's good enough to provide proof of a relationship. You go through the normal hoops in terms of immigration officers wanting the evidence to say this is a genuine relationship. So you provide the photos of your marriage. You provide the phone bills showing you've communicated. You provide evidence saying this is a serious relationship.

In the case of same-sex unions, it's not specifically spelled out. But more significantly, you have the added barrier of proving you've lived together for a year, which is a totally different standard being applied to same-sex unions. Correct?

So that's one issue I just want to clarify, because I think this is more than just a question of wording and good intentions. The reality is that we will perpetuate an inequality, despite the Supreme Court ruling and despite our advancements on this issue.

The second question relates to--

The Chair: Excuse me, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Oh, sorry.

The Chair: Not that I want to interrupt you, but just for the record, you might want to think about this when you ask the question. If you have a common-law heterosexual relationship, the cohabitation rule still exists. I just wanted to mention that.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sure. In fact, I was just going to say that when it comes to common-law, that barrier applies whether we're talking about same-sex or opposite-sex unions. So there's a double standard on the basis of the type of relationship and in terms of sexual preference.

There is also, as I think the presenters have mentioned, a problem in terms of some countries not recognizing common-law in terms of same-sex unions. So you have cultural barriers that fly on top of it and a set of circumstances that means an added barrier in terms of same-sex common-law relationships.

I think that has to be addressed. I think we need to hear from all presenters about some ideas for how we can make this happen. We're open, all of us. We've run into some barriers in the past in terms of getting this through the minister and the department. We need some help in terms of the significance of this and how we can make the case.

The Chair: Again, I think both John and Chris have already talked about some solutions. But if you want to reiterate those solutions for Judy's question, go ahead, please.

Ms. Chris Morrissey: Thank you. There are a couple of things that occurred to me. One is that we are speaking specifically here in the immigration context. I cannot understand why it is not possible within the immigration context to define the one-year relationship to include some of the other elements that Michael raised in terms of the Supreme Court decision. Currently, the majority of people who make applications as same-sex partners make them on H and C and provide significant information.

We have a copy here of our booklet that we would be happy to share with you to give you some indication of the kinds of documentation that couples have been presented to substantiate the reality of their relationship. It makes it extremely difficult for fraudulent relationships to be processed using this process.

What we would like to see is this definition expanded so that those in the immigration context who maintain the relationship for one year, and are able to demonstrate that through the submission of the documentation that we've been doing for eight years, also be incorporated into the family class.

I agree that there is the same standard with respect to heterosexuals. The difference is that heterosexuals who really want to immigrate to Canada will marry; it's much easier to do that. The standard for applying to come to Canada as a spouse, while everyone has to go through looking at.... It's not always easy. It doesn't mean it's going to happen easily. But there is a higher bar that's set for same-sex partners.

Á (1135)

Mr. John Fisher: I think the couples who will be most impacted by it will be those who, for instance, might need to rely upon the exemption for medical demands that exists in the family class but doesn't exist for those who are processed on H and C or public policy grounds. For those couples, if they haven't yet cohabited or met the very narrow exemption of persecution, they don't have the option to marry, so they can't bring themselves within the umbrella of the family class protections. An opposite-sex couple in that scenario could bring themselves within family class by marrying. Because they will be only be processed on H and C, they will have no right of appeal, and they will be subject to a barrier and an exclusion that opposite-sex couples are not subject to.

While we would prefer to see the whole definition reformulated to address the points that Chris and Michael have raised, an alternative fallback, if you like, is, just as we mentioned already, to bring that within the protections of the family class.

The Chair: Alana, did you have anything to add to that? No.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin--Swan River, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First let me apologize for being late to this meeting.

On the same point that Judy raised, conjugal relationships are really about relationships of people. I think in this country we have gone beyond discrimination, either on gender or sexual preference. Is it possible to establish a set of criteria that is applicable to all relationships and that is fair and unbiased? That's my first question.

Mr. Michael Battista: Absolutely. As I said, that happens now in the factual context when the immigration officer gets the file for an assessment. Even in the case of married couples, if there is a doubt about the genuineness of the relationship, the immigration officer does look at these other factors that the Supreme Court has set out. They look at shared shelter. They look at holding themselves out as a couple in terms of societal perception, shared social activities, economic support. These are all factors that can be applied to all relationships to determine whether they are legitimate, conjugal relationships.

Mr. Inky Mark: Would you support putting that on a grid, much like our skilled worker application? Put it on a grid and make sure all the elements are examined to make it fair.

Mr. Michael Battista: Yes. I think there would be no problem in specifically identifying these factors taken right from the Supreme Court decision and directing immigration officers to consider these factors in their entirety in making their decisions. The system has worked well for same-sex couples for the last several years.

The Chair: I'd like to follow up, if I could, Inky.

In your submissions--and I'll ask both EGALE and LEGIT--do you have the comprehensive definition or guidelines the Supreme Court has used, which Inky has just talked about?

Mr. Michael Battista: Yes, it's on page 8 of the EGALE brief.

The Chair: For Inky's edification, that is there. That's one of your suggestions.

Mr. Michael Battista: Yes, it's on page 8 of the EGALE brief. It's the quote from the M. and H. decision.

The Chair: Yes. Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Well, perhaps, to help the situation, we can put together a grid that you consider would be acceptable for everyone, for all relationships.

My second question deals with medical admissibility. A point that was raised looked at potential earnings versus cost to the system. I think that's an area that is problematic in all aspects of immigration in terms of the cost of the health system. Here's another area we need to look at: creating a set of standards that are applicable to everybody and that are far-reaching, to consider all the factors, instead of.... Normally, if someone is handicapped...well, we don't want them here because it's going to cost the system a whole bunch of money, or someone with AIDS will cost the system up to a quarter of a million dollars, forgetting about their contribution to society.

Perhaps you could comment.

The Chair: Inky, I think that's exactly the same question Paul asked with regard to standards. I don't know if you were here when he asked that question. If not, I'm going to ask you to refer to the blues, because I'm not going to ask him to repeat exactly the same answer.

Mr. Inky Mark: Well, standards that apply to everyone, not just--

Á (1140)

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Inky Mark: --one particular disease.

The Chair: Any quick comments? I think you've addressed it before, but...Alana?

Ms. Alana Klein: Just to repeat again, the gist of what I said was that for an assessment to be individualized with regard to a particular person, of course, the costs that that particular person will be expected to impose should be balanced against their economic contributions, which is something that isn't that difficult to assess. It's something we already assess anyway with respect to independent immigrants, so I think it's definitely a feasible option.

The Chair: Chris, I believe you wanted to add something.

Ms. Chris Morrissey: Yes. I just wanted to make a comment with respect to this grid. For many years, in our briefs to the various ministers over the years, LEGIT has put forward a proposal that includes aspects of relationships, so if people in relationships, in conjugal relationships, could meet a number of those, there would be a consideration that this was a genuine relationship and therefore recognized for the purposes of immigration. We include as one of the criteria the submission of a marriage certificate or domestic partnership. That is one of the criteria. So everybody, heterosexual married, heterosexual common-law, same sex, cohabiting or not cohabiting, would actually be able to meet the same criteria.

The Chair: Could you table that with us?

Ms. Chris Morrissey: Absolutely.

The Chair: Maybe we have it, but if we don't, we'd like it. Thank you for that fine work.

Steve and then me, and that's it. Then we're going to have the next round.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's actually a little bit frustrating for us too, to tell you the truth. You opened your presentation saying you were frustrated. It's frustrating for us, because I thought we were by this some time ago, that it had been resolved, and obviously it hasn't.

I couldn't help but amusingly think that most of the MPs in this room would not qualify under the cohabitation rules--when you live in Ottawa eight months of the year. Then when you get home on the weekend you're too damned tired to do anything anyway. But that's another issue.

The issue of relationships of convenience is interesting. I think we've heard of abuses where there have been marriages of convenience occurring that would basically accomplish the same thing. There will be some who will continue to argue and fight this issue. You have been promoting fairness and transparency and equality and all of the above, but there will be some who will argue that there's no way to establish criteria to define--and I go down to one of your solutions--committed same-sex couples.

Maybe you could just respond to that for the record. If that were to become the issue, how would you articulate that?

Ms. Chris Morrissey: I would say that for the last eight years immigration officers in Canada and visa officers abroad have been receiving applications from same-sex partners who have put together substantial documentation in support of the fact that this is a genuine same-sex or heterosexual common-law relationship. Criteria have already been established. A long-term practice has already been established. They are already doing it, and it has been going on for eight years, based on a one-year maintenance of the relationship and the submission of documentation to prove same.

The Chair: Codify it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's fine.

The Chair: All right. Perhaps I could follow along the same line, because I think Steve has essentially said that the legal framework in Bill C-11 would have put this behind us, but like everything else in these regulations, we're again fighting principles and we obviously have to change the mentality.

Within your solutions, John and Chris, one is to get rid of cohabitation, if that's the problem barrier, and define and codify what has already been a general practice for eight years, especially for people who are abroad. Let's face it, that one-year cohabitation doesn't make any common sense from the standpoint that you're oceans away or distances away. I mean, that's ridiculous. Anybody who would have thought that was smart must be idiotic. I'll leave it at that, and if the person is listening, so be it.

By taking away cohabitation, will that solve the problem and at the same time expand the definition and criteria and codify what has been the practice of recognizing relationship, as opposed to whether or not two people are actually living under the same roof and defining that relationship?

Á (1145)

Mr. John Fisher: The short answer is yes. All the other problems we've identified flow from the cohabitation requirement. It's because, for some reason, cohabitation was written into the definition that we then need a regulation that gives exceptions to the cohabitation definition. It's because of the cohabitation definition that you need the common-law intended category, to cover all those people who don't fall within cohabitation or the exception, so it flows its way through the act.

The Chair: That was my next question. Can we just fix it by getting rid of cohabitation, or do we have to expand the exception provisions of the regulations? Once we do that, can we then forget about it, which is another idiotic thing? This intended thing that we heard about yesterday with regard to fiancé(e)s and the intended stuff...if you're going to accept that under H and C and that's what you're accepting, why don't you simply put it in the regs and include the definition of fiancé(e) or intended relationship as a way of being able to define that?

My point is, how many times do we have to change these? Can we simply do it once by getting rid of cohabitation and then codifying that definition, or do we then have to do, as you suggested, something with the exceptions and expand that exception class or, on the common intended, include that in the family class? Do we have to do all three, or can we do it once and fix it?

Mr. Michael Battista: I think the most realistic solution is to come up with a definition of a relationship that fits the reality of most people's lives. Thus the most realistic solution is not to get rid of the cohabitation requirement but to expand it so that you're looking at other factors in addition to cohabitation. If that doesn't happen, then you need a very wide list of exceptions that meets the--

The Chair: You're suggesting that the expanded definition should be what the Supreme Court did or the codified practice--

Mr. Michael Battista: Absolutely.

The Chair: Good. Thank you. That's a very good idea.

Alana, with regard to this ten years--and I think you're absolutely right, because Paul and Inky and everybody else started to talk about looking at the individual. That should be the standard by which one looks at that health question, excessive demand and everything else.

Is your only suggestion that one thing we can do is get rid of that ten-year provision because it's too far out, with pharmaceutical technology, now and in the future, that ten years is probably too long of a threshold or a bar? Is that what you're suggesting, just get rid of the ten and make it five years?

Ms. Alana Klein: Yes, five years for everyone. That's exactly what we're suggesting.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Chris Morrissey: I just want to make a comment based on what you were suggesting with respect to fixing this thing with the cohabitation. We want to advise you that we have raised this issue many times, and the response from the department is that this cohabitation needs to be consistent with other federal statutes.

The Chair: To hell with the department. I mean, the pile of crap they've given us on these regulations.... We're going to change them.

Thank you very much. I don't want to hear about....

Ms. Chris Morrissey: Okay. Just so you're aware.

The Chair: Yes, we know that--for years and years and years. But we run the show here. They might not accept that or know that, but we're about to show them, so that's fine.

Thank you very much. Thank you all for your input. We appreciate your time and effort and your dedication.

Á (1149)

Â (1204)

The Chair: Colleagues, I want to continue with our hearings with regard to the regulations. I want to welcome the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants, Jill Sparling, president, and a good person from London, Ontario, from way back when; and Warren Lloyd, vice-president. From the Law of Society of Upper Canada, we have Mendel Green--welcome, Mendel--chair, Immigration Law Specialty Committee; and from Canadians for Fair and Just Immigration Policy, Robin Seligman.

Again, I want to thank you all for your input with regard to Bill C-11 and now for the much more difficult feat we have with regard to the regulations. We have a copy of your submissions. If you could, take five to seven minutes to summarize what's in your submissions, focusing primarily on the solutions and what we can do to have better regulations.

Also, the other little added work we were considering is whether or not one ought to regulate, and if so, how to regulate the immigration lawyers or consultants or whatever. I think the minister brought it up, and committees have studied this on a number of occasions.

If we could start with the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants Inc., it'll be Jill or Warren.

Â (1205)

Mr. Warren LLoyd (Vice-President, Organization of Professional Consultants Inc.): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much.

I'd like to make a few remarks on the regulations, and then Jill is going to speak about the regulation of immigration consultants.

There are two main issues we would like to emphasize to the committee. The first is the pass mark. We find that the pass mark of 80 is outrageous, that it will impose a moratorium on immigration. The problem isn't so much with the grid but the pass mark. The pass mark forces a successful applicant to achieve the maximum in each category, and that is virtually impossible for 90% of applicants.

We agree that some parts of the grid need some fine-tuning--education, for example. I'm sure our colleagues will talk more about that. We're also not keen on visa officers assessing language ability. We think this should be done by professionals, TOEFL, IELTS, or other organizations, but the main thing we want to emphasize is that the pass mark must change.

The second issue we want to talk about or emphasize is retroactivity, but not exactly in the way it's been talked about to this point. We're pleased that CIC has finally admitted for the first time that they are doing this, that is, applying selection criteria retroactively. They haven't done this since it started, since the point system started in 1967.

It's also very clear that their only purpose can be to clear the backlog. This is a backlog they allowed to develop. They didn't use any of the control features in the present system, they haven't changed the demographic factor, and they haven't changed the demand list. This backlog could have been avoided. The application of retroactivity to the 180,000 backlog cases will be a slaughter, no doubt. Their own visa officers estimate 80% to 90% refusal rates. One of their visa officers said that nobody would pass, but this isn't the end of retroactivity. Retroactivity is an integral part of these regulations. Retroactivity is intended to apply to every future change in the regulations. You will recall that last week CIC said “We will adjust the pass mark as we go”. What they didn't say is that every time they do make that adjustment they intend to apply it retroactively.

We strongly urge the committee to get rid of the concept of retroactivity entirely, not just as it applies to the backlog; we don't want it to apply at all, ever, to the selection criteria of independent applicants. Why? Because how is Canadian business going to attract anybody if this system is a lottery, if the pass mark keeps changing? The best people, those we're trying to attract from abroad, have options. They're not going to quit their jobs and uproot their families on the off chance they might be able to obtain permanent residence. The system has to be predictable. A constantly moving pass mark that's applied retroactively will create confusion and unpredictability, and we won't get the people we want.

Now Jill is going to switch topics and talk about the regulation of immigration consultants.

Ms. Jill Sparling (President, Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants Inc.): I'd like to start out by saying that although we didn't bring it with us today, because we reviewed our presentation over the weekend, we can send you by e-mail our submission, which has our points in more detail.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Jill Sparling: OPIC, the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants Inc., was formed primarily by former immigration officers who provide immigration consulting services to clients in Canada and overseas. Although we now provide a range of services to our members, professional regulation of consultants remains our principal objective.

As steps toward professional self-governance, we have developed a code of conduct and standards of practice for our members, which we will be making available to you.

We, along with AICC, have formed the College of Immigration Practitioners of Canada to move the issue of regulation forward. Warren and I are members of the board of the college, and in my remarks from here on in, I am speaking for the college and the 400 members it represents.

The minister has said he wants a code of ethics. OPIC and AICC have codes of ethics and have had some for years, but what our associations have managed to do on their own is not nearly enough. Membership in our associations is voluntary, and there are hundreds of consultants in Canada and abroad who are not members of any association. The only way to impose a code of ethics on all consultants who deal with CIC, as the minister suggested before this committee, is for the government to move quickly and implement a national self-governing framework for immigration consultants, and then, as a follow-up, deal only with regulated consultants.

The authority to do that lies in section 91 of the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which authorizes the government to pass regulations to “govern who may or may not represent, advise or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the Board.”

The 1976 act provided ample regulatory power to regulate immigration consultants. Nothing was done.

In 1990 the Canadian Bar Association recommended a self-governing regime for non-lawyer immigration consultants. The recommendations were not acted on.

The ninth report of this committee strongly recommended that immigration consultants be regulated within a professional self-governing system. The report was entitled Immigration consultants: It's time to act. The report was issued in 1995. No action was taken.

The Special Senate Committee on Security and Intelligence issued a report in January 1999 recommending that immigration consultants be regulated. No action was taken.

Madame Robillard, when she was Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, said she was committed to regulating immigration consultants. Nothing happened.

Immigration consulting is our profession. We know how important it is. We also know how some bad apples can and do abuse the system and the serious harm they do to Canada's reputation abroad, to our national security, to vulnerable applicants, and to our economic self-interest.

We know that some immigration consultants are involved in people-smuggling. We know that some consultants use or fabricate fraudulent documents for aliens to enter this country. We know that some immigration consultants abuse their clients' trust by promising the impossible and failing to deliver. We know that some consultants charge exorbitant fees for their services, and we know that some have little or no training, education or experience in immigration law, policies, and procedures, yet hold themselves out to the unwitting applicant as authorities.

In our view, regulation is even more important today than ever before, in order to counter the very negative image that has been created for our system by the proposed regulations. That is why we were encouraged by the minister's suggestion to this committee that you turn your attention to the question of professional regulation and work with consultants to develop a regulatory model.

I want you to know that over the past five years there has been considerable progress towards the development of a national professional self-governing model for immigration consultants, despite almost complete disinterest by the department.

The College of Immigration Practitioners, for which I speak today, entered some years ago into a memorandum of understanding with the department to work together on the development of a regulatory framework and a national occupation standard. Pursuant to that agreement, the college has also developed a paper, which will be tabled with you, that sets out the proposed regulatory structure, with a complaints and disciplinary process and a draft code of professional conduct. So that work has already been done.

To our considerable dismay, however, CIC never held up its end of the bargain in terms of the MOU. It never provided the financing that it committed to and other supports to develop the...Inaudible—Editor. It gave only a half-hearted response to our proposed regulatory structure.

We met with the previous minister in Toronto last October, and she promised that as soon as the act had been approved by Parliament, her department would turn its attention to professional regulation. Accordingly, we expected to see something in the regulations, and of course nothing was there.

Â (1210)

I'm here today to encourage you to do what should have been done years ago, to do what the system needs, and to do what credible authority says needs to be done: develop and propose a national self-governing regulatory framework for consultants.

You may ask why we cannot regulate ourselves. The answer is it would only be on a voluntary basis. ACE, OPIC--we are all voluntary organizations. We abide by a code of conduct; we have disciplinary and complaints procedures; but it is all voluntary. There is no ability to compel compliance.

The government holds the key to effective regulation. We need the Government of Canada to say it will deal only with consultants who are members in good standing of a professional regulatory body and subject to its standards of practice, code of conduct, complaints, and disciplinary processes. It will not cost the government a cent to administer and the government will have no liability for its actions.

You ask if regulation shouldn't more properly be done by the provinces, and we say emphatically no. We need a uniform national framework for the regulation of practitioners, not a patchwork quilt of disparate provincial approaches.

Furthermore, there are precedents for federal regulation for professions that operate only within federal jurisdiction. Two of them, airline and marine pilots, are examples.

Last year in the Mangat case the Attorney General of Canada argued before the Supreme Court that the regulation of immigration consultants is within federal authority.

The attorneys general of B.C., Manitoba, and Ontario stated that their governments would cede authority to the federal government should the federal government devote more resources to the task.

You may ask whether our inability to achieve professional regulation doesn't indicate some fundamental obstacle or defect in our quest. We believe the only obstacle to date has been the department. They don't like immigration counsel much. When I was an immigration officer I didn't like them either, because we complicate their lives.

Without us, officials could do pretty much what they want with applicants. There would be no one to scream foul, to advocate on applicants' behalf, or to provide the checks and balances against the arbitrary exercise of administrative powers.

CIC has thrown up all kinds of, quite frankly, silly arguments against regulation and has done everything possible to frustrate the process.

Last Friday I was contacted by an official at CIC who said the department wanted to get serious about regulation again. Given all the time, energy, and money we've committed to this project already, we feel we have no option but to try one last time with the department, but we need your help.

This committee could help most by giving a strong admonition to the government and CIC to get on with professional regulation without further delay, and I implore you to include this admonition in your report. It may be all we need to get us over the hump.

Thank you very much for your time.

Â (1215)

The Chair: Thank you, Jill. You should know what they think about MPs who call on Immigration.

Robin.

Ms. Robin Seligman (Canadians for Fair and Just Immigration Policy): I would like to tell you what they think about lawyers as well.

The Chair: You could do that.

Ms. Robin Seligman: I would like to thank the chair and members of the standing committee for allowing me to appear on behalf of Canadians for Fair and Just Immigration Policy.

I would like to take a moment to introduce our coalition, which is truly a national based coalition, including 60-plus organizations, among them the National Congress of Italian Canadians, B'nai Brith, OCASI--which is the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants; that's over 140 organizations--COSTI, the Canadian Bar Association, OPIC, the Association of Immigration Counsel of Canada, and the Canadian Hearing Society. I've attached a list with my submission. It is a truly broad-based coalition with many different interests represented.

Today I will be speaking quickly with respect to retroactivity and skilled workers, and I've provided a list of some additional matters.

My concern is that so much focus has gone on retroactivity in skilled workers...that there are so many other flaws in the regulations that they will be over-sought. I have made a quick list; there are many more.

With respect to retroactivity, the coalition is totally opposed to the retroactive application of laws, in particular with respect to the skilled workers and business applicants. It sees the very notion as unfair, anti-Canadian, and anti-liberal. It would undermine Canada's reputation internationally and throw the selection system into a state of total and utter unpredictability and disrepute. This cannot be good for Canada.

I'm quoting to you the government's official policy with respect to applicants who hand in their applications, which appeared on the government's website until January of 2002. It states:

The values awarded for each of the selection criteria will be “locked in” or protected. The applicant will receive the value current on the day the application was submitted and the fees paid. This will occur regardless of the day on which paper screening or interview takes place. Should a subsequent change in the values occur which would be to the applicant's advantage, the applicant may receive the benefit of the additional points of assessment. The applicant will not suffer from any decrease in the value of any of the selection criteria.

That has been the understanding that applicants, counsel, and people all around the world have relied on in the past. We urge you to maintain the status quo.

A refund of money is absolutely not the answer. Applicants have waited years for their application and have put their lives on hold and changed their plans. So I urge the committee not to accept a simple refund, which would not be simple at all, as I'm sure Mendel will be getting into.

With regard to what Mr. Lloyd has commented on, future retroactivity is a major problem. The act in section 55 specifically says: “For the purposes of Part 3”, which is the selection, “the requirements and criteria set out in sections 63 and 64 must be met at the time an application is made as well as at the time the permanent resident visa is issued”. Because it's not by regulation, the pass mark can change at any time. This means ongoing retroactivity, which is not good for stability or for Canada's future.

With regard to skilled workers, when introducing the regulations the bureaucracy was very proud to say, we are now trying to select different types of immigrants. What do they mean by that? They refer to “the best and the brightest”. The coalition sees this term as being elitist in itself. It refers only to people with higher education. The way the criteria have been set out, with a pass mark of 80, it pretty much means someone with a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, or a PhD, and, as Warren also referred to, someone who meets the highest marks in all the selection criteria.

The coalition is opposed to this definition and thinks this committee should take us back to our roots and think about what Canada needs. We need good, hard-working, honest people who don't necessarily have the highest academic achievements. There are many other people who will greatly benefit Canada, in particular the skilled trades, of which we are in desperate need. The Conference Board of Canada, in their 2001 report, said that by the year 2020 the country will be facing a shortage of over one million skilled workers. They are not referring to one million PhDs, which this selection system caters to.

The selection criteria are harsh and do not allow skilled tradespeople to qualify, as well as many others who should qualify. With a pass mark of 80, only those who are under 44 years of age, who are fluent in English or French, who have four years' experience, a three-year degree or diploma, 15 years of education, a close relative, a job offer, and a spouse with a PhD can qualify. That is a tall order. I query whether anyone in this room might qualify.

I have several areas of concern.

Â (1220)

The Chair: No problem.

Ms. Robin Seligman: Okay. I've done the calculation on many of you in the room and I would be concerned.

The Chair: What did you give me, Robin?

Ms. Robin Seligman: I didn't know how old you were so I couldn't--

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Robin Seligman: Pretty much anyone over 44 years of age.

The Chair: That's why I took my moustache off, just to fool those immigration officers.

Ms. Robin Seligman: I'm assuming under 44.

With respect to some concepts or some solutions, the area of greatest concern is the education criteria. They clearly focus on people with 15 years of education and a three-year degree. This has to be addressed. It does not accommodate at all the trades. I'm sure, as most of you are aware, most of the trades in Canada do not require three-year degrees and 15 years of education, nor is that the case almost anywhere around the world. Mr. Green has done a study, and he can comment on that. That is just not realistic. It also does not take into consideration many countries that have two-year degrees from universities, such as Pakistan and India, where two-year degrees and a level of 15 years of education are just not the standard. Therefore, that would have to be adjusted down or a pass mark set to accommodate two-year degrees and diplomas.

This also greatly affects a lot of foreign students who come to Canada and who study for two-year degrees at Seneca or the different community colleges. They would be eliminated from the process if you were going to require a three-year degree.

In addition, I suggest that cumulative education be allowed, for example in the trades. Many trades would not necessarily have a two- or three-year diploma, but they might have a one-year apprenticeship and a one-year program and maybe one other one-year program. If you allow cumulative education and eliminate the 15-year or 16- or 14-year education required under the proposals, this may address some of the issues. One other thing you may want to consider is bonus points for some of the skilled trades we're in desperate need of.

With respect to adaptability factor, single people, who make up 40% of the applicants, are definitely discriminated against because they cannot obtain points for their spouses' backgrounds. One of the solutions may be to lower the pass mark for single people or to allow other factors in the adaptability category that may accommodate single people.

The LICO, the low-income cut-off that is referred to, is totally unacceptable. What the government has proposed is that single people should have assets of $18,000 Canadian or the equivalent before coming to Canada. Families go up incrementally: for a family of two, $22,000; for a family of three, $28,000; for a family of four, $33,000. This almost doubles the requirements under the present system and is very unrealistic. I would submit that most Canadians would not have that kind of asset or cash available, especially young families and single people.

Therefore, I would maintain the status quo and allow discretion into the system. For example, there are many young people working in Canada after they graduate who would not have anywhere near that amount, or they may not even have their existing requirement of $8,000. But if someone is in Canada, working and successfully established, there is no reason they should meet a minimum income requirement. I understand the government's concern that once people get here they should not have to rely on social assistance, but that is too harsh a requirement.

As to the age between 21 and 44, it's respectfully submitted that the age should be increased to 50. I'm basing that on demographic studies that have been done. For example, the Centre for the Study of Living Standards stated in 2001 that for a start, workers over the age of 45 are at their most productive, and with the increased lifespan of Canadians they will continue to be productive workers later into their lives. We have an aging workforce and a population that's declining. We need these people.

With respect to the committee, I strongly suggest that it is up to this committee and this government to recommend to the bureaucrats the type of immigrants we want to come to this country. It is not up to the bureaucrats to be dictating to you who Canada should be selecting. With this model they have designed a very elitist system that would only allow not necessarily the best but the brightest. Therefore, it is our submission that Canada needs a cross-section of skilled workers, including skilled tradespeople and highly educated people, and it's up to you to tell the bureaucrats what we need and let them design that.

Â (1225)

The Chair: Hallelujah, we believe.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Robin Seligman: I would say, is this a bureaucracy or a democracy? I would highly recommend that we delay the implementation of the June 28 date, as we need more time to get it right. There are many problems with the regulations that have been proposed.

With respect to consultants, Amanda will be speaking to that issue. However, I would like to say that I have appeared at parliamentary committees for a number of years. I've been practising law for 17 years and have appeared many times in front of parliamentary committees, different groups, and ministers with respect to this issue. It is a very difficult issue.

I would say that at a minimum what has to be done--and I've recommended this in the past, though this is not the solution--is that people representing applicants abroad and inside Canada must be Canadian citizens or permanent residents--at a minimum. That's not the case right now, especially for overseas applications. There is no problem for overseas representatives who have no connection to Canada to create fraudulent documents; there's no recourse our government can take against these people. Again, it's not a solution, but at a minimum that's something that could be implemented tomorrow. With identification, at least the government could track down these people.

The Chair: Robin, you have to hurry.

Ms. Robin Seligman: I've raised many of them and they appear on the attached sheet, and I can maybe address them through questions. If you'll note, we think the business regulations are terribly flawed in terms of the high standard. Family class should include fiancé(e)s and last remaining family members.

Last remaining family members--who would want to move their family around the world and leave their oldest child who is single and never married at home? I've presented this to minister after minister in all the years I've been practising, and do you know what? Every single one has agreed with me. Why aren't they included? Why would we want to leave a last family member overseas and not bring them, reunite them with their family?

It's never been implemented. I highly recommend that the committee address this issue.

I have many more things to say, but I don't have time so I'll pass on to Mendel.

The Chair: It's an excellent brief and we've read it. It's very well done and it addresses an awful lot of the questions.

Mendel.

Mr. Mendel M. Green (Chair, Immigration Law Specialty Committee, Law Society of Upper Canada: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to be here today. I asked myself, based on looking at these regulations, what are the bureaucrats attempting to do? Is it the will of Parliament only to allow married PhDs to get into Canada? I really think not.

What I have done for you in my brief is set out for you the exact point grid for people who speak absolutely fluent English and/or French, who are PhDs with four years' working experience who happen to be single and cannot get into Canada.

I don't know why the bureaucrats have concluded that. You've heard enough about it. I'm sure you've heard from my colleague at the Canadian Bar Association about it, but you have here examples on the present grid that show you that those people do not get into Canada.

Frankly, as Robin has told you and as the statistics show, 40% of all people applying to come to Canada are single. Where is our economy going to get those bright PhDs from Harvard and other places around the world--the University of Moscow--if we don't accept them because they are single?

I just overheard the discussion in the last session about marriages of convenience and same-sex relationships of convenience. Obviously, if a PhD from Harvard wants to come to Canada, move to Canada, and he happens to be living with a roommate while he's at school and working in Boston, he can create a same-sex relationship and put in all the indices and he will be allowed to come, but that single PhD can't come to Canada.

I don't know why. It does not make any business sense.

I say to you categorically that I was shocked when I spoke with the bureaucrats in trying to ascertain why it was that no blue collar worker, a tool and die maker, a mould maker, can't get into Canada based on this existing selection grid. The former minister advised me personally that she was advised by her officials that people in England who went through the apprenticeship system would in fact get into Canada. That's not accurate.

We need chefs in this country. We need mould makers. We need all these skilled people, and really, based on the assessment that I have done internationally by contacting most of the embassies in the world, there isn't even a country in the world that has 15 years of education with an apprenticeship program for skilled workers. It just doesn't work.

A cordon bleu chef in France comes out of school in grade 10 and goes into the cordon bleu chef's education. He or she can't make the grid.

Why, I ask? I think as parliamentarians in this democracy you should ask why. What is the agenda here?

I point out to you that the previous minister said, and I think it has been said numerous times, that there should be an inland landing class for graduate students. That's not going to be effective. A graduate student who comes and is given a work visa for one year in Canada...here's a person who has come here, paid for his or her own education, is highly skilled, gets a job in Canada, and they are ineligible to apply for landing from within Canada. However, the nanny who comes here and caregives is eligible.

Let me put this to you--and I speak with some authority since I am counsel for the Exotic Dancers Association--a lap dancer from the Philippines who happens to be here with a Bachelor of Science degree and works for four years in Canada makes the selection grid but that PhD from Harvard doesn't make it.

I was with the executive assistant to the Minister of Immigration today and I pointed that out to him and he said, please bring that to the committee's attention. I think it is highly important that you understand that. There has to be a rethinking of the grid. Not everybody could get work. We're getting a new class of person, they say. Who are the new class of persons? Lawyers, professors--

The Chair: God forbid.

Mr. Mendel Green: --and that's about it, and not single people. Why? You might ask why. I keep asking why. I can't understand it.

Throughout my paper you have that situation put out very simplistically--retroactivity. Clear up the backlog. It is an absolute misnomer. In fact, it's going to extend the backlog because as a matter of law, as you'll see on page 8 from A to G, each application has to be looked at. Each application has to be given the opportunity to justify the new lower assessment grid. Where are we cleaning up the backlog? You're making more work. It doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps a short moratorium--and let me tell you about moratoriums. I can tell you as a matter of fact that no applications have been opened up and files created in visa offices since January because of the new regulations. In March they're shutting down processing of applications because they're all going to study how to implement the new system and get training.

There is no business to the processing of applications put into force by Immigration Canada. I think you must direct it.

Â (1230)

I have made a number of recommendations and I have filed with you today a document that I had sent. I had a group of distinguished lawyers in Toronto help me come up with some new concepts for amending the selection grid.

I want to close my brief statement with immigration consultants. Ms. Sparling, I think I have attended each and every one of the committees and studies of immigration consultants in the 42 years I've been practising law. I for one have encouraged the licensing and regulation of immigration consultants.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are two aspects to immigration. There is the processing of immigrants, which is a paper-oriented system. There is the extension of visas, and people do need help with that in the various multicultural communities of Canada. But the judicial process, ladies and gentlemen, is a place that is highly legalistic. With respect, a judicial process is not a place for people to be represented by a voluntary association without the necessary legal and ethical training that lawyers get in the process. You can deal with lawyers. Would you want to have someone...?

Remember, a refugee who is appearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board has more at stake than a criminal who's charged with murder in this country. That criminal can only go to jail for 10 or 20 years. That refugee can be sent back to certain death.

This act--the regulations--permits uncontrolled immigration consultants to represent people in the judicial process before those types of tribunals. I have the greatest respect for Ms. Sparling and my good friend here, who's been an extremely competent immigration officer. They are competent, but frankly, in the legalistics of the judicial process, they are not qualified. That is my respectful submission, with all due respect to them, notwithstanding their great knowledge of immigration law.

The Law Society of Upper Canada has raised the bar substantially by creating an immigration law specialty committee, like doctors can have an ear, nose, and throat specialty. There are only 19 lawyers in the province who have that designation. I chair this committee. Your Immigration Act and your regulations have lowered the bar so that frankly, all your children could be immigration consultants today and represent a refugee who's going to be deported to their homeland for certain death tomorrow. Does that make any sense?

I have no problem with immigration consultants in the logistics of processing immigrants to the country. That's fairly routine, very good. I applaud Robin for suggesting that no non-Canadians should be able to represent people before the process, because we have no control. But to permit non-legally trained people to represent people in a legal process is really irresponsible, and it has to be addressed.

I have made some suggestions to the executive assistant to the minister. I've handed them out today. I talked about an inland landing class for people here on job validations. The business immigration program has been dramatically abandoned by the bureaucrats because the minister's directions were to get numbers up, and she got the numbers up. Elinor Caplan is the first minister in the history that I've been practising law who has met targets. She's done it, but at the expense of the business immigration program. We are losing billions of dollars to other countries. Business people are going elsewhere because it's too complex to get here. In the study I did for Sergio Marchi I recommended that business immigration should be dealt with in a businesslike way. They thought that was a great idea, but it's never been implemented.

I just dropped at your desk some of the tinkering we've recommended from the little committee I've been working on with the former minister. We've sent that up to the bureaucrats. It may be of some assistance to you.

The selection grid must be restudied. The situation of immigration consultants really is of serious import, and business immigration has to be addressed.

Thank you.

Â (1235)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mendel.

Again, thanks to all of you for your excellent suggestions. I don't think there's anything I disagree with you on, but I'm sure we have an awful lot of questions.

Mendel, just for the record, I know you're representing the committee. I don't know if the Law Society of Upper Canada is making a separate submission. Do I take it that you're representing both, or just the committee?

Mr. Mendel Green: The Law Society asked me, just as I've done in my paper, to indicate that I am the chair of the committee. I have circulated the request to my committee members. But I'm making my own personal statements. This is not the statement of the Law Society of Upper Canada. That must be clear.

The Chair: Thank you.

Questions. Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

Just before I ask a question, I might mention that it was an interesting comment there that being anti-Canadian is also being anti-Liberal.

The Chair: Hear, hear!

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'll just say that it doesn't necessarily mean that for a Canadian and a Liberal there's not an equal sign between them. In fact, most Canadians are not Liberals, thank heavens.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'd like to say...you talk about blaming the bureaucrats. Of course, the Liberal government decides in cabinet, I suppose, what the PMO has already approved. There's a system there. Don't blame the bureaucrats. Basically, they provide the expertise, but the responsibility for deciding is the government's.

I want to ask specifically...all of you have talked about the number system, that 80 is no good. You've worked various models. Tell us what it should be.

As to the issue of retroactivity, if you dismiss that--clearly, we should have a clear before and after date--what date should that be?

Concerning the regulation of consultants, Mr. Green, you did partially answer my question in that. I wanted to say that when we get into presentations before the IRB, I take it there's some dispute there where some consultants would feel they're very competent to deal with hearings per se. You're telling us it should be reserved for the legal profession.

Â (1240)

The Chair: Let's get to those questions first: number, date, and professional consultants. Warren, do you have anything on the number and a date?

Mr. Warren LLoyd: Well, I'm opposed to retroactivity in any form, so I think the new regulations should come into effect the day they're implemented. That date as of today is June 28. The reason is the reason I've explained and the one other people have talked about. The concept of retroactivity introduces an unpredictability, an instability, to the selection of both skilled workers and business applicants. We're not going to be able to attract the best people.

Canadian companies go abroad to recruit and they bring people in on an employment authorization. They can't bring them in for permanent residence because it takes two or three years, but they promise these people, once you're in Canada, we'll be able to get permanent residence for you. There has to be some predictability down the road.

Under the scheme that's being proposed, they would have to say, well, today you score so-and-so, but when you get here and when we apply for you, we have absolutely no idea how many.... Now, what very bright young executive is going to quit their job abroad, take their kids out of school and their wife from her job abroad, and move to Canada without having any idea whether this is going to be one year or twenty years? It just isn't going to happen, so I don't like retroactivity at all under any circumstances.

The other point you made was about consultants and hearings. I would only like to say that you're not required to be a lawyer in order to preside over these quasi-judicial bodies. But I certainly agree with Mendel that a person should not be allowed to appear before any body unless they're properly qualified and properly trained.

The Chair: What should the pass mark be?

Mr. Warren LLoyd: I would throw out the system altogether, the new one, that is. I think it is so fundamentally flawed that you can't come up with a proper number. I would stick with the system we have now and make modifications to it. I think using the pass mark as the control feature is disastrous, because every time you want to control volume and you raise the pass mark, you cut off all the people at the bottom, who are the very skilled tradespeople Robin is talking about.

Maybe the system now is too closely tied to the labour market, going occupation by occupation. There has to be some connection between the selection system and the needs of the Canadian labour market. You cannot just equate a PhD in geography with a person in another occupation. We have heard for I don't know how many years that Canada is short of skilled tradespersons, tool and die makers and others, but I've never heard of a shortage of PhDs in geography. There has to be some connection between the selection system and the labour market.

The Chair: Robin, pass mark?

Ms. Robin Seligman: In terms of a pass mark, again it's hard to give a number because I think you have to adjust the education factor to take into consideration two-year degrees or diplomas.

The Chair: I'm assuming we can rejig the system, which is flawed too.

Ms. Robin Seligman: Again, I'm just throwing out a number. You have to go through a bunch of scenarios, depending on what the adjustment is, but you're looking at probably between 70 or 75, I would think. Again, it doesn't make sense in a vacuum; it has to be depending on what it corresponds to.

In terms of the date, like Warren, I am totally opposed to retroactivity. The government has said it's too complicated to run parallel systems. I beg to differ. They're doing it right now. There are still applications that are in process under an old system that changed in 1997. What I recommend you do is you give the person the benefit of the doubt. You run two systems. You have it in your computer system. If you made it under the old system, you're okay. If you do better in the new system, that's great.

If the government is saying not that many people will be affected by the retroactive application of the law, which, with all due respect, is just not true, we predict 80% to 90% will fail. Then if they still think their system would accept these people under the old or the new, what's the difference? Run two systems and let them be approved if they work. It's only a matter of fairness.

In terms of consultants, I'll let Mendel speak to that issue.

Â (1245)

Mr. Mendel Green: Regarding numbers on the grid, we go back to your suggestion, what does the government want? If they only want married people with family in Canada, fine. I don't think that's what they want. If we could have some idea that you want a cross-section of humanity and people with bachelor's of science degrees from MIT or from the University of Moscow, then we could come up with a grid.

In the letter I've given you to Joan Atkinson, dated January 9, 2002, we've come up with some different scenarios. But again I can't answer that. Retroactivity...frankly, at one of the biggest visa offices in the United States the officers were asked to take their last 20 cases in which they waived the interview. By waiving the interview, this means it was a no-brainer; people easily met the point system. They assessed them against the new system. Of the 20 applications, the average number of people who would pass would only be four.

You should ask for that information. The bureaucracy just had that set up two weeks ago.

I don't understand the concept of that. In the real world of immigration, people who don't speak absolutely fluent English can't make this grid. Frankly, a computer scientist can read English or French, write English or French, but may not be able to conversationally speak English.

Again, before I give you a number, you have to know what you're after. Then you can easily deal with the number.

Respecting consultants, yes, it's true some of the board members are not lawyers. But I can assure you that the case law that must be necessary is extremely voluminous.

More important is the issue of conflicts of interest, the issue of professional ethics in the process. It may shock you to know that I see people weekly who have had personal information forms in the refugee determination prepared by consultants giving them stories. I'm not saying all lawyers are perfect, but ethically a lawyer can't do that, is not allowed to do that. If a lawyer finds that someone is lying in a process, he or she must withdraw from the process. There are so many ethical constraints on lawyers--and hopefully most of them are applied by them--that are not relevant to consultants.

So I say to you that in a judicial process that deals with reunification of families, refugee determination, removal of people who have been in Canada for many years, very serious legalistic matters, that is not a place, frankly, for people not legally trained, with all due respect to their knowledge. It's the totality of their experience that is important. The legal profession has that, and the public is protected by the legal profession.

The Chair: Jill.

Ms. Jill Sparling: I'd like to make a few things known about the regulation of consultants.

Parliament has already passed the bill, and the ability to be a lawyer and a consultant and to represent clients is in Bill C-11.

The Chair: It talks about representation, yes.

Ms. Jill Sparling: That's right.

Number two, the Supreme Court apparently agrees with us as well because they just ruled last October in the Mangat decision, which was specifically about a consultant appearing at a federal board and tribunal in British Columbia, that he was allowed to do that and that there was nothing wrong with it.

Third, the immigration appeal division in Toronto in any respect provides training five times a year for immigration consultants so that they can get their knowledge up to the level, some of them up to the level, where they can present and represent clients.

Fourth, the vast majority of commission employees who preside over these hearings are not lawyers. So is Mr. Green saying that the federal government has to replace all of their adjudicators and so on with lawyers?

Fifth, of course, the way you make a profession better is you regulate it and you set in place rules. Inside that self-governing body you have training sessions, you have specialist courses, to get somebody up to a level where they can properly represent.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you. Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say that the four of you had very excellent presentations and made excellent points. As a matter of fact, I've been extremely impressed by all your presentations.

There are two areas that concern me. One I've been questioning in the committee with almost all the witnesses I've talked with. I received a memo from David Rosenblatt. In case after case after case, looking at the old system and taking it to the new proposed system, in every case he has put forward--we're talking about people with fluent English, all kinds of really great qualifications, high levels, the academics or the privileged, it appears--they all fail the new system. It almost seems to be chronic in its elimination of average skilled people coming to this country for other than very high academic pursuits. That bothers me.

You've all made it very clear, so there's not much point in further detailing it, but I think you've corroborated what all of this committee has heard day after day. I don't know why the bureaucracy would set a scenario that seems to be so one-sided or lopsided. Possibly some of you might help me with that.

The second point I wish to raise is this. As a member of Parliament I probably have more frustration over consultants who more than anything I feel have botched, bottomed out, really caused a lot of immigrants major problems and major financial obligations with promises that were not fulfilled. All of you are strongly recommending a control on the industry that, in my experience over 13 years as a member of Parliament, is long, long overdue.

Robin touched on the fact that probably there's ill will in the department towards the consultants and as a result actions haven't been taken. But it seems to me it's a much broader concern for the Canadian public than the concern we have with some push-pull problems between consultants and bureaucrats. Why hasn't this been moved forward with a hell of a lot more energy by those who are in the field? You are the people who provide the energy, the knowledge, and the push. So why haven't you, in reality, pushed it hard enough to make sure this message you're giving us today rings loud and clear publicly? We don't hear this in the press; we don't hear it being proposed across the country. Parliamentarians do respond to public opinion. This has not been the public opinion. Yet you, as professionals, are coming along and saying it's about time. Where have you been?

Â (1250)

The Chair: On those two questions, first, as part of the answer, I just want, for the committee--and maybe the witnesses have something to add--to say this. Jerry asks, where did they get this notion about the kind of immigrant we need in this country? I think the administration told us they had some report or study that was tabled by HRDC that talked about the kind of immigrant we needed out to 2004-05, and it pointed to this exact model.

I'm just wondering whether any of you have seen this so-called study. Have you got these studies? The first question of Jerry's is, how do you think they came up with these numbers in this grid? Robin.

Ms. Robin Seligman: No, I don't think it's based on that at all. What I've been advised--and it's right in the regulatory impact statement at page 4508--is that it's an economic study. I don't know if you have it. It shows a graph from 1980 to 1996. What they did is they tracked income tax returns for new immigrants after they had been here for a year and compared them to the average Canadian's. What they saw is that the new immigrants were not holding their own; they were starting to go down a little bit.

What has been pointed out, and I think acknowledged, by the bureaucrats is that they know this information only goes up to 1996, so it's outdated. Not only that, with respect to the immigrants who were selected under that system, the system has changed, so we have no economic data on immigrants who were selected after 1997, when they implemented major changes. The whole basis is the best and the brightest.

We think, and I've heard it told to me many times by the people who are making these decisions, that the higher the education, the higher the income. That's where I, on behalf of the coalition, have come up with this concept where we think it's elitist.

Does it matter that a plumber earns $45,000 per year or a PhD might earn $55,000 a year? Is that what we want, the person who will pay more taxes or who earns a higher income at the end of the day? That, in my respectful opinion, after many years of participating in consultations with the department and with the government, is it in a nutshell, and it doesn't make sense. It's based on outdated information.

Â (1255)

Mr. Mendel Green: I agree with Robin. I don't think I can add anything.

The Chair: In our economic impact study or regulatory impact analysis, it's on pages 36, 37, and 38. There's very good information there.

Ms. Robin Seligman: But it's outdated. It's up until 1996.

The Chair: I put all kinds of question marks on there too.

Jill, do you have any comments on that one?

Ms. Jill Sparling: First of all, my comments are without sting, okay? But I made a presentation on regulation to this committee last fall, and you didn't even mention the need for regulation of consultants in your final report. It was not mentioned at all.

We have been very active in terms of radio talk shows and the odd radio clip. I have just done two or three in the last week. We have met with every minister going, we have met with every minister's staff save the present one, we have spoken to Mr. Mark over the past few years, we have spoken to Mr. Mahoney, and we have spoken to almost every member of caucus of my experience in the Toronto area. Some of our national members have spoken to people in Alberta and B.C. and so on. We have been to Mr. Clark's office repeatedly, we have gone to the Canadian Alliance, we have written papers, and we have met with ministers. OPIC has spent $150,000 going before the Supreme Court, first of all to protect our right to practise. They added me to the case when Mr. Mangat became a lawyer and wanted to drop out, just so we could answer this question of where we should be allowed to practise.

We have done more than enough. I would imagine that our association has spent at least $200,000, and it all comes down to this: I have to negotiate, and the college has to negotiate with the government. The government said, we can't negotiate with you until you form a non-profit corporation. So we take four months, and with the consultant groups we organize this College of Immigration Practitioners. Then they're no longer interested in talking to us. Then they say, well, you have to develop a national occupation strategy. So we spend another $30,000 on that, only HRDC can never quite get to the point of starting the first meeting. Then we go back to Immigration Canada, and the person who was heading the charge before has suddenly lost interest and moved on to different things. There has never been anybody responsible for the file, although I understand that somebody may now have been hired as of last Friday to take care of this file. Whatever rank they are, I have no idea. They could be junior, they could be senior; I don't know.

To say that we have not been out there slugging is I think unfair to us. We started this in 1991. We started out meeting with the department when they would not even shake our hand. They would not even exchange business cards with us. We have four or five educational seminars a year. We have expelled members for non-compliance with our voluntary regulations. We think we've done a lot. Why we're here again today in front of yet another committee is to say, if you ever wanted this to be accomplished, now is the time--without sting, okay?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I apologize if I overshot, but I would say this to you. I've never been approached by one consultant. I sit on this committee, and I've been here a while. I've been a member of Parliament for 13 years, and I've never picked up talk shows or support. They may do it in Toronto—

Ms. Jill Sparling: Well, I just did.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: And I represent a very ethnic community in southwestern Ontario.

· (1300)

Ms. Jill Sparling: Well, you know what? I've done--

The Chair: Just make it a comment. I don't want to get into a debate. The point has been made.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Again, I commend you for all of the positives you've done. I certainly would like to hear Mr. Green's comments about regulation, to get into that too, and what they may specifically be able to do. You made it very clear what they can't or shouldn't do, in your opinion. What should they be doing?

Mr. Mendel Green: I see no problem in them dealing with the selection process, assisting people in applying for immigration to Canada. Basically, those are factual situations. But again, I echo Jill Sparling's association's concern that those people be permanent residents and/or Canadians, and be controlled. That's very important.

Secondly, with respect to the judicial process, I cannot, frankly, see them there. I think there is more harm done and there is no protection for the public.

Parliament must decide, and now is the time for it to decide. All these hearings that Ms. Sparling has referred to have gone on, and I've participated in them with their association, trying to support some of their propositions. And you have two of the finest consultants in Canada sitting here.

But it's your obligation to protect the public of Canada. If you don't do it now, you're going to perpetuate what I suggested--and I've written this to many ministers in the past--which is gross negligence on the part of the government. It is a provincial jurisdiction. You may want to be in the position to say to these consultants, go to your various provinces, get licensed, and we'll--

The Chair: Don't lead us down that quagmire. We'll be here for another 25 years because of that.

Mr. Mendel Green: Something must be done, Mr. Fontana.

The Chair: There is a federal government, and immigration is our jurisdiction, save and except that we have nominee agreements with the provinces. But please, let's not talk about provincial governments.

Mr. Mendel Green: Just do it.

The Chair: Okay. Good. I like that. Just do it.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: When we had the new minister of Immigration before us, last week--it seems it was a month ago, but it was only last week--he ended his presentation by saying that he hoped the committee, after its consideration of the Regulations, would look at a code of conduct for those people, lawyers and non-lawyers, who offer services to those applying for immigration or Canadian citizenship.

We are not going to solve this today. At lunch time, we had a rather interesting confrontation. I think we will have time to reflect and to hear what people have to say. The last word has not been said, but the discussion needs to take place.

It is the first time that the regulations of an act are submitted to a committee. In view of the comments Mr. Fontana has been making over the last two weeks, I feel assured that the committee will take its responsibilities seriously and will, not impose but strongly suggest, major amendments, especially with regard to retroactivity and the grid.

You commented about the treatment of single applicants. Maybe I should consider sponsoring a bachelor, Mr. Chairman? It is an elitist and very discriminatory grid.

I just wanted to make those comments. I do not have any specific questions, because many things have already been said, but I can assure you that if this committee does not take strong positions about a number of rules that do not make any sense, I think I will resign from this committee.

[English]

The Chair: I agree, and I think our witnesses just said the same thing for the past hour, that they don't make any sense. That's why they're imploring us, asking us, begging us to do something about it.

Mendel.

Mr. Mendel Green: I just have one closing remark on this. As a lawyer, I could be disbarred tomorrow and convicted of cheating an immigrant, which you've seen so much of. Believe it or not, I could open up the next day and put a shingle out saying “Immigration Consultant”, and this bureaucracy must deal with me the same as they dealt with Mendel Green, QC, when he was a lawyer. There's no difference. Is there not something wrong with that? Do you, as parliamentarians, not have a responsibility to protect the public of Canada? I think so.

· (1305)

The Chair: Robin.

Ms. Robin Seligman: I would like to raise some other issues, if you don't mind. My big concern is that we've all focused on the same issues--

The Chair: Robin, excuse me, but we've asked a question.

Ms. Robin Seligman: Oh, sorry.

The Chair: The question is with regard to the consultants. We'll get to the other ones. I've read your brief. You have a lot of great ideas, and so far, no problem.

Jill, would you like to respond?

Ms. Jill Sparling: Yes. It is perfectly fine to have a code of ethics, but unless you can enforce it, it's meaningless, and that's what we've found as a voluntary organization over the last nine years. It has to have teeth. You have to be able to prevent people from earning their living ripping off other people, and to not deal with those people.

As I said, I can make available copies of what we sent to the department two or three years ago on just what I'm talking about.

The Chair: You know, Jill, that would be helpful, just so that we have a chronology, a timeframe. I know it's been dealt with ad nauseam; it's just that nobody wants to get on with it and just do it, as Mendel said.

Inky, would you ask Robin a question about the other great recommendation?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: If not, I will, because I was going to anyway. Go ahead.

Mr. Inky Mark: I'll start by saying, Jill, that I think the door is open for your organization to create a national self-governing organization. I guess what we've seen today is a difference of opinion on the legal side and the non-legal side. Perhaps there's room for creating two entities dealing with the one area of immigration, legal and non-legal. Perhaps “consultant” is too broad of a term. Maybe we need to be a little more definitive.

I hope the legal community doesn't object to the non-legal community becoming organized. I think that's in the best interests of Canadians, families, and people overseas. They need protection as much as anybody, certainly in this country.

That's really the only comment I have, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mendel Green: That has clearly been the position that I have taken, that the Canadian Bar Association has taken, and that all the legalistic organizations have taken. They must be controlled and regulated as they request.

The Chair: At least on that we agree. Everybody needs to be controlled, lawyers and consultants. On that, I think everybody can be agreed. The chair, too.

David.

Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I'm sorry for showing up late. Since I might have missed something, maybe Robin had a couple of other things she'd like to talk to us about.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Go ahead, Robin. Here's your chance.

Ms. Robin Seligman: There are other issues that I think are fundamentally important and greatly affect a lot of applicants that we haven't addressed. For example, under the present system, a Canadian citizen residing abroad, if they get married or if they have children abroad, can sponsor their family members while they're living abroad to come with them, which makes sense; they can come back to Canada if they intend to return.

Under the present regulations, under regulation 130(1)(b), a Canadian citizen has to come back to Canada and be living in Canada before they can sponsor their relative abroad. I don't know if that's an oversight by the department. They changed it several years ago to allow a Canadian citizen residing abroad intending to return to Canada to bring their family with them. It makes sense. I hope the committee can recommend that they continue with this practice, but they've taken it out.

We have a special provision in the regulations as well now in the operations memorandum. It's called family business job offers, which has been an excellent tool to allow small businesses to bring in a close family member to help them run a family business where there's an element of trust, for example, convenience stores, laundromats, businesses where there's a lot of cash and long hours.

Most of the people coming in under those programs would not meet the selection grid, nor do they meet the selection grid right now. But the processes work so that you're allowed to bring those people in. There are not huge numbers, but it allows family reunification and helps small businesses. It's been eliminated in the RIAS, the regulatory impact analysis statement. It says it's been eliminated because you don't need that any more; you get five points for an informal job offer and five points for having a family member.

Medical inadmissibility. This is a huge area. I know the previous panel talked to that.

What about now, though, if the parent you sponsor has high blood pressure, low blood pressure, Type II diabetes, asthma? All those people will become medically inadmissible. That's how the law is being interpreted right now with a more generous system.

What they've done under the existing system is say that if you will cost more than the average Canadian--and the average Canadian spends approximately $2,800 per year on medical services--you are deemed to cause excessive demand on health and social services and you are medically inadmissible.

Therefore, someone trying to bring their parents in with any of those minor conditions and age-appropriate or age-standard conditions will now be deemed to be medically inadmissible. So that has to be addressed. They have to be comparing the average of, let's say, a person who's 65. What would they be using in terms of medical services? Or there has to be flexibility in the system; otherwise you're bringing in people with the hopes that they can be reunited with their families, only to turn them down and say, “You're not getting reunited with your father; he has Type II diabetes and we don't want him.” These are very significant practical issues that have to be addressed.

There's something in there that deals with a 30-day reinstatement period. Right now if someone, for some reason, forgets to extend their student visa, or someone is on a work permit and they forget that it doesn't expire in March 2001, it's March 2002, or vice versa--they missed their deadline basically--you can apply for reinstatement of status and continue on, acknowledging you made a mistake; you're only human.

Under the present system, under regulation 19 and regulation 202 combined, if that foreign student misses their extension date they are deemed to be under removal from Canada. They will have to leave the country for a year before they can come back. That can't be in the best interest. People make mistakes, and you don't want to bar them from the country for a year.

Also, regulation 9 requires habitual residence in Canada. You apply only in the country of habitual residence. So someone who is perhaps temporarily in the United States doing business and they get offered a position to come to Canada, to work in Canada, an inter-company transfer, would have to go back to their home country, perhaps in India, the United Arab Emirates, or whatever, to make that application for a temporary work permit. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make business sense to require that.

Right now we have a system where you can apply wherever you like, and the visa officers assess the application based on the merits. We recommend that this be maintained. It just doesn't make business sense to do some of these things.

Thank you.

· (1315)

The Chair: Great. Those were some very good ideas.

Mark, and then Lynne.

Mr. Mark Assad: Thank you. It's been very enlightening.

Tell me, seeing your vast experience in this field of immigration.... Last week we had excellent presentations also, and what was brought to our attention is that in all the new regulations there was not one that acted, let's say, as a guide to agents of ours abroad, in our different missions abroad.

Do you feel that maybe some of the regulations should act as, as I say, guidelines to the agents? As members, I'm sure we've all experienced the situation where immigrants quite often have been refused. We get representations and we ask ourselves, what was it based on? It seemed to be purely arbitrary. Do you think the department should have regulations concerning the actions, not necessarily the actions, but--

The Chair: I think you're talking guidelines, right, Mark?

Mr. Mark Assad: Guidelines, yes.

The Chair: Let's start with Jill because she's been on both sides of the fence, so to speak.

Ms. Jill Sparling: Yes, they in fact do have a set of manuals right now that contain guidelines for how programs should be administered. Part of the problem, though, is that, as you know, things are different at every post. How policy is interpreted in London may not be the way it's interpreted somewhere else. So it's a continuing challenge for the department to find more and better ways to train officers in the manner in which the program should be delivered, the manner in which it was intended to be delivered, so that we don't have to put up with different answers from different visa posts. I totally agree with you.

As it stands right now, the department gets very upset with people who they say visa shop. People don't apply at an embassy outside their home area just because they think this officer is nicer or that officer is nicer. If you lived in Moscow's area and you applied as a cook...they hate cooks there; they don't like them. So you'll always find a cook from Moscow applying somewhere else where he thinks he's at least going to get fair treatment.

The Chair: Do you think your friends might like that better than the...?

Ms. Jill Sparling: That's right. Yes, they like coming prepared for the interview.

I agree with you. The guidelines are there. There has to be more adherence to them.

The Chair: Lynne.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: I wanted to make a comment that I think there's lots of room for both the governing body and the regulated...and as well, of course, we need our lawyers. I've had one experience with a person who came to my office and needed a lot of help. I searched for a good immigration lawyer. I thought I had the best and we had a terrible experience.

My one experience is equated to his many experiences with the other consultants. So I think there's lots of room, because as MPs we end up with a lot of that work in our office. I would love to be able to send you to a consultant, because I think our immigration lawyers have a lot on their plate. So I want to know what you recommend.

Mr. Mendel Green: I agree.

I hope I wasn't the lawyer you sent the individual to, but--

Ms. Lynne Yelich: I'd sure like to talk to you about the one I did.

Mr. Mendel Green: But when you're dealing with that lawyer, if he was negligent, he or she is protected by errors and omissions insurance.

I think the committee should also know that China has just implemented a licensing of Canadian immigration consultants. You have to post security for $400,000 Canadian in order to operate a consultancy office in China. The Chinese government had been consulting with our firm some time ago and have implemented this right now. So the problem is out there.

The Chair: Thank you all.

Robin, I was going to ask you a question, but my good friend David asked it.

All of you have been exceptional, but I want to ask something with regard to the section in Bill C-11 that talks about representation. It has been dealt with for ten years, and all my colleagues have been frustrated with this thing, too--and I think our committee has made recommendations. But it's the first time I've actually heard a minister at a first meeting come out and say, do it; we need some help.

I'm wondering whether it's just a simple matter of putting in regulations the statement that I think, Jill, you talked about right from the beginning, that they be qualified, trained, and belong to an organized or officially recognized legal fraternity, a consultants organization, or something, where in fact there is an association or a self-regulatory sort of regime in place that covers them, either, Mendel, as you know, for lawyers or even for consultants. But would that kind of general statement allow us to do that?

In the regulations, I'm sure we can't get into a code of conduct and everything else. That's going to be the framework by which CIC or the minister will then accept the person who's calling, or the representation made, by asking: Do you belong to the association? Are you a member of the bar in whatever province? Are you trained in immigration matters? Are you qualified? If they can say yes, yes, yes to those questions, then they're able to talk to them. If they're not, they'll say, goodbye, get your client to get proper representation.

Ms. Jill Sparling: That's exactly what we want to do with the government. That's exactly what we've been working for with them, and they keep backing away from it.

The Chair: But then I need a general statement.

Ms. Jill Sparling: I have it.

The Chair: Is it in here?

Ms. Jill Sparling: No, but I will go home tonight and get the whole thing sent to you.

The Chair: It would at least be a starting point, because there's nothing in the regulations now, and we need to address it. The challenge has been put to us by everybody, including yourselves. So it's a matter of coming up with a statement.

Maybe, Mendel, you can help Jill put together a coordinated and harmonious sort of recommendation that everybody can support--

Mr. Mendel Green: I'd be happy to.

The Chair: --without getting into whether or not it should be lawyers or consultants and whether or not I like the idea of at least having a Canadian connection, being a permanent resident or citizen, and, more importantly, how do we make sure the consultants abroad, who cause us all kinds of problems in our constituency offices, believe me....

Sometimes you can get to the Canadian consultant or lawyer, because you can actually go after them--as Lynne probably will with you, Mendel, after. But at least we can get to them. How do you get to the one who's in China, India, or eastern Europe, which we have all dealt with? That's a problem.

Ms. Jill Sparling: You may be interested to know that we had a verbal agreement with the government that when self-regulation comes into effect, they would refuse to deal with all people who weren't members of the College of Immigration Practitioners.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you again for some very fine work.

Members, we're adjourned until Thursday morning. Thank you for all your hard work.