CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

·

1310

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

·

1315

Mr. Allan Wise (Settlement Facilitator, International Centre--Citizenship Council of Manitoba)

·

1325

The Chair

Ms. Mira Thow (Member, Board of Directors, Jewish Immigrant Aid Services)

·

1330

The Chair

Ms. Eva Luk (English Secretary and Board Member, Winnipeg Chinese Cultural and Community Centre)

·

1335

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Emily Shane (Executive Director, Jewish Immigrant Aid Services)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Emily Shane

·

1340

The Chair

Ms. Mira Thow

The Chair

Ms. Mira Thow

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Mira Thow

The Chair

Ms. Mira Thow

The Chair

Mr. Allan Wise

·

1345

Ms. Eva Luk

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Eva Luk

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Eva Luk

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Eva Luk

Mr. Allan Wise

The Chair

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

·

1350

Ms. Emily Shane

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Mira Thow

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Mira Thow

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

·

1355

Ms. Mira Thow

The Chair

Mr. Allan Wise

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Allan Wise

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Allan Wise

¸

1400

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Allan Wise

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Mira Thow

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Mira Thow

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

Ms. Mira Thow

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

Ms. Eva Luk

The Chair

Ms. Mira Thow

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

¸

1405

Mr. Allan Wise

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Allan Wise

The Chair

¸

1410

Ms. Mira Thow

The Chair

Ms. Mira Thow

The Chair

Ms. Mira Thow

¸

1415

The Chair

Ms. Mira Thow

The Chair

Ms. Mira Thow

The Chair

Ms. Mira Thow

The Chair

Ms. Mira Thow

The Chair

Ms. Mira Thow

The Chair

Ms. Mira Thow

The Chair

¸

1420

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Mira Thow

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

The Chair

¸

1435

Mr. John Alexander (As Individual)

¸

1440

¸

1445

The Chair

¸

1450

Ms. Lynne Yelich

Mr. John Alexander

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. John Alexander

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. John Alexander

¸

1455

The Chair

Mr. John Alexander

¹

1500

The Chair

Mr. John Alexander

The Chair

Mr. John Alexander

The Chair

Mr. John Alexander

The Chair

Mr. John Alexander

The Chair

Mr. John Alexander

The Chair

Mr. John Alexander

The Chair

Mr. John Alexander

The Chair

Mr. John Alexander

The Chair

¹

1505

Mr. John Alexander

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. John Alexander

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. John Alexander

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. John Alexander

¹

1510

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. John Alexander

The Chair

Mr. John Alexander

The Chair

Mr. John Alexander

The Chair

Mr. John Alexander

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 028

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

·  (1310)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good afternoon. I'm sorry we're a little late, and a couple of our members are still getting themselves in here.

    As you know, we're talking this afternoon about the provincial nominee program and want to know what you think about it. Is it working? What more can we do as a federal government, not only in terms of immigration but in terms of the provincial nominee agreement?

    We had an excellent discussion with the previous panel and I'm sure this one will be just as good. We want to learn more and make recommendations as to how we can enhance our provincial nominee programs throughout the country. In fact, in keeping with the new immigration law that we passed last June, we were very impressed when we came to Winnipeg and got the message that you wanted more immigrants and were prepared to do a lot more with refugees. That's the message we continue to hear, and I want to applaud you for all of your hard work in terms of settlement programs as well as the initiatives you're taking with your stakeholders and partners in terms of immigration and refugees.

    So perhaps we can start. We'll start with the International Centre of Winnipeg and Citizenship Council of Manitoba, represented by Allan Wise and Jorge Fernandez.

    Welcome, Allan.

·  (1315)  

    Mr. Allan Wise (Settlement Facilitator, International Centre--Citizenship Council of Manitoba): Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the other hats I wear in my life is that of an academic, so in a true academic fashion I'm just going to read through my comments, considering the five-minute limit, and I hope I will not bore you as I do my students.

    On behalf of the Citizenship Council of Manitoba, I would like to extend our sincerest gratitude for having been given the opportunity to share with you some of the points that we believe may improve the quality of partnership with both levels of government in providing comprehensive services to our clients.

    Being initially introduced to the skills shortage program, we find the Manitoba provincial nominee program is limited in scope to those professions that are designated as high-demand occupations by the province. Nonetheless, there are no guarantees that the high-demand occupation list meets the realities of Manitoba's job market, due to a lack of symmetry between the actual demand for employment and the speculative economic projections based on the standardized rates of annual economic growth. Consequently, candidates might find themselves in a situation where they have lost their employment due to the volatility of local job markets and the so-called lack of Canadian work experience, and are forced to move out of the province.

    Lack of gainful employment, of course, is not the only obstacle that undermines the success of the MPNP. Exaggerated and unrealistic expectations, in part due to misleading information provided by the so-called immigration consultants abroad or the provincial agents' eagerness to render the project a success, has often resulted in the candidates meeting with disappointment shortly after their arrival in the province.

    It is our sincere belief that the Manitoba provincial nominee program is a well-conceived, well-intended, and well-structured plan that could bring much to Manitoba's economy and its society. However, we respectfully submit that in order to ensure its success, the role of various stakeholders, especially the settlement service providers, should be enhanced.

    The following is a list of nine recommendations that would enhance, in our belief, the quality of recruitment, ensure the program's success, and, finally, aid the facilitation of the successful transition of the candidates and their integration into the community. I'm going to go through the list and I'll try to keep it short.

    Inclusion of settlement service providers on recruitment trips: In the past the government representatives have asked business representatives to accompany them on these trips, and we think as stakeholders we should have a say in this too in order to be able to give a more realistic picture to those who are going to be potential candidates.

    Following that point, we would also like to be a point of contact for those candidates who are willing and who are planning to make Manitoba their home, prior to their arrival in Manitoba. In the past our funders have told us that we are not funded for that purpose and we can only provide services to people who have already made it to Manitoba. We think that if we have access, or if we are introduced at the point of contact, in the future to the potential applicants it will reduce the amount of agony that they may go through.

    The third point is encouraging the local business to moderate their short-term employment needs with the province's long-term socio-economic goals. The goal of the MPNP is not to address short-term local market needs, as has been the case with sewing machine or hog factory operators in Manitoba, nor is it to promote a migrant seasonal worker regime. Rather, it is based on the realization that Manitoba's population growth remains significantly low as our population grows older, and other provinces like Ontario, Alberta, and to a lesser extent British Columbia, drain our human capital.

    We do also like to see some increase in financial allocations to the settlement services to assist the provincial nominees who come to the province. We do believe that speeding up the initiative to introduce a licensing body to prevent the exploitation of the potential candidates by the so-called immigration consultants at home and abroad is a very helpful measure. Also, we should extend the mandate of settlement service providers funded by the provincial government to reach the potential applicants overseas, as we have said before, to prevent them from being exploited by such opportunistic individuals or groups.

    We do respectfully submit that offering incentives to the potential and successful candidates to stay in the province of Manitoba by adopting a policy similar to that of the extended relative sponsorship abandoned by the CIC, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in the 1990s would allow the provincial nominee candidates and successful candidates to stay in Manitoba even past the time that they have lost their jobs, if they were to lose their jobs. Having that family support or connection within the province will be much more beneficial to the province's economy and its society in the long run.

    Tied to this past point is the notion of designating the Manitoba provincial nominee program as a skill shortage program. Identifying the program in simple economic employment-oriented terms undermines the inherent value that our country has placed on the value of human capital. It should be recognized that mere technical expertise may enable the province's economy to grow in relative terms; however, it does not serve the more cohesive and overarching societal need, that is, to create a community. It is our firm belief that it is the value of human experience that will bring about the pioneering spirit that strengthens our character and forms the very basis of our identity as a community and as a nation, allowing us to develop and to strengthen our socio-economic infrastructure.

    Finally, we would like to submit, on a related note, that the province should expand the potential pool of recruitment to include convention and inland refugees, among whom we can find a wide range of technical expertise as well as practical human wisdom, which can surely enrich not only our short-term economic gain but our long-term more substantial social goals.

    Thank you.

·  (1325)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Allan. I'm sure we'll have some questions for you.

    Now we'll go to the Jewish Immigrant Aid Service, and we have Mira Thow and Emily Shane.

    Welcome, both.

    Ms. Mira Thow (Member, Board of Directors, Jewish Immigrant Aid Services): Good afternoon. Thank you.

    I am a lawyer practising immigration law with the firm of Zaifman Associates in Winnipeg, and I am also on the board of directors of the Jewish Immigrant Aid Services of Canada and I'm representing them today.

    With me is Emily Shane, who is the executive director of the Jewish Child and Family Services in Manitoba. Through that organization, JIAS programs are delivered in the province.

    I provided you with a submission late in the day. I'm going to highlight a little bit of background about JIAS.

    JIAS is a national organization that was established in 1922 by the Canadian Jewish community primarily to meet the needs of Jewish immigrants and refugees who were arriving in Canada at the beginning of the 20th century. So we have a long history of meeting this immigrant flow. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was primarily Jews fleeing Russia and Eastern Europe. After the Second World War, JIAS was instrumental in resettling Jewish survivors of the Holocaust as well as significant migration from North Africa and the Middle East.

    JIAS plays a significant role in the Jewish community in providing reception, resettlement, and integration services. At the present time, we provide services in all of the provinces and major cities of Canada. We are supported and funded by the Jewish federations across Canada, and I believe you had a representative from the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg here this morning. So that would be one of the federations that supports JIAS.

    Within the last 10 years, JIAS has assisted Jews primarily from the former Soviet Union. There has also been a large component from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, South Africa, the former Czechoslovakia, the former Yugoslavia, and Israel.

    I've listed the broad range of resettlement services that we provide. We provide pre-immigration consultation, pre-arrival counselling, and resettlement counselling.

    One of the important things is we provide vocational preparation training as well as financial assistance and integration programs.

    So as Jewish immigrants are continuing to arrive in Canada, JIAS serves the Jewish community across Canada by providing the significant resources to ensure the long-term integration of newcomers into the communities in which they settle.

    With respect to the provincial nominee program, our organization recognizes this as an excellent program for selecting immigrants who will integrate into the province in which they settle. In Manitoba, as I'm sure you've heard this morning in regard to the delivery of the provincial nominee program, it's a mature program and it has been very successful. Part of what it has done is establish partnerships with community organizations such as the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg, and that organization, in turn, delivers settlement programs through the auspices of JIAS.

    The limitation of the provincial nominee programs, from our point of view, is that it is limited to those provinces that have entered into agreements.

    What I would like to recommend for this committee to consider is expanding the provincial nominee program to allow communities and organizations like JIAS to identify and select immigrants. This has been done in similar fashion by JIAS in the past. JIAS has been very active in sponsoring refugees from all over the world and providing integration and support for their establishment in Canada.

    Also, since 1991, JIAS, through an agreement with the federal government, has selected approximately 300 families from the former Soviet Union for immigration as skilled workers, not as refugees. Under this agreement, letters of support from JIAS have been accepted by visa offices abroad in lieu of proof of settlement funds, recognizing the commitment and role JIAS plays in supporting Jewish immigrants. Under the old legislation, if you recall, the settlement funds requirement was a discretionary decision that a visa officer made in order to determine whether the person was likely going to require social assistance. In lieu of that, the visa officers were accepting letters of support from JIAS.

    Unfortunately, under the new legislation, proof of settlement funds, as you know, is now a specific requirement that must be met by every family. They have to meet certain low-income cut-off guidelines. There's now no discretion, so an officer cannot waive that requirement.

    What I'm suggesting is that another avenue for broadening the provincial nominee program is by creating what I call a nominee-like program. Section 7 of IRPA allows the minister to enter into agreements with international organizations for the purposes of the act. Although we are a national organization, we are affiliated and work with our international counterparts across the world under the name, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. I would like you to go back and recommend to the minister that you explore this avenue of entering into an agreement with an organization such as JIAS--we call our international organization HIAS--in order to meet the need for selecting skilled workers.

    We have a need for skilled workers. Statistics Canada has just recently published that need in the country. Such an agreement would be consistent with the act as it presently reads, and because JIAS provides settlement and integration services, there wouldn't be a significant cost impact.

    This would be a way to extend the model of the provincial nominee program, which is limited. Many provinces are not signatories to such agreements. It's limited because of the nomination certificate numbers. It's limited also in other provinces to industry-driven types of programs or business immigrants.

    I'm suggesting that we expand the role of international organizations by allowing them to select immigrants where they're able to provide a level of comfort so that they will be able to resettle and integrate those individuals into the community.

    Thank you.

·  (1330)  

    The Chair: Thank you for those suggestions. I'm sure we'll have some questions for you.

    Next is the Winnipeg Chinese Cultural and Community Centre, Eva Luk. Welcome, Eva.

    Ms. Eva Luk (English Secretary and Board Member, Winnipeg Chinese Cultural and Community Centre): Thank you, Chair.

    Hearing my learned friends here today gives me a degree of comfort that even though we come at it from different vantage points, we still have a lot of common ground.

    We like to think that the provincial nominee program has been a successful marketing tool in bringing skilled workers and business immigrants to Manitoba. The good news is that the quota is going up each year, and we do have the numbers to show for it. But the not-so-good news is that we're the only province where the proportion of new immigrants to total population has dropped consistently over a period of 10 years from 1991 to 2001.

    In 2001 about 60% of newcomers to Canada were economic immigrants and their dependants. When I say “economic immigrants”, I include skilled workers and business immigrants. About 20% of newcomers to Manitoba were provincial nominees and their dependants.

    We see a somewhat consistent profile within the Chinese community itself. There's a growing contingent of immigrants from mainland China whom we respectfully call the Chinese scholars but who do not fit the stereotype of a blue collar worker. They're highly educated and trained in their field. Their skills are in high demand, and yet we're not catching them under the provincial nominee stream.

    So where does that leave us? You have my brief before you, and I've included a list of seven recommendations. All I'm doing this afternoon is highlighting a few things to give you a flavour of where we are and where we want things to be.

    Canadian organizations are grassroots organizations. We feel we're better equipped to respond to issues that affect the community as a whole.

    The Winnipeg Chinese Culture and Community Centre endorses the policy model that would allow community organizations like us to actively participate in the selection process. We believe that applicants who are referred to us and who are vetted by us and who are then recommended to the province will make for better candidates.

    The reality is that people will follow wherever the jobs are. The challenge is for government, business, labour, and community groups to work together and do a better job of matching jobs with skills.

    My hope is that if I can do so much as convince the committee that you'll keep an open mind in finding a made-in-Manitoba solution, I will have accomplished what I'm here for today.

    I appreciate any questions you may have.

·  (1335)  

    The Chair: Great. Thank you.

    Thank you to all on some excellent recommendations. I'm sure we will want to explore those with you.

    Judy, why don't you start this now?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I'd like to thank everyone for giving presentations today.

    We've been struggling with the issue of what kinds of recommendations we can make to the federal government to improve settlement services and to enhance and expand on the model offered by the provincial nominee program. So I would like to hear from each one of you on some specific recommendations we could take back to the Minister of Immigration that could be implemented on a fairly urgent basis, that don't need more study, and for which there's ample research that they could make a difference in terms of the kinds of needs each one of you feels arise.

    I know you've made some specific recommendations in your presentations, and I appreciate it all. I would like to put the question to you again, though, that if you had one or two things that we would take back to the minister, that you would want to see implemented right away, what would be your first and second choices?

    The Chair: Okay, Mira or Emily, do you want to go first?

    Ms. Emily Shane (Executive Director, Jewish Immigrant Aid Services): I think the first thing I would love to see is to have the turnaround time cut to about one-tenth the time. We're now seeing 15 months or 2 years, and for people who are accepted with specific job credentials, etc., well, things change over the years. So perhaps there is a way to shorten it.

    I've noticed that there has been recently that small attempt with sponsorship of spouses where the medical can be done up front. There must be mechanical things that can be done, and I would like to see that right off the bat.

    Then I would have to think...

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Before you go on, I'm glad you raised the issue of the turnaround time, because backlog seems to be a consistent issue we're faced with. There's another example right here within Canada where there's a tremendous backlog, and I'm not sure it's only resources that are going to fix the problem. Inland spousal sponsorship has now gone from 30 days for the approval in principle to 10 months for just the approval in principle, and then another 7 or 8 months for the actual permanent resident status.

    For that first 224 days, at least, those folks can't work, they can't go to school, they can't get health care, they can't travel. They're really in limbo, and it seems to me that we have to start somewhere with respect to these backlogs. And I don't understand, in this case, what the problem is, but perhaps you have some helpful advice on that particular issue or on any of the backlogs.

    Ms. Emily Shane: I noticed at the line level, rather than up there with the laws and whatnot, there's an issue of accessibility to the proper people at the government level. For us to try to get hold of anyone in Vegreville or Mississauga.... One of our workers has the secret number to one staff person, which she is guarding. Well, when that person is on holiday, that is a very major problem.

    When the CIC offices had more staff here, you developed relationships. You were able to actually go and talk to someone. Now it's impossible to sort out issues that are very small, at the time, just because you're not able to contact people.

    That's a concrete thing.

·  (1340)  

    The Chair: And number two? Emily gave us one.

    Ms. Mira Thow: Of course, I don't want to be limited to the provincial nominee program, because JIAS is a national organization.

    The problem with the federal skilled worker program that we have now, as my colleagues have identified, is that many people just are not qualifying now because of the requirements to have such high levels of education, to be single.... I'm sure you are very familiar with it. I don't have to reiterate all the reasons.

    In the past, the community organizations have been able to convince visa officers that, with our support, discretion should be exercised, and that was done on the settlement-funded side. It can't be done now under the substituted evaluation, subsection 76(3). It doesn't allow them to exercise discretion.

    But perhaps if agreements could be entered into with organizations, under the substituted evaluation, officers could be given policy guidelines to say that support from these organizations should be used to overcome a failure to meet the six selection criteria, because often they aren't able to meet the arranged employment or other criteria. That might be a way of identifying organizations whose track records and the services they offer show they're committed, and the government can be satisfied they'll be able to integrate and resettle these individuals.

    I would like to see a regulatory amendment that would award 10 points for that kind of support.

    The Chair: We did that. It's in there, but the administration didn't buy it. We will persist in that matter.

    Ms. Mira Thow: I know. But that's why I was hoping--

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's a good point, but we did hear from folks when we were dealing with Bill C-11, and our committee made a recommendation that we have points for community support. That's evident, and we are prepared to demonstrate it. But the government didn't buy it, so now we have to find another way.

    So your suggestion is subsection 76(3).

    Ms. Mira Thow: It says international agencies or organizations. That's a broad term. We have many organizations that have international arms and affiliations, which have in the past done it in refugee situations. That might be a very good way of meeting the need. I mean, provinces such as Ontario are not signing provincial nominee agreements.

    The Chair: Well, why don't we try a pilot project, Mira, with your group. You have all the parties represented here. We'll see whether or not we will test that subsection 76(3) in the international scene. I think you have a good hook there.

    Ms. Mira Thow: Give me any number right now. I know we could do it.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Allan, give me the top two recommendations.

    Mr. Allan Wise: Before I start with one of the points I wanted to address, I would like to apologize for not having said that my colleague here is also representing the centre. He's the coordinator of the settlement services, and by all means, if you have anything to say...

    One thing I wanted to mention--and it has been a problem, I think, both at the national level and at the MPNP, or Manitoba provincial nominee, level--is the discretion placed in the hands of the individual immigration officer who reviews cases. The problem I have is the last point, the suitability of the candidate. How can an immigration officer sitting in the post abroad determine that based on an interview, and in the case of the Manitoba provincial nominee program, merely with a phone interview? How is that possible?

    A lot of the applicants who have relatives in Manitoba.... They often come to us with the applications for their relatives having been declined, although the applicants have met one of the three requirements in the application--having family connections in the province; speaking the language, which gives them at least 10 points; and meeting all sorts of requirements, even having employment offers. Yet, under suitability, they have lost their points and their nomination has been declined, or they haven't received one.

    So one of our suggestions is to find a better method. I don't want to say again that we should be included in this part of the decision-making as well, but we should have more checks and balances when it comes to determining who is suitable to come to the province and who is not. It should not be placed in the hands of merely one individual.

·  (1345)  

    Ms. Eva Luk: I'm going back to the member's point about resources. I certainly agree that resources are not the panacea for all the problems, but I think management resources is one thing and management of the resources is another thing. At least it would go a long way towards reducing the turnaround time, which for us in terms of Beijing is taking anywhere from 18 to.... I'm talking about the fast-track nominee.

    A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

    Ms. Eva Luk: Yes, two years.

    But that's unacceptable for employers who are sitting in the background waiting for the foreign workers to come along.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: [Inaudible—Editor ] ...the number of people coming from China? From the most recent statistics, China is number one in terms of numbers of people coming to Canada. As for Manitoba, I think it's one of the top three or four countries. And so—

    Ms. Eva Luk: The numbers are still very low. We only had 227 Chinese immigrants last year.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No, but it's fourth highest--

    Ms. Eva Luk: Right.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: --in terms of overall source countries for people coming to Manitoba.

    From your perspective, what could be done to facilitate the process, besides beefing up the numbers in the consulate offices or the embassy in Beijing? What do we do to help tap into this obvious potential for our economy and society and for dealing with the kind of population concerns we heard from Manitoba earlier today?

    Ms. Eva Luk: I think we have to get the message out that the majority of Chinese immigrants are actually highly educated, because we have a population of one billion in China. The figures are staggering.

    So it depends on who you target.

    Mr. Allan Wise: In terms of Manitoba in particular, I would suggest we should ask the business community to put their money where their mouth is in order to get this expertise coming to Manitoba. As I mentioned earlier, in the past we have had one business representative travelling with the recruiters to a number of countries overseas. I don't remember the exact countries, but I think Argentina was one of them. This was for one particular segment of the work shortage in Manitoba, sewing machine operators or maybe hog factory operators.

    I think it's the businesses who should send scouts out there to start recruiting people on behalf of the province, in consultation with the province and settlement providers.

    The Chair: Andrew, do you have any questions?

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Actually, I'm just trying to get somebody to come to the meeting in Vancouver on this issue as well.

    The Chair: Good.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It hasn't come up a lot, but my question is this. There are a fair number of immigration consultants practising in Canada. I have seen some good ones who are very conscientious, and I have seen some bad ones. For some reason or another, we have not done any licensing thus far. The legal profession is licensed, but the consultants are not. So we can have anyone involved, from lawyers to people with social work degrees, and what have you, and consulting firms, to other ones that are really fly-by-night.

    What has been your experience in Winnipeg with consultants, and do you believe there should be a licensing of immigration consultants in Canada?

·  (1350)  

    Ms. Emily Shane: By and large, our agency's experience with consultants has been a very negative one. We've been doing damage control with people who have been taken either from their country of origin or some people here. Absolutely, you should license these people.

    I can relay dozens of situations where people have been sold a total bill of goods. We are involved with one family that has paid a total of $32,000 to consultants overseas and in Toronto. I'm getting an article from a Russian-language newspaper, where a consultant was advertising and saying that Manitoba is giving people $100,000 homes when they come here. A relative of a committee member of our agency called to ask, “Is this true? I'm coming too.” It's horrible.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: We all have horror stories.

    Mira, you're in a legal firm and deal with immigration matters. Do you facilitate people coming over? There are a fair number of lawyers who actually work in this area.

    Ms. Mira Thow: Our firm, Zaifman Associates, does only immigration law in Manitoba. I think we're the largest firm in the province doing only this practice. But we are licensed, and we have legislation. The law society governs our practice, and complaints about negligence can be made to it. We also have an insurance fund for any moneys that are taken improperly.

    As you know, a committee is studying this right now and is expected to make recommendations by the end of March. I represented the Canadian Bar Association in the Mangat case, arguing unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court of Canada that the old laws should be interpreted to allow only licensed immigration consultants. Unfortunately, I was not successful in being able to get that position, which is why we're in this situation where we really need licensing.

    An issue will be who licenses, whether it should be at the federal or the provincial level. I'm hoping the report of the committee will give us guidance on this.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I take it that your firm does good work.

    Ms. Mira Thow: Well, I think so. We work very closely with community organizations and we ensure that we're knowledgeable and that we at least pass examinations.

    We don't have specialization in the province of Manitoba like they do in Ontario. But the law societies are changing. We're now going towards having country-wide, rather than provincial-wide, law societies. This is coming very soon. They will be national. At least, there are now specialized courses that have to be taken in Ontario to be able to call yourself an immigration lawyer. This is coming, and it's just a matter of time that we'll have that.

    There's no question that the client is protected. We have to disclose any conflict of interest, and we have to sign retainer agreements in which the client undertakes to ensure they do not make any form of misrepresentation. The law societies are very active in taking action against lawyers who are not ethical. Many such cases have occurred. Unfortunately, many of the disbarred lawyers then become immigration consultants.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I think it's an important point, to the extent that every one of us members of Parliament has had people come to us who have been fleeced by unscrupulous consultants. If it is the case that somebody has to be returned, or turned out of the country, it would be kind of nice if they could go with some money in their pockets instead of being bilked until they are broke.

    My feeling is that I have dealt with good consultants and I have dealt with pretty bad consultants.

    Thank you.

·  (1355)  

    Ms. Mira Thow: Good consultants will be able to meet the criteria.

    The Chair: Good cream always rises to the top.

    Allan.

    Mr. Allan Wise: Perhaps I could also address that. We also have had very negative experiences--unfortunately, I have to say, more negative experiences than positive experiences--with immigration consultants overseas and in Manitoba.

    Is there a need for licensing? Yes, we have mentioned in our recommendations that there is definitely a need for licensing. But who should license it, the federal government, the provincial government, or the professional body? With all due respect to my colleague in the legal field, I think it should not be left to the professional body for licensing. It should be done at the federal level so it creates a level field for everyone across the country.

    Who should become a consultant? I wish I had a copy of the application that goes to people who are applying for provincial nominee class. There is a brochure in it, and it says who should be a consultant. Right at the top of the page it says, to apply for a provincial nominee class, you do not need any consultants or lawyers.

    We've had an experience with a family from Korea who paid $16,000 U.S. to a consultant in Korea to fill out the application for them. The minimum requirement in terms of points is 55 out of a possible 105 points that they can gain. He had sent in the application with 20 points. The family arrived here on visitor visas. They came and visited us. They wanted us to go to the RCMP and follow it up, but it never went through, because they thought they could get their money back from the person and they went back to Korea to get it back.

    So we cannot really enforce it, but we like to assist people in getting their money back, or at least not to fall into the same trap as those people did.

    There are a lot of them here in Canada doing the same thing. But the problem is that people who have been wronged by these groups, by these individuals or the so-called consultants, are not very forthcoming because of the fear of reprisal of some sort or not getting their money, simply never seeing their money.

    So we definitely think there is a need for licensing, and those who are licensed should be people at least at the provincial level, the settlement providers who are funded by either the province or the federal government, so there is some sort of accountability.

    The Chair: Lynne.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I have a few questions.

    Allan, when you spoke about officers abroad, you said they don't accept some immigrants because of suitability. I understood that especially in a nominee program that seemed to be a given, that if Manitoba had put forward a name, it was a given that they probably were going to be given the right.

    Mr. Allan Wise: Maybe I wasn't clear. I was referring to the suitability at both levels. I was addressing it at the national level, like people who apply as business class or independent. There is a portion of suitability in the application for provincial nominee that is done by the officers here in Manitoba, and I was addressing that.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Okay, I wanted to clarify that.

    The other thing is, one of the problems we've found over there, or so they said, was that when it came to economic immigrants or family reunification, they seemed to have to put the family reunification ahead of the skilled workers. I just wonder what you think of that, if you think the skilled workers should be elevated above family reunification or that family reunification should always be first. Now it's becoming a big problem, because we do have a lot of immigrants, and there are a lot of families that want to be reunified.

    So I would like to hear from all of you what you think now, given the immigration levels. Should family reunification supercede skilled workers? Abroad, they are very concerned about that. They can't get a lot of the skilled workers here, and that could be why we have two-year waiting lists. So I'd like to hear from each of you on that.

    Mr. Allan Wise: Thank you for the question.

    There should be a balance in both. My suggestion was that if we do bring people in who have family contacts or there is a chance that they will stay here in Manitoba due to that family contact or family connection, or roots, let's say, it will be much better for the province in the long run.

    In our experience, a lot of people--I don't have exact numbers, but we could come up with exact numbers and provide that to you in the future--came here as Manitoba provincial nominee candidates and they were not able to find a job. These were couples who were both fluent in English. Both were professionals. As soon as they arrived here, they could not find employment and they moved out of the province. Most of them ended up in Calgary or Edmonton.

¸  (1400)  

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Also Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver.

    Mr. Allan Wise: That's right. But we have also had people who have come as families, and although the employment market hasn't been kind to them, they still have stayed in Manitoba, because they have brothers or sisters who had previously come under one category or another and they had that family support to stay behind. Year after year we keep seeing them coming back for services and we know that they are still in the province.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Mira, I also want to ask you if you have any help in funds, because your organization does so much with immigration--with reception, resettlement, and integration. Do you get any help from any level of government as far as funds go or support of any sort?

    Ms. Mira Thow: Maybe we can answer that in a second--

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: First of all, though, I do want to know the skilled worker versus family reunification applications and where they should be prioritized.

    Ms. Mira Thow: Well, as you may recall, there was a time in the Immigration Act when the family sponsorship class was much broader than it is now. The siblings that could be brought as dependants did not have an age limit on it. Then it went to an amendment where siblings had to be 19 years of age or younger. Now under the new act it has been increased. You can bring in siblings who are under 22 years of age.

    We have that family class movement and we award points both in the provincial nominee program and in the federal skill program for relatives in a broader sense, which now include nieces, nephews, step-aunts, step-relatives, and so on. But the problem with the family reunification stream is that it is a self-selecting stream. In other words, the family members are deciding who comes to Canada. It doesn't often taken into account the needs of the country.

    Skilled workers are an identified need that the provincial nominee program was set up in part to address. I think that is a very strong movement, but the problem is that it's not working well enough to bring in enough skilled workers. I think we have to use the JIAS organization and other community organizations to help identify more skilled workers, because we are just as able with our resources on the ground to select a skilled worker and be as likely to pick someone who will succeed in Canada as a visa officer based on those so-called objective criteria. We hope those criteria that have been pulled out will select persons who qualify. We don't know for sure. Community organizations are just as well placed to be able to select those kinds of skilled workers who will succeed. We have that resource. We have to broaden it.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: We'd all like to see the powers reduced at that level and you have more power. They will just do the background checks and the medical checks, and you do the selection. Is that what you are getting at?

    The Chair: Health and all the rest of it.

    Ms. Mira Thow: That's right. That's what I am suggesting.

    The Chair: Well, maybe they want to do the security and the health and everything else, and then that way you wouldn't have to do anything.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes, and I have another question after you are done with this.

    The Chair: Well, I wasn't suggesting that be one of our recommendations.

    Eva, did you have a question on the prioritization?

    Ms. Eva Luk: Yes, I did. Can the government at least try it on a trial basis and perhaps switch the priorities around?

    The Chair: Let me answer this. Lynne should know that, because she is part of the committee. We addressed this in our latest report after we went on our trip around the world.

    A couple of things. One is to rebalance the priorities for skilled workers so that of equal value to the country... You should know that Canada continues to have one of the lowest family reunification rates in the world at 40%, as compared to that in the United States, at 60 or 70%, and everybody else. It is in terms of prioritization that we did this, but I will tell you, I don't hear many Canadians saying that we keep families apart, and I think that's what Allan was saying, that if you have a spouse here working, with the kids and the other spouse still waiting to come over and be sponsored, we in fact keep them apart.

    Ms. Mira Thow: You did say over there--

    The Chair: Obviously, that's a priority that we have to make. But we said that skilled workers are important to this country and that we ought to give them some equal presence. Right now they were number three or number four on the list, as compared to number one for family reunification. The provincial nominee agreements were about number three on the list.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I would like to hear a perfect model that you may have in mind if we were to try to set up a nominee program in Saskatchewan. What's a good model? What's a good balance? If you were to chart it, what would be the input at the federal level? Then there would be the provincial and the municipal levels and the NGOs and the business community. What would be a good balance?

    You've already said, Mira, that you'd like to see your organization, many organizations like yours, more involved. So the federal would just more or less be the resource--money and handling the main program. But all of you would do the resettlement or make all the selections and resettlements.

    What would be a perfect model? Who would you involve? Would you have a board of directors? I'm wondering what a good model is and whether you have in your mind some type of echelon of how you would model some perfect program, given your experience.

¸  (1405)  

    Mr. Allan Wise: I don't have a perfect model. I'm sure I don't. But if I have been understood as saying that I want less federal involvement or something like that, I stand corrected. Actually, I want more federal involvement, especially when it comes to allocation of resources to the provincial government, to be disbursed amongst the settlement agencies.

    In my opinion, to strike a good balance you have to have a federal government that is not only allocating the budget, but is also hawkishly looking on to the provincial government, making sure that those dollars that are sent to the province for settlement are actually disbursed equitably amongst the settlement providers.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Do you have any doubts?

    Mr. Allan Wise: I don't have doubts, but I think there is room for improvement.

    This could sound as if I'm blowing my own horn, but, for example, as settlement workers or settlement providers we are--how should I put this?--seriously underpaid compared to our counterparts who are doing similar work with the province. I would assume that a good portion of the federal money that comes to the provinces pays for their salaries as well as ours. Most of the time we are the ones who end up holding the wet bag, as the settlement providers. I think there is room for the federal government to be more involved, as they were in the past, in settlement.

    The Chair: There is no way that a country is ever going to give up selection. No country in the world would give up that kind of sovereignty. So let's not.... But that's not to say that through provincial nominee agreements, through sponsorship programs at the refugee level, through interesting arrangements with community groups, we couldn't do a much better job of selecting immigrants. But to suggest that selection could be turned over to the people, that's not going to happen. No government in the world would ever allow that to happen.

    But is there a better working relationship? Of course. And I'll tell you how, because this is what we learned.

    I think all of you have indicated that the provincial agreement probably works really well, but you need to target and you need to market. What we found out when we travelled is this. Where is Manitoba? Let's face it. In China or in Europe or in South America, we have embassies. And the embassy can't play favourites, unless the provincial nominee agreement goes out and specifically targets and looks for people, as you do, who want to come to, in this instance, Winnipeg and Manitoba. Let's face it, the Canadian office in Argentina or in South America is trying to attract people to Canada.

    What we heard is that the provincial nominee parties need to do a lot more to promote and market their own provinces and their own cities, so that immigrants can choose where they would want to come. And the more successful provincial nominees, or provincial governments, are the ones--organizations, businesses, groups such as yours, groups such as Mira and Emily's--that especially go out and target and/or look for the very people throughout the world that they want, and they target their money.

    What we heard is that if provincial nominee programs—including that of Manitoba, which does it really well—did a lot more marketing and provided a lot more pre-information to potential immigrants, that would work. But that again is a partnership.

    The other question is one of resources. We have addressed this ad nauseam—and it is a question of resources. We need to find ways to put more and more people into processing applications. And yes, we've looked at central processing through Vegreville.

    You know that unfortunately one of the biggest challenges out there is to make sure the documentation is actually good documentation. We talked about unscrupulous consultants. Well, there are people selling degrees out there, and certification things, and one of the things we need to know and find out is that the person, when they're actually providing documents.... Again, we need to protect the integrity of the program, or else those consultants will get away with bogus sorts of applications.

    We need to improve a lot of that, but resources are the way we're going to do it. We need to process the applications. We found out that an average caseworker deals with 700 applications a year, so one caseworker can process 700 people. Well, when you have 10,000 or 15,000 or 20,000 or 100,000 applications in certain centres in Canada and only three or four people around the world, you're not going to be able to process that paper very quickly.

    So we need to do a lot better job, and that's why I suggested maybe the provincial nominee program wants to put in some resources of their own, as does Quebec, which has a separate immigration program with the federal government, puts resources of their own in specific countries to attract the very immigrants they want. We're looking for ideas like that.

    And, Allan, with regard to positive discretion, Lynne will tell you we sat in on interviews, because we actually wanted to find out what was going on. I was impressed that for the majority of our caseworkers including the new criteria was to give positive discretion. In fact, they were looking at ways of being able to say yes, especially in the provincial nominee agreements, because they were sort of designed for that.

    In fact, in a couple of instances I would have said no, but the caseworkers were saying yes, because they are looking eye to eye at that person and saying,we think they're going to work out in Canada; we think they're going to do very well. To give them credit, I think we want them to use more positive discretion, and that means letters of recommendations from organizations or communities, or family, or a job offer is going to help.

    Your experiences and the ideas you can give us will help us. I like the idea that you should be going along with delegations. I think that's almost essential, because once you get the immigrants here.... What we've heard this morning and through groups is that they need to understand what's going to happen from the moment they land at the airport and start their lives here. Settlement programs are very important to making sure they stay here and are retained. Anything we can do on the settlement side, I think, is very important.

    Can I just ask you this, Mira. One of the things you talked about is entering into agreements. I'm talking about country-wide ones, and section 7 allows for international organizations. That's why I suggested it: I think you have international organizations doing it. Have you suggested such a thing? In terms of where you would go, are you talking about a global agreement with the federal government that would allow your group essentially to look for potential immigrants throughout the world? How do you envision this special agreement? I know you do it with refugees and you do it in other ways, but how would you envision such an agreement or such a—

¸  (1410)  

    Ms. Mira Thow: JIAS identifies where the need is, where there is an influx or a need because of persecution or for other reasons, where—

    The Chair: No, I'm not talking about refugees.

    Ms. Mira Thow: But still, we have skilled workers because of economic changes in Argentina, for example. Just so you know, the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg does travel down to Argentina, does accompany the provincial nominee program, does make its own trips, has the website, and communicates, and with the assistance of JIAS does the pre-settlement counselling.

    There are two problems I'd like to address. Number one is that we need to increase the number of nomination certificates for the province of Manitoba. Second, you mentioned using discretion. I'm not sure, but you were probably looking at cases under the old system when you sat in on officers.

    The Chair: We had the new.

    Ms. Mira Thow: Under the new, there is no more personal suitability.

¸  (1415)  

    The Chair: Yes, there is.

    Ms. Mira Thow: No, there's just the overriding discretion.

    The Chair: No, I'm sorry, but it's called adaptability and it still has a point system. In fact, you can get 10 or 15 points for suitability and adaptability through questions such as, have you ever visited Canada and do you have relatives in Canada?

    Ms. Mira Thow: You get five points for relatives in Canada.

    The Chair: But there are seven different categories, where before there were only three.

    Ms. Mira Thow: But you don't have the overriding discretion of an officer to just say, based on the eye contact... Not under adaptability, because the criteria under adaptability say exactly that you have to have two years; you have to have either two years of previous study in Canada or one year of previous work experience. It sets it out. There isn't an overriding discretion anymore for the officers under adaptability.

    The Chair: I'm sorry, Mira, I beg to differ, but in fact it's already being operated on that basis. I was personally with the minister on two occasions--one in Cairo and one in Algeria--where in fact the caseworker wanted to know if there was positive discretion under the new law. It's written right there that they can exercise positive discretion in terms of the various categories. Yes, it's objective, but I'm saying that there is positive discretion.

    Ms. Mira Thow: Mr. Fontana, yes, they do it; they do it, though, under subsection 76(3), which allows them to exercise their discretion to substitute what would otherwise have been the points awarded.

    Under the old law, you had two ways of exercising discretion. Under personal suitability, you could just come to the decision that you were going to award 10 points because you believed this person would qualify. Now we do not have personal suitability and the six criteria for adaptability set out the only criteria you can apply.

    Under the old law you had it under subsection 11(3). Under the new law you have it under regulation 76(3), which says, notwithstanding the points awarded, officers can always substitute their own evaluation. The problem with that is it's a much more difficult thing for an officer overseas to say, I'm going to go against these objective criteria and I'm going to say that the point is scored. They have to get the concurrence of the officer.

    It was always--and I've acted in many cases in the Federal Court--the exercise of positive discretion under that subsection 11(3), which is now 76(3). It is an extraordinary power that these officers are more loath to be involved in. That's why I suggested we try to make that section have more meat to it by--

    The Chair: That's what the committee has tried to do, and we still believe that the point system.... I can only tell you, first of all, the old law is still being applied on those who have applied.

    The jury is out as to whether or not the new system is going to work much better. I don't want to talk about the point system, because I can't change it. We just introduced it.

    I want to talk a little bit more about a special arrangement. Why wouldn't you do it through your provincial nominee agreement, such as what you're suggesting, going out and seeking more immigrants?

    Ms. Mira Thow: The federation does it in Manitoba. We travel with the provincial nominees when they make their trips and we do it on our own. And that's how we identify...we have a website. They contact us. We have the pre-counselling connection right away, and then we refer them to the provincial nominee program.

    You had asked about Saskatchewan and what model should be suggested perhaps for another province. We would suggest continuing that kind of model in Saskatchewan.

    Perhaps the federal government could have a role at the table by bringing the organizations, when they're negotiating these agreements with the provinces...and suggesting to the province that they not limit the provincial nominee program to industry-driven selection.

    You have to remember that businesses and industry have a short-term view of what they need; communities have a long-term view. And by suggesting the provinces not limit themselves just to those who are selected by industry, but look also at skilled workers and work with the community to bring those people to their attention, they are saying they will integrate and select on the long term.

    The Chair: We were told by the people who were here before that the immigration council may very well be the vehicle by which all stakeholder groups can participate and be able to again, as we understand it, drive the provincial nominee agreement even further and enhance it, so that everyone is represented at the immigration council that's being set up by the province.

    Ms. Mira Thow: I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say “the immigration council”.

    The Chair: Your provincial government here in Manitoba decided to set up an immigration council to guide them and to give them input on how better to work with the provincial nominee agreement as well as settlement programs and other things.

¸  (1420)  

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: That's quite true. It was referenced in the Speech from the Throne. But there are no details around it ,so that should become apparent. Perhaps you'll find out more and you can tell us.

    The Chair: They're your brothers and sisters, so perhaps you can ask them.

    A voice: I've seen something about that coming from the provincial government. It was mentioned in the throne speech, the need for a council on immigration and settlement. But it's just in the very first stage of drafting the proposal for that council. It will be some kind of an advisory body...to the government on the whole process, from selection to adjustment and integration.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I'd actually like to find the information. I know we don't want to get on this, but Joe said we sat in on interviews, and we did. Both of us were in the same countries, three different countries. I have so much faith in those people. You wouldn't believe how much they weigh on the side of our country. I was so impressed.

    I would recommend, when you have such a thriving nominee group here, going over there and watching those interviews, because I'm like Joe; I would have thought, well, we don't need any more computer people, but she would tell me afterwards why they chose to let this person come into Canada.

    A farmer who was coming into Manitoba here.... I'm talking particularly about the Bosnians you're going to be getting into this country. We would kill to get them in Saskatchewan; we would love to get the farmers that you're going to get. I watched the interviews and I'll tell you this. You can have a lot of faith in the people who are doing your selection over there. It's fantastic, and I would recommend you go there and sit in on an interview.

    Ms. Mira Thow: I've travelled abroad and I've been to many of these offices, and unfortunately lawyers are not allowed to sit in on interviews. I would love you to make the recommendation that would allow us to do so.

    I would echo your views. I've known officers who have practised in this field. There are excellent officers overseas. In my area of practice, though, I act in the Federal Court seeking to review what I consider bad decisions. So unfortunately you don't see the bad decisions. I could send them to you.

    But as for the majority, there are excellent officers doing their jobs.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...know something we don't, or they see something we don't, from what I could see.

    The Chair: Is there anything further to add?

    If not, I want to thank you so much for your input. I think your recommendations are all excellent in terms of how we can enhance not only the provincial nominee program...because I think a lot of you have talked a little about how we can also better our immigration policy nationally as well as our settlement programs, which are so essential.

    Thank you so much for your input.

    We will take a break for 10 minutes or so before our next group of witnesses.

¸  (1420)  

---

¸  (1432)  

    The Chair: Colleagues, we're going to be talking in this session about the national identity card. I thank John for asking to be heard. I know this has just been put out there; in fact, the press has been asking whether many people want to talk to us about the national identity card. I'm sure it will happen, but unfortunately, because we were leaving so soon and we had put it out that we wanted to discuss the national identity card issue.... Perhaps more people would want to meet with the committee; unfortunately, time being what it is, there aren't more.

    But we're happy, John, that at least you read our news release, or heard about it, and wanted to come forward to give us your insight. So we appreciate the fact that you're here.

¸  (1435)  

    Mr. John Alexander (As Individual): Thank you very much. My name is John Alexander and I am a private citizen. I am appearing before you on the matter of the national identity card system. I could support the system, but I have concerns that are shared by many Canadians.

    I'll give you a little bit of my background, first of all. I joined the RCAF in 1958 and served until 1994 for a total of 36 years. In that time I served in Germany for seven years; I worked in Israel and Egypt with the United Nations. During those seven years I travelled extensively throughout Europe. That circle of travel, if you can use your imagination, went through Finland, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, United Kingdom, Portugal, Egypt, Israel, Cypress, Italy, East Germany, and all the countries combined in there. I was very lucky to be able to do this.

    Today I carry an ID card that is unique. Some of you may have seen one, but maybe you haven't. During my 36 years I had four different cards. When I originally joined in 1958 I had a card that carried a serial number. Later on in the sixties, when the social insurance number came into use, the service adopted that as their primary means of identification. Then in the late eighties and early nineties we changed to a service number, which is in use today.

    This card today is basically an identification card and is called a record of service. It identifies me to people. It is not a pass to get into anything, but it indicates that I served my country. I pledged allegiance to the Queen and obeyed all the orders of Canada and my superiors for that period of time. So it gives me a certain credibility when I offer it as identification.

    I believe there's only one member of Parliament that shares such a card, and that would be Mr. Art Hanger, who was a member of the RCMP.

    I have had a lot of experiences in foreign countries, and one thing I did observe is that a police officer or an official could approach a citizen or a visitor at any time and demand papers. Quite often this was done without even verbal words passing. The hand of a police officer would just go out, and the papers would be placed into it.

    In Canada you have legal rights. An official or a police officer cannot demand identification without cause. It doesn't matter how ridiculous that cause is; it can be demanded. An exception is under the Customs Act and, strangely enough, under the Highway Traffic Act, where no reasons are required.

    My concern with regard to this new proposal is, basically, what is the purpose of the card? Minister Coderre stated that it is to reduce identity theft, which affects 12,000 citizens in the amount of $2.5 billion dollars annually.

    Most of this theft is through debit cards, credit cards, and cheques. With regard to debit cards, I think we all have one, and we know how they're used. A debit card is swiped, you supply a PIN number into some kind of device, and that's basically the end of the transaction. No ID is offered other than the debit card itself. For credit cards, the credit card is swiped, and a machine checks on its validity as to whether it has been stolen or the dollar limit has been exceeded on that card. No ID is offered. You sign, and that's basically the end of it. As to cheques, cheques that have been stolen can be cashed, and they can be used for payments of various sorts. The signature is on the cheque. If any identity is asked for, quite often it's the production of a credit card, which could have been stolen also to match up with the cheque.

    If this identity system is a replacement for a passport to circumvent certain American laws that are coming into effect in two years, then the government must explain that's what this is all about. Currently, both Mexico and Canada are seeking exemptions to this law, which will require all visitors to provide either a fingerprint or a retinal scan of some sort.

    The U.S currently has no national identification system. If I could quote from the bill that created the Department of Homeland Security, “Nothing in this act should be construed to authorize the development of a national identification system or card.”

    Minister Coderre has stated that this card could be off-line; in other words, not connected to a database that is linked to a scanner of some sort. This is patently ridiculous, and it wouldn't prove that the ID card being presented belonged to the person presenting it. We all know how counterfeiters and forgers work today. We have many examples of false money and passports. Every kind of identity document that was ever made in the world could eventually be counterfeited. I think we all know this.

¸  (1440)  

    So this system, this card that says who I am, is very much like Popeye the Sailor Man, who said, I am who I am. You might as well write a note stating who you are and present that note. It doesn't make any sense. If this card is supported by a database and a scanning system, it could be useful. However, this government's recent track record in this area has not been very good. Witness the national gun registry, the social insurance number mess, and false and stolen passports.

    I will speak about the passports. We had 500 passports stolen from Beijing, I believe it was. They have never surfaced, and as we all know if we read any fiction, if it's about spies, they are always using Canadian passports. The authors are picking it up. It's becoming common knowledge.

    Some may say, well, that's just authors. It's an accepted fact. People have been found outside this country using Canadian passports, and they have been accepted, but they don't belong to them. They are stolen or forged, or whatever.

    We have the GST fraud and all of these things just recently. Also, I would like you to consider the theft of a hard drive in Saskatchewan recently, where up to a million people may have been affected. This whole sorry story is not totally known yet, as the hard drive was completely overwritten and the damage that this caused is still not known.

    In the U.K., the subject of identification cards rises with the increase of terrorism and falls as time goes by, only to resurface at a later date. Currently the United Kingdom does not have a national ID system, as I found out last night while in conversation with a citizen of the United Kingdom here in this hotel.

    I am very concerned that these hearings were so poorly advertised, and I do know the committee does not have the budget for advertising and had to rely on press releases. As a matter of fact, I found out about the hearings during last Thursday's question period and immediately went to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration site and sent off an e-mail. Bill Farrell phoned me on Saturday morning from his office to set up this meeting and to explain to me what was going on. Without that, the citizens of Winnipeg, and I don't know about Toronto, where you were on Monday.... Anyway, I appreciated the help from Mr. Farrell.

    If the government wants citizens to have an ID card, then it must state the reasons clearly. Last night during an interview on CPAC, Minister Coderre was asked specifically if he supports a national identity card. He stated, and I quote, “I support a national debate on the subject”. This is a poor way to have a debate.

    He also stated last night that the card could be voluntary. This makes no sense, as we all know what happened to the widely expanded use of the social insurance number card. It is estimated that there are as many as 1.3 million to 5 million more SIN cards in existence than people living in Canada.

    For instance, the first thing done after a baby is born is to apply for a social insurance number, open a bank account for the baby, and then start changing the diapers. It's true. There are many, many advantages to having a social insurance number immediately from birth.

    In conclusion, my basic feeling is that the need for a card does not outweigh the cost or the danger of a national identity system. I personally have carried a unique card for 45 years and would have no problems in adapting to a new ID system; others may not be able to accept the massive change proposed.

    Thank you.

¸  (1445)  

    The Chair: Thank you, John. As someone who just found out about it, I think you have given it an awful lot of thought, and so has this committee.

    We're at the beginning of the debate, and hopefully a lot more Canadians will become engaged in such a debate as to whether the country needs a national ID card—and more specifically, as you said, what the purpose of having such a card would be.

    We're entering this debate, and hopefully a lot more John Alexanders will let us know directly or indirectly what they think as we travel across the country, but, more importantly, as we continue the debate. We're not about to table a report in the next month or so; we're going to give Canadians a good opportunity to be engaged, and I'm sure that as more and more people hear about this debate they will do as you did and talk to us about it or talk to their MPs and let us know.

    Are there any questions? Lynne.

¸  (1450)  

    Ms. Lynne Yelich: Thank you. I just wanted to know whether, to your knowledge, there are ways that fraud can be involved in.... The minister has said all he wants is maybe a fingerprint or an iris scan and your name on it so that it proves this is you. Do you see where fraud could come in, if it's your fingerprint and you're in front of the registrar? Where would there be any possibility of fraud there? Do you see any?

    Mr. John Alexander: The problem I saw here was that you're presenting a card that says, I am who I am. That card can be manufactured—counterfeited, in other words. And the fingerprint of you, the person, will match the fingerprint on the card, or your retinal scan will match the biometric information on that card. My feeling is that any card can be falsified. You're presenting a note basically saying I am who I am. That's all it is.

    A supported system using an iris scanner or an automatic fingerprint identification system—of which we currently have 60 in Canada, by the way—would be much harder to overcome, in that you would have to get your false information into the system.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Do you think we'll ever need a card, as such, to travel?

    Mr. John Alexander: I can't say no. I hear where you're coming from. It's a very real possibility that it may become an international requirement, and that would require a lot of countries to agree on a lot of things that currently they don't.

    Passports are getting touchy. I did hear a member of Parliament—I believe it was the agriculture minister—stating that when he was overseas he needed other documents besides his passport. But I believe the reason for that was probably that your passport doesn't always show your current actual residence, and documents even as simple as a library card do give your current residence.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have one question.

    This is a question Joe raised at the beginning and you addressed in part; that is, what is this card supposed to fix? Leaving aside the fact that there could be an exorbitant, costly initiative, if that were not a factor, is this going to serve any purpose? We're told it's in response to U.S. pressure, as a result of the terrorist threat, that we need this extra security. Yet it doesn't seem that this card offers us any more protection.

    The best statement I read was actually out of the Free Press on February 6, which you probably saw, where it—I'm not sure who wrote it—asked the question, what is it supposed to fix? It's certainly not every problem in terms of the immigration system, and certainly not in terms of added public safety. It goes on to say:

No, the identity papers, like the latest public safety bill that allows for massive collection of bits of innocuous detail about any and all of us travelling across the border, go well beyond fighting terrorism.

They illustrate how deeply Canadians have slid into a narcotic-like nanny state, bowing to the inspired axiom that those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.

    That seems to sum it up well. I'm just wondering if you see any benefits to a national identity card at any point.

    Mr. John Alexander: I believe I stated twice in my presentation that the government has to be clear as to why this is required. I believe if the minister was clear as to why we have opened this discussion, the matter of debate would be much simpler. As Judy says, I think people would find this easier to accept if there is a stated necessity.

    To Ms. Yelich, who asked if it is a possible requirement, it could become a global necessity. It is possible. But that would only come about probably by a UN agreement that it is a requirement. I can't say whether that will ever be mandatory. But as we move more and more towards globalization, that is a great possibility. Just recently, there has been floated the idea of global nationality.

¸  (1455)  

    The Chair: Well, I would hope it's not driven... We don't know this for a fact, but I agree with you, John, that at some point in time one needs to start discussing why the necessity and what's the motivation. If the motivation is to try to appease the Americans by virtue of their Patriot Act or their Patriot II Act, which essentially wants to gather information on everyone who crosses, comes into, and exits the United States, then that's troublesome, because we are obviously responding to a country that is... I can understand their phobia and their concern because of September 11, but as you know, the United States doesn't have a national ID card. I would suspect that Americans who treasure their freedoms and their individuality as much as they do would not subject themselves to the intrusion, because it is going to be an intrusion.

    This whole privacy versus security and identity and theft and so on is a good argument, but I think it has to be put in the context of what we are trying to achieve. Right now we have Americans--an administration or at least some border people--who won't even accept our passport. And even if they do, they then even start to question the difference between a born citizen and someone who is naturalized. If you fall into a certain category, then they will turn around and fingerprint you.

    We need to go to visit our counterparts to ask them whether, even if we did present this national ID card with the best technology in the world--biometrics like crazy, an iris scan, a fingerprint--they would accept this card as being the sole identifier that gets you across the border any more quickly and whether or not other international governments would accept this card as opposed to a passport.

    Passports have been around for a long time. Every country has and needs passports. Can we improve the passports? We had some people say that perhaps instead of a national ID card, we need to make sure our passport is as tamper-proof as it can possibly be. Maybe we should get rid of the where-you-were-born aspect from the passport if in fact that is going to cause some problems with racial profiling. Right now, as you know, there are identity documents, and provincial governments are trying to find out whether or not their birth certificates, citizenship cards, maple leaf cards, passports... There is enough documentation to prove that you are John Alexander, but at the end of the day, as you said, you are who you say you are. Who do we have to convince of that?

    There are a lot of countries that have national ID cards, and this committee is going to look at that and find out how it's working or not working. But based on your experience of being in so many countries, and you raised it in your presentation, was it common practice in those countries that had national ID cards--obviously you were there on behalf of our armed forces--that they were readily used as a piece of identification, so that someone could ask you to identify that you are actually there legally and that, if you don't have a national ID card, then we are going to be very suspicious that there must be something wrong with you? Maybe it's issued to everyone who should have one, and if you don't have it, then they have the right to interrogate you.

    I'm just wondering whether or not there was a personal experience that you could enlighten us with.

    Mr. John Alexander: The experience I have was in the late sixties and late seventies. Strangely enough, a lot of what I noticed being proferred as identity was not the cards that we're used to as pieces of paper, and proper, common-looking passports. They were more pieces of paper, and over time they would become quite ragged and dirty and hard to read.

    As a matter of fact, once when I was in Paris, I noticed that there were street vendors offering to encase your papers in plastic for a small fee. I just stopped to watch what was going on, and I noticed that a lot of the papers were identity papers, but they were well thumbed and becoming worn to the point of being just about unreadable.

    What we're used to are these types of things, which are pretty permanent. In a lot of countries, all they have are pieces of paper, and not what we would think of as normal identification--which must be horrendous for those carrying them. They must protect them from theft or destruction, because then they would have nothing.

    Does that help a bit?

¹  (1500)  

    The Chair: Yes, but as far as on the streets is concerned--

    Mr. John Alexander: On the streets?

    The Chair: --and law enforcement officers, was it common practice for people in some very, very difficult times in the world where you attended?

    Those places were in turmoil, and in some cases they're still in turmoil. Did they serve a useful purpose in helping those governments and armed forces or law enforcement people deal with certain situations--that is, terrorism, or war, or certain insurrection?

    Mr. John Alexander: It probably did help them. Countries I visited typically had more police presence than we're used to.

    I was personally never asked--well, maybe once--to produce identification. Typically, I was in uniform or looked like a common, ordinary, run-of-the-mill North American tourist, not involved in nefarious activities. I did notice that most people who were stopped were a little bit scruffy, poorly dressed, not too clean, obviously without the wherewithal of a steady job or money, and could have been criminals or otherwise--or just being harassed. It's very hard to tell.

    But I did notice specifically the motion of an officer's hand just going forward, no words being spoken, and papers being produced automatically. It was just, bang, there they were and then sorted out from there.

    Does it help them? I really don't know. I would think in some ways it must.

    The Chair: I have one final question.

    If you had a national ID card and it was just to produce it to a person, another person, like me giving it to you--and let's face it, any document or anything can be reproduced, and I would agree with you totally--

    Mr. John Alexander: Yes.

    The Chair: --if it only served that purpose, how would that person know? You're not going to be able to test the iris or the fingerprint by just looking at it--and I think you identified that. So if in fact you want to verify that the card actually belongs to me and the person carrying that card is actually me and it's not a duplication, then you would have to scan it.

    Mr. John Alexander: In some fashion.

    The Chair: You would have to do that to verify that the card actually belonged to me, or scan my iris into a device that in turn would say that the card I was holding was in fact my card because my iris matched that card iris.

    Mr. John Alexander: Yes.

    The Chair: Then everyone would need a device in order to do it.

    Mr. John Alexander: You'd need a device of some sort.

    The Chair: So it's not only the card, then. It is a scanning device of some sort, used by shops, banks, government officials, and law enforcement officers to in fact authenticate that the person holding the card is actually that person.

    Mr. John Alexander: Yes. There are two aspects. There's the online one, which is connected to a database that is securely held. The other side, as Mr. Coderre said, is an offline one, which does as you say, that what's on the card matches up with the person in front of me.

    The Chair: But it's not connected to a database.

    Mr. John Alexander: It is not connected to a database. You need one or the other because, as you said, there's no way of comparison.

    The Chair: So a card by itself isn't going to serve a purpose unless you add an online or offline scanning device.

¹  (1505)  

    Mr. John Alexander: Yes, a device of some sort. That's true, and I think Ms. Yelich brought that up.

    The Chair: Andrew.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I think what was interesting is that in the report we got the other day—a big book, very well documented by this lawyer... You should get a copy of that someplace. It's a very good resource book. He put it together. It's hundreds of pages.

    The Chair: Morris Manning is his name.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It's a very good document.

    But I guess the game people—the fishing, the hunting people—can stop you too and demand ID if you have—

    Mr. John Alexander: They need a reason, I believe.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: No, actually they can even stop your car.

    Mr. John Alexander: Yes.

    The Chair: They can ask you how many fish you've caught.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: If you have a fishing rod in your hand, they're going to ask “Are you fishing?”, and there is a very specific purpose for that.

    Anyway, that book by Manning made mention of the fact that the Republic of Hungary turned it down. And that's interesting, because when it was communist Hungary they used to have it.

    What could government want to have this card for? Well, I want to recount to you a solely personal experience from my family.

    In Hungary you had to have a card. You had to produce ID, which was standardized, and you could not travel without it. When we made the decision to escape—or my parents made the decision; they didn't tell us—what my mother did, about a month before they were going to make the attempt, was go to the police station and say she had lost her purse, which had her ID card and my father's ID card in it. Why would she do this? The reason is very simple. It's because the first time you try to escape across the border they put you in jail, but then they have your record on the card, and they have a stamp on the card that you tried to escape. So the next time you go anywhere near the border it serves as an alert. Basically, it was designed to control people and keep people in. That's one of the purposes they had the card for. If you didn't produce your card or didn't have a card, you could be arrested; you could be taken in for questioning, and the government could put you through all sorts of harassment.

    Now, in the Canadian context, what could we be doing? Well, we have a very specific requirement in the new Citizenship Act that you have to be in this country for 1,095 days within a period of six years. If you have this card and it's a smart card and you connect it to a database, it would be very simple for the officials to track exit and entry, because every time you come into the country they could run this card on you; they could put the card in. I daresay they could also keep track of every citizen whenever we go out of the country or whenever we come back into the country. Some people will say, well, that somebody is on UIC and is claiming UIC, and they are in Florida although they are not entitled to be. It's a good thing to catch them.

    In my mind, if they realized the kind of database this thing could lead to and the kind of Big Brother scenario it could help establish—because every time people get paranoid, they want to have control—if they really thought it was true, I don't think Canadians would be supportive of it.

    It's significant that the minister didn't come out and say he believed in this thing. If I want to debate, he knows it's a hot topic. I think overwhelmingly the country is going to reject this, because there are too many possible uses for it, especially when you take all the information you have today and connect it up in a database. Privacy just totally goes out the window.

    Mr. John Alexander: I have to agree with you. I think probably the reason Hungary rejected such an idea was because of a backlash about what had already gone before it. That's most likely the reason: not wanting to become involved again. That's what I would assume.

    The interesting thing in Canada is that my brother-in-law, who is an immigrant from Britain, carries a citizenship card that proves he is a citizen. My friends--the refugees, landed immigrants, and so on and so forth--all have cards of various sorts that say who they are. You don't. I don't. I was born here. We don't get cards. You have a birth certificate card, and we all know they're pretty easily faked. But we don't typically carry it around with us. Well, some do, some don't. I'm lucky because I have a permanent one that I'm entitled to. But if you were born here, you don't get a card. You get it upon application, shall we say.

    With regard to your experience in Hungary, I think that's why they rejected it.

¹  (1510)  

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: The really ridiculous experience I had here in Canada, and this came up before, is that my passport expired, and I was supposed to go on a trip. So to do a quickie I said, just take my expired passport. The response was, no, we can't use your expired passport to issue you a new passport. What we want from you is your citizenship paper. My citizenship paper is 8 1/2 by 11, the easiest thing in the world to duplicate and use. But they insisted that was the only way I could get a passport.

    So it really does get totally ridiculous in terms of the rules and regulations around it.

    The Chair: We were just saying that maybe we need a national birth certificate. But you couldn't do that because under the Constitution the provinces have jurisdiction over births and so on.

    My clerk had the best idea. You said that at birth, before you get to the diapers, we're going to put a chip in everybody's ear, and then we can track everybody, and we'll know exactly who they are.

    Mr. John Alexander: I didn't say that. It was the chair of the committee who said that.

    The Chair: No, I didn't say that. It was Bill.

    Mr. John Alexander: Okay. Blame it on the clerk.

    I firmly believe that at some time in the future, and probably not that far away, that will happen. We probably will be wired. It's not that far out.

    The databases that Andrew referred to are just monsters. They contain your banking, credit, and medical information. The list goes on and on. Eventually, that would probably end up in one massive data bank. You're right, you can be tracked whatever you do.

    The Chair: Bill has been researching this. He tells me that in some cases they're already doing it with babies. Do you know why? Because sometimes they get the babies mixed up before they can get their footprint, thumbprint, and everything else. It's so that one baby doesn't go to another parent. They're scanning them now, for God's sake.

    Maybe the minister is ahead of his time. Who knows?

    Mr. John Alexander: It could be.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. John Alexander: Thank you.

    The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.