CIMM Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 13, 2003

1300

The Acting Chair Mr. (David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.))

1310

The Hon. Ron Osika (Minister of Government Relations and Aboriginal Affairs, Government of Saskatchewan)

1325

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Brent Cotter (Deputy Minister, Government Relations and Aboriginal Affairs, Government of Saskatchewan)

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Ron Osika

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

1330

Mr. Ron Osika

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Brent Cotter

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Brent Cotter

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Ron Osika

1335

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Ron Osika

Mr. Brent Cotter

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Ron Osika

Mr. Brent Cotter

1340

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

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

Mr. Ron Osika

1345

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Ron Osika

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

1350

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Brent Cotter

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Brent Cotter

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Brent Cotter

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Ron Osika

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Ron Osika

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

1355

Mr. Brent Cotter

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Ron Osika

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Ron Osika

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Ron Osika

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Ron Osika

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Ron Osika

1400

Mr. Brent Cotter

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Brent Cotter

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Ron Osika

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Ron Osika

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Ron Osika

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Brent Cotter

1405

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

1410

Mr. Ron Osika

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Ron Osika

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Ron Osika

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

1420

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Ms. Francisca Omorodion (President, Immigrant, Refugee and Visible Minority Women of Saskatchewan)

1445

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Benjamin Dolin (Committee Researcher)

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

1450

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

1455

Ms. Francisca Omorodion

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Francisca Omorodion

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Ms. Francisca Omorodion

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Ms. Francisca Omorodion

1500

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Ms. Francisca Omorodion

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Ms. Francisca Omorodion

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Ms. Francisca Omorodion

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 031

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 13, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

· (1300)

[English]

The Acting Chair Mr. (David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Minister, it's really a pleasure to have you here. You are the first MLA we've had, and I think that's very important because it shows the interest you're giving to this. From what I hear it's also a new portfolio for you, so you're stepping right into it. We're very anxious to hear your submission.

· (1310)

The Hon. Ron Osika (Minister of Government Relations and Aboriginal Affairs, Government of Saskatchewan): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to make a presentation on behalf of our great province. I had the privilege and pleasure of participating in a meeting with the provincial ministers in Winnipeg with respect to this very important issue to not only our country but to the province of Saskatchewan.

I want to sincerely thank you, the standing committee, for the opportunity to present Saskatchewan's views on provincial nominee programs and settlement and integration services for newcomers coming to Canada.

Saskatchewan has increasingly recognized the important contribution immigration can make to our province. This was in fact our motivation for creating an immigration branch in April 2001, so it's relatively new.

Today I will describe some of the major immigration initiatives we have undertaken in the last couple of years. In addition to my presentation I will be tabling two other documents for the committee's review. The first is an overview of our provincial nominee program entitled “The Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program”. The other is “Meeting Needs and Making Connections: A Report on the Saskatchewan Immigrant and Refugee Settlement Needs and Retention Study”, which is also a very important aspect of this process. This report on unmet service needs and causes of secondary migration of newcomers to Saskatchewan was just recently released following extensive study and consultation throughout the province.

If I may, I will speak first on the Saskatchewan immigrant nominee program, or SINP. The objectives of our program are to meet critical labour market needs that we are not adequately filling through domestic recruitment, education or training, and to bring immigrants who will develop and diversify our economy.

The immigrant program accomplishes these objectives through three different categories. There is a skilled worker/professional category that targets particular occupations in need across the province and can also provide and respond to individual employers who can show a particular unmet need. Second is a business category that will nominate individuals who will operate enterprises in Saskatchewan that will help diversify our economy. Third is a farm owner-operator category for individuals with the experience and resources to operate farms in Saskatchewan and who have purchased land for agricultural operations here.

In addition to these three categories we are also operating a project with regional health authorities that can nominate qualified foreign physicians working in Saskatchewan. I anticipate that this project will be expanded across the province in the very few coming months. Detailed descriptions of these categories and the physicians project are provided in the overview I will be tabling here today.

On our nominee program and provincial nominee programs generally, there are three key points I would just like to stress to the committee.

First, the province sees great value in having a made-in-Saskatchewan immigration program. The experience of the last 20 years suggests that the national immigration programs no longer serve our province effectively. Where Saskatchewan received over 2% of Canada's immigration in the early 1980s, our share dropped to less than 1% in the 1990s, and unfortunately continues to decline. Our share of Canada's economic immigration is even lower now at 0.56%.

We see immigration as playing an important role in meeting our labour market needs in the coming years, as it has done in past decades. The 2001 census data released this week indicates Saskatchewan's labour force is greying, and I say that from a personal perspective as well. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, we have the oldest labour force in Canada--I'm proud to be one of them and still here--and our population growth is not and will not be enough to meet our needs for an increased labour force pool.

Saskatchewan is not only a unique labour market that faces unique labour market challenges, it also has unique economic development opportunities. The nominee program gives us provincially defined immigration programs whose priorities and selection criteria can be tailored to respond to those needs, opportunities, and challenges. In addition, a made-in-Saskatchewan program allows us to more effectively market our immigration opportunities. We can work closely with our employers and communities to sell our province through a Saskatchewan program targeted to Saskatchewan needs and opportunities more easily than a more general federal program.

We can also provide a more user-friendly immigration service than is typically experienced through federal immigration. I say all of this respectfully; please don't interpret it in any way other than that. The nominee program staff are accessible to Saskatchewan employers who are interested in hiring immigrants and to applicants who may need assistance with their immigration applications. There are some frustrations in that process as well, and we have talked about those previously.

I want to say at this point how much I appreciate the efforts of the Minister of Immigration, Mr. Coderre, in this respect.

We can build partnerships with our local and cultural communities that can both help to recruit immigrants to our province and better support them after their arrival here.

Secondly, we see this nominee program as our province's main regional immigration vehicle.

I have been very much encouraged, as I just mentioned, by the efforts of the federal minister to promote immigration to smaller provinces and particularly to rural areas. Saskatchewan's first choice is to build the nominee program as a means of attracting immigrants to live and work here.

It is a major challenge for us, as a small province, to create awareness of opportunities in our communities among potential immigrants. We hope the regional immigration partnership that the Honourable Minister Coderre has initiated will find new ways for the federal government to assist us in promoting the nominee program internationally. As a matter of fact, I suggested to him that I would be more than happy to accompany him on a trade mission, a Team Canada mission, or whatever, to some of the countries that may be attracted because of the cultural communities that already exist.

As a son of Polish immigrant parents...I know we have large Polish communities, Ukrainian communities, French communities, and German communities, and I believe those are the opportunities we might have to sell to people from those countries to come and settle, as our forefathers did and as my parents did.

We have expanded the scope of this immigration program over the last couple of years and are beginning to see some of the results, and see it grow, happily. A closer partnership with the federal government in this respect on international marketing will be important as it continues to expand.

Third, the ability of federal immigration posts to expedite the processing of provincial nominees is essential to the success of these programs, and I'm sure committee members are aware of that. We recognize the challenges posts face in responding to heavy demands and backlogs.

However, it should be recognized that a substantial part of the attraction of nominee programs to our employers is a user-friendly approach and an expedited immigration process. Saskatchewan will be very supportive of any efforts the federal government can make to improve the processing times of provincial nominees.

If I may just speak now on issues regarding settlement and integration of immigrants and refugees, I'd like to suggest that the report I am tabling here today for the committee's review, “Meeting Needs and Making Connections”, portrays the challenges newcomers to Saskatchewan face.

Our findings are consistent with the experience of immigrants and refugees in other parts of Canada. But first and most significantly, meaningful employment and career opportunities are the most important issues facing newcomers. Our study has shown that newcomers to Saskatchewan are not unemployed, but underemployed. They are highly motivated to work but are unable to get past low-income service jobs, which in a lot of cases do not reflect the knowledge and expertise they bring to Canada.

Closely related to this issue is the adequacy of language training programs. Our study has again shown that federally funded language services available for newcomers fall somewhat short of the levels they need to move forward in their career. Language learning opportunities are needed at more advanced levels than are currently available, and ones that are directly related to employment, rather than basic conversational language skills.

We have also found that in spite of their strong career motivations, newcomers do not seem to access education and training programs effectively. Many of them have been unsuccessful in having their occupational credentials and work experience recognized in Canada.

Overall, the report suggests that governments, community-based agencies, and communities need to work better together to address the issues facing immigrants and refugees as they begin their new lives in our communities.

The report's recommendations commit Saskatchewan to creating a new provincial planning council on settlement and integration that will bring government and non-government agencies to address these issues and needs. It also proposes the creation of local settlement and integration coordinating committees in our four major communities to address program coordination services and service issues among the service providers.

However, ladies and gentlemen, I'd again be remiss in not pointing out that the problems go beyond issues of cooperation and coordination. The needs of newcomers will not be fully met with the level of resources currently being provided for settlement and integration nationally. Federal settlement and integration funding falls far short of what is needed to adequately prepare newcomers to work and live in Canada.

In Saskatchewan, our service agencies have been especially strained, with funding reductions of 10% and 6% over the past three fiscal years. We do not take the position that the federal government has sole responsibility for serving newcomers. In the past few years, Saskatchewan has directed increased employment and social service funding to services for immigrants and refugees. We will continue to look for ways to make sure our programming supports this important target group. However, we cannot make up the gap left by an inadequate and declining base of federal funds in this area.

Inadequacy of settlement funding is not just an issue for high-needs individuals and families, such as refugees, but it will also be important if we hope to make immigration a source of skilled workers for our labour market. It is also a serious concern with regard to the objective—which we share with the federal government—of increasing regional immigration.

While Saskatchewan is ready to partner with the federal government on regional immigration efforts, we also recognize that the smaller centres as well have limited resources for settlement purposes. In Saskatchewan there are only four urban centres that have funded agencies equipped to provide settlement services. Language training is extremely limited outside these four centres, and this presents a real constraint on the number of immigrants who can be expected to successfully settle in our province.

We believe that a greater investment by the federal government will pay dividends by ensuring that newcomers find meaningful jobs and successfully settle and integrate into our communities. We're proud of our communities. We believe that people who come to these communities, who immigrate or come as refugees, will find a great deal of welcome and warmth, just as people did when we first settled this great country of ours during the early 1900s. People were befriended and they were made welcome, and that's why a lot of them came and settled, particularly throughout western Canada.

In my closing remarks I'd just like to tell you that we know how important immigration has been and still is and how vital it is to Saskatchewan's past--it has been to the past--and we believe it will truly be essential for the future of this great province as well.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to make my presentation, and I'm here at your pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

· (1325)

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you very much, Minister.

I have to apologize, Mr. Cotter, for not welcoming you too, because you are actually a right hand, an important part, in this.

Mr. Brent Cotter (Deputy Minister, Government Relations and Aboriginal Affairs, Government of Saskatchewan): Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): We'll start off the questioning with Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I'm so proud of my province for having such a high calibre of witnesses today. When Bill said we might have to skip Regina because we only had two witnesses and that we could probably do it by satellite, I thought, oh no. I knew one of the witnesses was Liisa, who spoke earlier, and we have another one speaking after you, so I thought, oh, and I got on the phone right away. We now, I am very proud to say, have the only government representative so far in three provinces, and that's pretty cool for me to be able to say. I'm pretty proud of my province for coming out to this committee hearing.

It doesn't sound as if getting immigrants to come to Canada or to want to come to Canada is really that difficult, at least according to Manitoba. Apparently they have waiting lists and so forth. I know nothing about your nominee program yet. Have you compared yourself to Manitoba to find out how...? They're very successful, and it's reiterated through Europe. When we were there, we went on a trip visiting some of the European embassies, and they said Manitoba rocks with their programs as far as they're concerned.

Have you found out about the successes there? Where are you at with your program? Who's involved? Do you have a committee? Do you have groups such as Manitoba has? They have interfaith groups. They have local governments. They have such a concerted effort, and I'm wondering where we are in Saskatchewan with our provincial nominee program.

Mr. Ron Osika: We've recognized that Manitoba has had a great deal of success in their efforts because of their aggressiveness. As I mentioned, we're just two years into our program and are learning an awful lot as to how we can perhaps become more aggressive in attracting people through the nominee program in particular.

That being said, again, our belief is that we need to go out and sell ourselves. Perhaps Manitoba has been doing that throughout the different posts I mentioned. We have not been as aggressive, and that's why I encouraged Minister Coderre to in fact lead a Canadian mission to different countries where people might be amenable to considering coming to this country and to this province. I think that's how you do that. I think I mentioned the fact that we should be, through our foreign posts, through our embassies, perhaps doing....

We've launched a program in this province called “Our future is wide open”. I believe we need to do that not only here in this country but beyond. I do believe that we could then attract people by showing that we have people with cultural backgrounds from their countries who are here, who would welcome them with open arms, and who would create opportunities for them to participate in our cultural and economic activities to build a good future for the province.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Do you have a partnership set up? I want to get a vision of what our model is here. Do we have a partnership with the industry or the education sector, or right now is it still just the provincial and the federal...?

· (1330)

Mr. Ron Osika: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will defer to Brent Cotter.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you.

Mr. Brent Cotter: We have actually adopted a number of the ideas Manitoba has pursued and are moving along, to be frank, somewhat behind them. We haven't been as aggressive and we have not been as focused--at least initially--but we have entered into a series of partnerships with a number of the cultural communities and cultural organizations to assist us in marketing in target areas, whether that happens to be with the Ukrainian-Canadian community, the German societies, or whatever.

We've also had and developed good relations with the settlement organizations and are trying to build strength on partnerships with a number of the ethnic minority communities that have good connections with their own communities back home, a kind of diaspora connection, to help promote our province and attract people here.

What we have done as well is we've tried to take some of the ideas Manitoba has implemented. We are not at the same scale they are, but we've tried to adapt the ideas to Saskatchewan's needs and opportunities. For example, we do not have a large garment manufacturing industry, so it's not useful for us to go and look for the kinds of immigrants who have historically been attracted to, say, Winnipeg in order to work in the garment sector. We have tried to adapt our strategies and the directions we go in according to what we think the strengths and the needs of the Saskatchewan economy are.

If you take the immigrant nominee program, for example, the number of nominations has doubled in the last year, which suggests to us that we are going in the right direction. The agreement we signed with the federal government contemplates the program being able to be expanded significantly in the coming four or five years. Part of that is connected to better marketing and part of that is connected to using the knowledge and connections of community-based organizations in the immigrant community to help us reach into those communities internationally and attract people here.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: What have some of your biggest stops been? In Winnipeg we heard about the bureaucracy and the bureaucrats. If there was one thing that resonated from that meeting it was the fact that there is too much bureaucracy. It didn't matter who was at the table, whether it was the interfaith groups, the Jewish community, the townspeople who are responsible for counselling, or the integration or settlement people. They all said there was too much from the top coming down, with too many orders and too many forms to fill out.

I'm wondering, have you had any of that yet or are you still...? I think you are apologizing for not being at the same speed as Manitoba, but I don't think we can expect to be. I realize they have had this program, but what I saw was that they have so much local inclusion. There are so many people included there from some really strong groups, and you just feel the strength of the communities.

Mr. Brent Cotter: One of the things we need to draw in as well, in the way Manitoba has done, is the support of the business community. That is beginning to happen here, particularly in partnerships in key sectors that need skilled workers, for example. They see this as a process and they see us as allies in attracting those folks.

With respect to the bureaucracy, speaking as a sort of bureaucrat here, I say the more expedited the better. There are a lot of needs here that are unmet, employment needs in Saskatchewan, and we hear regularly from almost anybody who is interested in the immigration dimension that the processes need to be quicker, and we support that fully. We are a bureaucracy, but our interest is not in getting in the way but in facilitating the opportunities for people to come as quickly as they can.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: When the minister announced his proposals to compel people to move into smaller centres, what was your take on that? How far do you think that will go? Do you think he will indeed be successful in having immigrants move to smaller communities?

Mr. Ron Osika: Mr. Chairman, in response to that, I would prefer to see people coming to the province of their own free will, settling, maintaining their domicile, working, and continuing of their own accord without any stipulation that there be any kind of commitment. That would be the preferable way, and I'm not sure if there would be a way to insist. I don't think we want to do that. We want to allow freedom of movement.

So our challenge would be to ensure the communities to which these people have come would offer the amenities that would keep them there--the cultural support, the language support, the education, and the employment opportunities.

I know it has been difficult, not only in this province but even in the larger provinces, where you have your greater cultural communities congregating in major centres. People from other countries eventually, sooner or later, will decide they would like to be in the larger cultural community that they can belong to, as opposed to smaller communities.

Having said that, again, it would be a challenge to ensure that our communities provided all the essential support services and opportunities for people to want to stay in Humboldt or in Yorkton, in areas throughout the province.

· (1335)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: So it's safe to say don't compel them; just be there with backup and resources for us and we'll take care of having the people move in by marketing our province and through our simple hospitality.

Mr. Ron Osika: And afford them those opportunities they would be looking for in the communities in which they settled.

Mr. Brent Cotter: It's one of the reasons this study, I think, is quite valuable. It tries to find things the province can do. It identifies why people come, why they stay, and why they leave, so we can strengthen the motivations for people to come and the kinds of support they need, promote those and diminish the barriers. We'll never change the weather, but we may make it attractive for people to be here because they can find the line of work for which they're qualified, and they'll need to get their accreditation in place. If we can support that, we can become a more attractive location for immigrant people to come to.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Sometimes I think we have so much to offer that we should be the springboard for immigration and refugees.

I go back to my own village of Kenaston, a village of 300. We sponsored at least 15 people. Of course, they had to go on to better and bigger places and jobs, but for one thing, they remained in Saskatchewan because they found out you can have a pretty nice home in Saskatoon for a lot less money than in Calgary. They like the quality of life. Their children are doing very well. We have so much infrastructure in place, and the schools are half empty. We could be offering our immigrants and refugees such a valuable start in Canada when they come from a country that's war-torn.

One of our previous speakers talked about the mental stress. He talked about how important a community is. He talked about the language. Why do we have a school there, but our children can't...? You can't be over 16 or 18 when you sit in those schools. We have schools. We have teachers. We just don't have the people.

I think we should perhaps be looking at being the springboard, not expecting them to stay--though I'm sure they will. In Manitoba's experience, they say they have no problem with how many people want to come, especially if we target the agriculture-based countries.

Mr. Ron Osika: If I could just briefly respond, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think Brent alluded to the fact that they have some manufacturing opportunities.

When we look at Winnipeg, for example, and the population of Manitoba, over half a million--over half of the population--are located in one major centre. The other is Brandon, not too far away.

So when we talk about where people look for the ethnic and cultural support from people they know and can converse with, it's much easier for them to want to immigrate into Manitoba, because here's this big major centre and all our folks live there, in the larger cultural communities. We're spread out all over the place.

Mr. Brent Cotter: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can tell you a story. It's not really an immigration story, but I think it underlines the member's question in a way.

The mayor of Yorkton, Saskatchewan, and a small group of businesspeople, real estate agents, have made their second annual promotional trip to Alberta, to the Calgary to Edmonton corridor, to communicate to farmers and ranchers there the opportunities for relocating from Alberta to the area around Yorkton, Saskatchewan. They wanted to communicate to farmers and ranchers there the opportunities for relocating from Alberta to the area around Yorkton, Saskatchewan. Last year they met with 17 ranchers, five of whom sold out in Alberta and moved to around Yorkton because of the land values, the opportunities for cattle ranching, the chances for better profitability, and a variety of factors. They did the same thing this year. They expect twice as many Alberta ranchers to come.

For them, it underlined that we are not promoting—though not necessarily internationally—the terrific opportunities existing in this province, including even for people from other provinces. We won't take the mayor of Yorkton this year to England, but we are looking for opportunities to promote the terrific economy, lifestyle, and environment that a farmer who might want to relocate to Canada, particularly to Saskatchewan, could enjoy, and in the process get away from mad cow disease and all the rest of that.

We are seeing ways by which we can take the same set of values that the mayor of Yorkton sold to ranchers in Red Deer and do so internationally in key markets. I think we have hidden some of the light of Saskatchewan under a bushel barrel, and we need to remove the bushel barrel a bit.

· (1340)

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you, Brent.

Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): I am very pleased to have you here. There is certainly a real consensus across this country, and I think amongst all parties, that we need to increase the numbers of people coming to Canada.

I think we seriously have to look at some of the deterrents to immigration, because it seems to me that if we expanded the family class.... I know there are a lot of Ukrainians trying to get into Canada who have families right across the country, but a lot of them are on the prairies. The real benefit is that if somebody comes to join with other family members, the chances are they're going to stay here. If you're a Mennonite farmer coming from some place into these areas, you have your own communities to help absorb you. So this helps you with the smaller communities.

I think we have to look seriously at our rules and regulations on what one has to have to be able to get into this country, because this country has become successful through immigration. If we were trying to get the best and the brightest from Europe when we started Canada, I dare say there would be no Canada. The habitants didn't go into Quebec because it was the place to be in the world in terms of high society, but they went there because it was a land of opportunity. Yes, we want to make sure we can compete for the best and the brightest, but at the same time we have to see that the great numbers we're going to get are going to be from places like the Ukraine, East Germany, and places where they do not have opportunities.

Every province in Canada has such wonderful opportunities to offer. So I'm really pleased to hear you are working with your various ethnic communities, because the consensus is overreaching. You get it from politicians—who are usually not the first ones to come out with it—from labour, business, churches, and ethnic communities.

I think you guys are going in the right direction. Whatever we can do to help stop the impediments.... Keep in touch with us on what you identify as impediments in the existing regulations and policy and on how we can speed the process up. As we heard from the previous speaker this morning, it's very difficult because people don't want to put their life on hold for a year or two years to find out if they're going to be accepted into Canada. It's difficult, and they want to get on with it, and hopefully they'll do so in Canada and Saskatchewan. You've got a great province.

Mr. Ron Osika: If I may just respond, I thank you very much for those comments. You bet, we have a great province and a great country.

As Madam Member mentioned earlier, there are frustrations with the bureaucracy, the red tape, and the rules. We hear these frustrations as well. This issue was addressed at our Winnipeg conference. There is a need generally across the country to perhaps expedite verification of the documents of credentials of individuals who want to come to live and work here.

This would be a great help to my constituency office, where we get on the phone to call certain people because of roadblocks or barriers facing, for instance, a doctor who had emigrated and was working here but who could not bring his family here. It was stressful as it took months and months and constantly having to juggle professional responsibilities. Then from time to time, every three or four months, the doctor would go back to visit the family for awhile. The person would then get to the point of saying, “Well, there is no point in being here if my family can't be here”. These are the kinds of barriers we are talking about and the frustrations you have heard.

I do believe we can perhaps overcome them. But again, while overcoming them we must bear in mind the need for due diligence as well. The processes are put in place for a reason, but some of them perhaps may become more efficient.

The end of the story I was telling you about was that once we made direct contact with the immigration department in Ottawa and the details were explained fully on a person-to-person basis, someone was able to move things along a little bit. Everybody there is willing to help. I can't think of anybody who would want to prevent someone from coming to live and work here.

· (1345)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Regarding the rules that make it difficult for them to come, an individual in the family class can sponsor kids under 21 and parents, but cannot sponsor a brother, a nephew, or a niece. For example, I have this one case in my area I have been trying to deal with for years now. The chap wants to bring in his niece from India so that she can attend school.

Lynne mentioned they have all sorts of infrastructure in the schools. I'm sure there must be a similar situation for your area up there, where there might be a Ukrainian or a German family who might want to do the same thing. We really put roadblocks in their way, and we don't even give them visas in certain countries to come here. We have situations where if you happen to be from a visa-requiring country, it becomes very difficult for you to bring your relatives here if you get married, or difficult for you to bring somebody here if somebody dies.

I don't disagree with due diligence, but when due diligence gets to the point where it is hurting the cause, then we have a problem. It's humanitarian and compassionate to bring the parents in, but it makes more economic sense to bring the sibling in. We have to look at these things to facilitate them. Working in partnership with the provinces can only help the process.

Mr. Ron Osika: I totally agree. This is why I commend the committee for visiting and meeting with people from the different provinces. Perhaps at the end of the day, out of the mix of everything we have heard, we might pull out how we might overcome some of the difficulties, real or perceived, and improve the whole process.

So I really commend you for this. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Just as a point of information, the immigration committee has split in two. As we speak, half the committee is doing the east coast and this group here is doing the west. We're gathering information at around the same period of time, so we can have a concentrated effort afterwards in putting it all together.

· (1350)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I don't know why we don't have more opposition members here today. We did have two Liberals joining us, and our chair unfortunately had to--

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Our chair had to go back because of family sickness.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: We at least had three of you and only one of me.

However, the part you're going to play a very big role in, from what I see through our talks now, is definitely credentials and identifying, because education and credentials seem to be specifically provincial. You are going to have a big role in helping us get these different organizations, whether they're engineers or doctors, to recognize credentials.

Somehow we have to pull that together. One of our earlier witnesses alluded to why there can't be some sort of national standard for doctors to get into this country, so they could at least get in. When I know how short we are of doctors in this province, and you find out they're washing walls in Toronto or driving taxi cabs in Saskatchewan--when actually in their field they're geniuses--that's a very sad state for this province. Even if they worked in a hospital and washed walls, at least they'd be by if somebody were on the operating table.

I mean, think of it. Let's get some reality into this picture. Something's wrong here.

So that's one of the biggest things I see that you're going to have to address.

Mr. Brent Cotter: That's one of our top three priorities in addressing ways in which people can come and stay, be fulfilled in their lives, and contribute best to the economy.

It is a challenge dealing with professions and occupations that have a combination of self-interest and public interest in their mandates. Our plan is to work aggressively with them to try to address many of those barriers that disable people from living fulfilling lives here and as a result be less inclined to stay.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: So how are you doing with that?

Mr. Brent Cotter: We're starting by meeting with the occupational organizations. That is happening both intraprovincially and--

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: You have three top priorities. What are the other two? I'd like to know what would supercede credentials.

Mr. Brent Cotter: You heard the minister speak about the middle one, which was improving services. We are looking to the federal government to be able to be more supportive in that. We would also focus on economic immigration, and you may have heard the minister say that quite a small percentage of Canada's economic immigrants come here.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I have another question. I just love to have the provincial government at the table.

At two meetings we heard that there's different treatment across the country. I want to know how our province is treated by the federal government, if you see a difference from Quebec. I don't know if “treated” is the right word, but how different is their immigration agreement? Is it enviable? Would you like to have an agreement like theirs?

For one thing, one of the speakers in one of these cities mentioned that they certainly get more money per head than in other places in Canada. Do they get more resources or help from the federal government? Do you see any differences across the nation in the provincial government agreements? Are some of them better treated?

Mr. Ron Osika: I may have to defer that to Mr. Cotter for a broader perspective. Personally, I'm not aware of specific funding for individual provinces and/or any agreements or arrangements. There may be variances in some of the bilateral agreements with provinces.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: There's also mention in the transfer payments that some of them don't spend it on immigration. How about your government?

Mr. Ron Osika: We've been accused of the same thing in the health issue, as other provinces have. I could be defensive on that and say we spend it where we need it, where it's absolutely necessary. But we do want to live up to our agreements as well.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: The other thing I'd like to see is with the language classes; perhaps the money from the federal government for immigrant language classes should go directly to local school boards. I think we could deliver those services much better. I think attendance would be up. As one of our earlier speakers said, we don't even offer classes at decent times for some of these people who are out there trying to get a job.

We could learn so much from people like our previous speakers, for example, to please do things like that. Get some of that money that's transferred here and deliver it to the local levels for language in particular, instead of trying to set up a LINC program or a federal program for language classes that maybe only three out of ten can attend because it's not conducive to trying to raise a family or getting out there to find a job.

· (1355)

Mr. Brent Cotter: Maybe I can just come back to your question about the difference between federal and provincial. Quebec has its own special arrangement with the federal government, and it is a richer and more aggressive one. Beyond that, I don't think we have too much to say.

With respect to the Canada-Saskatchewan, Canada-Manitoba, and Canada-Nova Scotia arrangements, I think the design is comparable.

Our concern has been that once you get on a bit of a slope of declining immigrants coming to your province, which then triggers declining resources to support the services they need, you get on a kind of pathological spiral as opposed to a virtuous one. I think our interest, especially as we have become significantly more aggressive in Saskatchewan, is to get the federal government's assistance to get us back on the virtuous spiral of more resources, more immigrants coming, their needs being met, being inclined to stay, attracting family members, and going upwards instead.

In the larger context, the Government of Canada--as perhaps is true for provincial governments as well--is looking for opportunities to get more done with less or as little public investment as is necessary. But we are feeling somewhat vulnerable about the level of federal funding, as we try at the same time to turn around the decline in the number of immigrants coming to Saskatchewan and cause it to go up and strengthen their lives and our economy.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): We're running short of time. I have a couple of questions myself, just before we touch on another subject.

You mentioned in your three categories the farm owner-operator category. Are you aiming that toward family farms and maybe trying to discourage the big factory farms? Is there any thought in that direction?

Mr. Ron Osika: We have a farmland security board that reviews applications for foreign land ownership. People immigrating to the province are allowed to purchase land that they are going to live on and farm. There are some restrictions on corporate farming operations, so I'm not sure if that answers your question.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Is favouritism given toward family farms?

Mr. Ron Osika: Yes.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Okay, that's great.

You mentioned family farms or the farming category. You mentioned a project with regional health authorities that can nominate qualified foreign physicians working in Saskatchewan. Could you tell me just a little bit how that works?

Mr. Ron Osika: We have a tremendous working relationship with a representative of the Regina health district who is actively engaged and involved in the recruitment of physicians and medical professionals from other countries. This has been extremely successful for the local health district, and it is now being expanded to our other regional districts as well.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Are they directly involved in the recruiting office?

Mr. Ron Osika: Absolutely. That assists us with the other problem of accreditation because now we have someone within the health system who is participating and bringing forward the people we desperately need.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): I think that's an excellent way of doing things.

You also mentioned that you had no needle trade and that type of thing. But what types of industrial skills would you be looking for mainly, apart from physicians and farmers?

Mr. Ron Osika: Well, if I said no needle skills, there are some, but not to the extent that there might be in a place like Winnipeg, for example.

In manufacturing, we have a lot of farm manufacturing, farming equipment.

We need tradespeople for housing industry needs: welders, people in the skilled trades area, in which we have a shortage.

¸ (1400)

Mr. Brent Cotter: There is a surprising amount of small manufacturing scattered throughout the province and the kind of skilled labour that can support it. It's not rocket scientists, but it is welders and metal fabrication and those kinds of activities, where the economy is actually very strong and the skilled worker shortage there is hurting their ability to supply markets that are very keen to get the product--a number of those areas.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Do you find that you have any problems from unions blocking the accreditation of these particular skills?

Mr. Brent Cotter: There are issues of accreditation in terms of whether we have the right ones to keep people and be able to use their skills fully.

Some of the problems tend to be that the needs become immediate for employers, and our experience has been that it has been harder to actually get the people here quickly than the issue of unions.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Okay. I guess I'll go into the other item that we'd like to have you comment on, and that is our national ID card. This is strictly just barely hitting the books right now. There's no bill or anything presently. We're just really getting a feel from people across the country of what they think of it. What's being looked at is a national ID card with biometrics on it, more than likely something like a fingerprint, a photo, an eye scan, or something like that.

So we'd just like your thoughts on that.

Mr. Ron Osika: I'm not aware, and I'm not sure we're fully enough apprised of all the details of this important issue that the minister is bringing forward.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): I should say there aren't any details at this point.

Mr. Ron Osika: Well, as you well know, people have increasingly become very, very sensitive with respect to how their personal information is recorded, where it's stored, and who has access to it. It has become more highly sensitized in our province in recent weeks--I'm sure you've heard of the incident.

So that will create a great deal of debate, I'm sure, for reasons that people feel that their personal information may in fact be available or accessible in places or to people who they would sooner not have them.

Then you hear all the stories about identification cards that are acquired, that are found here, there, or wherever. They could be duplicated. All sorts of questions are raised, and perhaps valid ones. There are issues that I'm sure will be debated, and I expect that the minister is prepared to debate them.

So I'm sorry that I can't offer anything other than--

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): I think what the minister had in mind is that we were going to do a little travelling and talk to people across the country. As I say, there's nothing on paper yet. It's just an idea floating right now, and he wants to get a little more detail, a little feeling of how it works. We're hearing both sides--there's no question there--many different aspects of it.

As I say a lot of the time, just look at credit card companies. Some people are worried about information. Well, the credit card companies have so much information on us these days, it's scary.

Mr. Ron Osika: There are few people who don't have credit cards.

One context that I had heard of, during a visit to Windsor and seeing the tunnel and the bridges with lineups, was to expedite borders crossings, particularly in the congested areas, and some of the discussions were about quicker access for people who lived on one side and worked on the other, that sort of thing--a card, so that as they drove through or by the bridge they would not need to go through closer scrutiny. That was something that was talked about some time ago. So this is being revisited and may have some merit.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Mr. Cotter.

Mr. Brent Cotter: I have one or two corollary observations. Immigration is a corollary element of the question of a national identity card. As I understand it, it would be relevant to all Canadians, not just immigrants, refugees, and the like.

One of the concerns the Government of Canada had following September 11 was related not only to American expectations for stronger security at the borders but, as an element of that, to ensuring the quality of people's identification documents. It was recognized in that discussion--and we contributed to that dialogue in federal-provincial meetings--that much of the national identity documents, say passports and the like, is based on provincial documentation. You get your passport through your driver's licence, birth certificate, and the like, which are developed and managed--hopefully well--by provinces and territories. So in a collaborative way there was recognized an interest in strengthening the quality and reliability of provincial identity documents that supported national- and international-type identity documents.

Speaking for ourselves, we were very supportive of that as an exercise as long as it was a collaborative one, where the Government of Canada was not telling us how we needed to manage birth certificates or drivers' licences. I think all of the provinces and territories felt there was legitimate value in supporting that national interest in ensuring that the passport issued to X was truly issued to X and that X was who he or she said they were. We've done quite a bit of work with the national government--not Minister Osika and I, but at least the provincial governments across the country--to try to support and strengthen the quality of the existing documentation.

Our sense is that Mr. Coderre's ideas would take that issue to another level, and we would certainly need to reflect on the details he or the Government of Canada had in mind before we had a definitive view. But we have been wanting to be supportive of the absolutely legitimate need for quality identifying documents since the issues came to the forefront.

¸ (1405)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Andrew wants to speak first.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: You certainly don't want to take a position on it before the minister himself takes a position on it. I can understand that.

I think you should have the discussion because it may open up a Pandora's box. We had our hearings in Toronto and we had one gentleman--was it Toronto or Winnipeg?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: It was Morris Manning.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Yes, Morris Manning, and he provided us with a huge quantity of documentation as to why we should not do it. I'm sure the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is going to have a hard time swallowing that one.

The one offer I made to Lynne in this whole area of a lack of physicians.... Before you go abroad in your search for physicians, I'm sad to say, come to my community. We have about forty people, internationally trained physicians, who have passed the Canadian medical exams but are really being kept out because they're not given the opportunity to intern. We're not talking about lowering any standards; these people have met the standards. It's just a sad case that in Ontario we're not doing our bit to accredit these people. When given the fact that in my community we have tens of thousands of people who do not have family physicians, well, it's a real tragedy for the people who don't have physicians, but it's a personal tragedy for the doctors.

I can give you an example. One is a surgeon from Bosnia-Herzegovina and his wife is a dentist, and they would go anyplace in Canada to practice if they were able to practice, but they have had no luck yet because they haven't been able to get licensed.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Andrew, we were on the ID cards. It's because we're in overtime.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Well, my comment was on ID cards, but I threw this in there because I don't want them running off to another country.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Maybe Lynne can ask her question and then you could reply.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: My question would be, do you really think we have the capabilities to even make an ID card? I think of our gigatext years ago in Saskatchewan, the land titles right now, and the gun registration.

I've made a complete turnaround. I was like you and the minister. What's wrong with proving that...? I travel a lot. I would love to have one ID card. I was for that until most recently, with what happened here in Regina. We have a social insurance number scandal that is really upsetting, and there's the gun registration.

My question is, do you think we could even do it? The cost for the registration...who would pay for it? Your government.

¸ (1410)

Mr. Ron Osika: You've raised a number of issues for which, I'm sure, red flags go up with some people. Again, the major concern right now is the personal information, where it's recorded and who would have access to it. Unfortunately, some of these incidents heighten people's skepticism about moving in a direction that may otherwise be good. It may have some merit. We can't keep up with our technology on a daily basis, but down the road in the not too distant future there may be a type of technology someone will be able to sell us where they'll say, no fear, you put whoever you want in charge of it, it's in this little case, and it's safe from everybody except those people who need to have access to it.

I don't have the answer, I'm sorry.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Well, thank you very much, Minister, and thank you, Mr. Cotter, for being here.

It's been a very good exchange, and it helps us a lot in the type of information we wanted to get.

Again, thank you very much.

Mr. Ron Osika: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I truly believe that with these types of forums, subsequent to meeting and at the end of the day when the reports are made, we'll all come to the conclusion our objectives are the same. How do we get there? The best way to determine how to get there is to have a collective pot of information, if you wish, and then to sort it out to pick the best.

We'll achieve our objectives; that's my belief. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): I agree with you totally, Minister. It's on the ground we find out what's really going on.

Mr. Ron Osika: Thank you for inviting us.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): We'll just take a five-minute break to play musical chairs.

¸ (1408)

¸ (1416)

¸ (1420)

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): We'll get started again.

I'd like to welcome you here. I will call you just Francisca. I find it easier. It's nice to have you here. We appreciate very much your coming to do a presentation.

Please go ahead.

Ms. Francisca Omorodion (President, Immigrant, Refugee and Visible Minority Women of Saskatchewan): Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. On behalf of Immigrant, Refugee and Visibility Minority Women of Saskatchewan, I wish to express our profound gratitude and appreciation for the opportunity given us to express our views on Bill C-18. I will proceed by highlighting areas of the bill where we have some concerns, and we will make some recommendations to the standing committee.

Immigrant, Refugee and Visible Minority Women of Saskatchewan is an umbrella organization for immigrants, refugees, and racialized women resident in Saskatchewan. We have chapters in other communities, such as in Saskatoon. The organization started in 1983. We have been in operation for 20 years and we have contributed to issues and legislation affecting women in particular.

On the issue of Bill C-18, I want to start off with the issue of knowledge of an official language and of Canada as a requirement for citizenship. We do not have a problem with that requirement, but we do have some concerns, particularly about women in our community who have problems with the acquisition of English or French as a language.

We want to explain more about this. Most women come to Canada as partners to their husbands, or conjugal partners, and they have little or no English. They are expected to acquire English, like those coming as refugees, within 1,000 hours. They have problems attending ESL classes because they have to work in order to avoid being on welfare. For some, the hours are too few to acquire a good grasp of the English language.

So we would actually recommend that using an interpreter in terms of knowledge of Canada should also apply in terms of language. We need some liberalization of that aspect of the bill in terms of women whose spouses can speak English and have knowledge of English, even though their wife may not have it.

The second issue is on renunciation and revocation. We saw in the bill that the two issues, renunciation and revocation, were treated differently. We also wonder when you revoke citizenship of an individual, for example, a spouse, how does that affect other members of the family? Does it affect the wife and the children? Is the wife allowed to stay in Canada? We need clarity on that. It's not very clear what happens to the dependants or the members of the family of an individual.

It could be vice versa. It could be the woman. What happens to the husband and the wife? If you revoke the citizenship of an individual, would you revoke the citizenship of every other dependant who came with him to Canada?

In the case of annulment, we also find that in terms of revocation and annulment orders that annulment was stated in a way that an individual does not get the opportunity to defend himself or herself. What we are recommending, or suggesting, is that the same clause on revocation that gives an individual the opportunity to a hearing or defence should be extended to the issue of annulment.

Citizenship is a very serious issue, and both annulling a citizenship or revoking a citizenship have serious consequences on the individual and the family. That's why we need to see, in a free and democratic society like Canada, the whole issue of the ability to make a representation before the judiciary and to provide explanation beyond reasonable doubt that you are not liable for what you have been accused--it should be provided to individuals.

In the bill there are a lot of places where it talks about free society, democratic society, and we believe that free societies and democratic societies are all based on the tenets of equity and social justice, and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is in our 1982 Canadian Constitution, protects these rights and freedoms. So we say that individuals should be given an opportunity to defend themselves beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are not liable for whatever reasons we have for revoking or annulling that citizenship.

That is closely tied to the section on denial of citizenship. We have clauses 21 to 28 talking about denial or prohibition, and you should look at the clause on denial of citizenship on security grounds.

There are two concepts, terrorism and war crimes. War crimes have been explained. But the concept of terrorism hasn't been quite as clear to us as was the war crimes issue.

Our question is, what is defined as terrorism? Does terrorism include acts of freedom fighters, acts by individuals who live under a non-democratic government? We need more clarity on that issue because there are people who feel oppression in their countries of origin and have to defend themselves through what some people might classify as terrorism, but it's not actual terrorism. There are a lot of examples all over the world in terms of ethnic wars, civil wars, so we need some more clarification in order to avoid any ambiguity in the use of the concepts.

Again, another clause like that has to do with the issue of indictable offences. Indictable offences are serious offences, and we are being told in Bill C-18 that if you commit indictable offences in your country of origin at any time of your existence, those could be used against you.

We are all witnesses as Canadians, and we have seen Canadians who have been framed and indicted for offences they did not commit in countries that are not democratic. So if individuals are framed and indicted for offences that they did not commit in undemocratic, authoritarian, military societies, are we going to use those types of offences against them?

I think we need to be clear on this, because it becomes a problem when you have individuals who live in an authoritarian government, who fought against undemocratic principles and processes and were tried or indicted for offences they didn't commit, only to find that they cannot get citizenship in Canada because of such offences.

Another issue there was the status of certain persons in Canada under administration clauses. We are not here to try to separate individuals, but we are confined. I know in the administration clauses there is a section that talks about the status of British subjects and citizens of the Commonwealth and Ireland. From our experiences in Canada, we would like to believe that British subjects and all other Commonwealth subjects are treated equally.

There is existing legislation that separates citizens within the Commonwealth countries. I will give you a quick example. In trying to get a visa to Canada as a visitor, British visitors may not require a visa, but some Commonwealth countries do require visas. This list keeps changing from time to time. Zimbabwe is added to that list. So grouping British citizens and Commonwealth citizens and citizens of Ireland in a category is a bit problematic. I think we need to be careful here so that people don't have the wrong perception of what the bill is saying.

The other section is the section on restriction on property holding. We were surprised to find that in this era of globalization, and Canada being a member of WTO and NAFTA, that we have a section that places a limitation on the properties of non-citizens. Globalization allows free movement of capital, etc.

We see it not being in consonance with the whole principle of globalization, and we think there is a need to revisit that clause.

So our conclusion on these clauses, clauses 23 to 28, is that we feel it entrenches the whole issue of equality and equity among individuals. We also feel that we need to examine these clauses in terms of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms; otherwise there is a contrast with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the Constitution upholds when dealing with people inside Canada as well as people outside of Canada.

The bill is still in the process of hearing...it hasn't been passed. Clause 55 is saying if you apply for citizenship today, the bill that will be passed later would be used to judge your application. Our question is, if that is the case, why don't we suspend application for citizenship until we pass Bill C-18, in order to prevent this retrospective application of a bill that is still in the process of being passed?

Then there is the issue of physical residence. We are appearing and are making representation here that physical residence could be defined in a social manner. Our reason for this is because it's possible for the head of a household to have a home in Regina, have his wife and children living in Regina, pay his taxes in Regina and in Canada, but be out of Canada and out of Regina most of the time because of business, but his residence is in Canada. When he is outside of Canada, in China or in Hong Kong, he stays in a hotel. So even though, as a person, as a human being, he is not here, he is here because we classify that person as being here in terms of income taxes, in terms of contributing to our economy, and in terms of our society. But when it comes to that person applying for citizenship, the bill is saying, no, you have to be physically here.

Our question is, are we saying we would prefer someone to be physically here, to be unemployed, to be on welfare, or do we want somebody who is economically active? I think you would have a definition for physical residence or residence in terms of customs and revenue. We should try to look into the whole issue of definition.

Then, on the adoption of children, it's a bit unclear to us. We do know some of the sections say if you are Canadian citizen and you adopt children abroad, the children become Canadian citizens. It's an issue we are not very clear about.

The issue there is, if I am a Canadian and I live abroad and adopt kids abroad, are the kids Canadian? Is it different if I am a Canadian and I live in Canada and adopt children abroad? We are not sure. Our own presentation here is that the citizenship of the parents in question, or the status of the parents in question, should be the status of the child, because if you adopt children and you are a Canadian, the children should automatically become Canadian.

What we are saying in a nutshell is that children adopted by Canadians should acquire Canadian citizenship in order to avoid any division within a family; for example, having a child by birth thinking he or she is different from the child by adoption.

Before I conclude my presentation I want to go back to the whole concept of citizenship. In the bill we are being told that citizenship is no longer a right; it's more of a privilege.

I remember my own case. I came here as a landed immigrant. The law was changed and you became a citizen after three years. I was very happy to be a citizen. One of the things that clicked in my mind was that I wanted to participate in the political process of this country. I wanted to vote. My voting rights were not there because of my status as a landed immigrant. I just wanted to have full rights as an individual residing in Canada.

There are people who have contributed to the economy and have been law-abiding, and they look forward to becoming a citizen as their right. They say, “I've kept the laws of this country, and I've contributed to the economy. I want to be a Canadian. I want to be able to carry the flag of a Canadian in any part of the globe.” We are saying if you come here you might not get it. It's not your right. It's a very serious issue for the individual who is aspiring to be a Canadian.

It's also a serious issue in the sense that we'd be creating two classes of Canadian citizenship. For those of us who became citizens before this bill, we're one class of citizens, and for those people who become citizens after Bill C-18, they will have their citizenship as a privilege, not as a right. I have mine as a right and you have yours as a privilege. So we're not the same Canadians. We might not think it's a serious issue, but down the road we see it being embedded into how we are treated when it comes to access to the labour market, education, etc.

Finally, I want to talk about the clause that is based on the values and principles of our society. We as a body would like those values and principles spelled out clearly so that everyone can understand and know them.

We would also like to suggest to the committee that those values and principles include the old issue of racism. We think racism is an important issue. It threatens the fabric of the democratic process and freedom in our society. Anyone who goes against the issue of equality and is racist in his or her actions should be denied Canadian citizenship on that basis.

I conclude, and I would like to read.

Immigrant, Refugee and Visible Minority Women of Saskatchewan see citizenship as fundamental to the operation of any nation, including Canada. For decades Canada became a place for security for the oppressed people of the world who lived under authoritarian, military, and oppressive governments. Canada stood out in the world as a place of refuge, a free and democratic society.

The observations and proposals we have given here today uphold the values and principles of a free and democratic society as well as defending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of all individuals resident in Canada. It is through our defence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the values and principles of any democratic society that equity and social justice will prevail.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

¸ (1445)

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): I thank you very much for your presentation. It was quite clear, and it includes items that we have heard along the way. It was not the first time. So this is good. It gives us a good indication of what is going on in your particular group of society.

There are a couple of things you did mention, though, that we could probably give you some answers for right away. As far as the renunciation and revocation--what happens to the spouse or children and so on--each case is individual. So nothing happens to the spouses or children in cases like that.

Terrorism. There is a definition of terrorism out there now. It is in Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. It's new. I've looked at it. I think there's still movement in there. I still think it's not the clearest thing, but there is a description that wasn't out there before.

I think there was one other thing that we could have cleared up--the adoption. Maybe Mr. Dolin could explain.

Mr. Benjamin Dolin (Committee Researcher): Certainly.

Children adopted abroad will have the opportunity to become citizens upon adoption, provided they meet the criteria in clause 9. There's not a requirement that they first become permanent residents, which is the current state of affairs.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): So there are just a couple of answers. Now we'll start with the questions.

Andrew?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much.

I'm glad you mentioned that you wanted to participate in the political process. It's very important, especially for those of us who came from countries where you couldn't have the opportunity to participate. For some reason the passion burns more within, I guess.

Just to give you some background that might differ from my colleagues, the incredible danger in the bill--I think you identified it. Let me start with the prohibition. It talks about denial of citizenship for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society.

Now, whoever wrote that section--and how this bill has such disregard for different sections of the charter--fails to recognize that the one thing we have consensus on in this country--and in the polls it comes out higher than virtually everything else--is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how Canadians feel about it. When they talk about human rights--who is going to protect human rights, civil liberties--they point to the courts, because the courts function in accordance with the charter.

So to put out that section on prohibitions and to have such an unjust way of denying citizenship or annulling citizenship or revoking citizenship, I submit, flies in the face of Canadian values very much embraced by Canadians. It has absolutely no place in a citizenship document.

My biggest problem with this whole document is that it talks more about naturalization and de-naturalization. It doesn't talk enough about what it means to be a Canadian and what we can do to really strengthen that identity.

In terms of denying citizenship, I came here from Hungary as a refugee in 1957. Then we were called freedom fighters. If the same thing were to happen today, we'd probably be called terrorists. If the Chechens were doing this fight back in 1957, they would be called freedom fighters. But since they are doing it today, they are called terrorists.

I don't know how Nelson Mandela would ever have qualified to become a Canadian citizen unless the Parliament of Canada made him an honourary Canadian citizen. There was still one member in the House of Commons who mistakenly thought he was a Communist and a terrorist.

I put those things out because the values that are represented by the charter are so very important. The fact that you want to participate in the political process, and you are participating in the political process, is also very important because it's going to take that kind of activity to make sure we have a Citizenship Act that respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One of our colleagues, John Bryden, is travelling out east--in the eastern part of the country--and one of the things he has been fighting for is to have the principles of the charter included in the citizenship oath. We have met a great deal of resistance to that. I cannot help but believe the reason we have met with so much resistance to that--and that's another place where we need your help--is because when you have the principles of the charter within the citizenship oath, it becomes much more difficult to try to ignore the charter in those areas that are problematic and that you have identified.

So I want to thank you very much for coming forward with this brief and let you know that this is a long process. We have been involved in this for four years. There was a section on Bill C-63, which ultimately was withdrawn, but it's one that should give all of us caution. It said that if citizenship was revoked by the current process, which doesn't give the protection of the charter, then the revocation of the dependant was up to a political body to make, namely the cabinet, so no right to any hearing. The revocation was made at the whim of a political body, namely cabinet, which made that law even more draconian.

In my situation, and this is what I have to deal with, had they found something on my father or my mother 50 years after we came to this country, then my citizenship had no value, had no meaning, and could be revoked. That just so flies in the face of fundamental justice. It underlines for me the importance that we can't compromise on the fact that we want the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we can't compromise on the fact that we want the presumption of innocence.

If Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo can get the presumption of innocence, so can every one of us whose citizenship might be under threat. If there's anything that makes Canadians equal, it's the Charter of Rights and Freedoms--that we all have the right to due process and natural justice. This bill is lacking in that.

So in terms of your political involvement, this is a battle that I hope you join, because there are many people across Canada who are fighting to improve this bill. Thank you.

¸ (1450)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I will say quickly, Francisca, that this is a really good presentation. All the clauses you brought forward are certainly concerns across the nation, exactly the same concerns about the bill, and they'll all be studied, just as you brought them forward.

Physical residence has actually been brought up. That suggestion was brought up in Winnipeg. I brought it up this morning and it was met quite favourably. So I was glad to see you brought up that issue of tying it to income tax and that you cited the help women need with language.

I agree with you, it's just not enough. I'm glad you cited some of the shortcomings for women.

I have a question--and we haven't touched on this point at all. You may not have any comment--I don't know when you got your citizenship or if you have been to very many citizenship ceremonies or through many citizenship applications--but what do you think of the new mandate for commissioners and judges? I'm assuming when you had your citizenship application you went before a citizenship judge. Do you remember?

You have your citizenship, right?

¸ (1455)

Ms. Francisca Omorodion: Yes.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Did you go before a judge? The mandate's changing now. You're not going to be coming before a judge. They're commissioners now, and they have a whole new mandate. Your application will be going through a bureaucracy. You'll never have a judge verify or validate you as becoming a citizen.

I just wonder if you have any opinion on that, or have you even looked at it?

Ms. Francisca Omorodion: My personal opinion at this point--because we haven't discussed this--is that for an immigrant who is unsure they want to be a citizen, when you face a judge, take an oath before a judge, the whole judicial process makes it more of a commitment to uphold the values in that oath than with a commissioner of oath or a commissioner of citizenship, whatever they are called.

I would prefer taking an oath before a judge rather than a civilian. That's my personal opinion.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you, Lynne.

I have one question to follow up on Lynne's. You mentioned that 1,000 hours of ESL classes are not enough for some women to acquire the minimum English skills. What would you suggest if that were to change? How many hours...?

Ms. Francisca Omorodion: Our suggestion is that if my husband can speak English but I can't, I shouldn't be denied my citizenship. My husband or somebody else could be my interpreter, because in that clause it says you can use an interpreter in terms of knowledge of Canada. So to us, then, language becomes questionable.

You know, when it says English or French, there's the whole issue of official language. I don't want to put official language in the act, but what I'm saying is that an attempt to understand English is good enough. I might know how to say “How are you?”, but I might not be able to read my oath of allegiance or say it in English. I could be allowed to say it in my language, which would carry the same meaning.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): I can understand very much the older members of the family, who have lived a good part of their life already, and the difficulty of learning another language, but a young spouse, say somebody in their late teens or early twenties, who is going to spend the rest of their life in Canada, do you not think they should have at least enough language skills to communicate?

Ms. Francisca Omorodion: Yes, I think they should learn the language, but what you will find is that it's always easier and faster for younger people to acquire the language than it is for older people. I'm talking about older women, especially women who are already married and in the labour market. But for younger individuals, if they have the opportunity to go to school, it's always easier for them. If you look at the refugees who are coming into Canada today, the younger ones easily acquire English compared to the older people.

¹ (1500)

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Yes.

I have one other point, which you've probably heard. We're looking at the possibility of a national identification card, a Canadian citizen card that would have biometrics on it, possibly fingerprints, eye scan, or something like that, as a means of identification of Canadians.

Do you have any thoughts on that?

Ms. Francisca Omorodion: We have a card already, a Canadian citizenship card. If we are improving on that, because of the technological age, I don't hold anything against it, as long as it's not going to be used as a data bank to monitor people, to follow people.

I don't mind that, because we have a card now.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): You do, but I don't. That's the difference.

My wife is an immigrant also. She has a nice citizenship card. I don't have one.

The only difference would be we'd all become the same with a citizenship card or a national ID card. I shouldn't call it a citizenship card; it's a national ID card.

But it would have another form of ID on it. Right now it's just our picture and a bunch of numbers. It would have a fingerprint or a method of being sure the person with that card is that person.

Ms. Francisca Omorodion: One danger is that if it replaces the citizenship card, it's a different issue. If it's not an additional identity card, it becomes a bit problematic, because then you have to go with your birth certificate, with your social insurance card, then the identity card, and then the driving--

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Medicare card, driver's....

Ms. Francisca Omorodion: One card to replace all those other cards, including your social insurance number.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): It would be very good for the manufacturers of wallets. They'd have to make much bigger ones.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It would be good for chiropractors, because you'd get a sore back sitting on your wallet.

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Okay.

I appreciate your paper and your thoughts. Thank you very much for being here.

The meeting is adjourned.