CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 8, 2000

• 0911

[English]

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

Our reference this morning is that Bill C-31, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted, or in danger, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I shall call clause 2.

Before we begin and introduce the minister, colleagues, I think you will all agree that this is perhaps one of the most fundamental pieces of work we will be doing in this session.

This act has been amended so many times that.... But after 25 years, the minister and the government have seen fit to introduce a new bill. I would hope that with the committee starting its deliberations, we, during the summer months, individually and collectively engage Canadians for their input into what this new immigration bill should be and what kind of Canada we want with regard to immigration.

We all know that immigration has been very good for this country over the course of its history. As we embark on this new adventure, so to speak, we have a great opportunity as a committee to define what kind of country we want going into the 21st century.

I would hope that before we come back, some time in the middle of September, I think, the committee might, with your cooperation, want to start a little earlier on a pre-study. Perhaps we can discuss that as a committee next week.

I know, Pat, that we've already indicated we want to do a sort of parallel study of immigration behind the numbers. It's not just a case of picking 200,000 or 225,000 but essentially of getting to what immigration is all about for this country and so on and so forth.

I think we will have an opportunity to engage Canadians, which I think is very important, not only for the committee but for the minister and government, as we help define and shape our country in the new century.

With that, I want to introduce the Honourable Elinor Caplan, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, so that she can kick off these hearings on Bill C-31.

Welcome, Minister.

Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you very much, Chair and colleagues. It really is a pleasure to be here today to present Bill C-31, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Let me begin by saying that I look forward to a frank and productive discussion with this committee and that I appreciate your work.

Bill C-31 is the product of extensive consultation and dialogue.

As you will recall, an immigration legislative advisory group was appointed by my colleague and predecessor, the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, in 1996. The group carried out consultations through 1997, prior to issuing its report entitled Not Just Numbers, early in 1998.

In January 1999, the government issued a white paper on immigration and refugee protection policy, entitled Building on a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century. Once again, national consultations followed, this time on the policy objectives and the directions for reform set out in the white paper.

My predecessor travelled the country. She met with provincial and territorial representatives and non-governmental organizations, with representatives of the legal community, with a range of interest groups, with members of the private sector, with representatives of law enforcement agencies, and, of course, with many individual Canadians.

• 0915

Since my appointment I, too, have travelled across this country and met informally with almost all of these groups. I tell you this, colleagues, because I can't think of another bill that has been the subject of such detailed and extensive consultations. I'm aware that this committee has also heard from many groups in recent months as you prepared your report on Canada's refugee determination system.

I have reviewed your report in detail and found it to be a very helpful and well-considered contribution. Indeed, I'd like to take this opportunity, Mr. Chair, if I may, to congratulate you and your committee on the excellent work. On behalf of my department and my cabinet colleagues, I thank you.

You will be pleased to know that nearly all of your recommendations have been accepted as policy and many are integrated into Bill C-31. This, of course, was no coincidence. My officials and I had been following your work very closely. Let me assure you that we will continue to consider your advice as we proceed to examine this bill in the context of the legislative process.

Now let me turn to Bill C-31. I believe that our shared objective should be to give Canada the legislation we need to curb criminal abuse of our immigration and refugee protection systems while expanding our policies to attract the world's best and brightest to Canada, to see that families are reunited as quickly as possible, and to honour our proud humanitarian traditions, particularly those traditions of the last 50 years that have been so welcoming to those in genuine need of protection.

Immigration policy, like so much else, is about striking an appropriate balance between unacceptable extremes. Clearly we cannot open our borders completely to anyone and everyone who would like to come here. Even though most simply want to pursue new opportunities to improve their lives, others, however, would like to use Canada as a base for criminal activities, and that would pose a threat to the security of Canadians.

Yet it should be equally clear that we cannot simply close our borders and attempt to shrink-wrap our country to keep out every potential threat. Now, more than ever before in our history, our open borders are vital to our important economic prosperity. Our openness to newcomers over the years is without question the principal source of our enviable social and cultural richness. As prominent members of the global community, we are proud to uphold our international commitment to provide a safe and secure home to some of the displaced and persecuted in the world.

Sound immigration and refugee protection policy must strike a balance. This balance is about risk management in accordance with our shared values. Like you, I am concerned about public safety and the security of Canadian society. I'm determined to see that we maintain control of our borders and preserve the integrity of our programs. But also like you, I am committed to the successful policies of attracting the best and the brightest to Canada, of reuniting families as quickly as possible, and of offering safe haven to refugees in genuine need of our protection.

Bill C-31 aims to achieve this balance through targeted enforcement measures aimed at those who would abuse our system, combined with a renewed commitment to open our doors even wider to new immigrants and genuine refugees.

As I've said in the House, Bill C-31 is a tough bill. Here again I want to be quite clear: it is tough on criminal abusers of our systems but not on the vast majority, like those immigrants and refugees who have built this country and who will continue to do so in years ahead.

With this distinction in mind, however, it should be absolutely clear that we cannot afford to tolerate criminal abuse of our systems. Such abuse poses an unacceptable threat to public security and safety and undermines public confidence in our programs. Despite its many complexities, immigration and refugee protection policy requires a fairly simple but dual mandate. We must close the back door in order to keep the front door open, and indeed to enable us to open it even wider.

For here we cannot forget that Canada needs immigration. We are living longer and having fewer children. Our population is aging considerably. Demographers, social policy analysts, and economic forecasters are all becoming increasingly vocal in arguing that Canada will need to maintain and increase its immigration levels if we are to continue to grow and prosper and sustain our quality of life in the years to come.

• 0920

Bill C-31 recognizes that the great majority of immigrants and refugees come here legally and make a positive contribution to our country. Once this bill is passed into law, we will have a range of new tools at our disposal to welcome future generations of new arrivals who will help us to build our country. Again, our challenge is to see that Bill C-31 reflects a balanced policy that is firmly rooted in Canadian values. Canadians want their laws respected, but they also want to see our traditions respected. These include openness to newcomers and our humanitarian commitment to provide a fair hearing to those who come to us claiming persecution.

Let me turn briefly to a few specific provisions of the bill. With your approval, Bill C-31 will introduce stiff penalties for people-smuggling and human trafficking. It will clarify current grounds for detention to include those arriving as part of a criminally organized trafficking operation, and it will impose a full security screening as soon as a refugee claim is made.

Bill C-31 will also clarify the criteria for inadmissibility to Canada. It will reduce the number of appeals available to serious criminals, security risks, and members of criminal or terrorist organizations, and it will maintain fundamental elements of due process that give us the ability to remove such people from Canada as quickly as possible.

These measures will strengthen the safety of our society and send out a strong message to those who would seek to access Canada for criminal ends.

In accordance with your recommendations, Bill C-31 streamlines the refugee determination system here in Canada by consolidating protection decisions and expanding the use of single-member panels at the Immigration and Refugee Board. The bill also introduces an internal paper appeal on merit at the board to see that there is an opportunity to correct errors quickly and fairly.

Together, these steps are expected to reduce the amount of time claimants spend in judicial review proceedings at the Federal Court and render overall a process that will be fairer and faster.

I am proud of the fact that our refugee determination system is as fair and open as any in the world. With the adoption of these measures, I believe it will also be faster. Here it is important to recognize the vital link between fast and fair processing. I believe when the system is functioning as it should, faster is fairer and fairer is faster.

With Bill C-31, we will also strengthen our international program of overseas refugee selection. Protection considerations will henceforth take precedence over the ability to settle, something that international refugee agencies have been calling for us to do for some time. Family units will be kept together wherever possible, and we will expand our capacity for rapid processing of those in urgent need of protection.

Our work with refugee settlement groups and international overseas organizations will be stepped up so that together we are able to reach the most troubled areas of the world where refugees are most in need of protection. Moreover, Bill C-31 recognizes that it is inconsistent with our humanitarian commitments to declare persons genuinely at risk of personal harm yet nonetheless inadmissible to Canada due to potential health costs.

Of course, Bill C-31 is not only about refugee policy. It is also about making sure Canada is able to meet the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities of the increased global population migration that has become a fact of this new century. Here our goal, simply put, should be to see that Canada remains at the forefront of the international community. To do so, we need to modernize our selection systems to ensure that Canadian businesses have access to the skilled workers they need when they need them. This bill and its accompanying regulations will do just that.

It will also provide us with faster and easier access to temporary foreign workers to help Canadian businesses seize every opportunity for expansion in the new global marketplace. This bill will also introduce an in-Canada landing class to allow spouses, temporary workers, and students already legally in Canada to apply to stay here without having to leave or resort to the all-too-familiar “Buffalo shuffle”.

• 0925

By allowing sponsors, spouses, and partners to apply for permanent resident status from within Canada, we will strengthen our commitment to family reunification.

This commitment will be reaffirmed in many ways. Bill C-31 will also expand the family class. It will do so by increasing the age at which children may be considered dependants from 19 to 22, by exempting spouses and dependants from inadmissibility owing to demands on health and social services, and by reducing the term of sponsorship from ten to three years for spouses and partners.

You will also see that the principle of best interests of the child is incorporated into the appropriate provisions of our regulations.

Colleagues, I could go on and list many of the other provisions I feel are also very important, but I know you have specific issues you would like to raise and I'm eager to hear your views and respond to your questions. So instead, let me point out by way of summary that the Canadian immigration and refugee policy is built on three equal pillars.

First is our commitment to families and in particular family reunification. The second is our desire to attract individuals from around the world who are best able to make an economic and social contribution to Canada. The third is our humanitarian commitment and equally our international obligation to offer safe haven to the displaced and persecuted who come to us in need of protection.

I'm confident that Bill C-31 will strengthen the integrity of our immigration and refugee protection system and thereby enable us to build upon these three pillars and bring to Canada the immigrants and refugees who will be so important to our country in the years ahead.

I would like to conclude by noting that Bill C-31 is framework legislation. As such it includes all the key authorities, principles, and objectives of our immigration and refugee protection policy. As you consider this bill, you will notice that a certain amount of detail concerning specific programs and procedures that will serve the framework principles and objectives of this bill will be defined in the regulations.

Here I would ask you to remember that this is already true of many parts of the current Immigration Act and this does not represent a significant change of approach. The current act has been amended over 30 times over the years to deal with a broad range of new and evolving circumstances. Few of you and few others would disagree with us when we say it has become a rather cumbersome piece of legislation that is difficult for the non-expert to understand.

This bill, Bill C-31, has been drafted with the intention of making our immigration and refugee protection legislation simpler and more accessible to Canadians. It has also been drafted to permit an important degree of flexibility in its application. The core values, the decision-making authorities, and the fundamental principles and objectives of this bill are clear. The specific programs and procedures by which they will be achieved, however, must enable us to respond to new and unforeseen circumstances. It is for this reason that most of the program and procedural detail is currently and must remain in regulations.

Here I would also add that I am committed to an open and transparent regulatory drafting process. Over the coming weeks and months, my officials and I will be participating in full and open discussions with this committee on the specific policy objectives of the various sections and passages of this bill. Indeed, to assist you in your clause-by-clause study of the bill, I intend to provide you with a detailed discussion paper—read, early draft of the regs—that will elaborate on the policy intent of the various sections and in particular of the specific clauses that represent a significant departure from the current act.

As to the regulatory drafting process itself, the formal process, we must recall that the regulatory authorities provided in this bill do not take effect until the bill itself is passed into law. Only then will I be permitted to bring regulatory proposals to cabinet for government approval. At that time the proposed regulations will be prepublished and there will be a full and open process through which both public scrutiny and public submissions will be invited.

I can assure you, however, that those wishing to contribute to the development of the final regulations will be given every opportunity to do so.

• 0930

As I noted at the outset, Bill C-31 has been the subject of detailed and extensive consultations over a period of several years. Canadians have had much to say. We've all benefited from hearing their views. Now I believe they want us to move beyond the talk. They want us to take action.

Canada needs this legislation. I welcome our discussions. I urge your immediate consideration and swift passage of Bill C-31. And I look forward to working with you to see this bill become a reality as soon as possible.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister, for your comments with regard to this bill. Obviously, we have a number of questions, and I thank you, on behalf of the committee, for taking most of our recommendations on the refugee determination system into account.

On the first 10-minute round, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Welcome, Madam Minister and other witnesses.

I think a concern of all MPs in their offices again and again, day to day, is the whole issue of family reunification, where one person is accepted as an immigrant and they are kept separated from a spouse or from dependent children for a long period of time. Three years is not uncommon. That seems completely unacceptable.

At the top of page 4 of your notes for today's speech, which you just delivered, you say that immigration policy, as so much else, is about striking an appropriate balance between unacceptable extremes. Would you consider the current situation where families are kept separated for that length of time an unacceptable extreme?

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: If there are families who are being kept separated for three years, I agree, that's unacceptable.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We all know there are.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: My goal for reunification of spouses and dependants is six months. I can tell you that the average at this time for spousal and family reunification—this is for spouses only—is 11 months or less in posts around the world. The way this happens is that they go back to the other country and they marry someone and they sponsor from outside the country.

That process I'd like to see shortened to six months. This bill includes a new in-Canada landing class for spouses and dependent children who are legally in Canada. At the present time we have between 12,000 and 15,000 spouses and dependants landed from within Canada, following a humanitarian and compassionate request. That's a long and cumbersome process. We want to normalize that by creating an in-Canada landing class so that we can see that families, particularly spouses and dependent children, are reunited and are able to be together in Canada as quickly as possible.

Just before we leave that, there's another provision in the refugee section that goes beyond that. We know that one of the really serious problems now is when a member of a family comes to Canada and is accepted as a refugee. It is those cases where families often have to wait for a very long time. That is because, at present, a refugee is unable to sponsor his or her family until they've achieved permanent residence status.

The intention now is that once the individual is found to be a genuine refugee and granted status in Canada, their application will remain open for a year so that we can reunite families more quickly. A third thing we're doing, and this is very important also for the committee to know, is when we are selecting overseas those in genuine need of protection, our intention is to process families together and bring them together to Canada.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Could you refer to the particular clauses in the bill that do what you say you've done?

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Most of the program details, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, will be framed in the draft regulations. I'm going to ask Joan Atkinson, who's the ADM of policy, to give you the authority from the bill.

I'm giving you the policy intent. I've made a commitment, Chair, that at the time when you're ready to study the bill clause by clause, we will show you the clause and then the reference as it will be in future regulations to empower exactly what I've just told you.

• 0935

Mr. Leon Benoit: My question, though, has to do with exactly that. There's so little information given in the legislation, and to ask this committee to even examine that legislation without having the regulations right in front of us is unfair.

Not only should the regulations be in front of us, but it should be also up to this committee to be able to include, as we see necessary, much of what is in regulation in the bill.

My concern is that on several occasions you've referred to the bill and what the bill will do. In fact, there's nothing in this new bill you're proposing that will do the things you say.

The Auditor General said that a new bill, if it is a good bill, might fix about 20% of the problems in the immigration system. The rest is going to be fixed through improvements in administration and management, and in some cases more reallocation of resources is actually what the Auditor General referred to.

I'm really concerned that much of this 20% we're working with isn't actually there. It's going to be left to regulation, and it seems there's an unacceptable amount.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Could I respond to that, Mr. Chairman, because I think it is very important. I want to restate that in the current Immigration Act there are extensive regulations that define the policies. The federal government has a very open and inclusive method of developing regulations. There's gazetting; there's an opportunity for consultation. By having things in regulation you have a chance to refine them to be able to make sure they respond to changing needs. We know the existing act has been amended over thirty times, and that has made it very cumbersome.

The intent of having framework legislation with regulations that can be fine-tuned and adjusted, with the scrutiny of this committee, I might add, is a very normal procedure of government. If you look at many bills, including the present Immigration Act, what we are proposing is not unusual at all.

The other thing that's important—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you think it's acceptable in a modern democracy, Madam Minister, to have two paragraphs on the whole area of independent immigrants? That's all there is in the bill. The rest is left up to regulation. That seems completely unreasonable in a modern democracy, and I can't understand how you could even put that before us and ask us to approve that kind of thing.

I'm going to get into the regulation later. That's not what I was getting into here.

You talk about these acceptable extremes. You know there are many cases—we all do as MPs—where people who apply for immigration have children who are dependent at the time of application. Two or three years later, when the application is approved, often some of these children are no longer dependants. Is this one of those unacceptable extremes you're referring to?

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I'm going to ask the ADM of policy to confirm what I'm about to tell you. I believe the age is locked in at the time when the application is made as opposed to when the application is approved.

Joan, would you confirm that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Acting Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Yes, thank you, Minister.

We take acquired rights very seriously in the immigration program. One of our fundamental principles is to ensure that the applicant is not adversely affected by events that are beyond the applicant's control. In that respect we have fairly clear rules around what we would call “locked-in”. That is, certain elements of an application, whether it be age, whether it be other attributes that are going to change over time, are locked in at the time an application is received—an application and a cost-recovery fee in the case of the family class of valid sponsorship. So the age of the dependant is locked in at the time the application is made.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I've had many cases, as have other MPs, where it has in fact caused a tremendous problem. The person initially applied and the children were dependants, but when they were finally accepted they were no longer dependants. As a result, they were not allowed to come over. It's a very common thing.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: That's different from age. You've asked two different questions. The question—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I never asked about age in the first place. I asked about people who are considered dependants—

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: No, you said age—

Mr. Leon Benoit: —at the time of the application who are no longer considered dependants at the time the application is approved.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I think if you check Hansard, Mr. Chair, you'll see that Mr. Benoit in fact referred to age specifically.

The issue of dependants is different, and that is where a child who was dependent—that means not married—marries. That does change the status. Age is locked in. Marital status, if it changes during the course...and student status also.

• 0940

Joan, do you want to just explain that so that the committee is clear?

Mr. Leon Benoit: On the issue of family reunification, Madam Minister—

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I thought you'd like the information. Is the purpose to have information?

The Chair: If I could be helpful here, Leon, you've asked a question, and I'm not going to take that time away from you. But if you ask a question, let's get a full answer.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Let's get a full answer. I want to make sure it's clear.

The Chair: Minister, I wonder if you were going to ask Joan to clarify Mr. Benoit's question—

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

The Chair: —with regard to dependency and age, and whether or not it changes upon the approval of the application, as opposed to when the application was initiated.

Perhaps you can fill in some of the details the minister was talking about regarding if there's a change in circumstances—age and marriage—and how that impacts on that application.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, dependency is defined not just on the basis of age, but as the minister was indicating, also on the basis of marital status.

Under the current regulatory definition of “dependant”, a dependant must meet certain age criteria at the time of application. That is locked in. They must meet certain marital status criteria, be unmarried. If they are a student in full-time studies and are dependent upon their parents for financial support, that must continue. The regulations specify that they can be absent for a period of one year from their course of studies, and they can still maintain that student status.

The third criterion is if they are disabled and dependent on their parents for support.

So there are a number of circumstances that define dependency. But acquired rights, as I said, are locked in at the time completed applications, valid sponsorships, are submitted.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Problems often arise when someone is considered a dependant because they're taking post-secondary education, and by the time the application is approved, they no longer are, and don't qualify. That's one of the things I was referring to.

But I'd like to ask, still on the issue of family reunification and the whole family-class issue, a question on what Ms. Atkinson said at committee—I think it was earlier this week or last week—in response to my question.

My question was whether she was saying she expected once the regulation for the act was tabled, it would give a blanket exemption for foreign national spouses of Canadians. We're talking about a Canadian marrying someone who isn't a Canadian citizen, and the whole health issue. Ms. Atkinson's answer was, on the grounds of excessive demand, yes, that's the intention.

So in other words, if a Canadian marries a non-Canadian, even if that person would be a tremendous drain on our health care system, there will be a blanket acceptance of that person. I have a real concern about that, when Canadians will be bumped from the waiting lines for receiving health services and non-Canadians will be allowed in to be a drain on our health care system, no matter how big a drain that might be.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: The reality of what's happening today, Mr. Benoit, is when a spouse is refused because of medical inadmissibility, they are able to appeal to the immigration appeal division at the IRB. In almost 100% of cases, they win at the IRB on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate consideration. Many people, I think, understand that spouses should be able to be together, that there may be extenuating humanitarian and compassionate considerations, and that the numbers are actually very, very small.

Therefore, what this legislation does is normalize what is already occurring. It makes no change in what is in practice. It brings the law up to date with what is actually happening now, which means that there are a few spouses who are coming in who would be considered medically inadmissible. Many also appeal. I get requests from members of Parliament all the time for minister's permits. After a five-year period on a minister's permit, the spouse or family-class member who might otherwise be medically inadmissible is then permitted to land from within Canada.

So our humanitarian and compassionate response to family reunification is to look case by case and to determine whether there are humanitarian and compassionate considerations that would allow us to land. This legislation reflects what is occurring today.

• 0945

The Chair: Leon, we'll come back to you in a moment.

Minister, on behalf of the committee, just so there is clarification, I think you've made an absolutely fantastic gesture by having this committee and Canadians be able to respond to the regulations. As you've indicated, the policy framework is in legislation, and an awful lot of those decisions are made by way of regulation.

I want to tell you that I think having the regulations before this committee just before clause-by-clause is not going to be workable. It's a question of timing, and I know the regulations are about that thick—the old ones, anyway—and the new ones may be that thick. I'm just wondering whether—because I know you're going to be doing some consultation—we might not have those draft regulations or the principles of those regulations at the time we're actually hearing from the witnesses. Then the committee could put the regulations to the provisions in the bill, so they in fact work hand in glove.

I'm not sure we're off that much, because clause-by-clause is usually about two or three weeks after we begin. I think it would be very helpful to Canadians, to the witnesses we want to hear. Perhaps you could cover that off, whether or not that would be problematic. I think the devil's always in the details, as we know, in any piece of legislation, and if the regulations could be consistent when we're hearing from our witnesses, it would be helpful.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to be as helpful to this committee as I can be. I think it's important to first clarify the reg-making process and the authorities. The actual authority for the formal regulation process doesn't begin until after this law has been passed.

The Chair: We understand that.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: However, a lot of work, informal work, is done to prepare for that. We can offer to this committee technical briefings on the development of future and potential regulations. We can offer...what I said was I would bring a discussion document that would be fairly extensive. My intention, along with department officials, is to consult over the summer with the interested stakeholders on the development of potential and future regulations, and we'd be happy to keep the committee posted.

You should know there are several kicks at the can here. There's the work we'll be doing before this bill is passed to prepare for the development of the formal regulations. Once this bill is passed, then a formal consultation period, the prepublication period I referred to in my opening remarks.... We will be tabling the proposed regs and there will then be a 90-day period during which, if this committee wanted to look at them again formally, you could before they're finally dealt with.

But I want you to know the discussion paper can be tabled with this committee in the fall during the time you're hearing witnesses. As soon as it's ready, we'll be happy to share it with you.

The Chair: I'm sure I can predict that 50% or 75% of our questions—

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: No, happy to.

The Chair: —will be more on regulations than on the spirit of the bill.

Sophia.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister Caplan, and thank you for sharing your ideas and comments with us. I think this bill has many positive aspects, such as attracting students and skilled workers to Canada.

I'd like to know specifically what kind of strategy or plan there is to attract skilled workers, because we know there's global competition facing us.

That's one of my questions.

I also welcome this family reunification, but I have a little trouble with subclause 12(2). It says:

A foreign national may be selected as a member of the family class on the basis of their relationship as the spouse, common-law partner, child or other prescribed family member of a Canadian citizen.

I wonder about this a little bit because it's very loose. What is “other prescribed family member”? In my community there's been a lot of discussion. They feel it leads to a misunderstanding, because parents and grandparents are so important. I'd like you to notice this. It's very important to define clearly what you mean by “prescribed family member”.

• 0950

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I want to point out in response to that—and I think it's very important—that in the existing Immigration Act, “family class” is defined in the regulations, and parents, fiancé(e)s, and grandparents, as well as the definition of dependent children, are all included in the regulations.

It is the intent of this legislation and government policy to expand the family class by increasing the age for dependency to up to 22, and to not in any way diminish the definition that already exists in the current act in regulations. Parents, grandparents, and fiancé(e)s will be included in the regulations when we table that appropriately through the regulation process, and are also reflected in the discussion paper we tabled here before this committee.

It is further my intention to discuss with the provinces future further expansion of family class. Depending on their response, we will have the ability to amend these regulations in the future to respond to the needs of the provinces.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I'd like to call to the minister's attention that I think it is essential that “parents and grandparents” be clearly written and defined.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: They are now, and they will continue to be, in the regulations.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Good, because this has been raised repeatedly to me, and I think to you.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I don't know who told people there was any suggestion that there would be a change. Parents and grandparents are currently in the regulations in the Immigration Act, and there has never been an intention to make a change or exclude them. I want to assure you and anyone else who is listening that parents and grandparents, any of those who are presently and currently listed in the family class definition in the regulations of the existing Immigration Act, will continue. There's not going to be a change that would in any way diminish the family class.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Good.

I have another question.

Regarding the selection of residents, in clause 24, for permanent residents, there is a requirement for 730 days, which means around two years, in a five-year period. As we know, there are many businessmen and students overseas, and I have heard repeated comments that perhaps this presents a little bit of hardship, because they have to be here literally two years within five years, and I wonder if that would be considered. I'd like to present to the minister that this is being voiced by different Canadians.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I want to thank the member for that question. This is the requirement for physical presence in Canada for two years out of every five-year period in order to maintain your status in Canada. At the present time, anyone who leaves Canada for more than six months finds that their permanent resident status is in jeopardy. That means half time.

It's my view that moving to two years out of every five is actually more flexible and more generous than what exists in the present Immigration Act. I think it responds to the realities of the global world we live in.

The question here is one that this committee grappled with and debated at length during Bill C-16. That is, what is attachment to Canada? How much time and physical presence should someone have in Canada before they are considered to have abandoned Canada?

Therefore, we came up with what we thought was a reasonable and generous proposal, which says that over a five-year period you have to be in Canada two years. That doesn't mean two years every single day; it means two years, or 365 days times two, unless there's a leap year thrown in. However, it is cumulative. You can do it all at once, or you can move back and forth and freely leave the country as you wish.

• 0955

There are exceptions. Those are for people who are working abroad, accompanied by a spouse, and also the request for humanitarian and compassionate considerations so that the same kind of flexibility is included.

However, we thought it was appropriate—and I hope the committee will agree—that if someone decides to come to Canada as a permanent resident, we expect they're going to come here and spend a significant amount of time here, live here, and help us build our country. Certainly the purpose of having permanent resident status is not to arrive, leave your suitcase, and leave again. I think we're looking for people who want to come and make Canada home, who want to join us and have their families here and become active members of our communities. But we know in a global world, where people are travelling and working and moving around, we have to understand the reality that attachment to Canada doesn't mean you're here every single day, all the time.

It then becomes a question of what's reasonable and what is flexible enough and generous enough. Based on the discussion and the work of this committee in arriving at the three years out of six rule for citizenship, we thought two years out of five would be something you would think reasonable. Certainly I'd be interested in your views.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I appreciate that, Minister, but we—

The Chair: I think you already had another question that wasn't answered.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Yes, the first one.

The Chair: It's the strategy with regard to attracting students and skilled workers—and you didn't think I was listening, did you, Sophia? I was very impressed with the hard work you've done so far. You know those clauses by heart. I'm impressed.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I guess the strategy for attraction is one on which we're working on an ongoing basis, and not only ourselves, but it's something I've been discussing with provincial ministers across this country. There are parts of Canada that are anxious to have immigration. We know the majority of immigrants at this time come to three centres—Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal—and we know cities such as Winnipeg—

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): [Inaudible—Editor]

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I just want you to know I chose Winnipeg first this time because they are keen and anxious, and the Manitoba provincial nominee agreement is an excellent model for helping provinces attract the immigrants they want and need. We're looking at a pilot project and discussions with Manitoba about how we can both market and attract and then retain them, because retention for some of the smaller centres is a major issue.

The other thing is that we have to use the Internet and our websites to promote Canada better. The truth is that we are competing with the rest of the world, particularly the United States.

We're competing with Australia, and I know there are some representatives here from Australia today. I want to make sure they know we're competing with them.

We're also competing with Europe, Germany, Sweden, and other countries that are facing what we are facing. That is, as a result of the baby boom, our population is aging, and we are not having as many babies—although I did want to tell the committee, if I could, Mr. Chairman, that I'm doing my part; I now have six grandchildren.

The Chair: I'm happy you clarified that by saying “grandchildren”.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Angus John Caplan was born on May 17, and Jacob Isaac Caplan was born on May 28.

The Chair: And may they have very many children in the future.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: So I'm doing my best to encourage my children to produce dividends for Canada, of course.

But the truth is, we are aging, we're not having enough babies, and we need to bring in people from around the world to meet the needs. Who's going to be there to buy the homes of those people who are ready to retire and take the jobs that are emerging in our economy, and who's going to be there to populate the cities and support our important social infrastructure, our pension plans and health systems, if we don't have the people we need in Canada?

So marketing, telling people about our best-kept secrets—some of our smaller and medium-sized cities and the wonderful infrastructure in this country; the fact that we have multicultural communities in the small and medium-sized cities ready to welcome and help people come and integrate and settle. It's a huge challenge, and if the committee has any ideas, I'd be really interested in your views as well.

The Chair: The only idea I have, Minister, is that you're going to have to keep your answers a little shorter.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Okay.

The Chair: I have a lot of people who want to ask some questions. I know you always want to inform us fully, but if you could assist, we would appreciate that.

• 1000

[Translation]

Bernard, please.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Like my colleagues, I want to welcome the Minister to this Committee. I am going to ask some general questions since the Bill is very general.

The groups we have consulted have told us that there is nothing new in the Bill and that they would want to wait for the regulations, which should be published pretty soon, since all the changes would be reflected there.

On April 6, you told us that the Bill would be the cornerstone of our future immigration policy. At the time, you believed that it would lead to major improvements, which is probably still your belief today. However, those groups that we have heard in committee have told us that many of the issues that have been raised cannot be resolved through the Bill, and that was also the opinion of the Auditor General. You might say that his comment applied only to financial matters but I believe it can apply as well to many other aspects of the policy. The Auditor General stated quite clearly that:

If the Bill is passed, it might answer some of our concerns.

He also stated that:

However, most of the issues that we have raised cannot be resolved through changes to the legislation.

Do you still believe today that your Bill will lead to an improvement of our immigration system and will compensate the lack of leadership of your Department which is not able to clarify the role of the various partners at every step of the process? Do you believe that the Bill will allow you to resolve a problem which is in fact systemic? Do you still honestly believe that this Bill will resolve a problem which is related more to the system as a whole than to the legislation?

[English]

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I'd like first to respond to the suggestion that everything is in the regulations. That's not true. All of the rights and procedures and very important policy and principles are enshrined in the legislation. The regulations are the regulation, and through the regulations they will be further defined and programs will be spelled out and identified. So I don't want anyone to have the impression that what is in this legislation is not important and substantive. It is.

Having said that, I've said before at this committee that I welcome the Auditor General's report and that I believe he's been very helpful to us. He's acknowledged that we need new legislation, and with your help, we'll have it soon. He's acknowledged the need for regulatory changes as well, and that's part of this legislative proposal. He's acknowledged the need for additional resources, and both through part of this legislative package as well as through the budgetary initiatives of the government, the total of $139 million has been made available in this year for my department to deal with some of the administrative areas that need improvement.

I want to tell you quite honestly what I've said to you before, and that is, for very good public policy reasons, during the years of program review, when this government was faced with a huge, ongoing annual deficit that had to be dealt with, in our desire to clean up the fiscal mess and balance the books of the government, this department, like every other department of government, had to have a reduction in resources. That has resulted in the need, particularly in the area of our programs for immigration, to reinvest.

What did we do during that time of reduction? We protected all of our grants and contributions and we protected the majority of our enforcement efforts. We thought that was good public policy. We now are seeing a reinvestment in those areas of immigration. Client service is a priority, and it is my hope that the combination of the new resources will allow us to enhance training, send out additional staff, and help us clear up backlogs, because we're experiencing difficulties in processing the large volumes. I believe we will be able to achieve our annual levels, and we'll do so with integrity. So it's the combination.

• 1005

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: My question was not on resources, Mr. Chair. We all agree that the resources are insufficient, even though some lawyers told us yesterday that reallocating the resources might lead to an improvement of the system.

I would like to know what other steps will be taken, apart from changes to the legislation, in order to improve the management of the Department. When the Auditor General told us that the Department should improve its management, he was raising an important issue. I also believe that we are facing a systemic problem. So, what steps will you take, apart from the Bill, in order to improve our immigration system? It is wrong to claim that it's only a matter of financial resources or a matter of legislative changes. It's also a matter of management and of clarifying the roles of every partner to make sure that the system is effective.

[English]

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: The point you make is an important one, and that is our response to the Auditor General is a multi-pronged approach. We have a strategic plan for addressing the issues that were raised by the Auditor General. Key to those is additional training for staff around the world.

We know this committee is as interested as I am and as we are in seeing that we improve everything we do in accordance with the comments of the Auditor General. We will be sharing with the committee our progress. I've often said I believe in the theory of continuous improvement. Before you can improve, you have to find the areas where you need to improve, and that's where the Auditor General is very helpful.

I reject your suggestion that everything is bad. In fact everything is not bad. All of the people working for the department are not incompetent. They are excellent, hard-working, dedicated people.

The world is changing. The environment we're working in is changing. I want you to know how impressed I am with the people who work for the department, with their dedication and professionalism. We are doing everything we can to improve staff training and improve service. We have a client service initiative and a client service champion who is looking at the sharing of best practices to improve the service to clients around the world.

The Chair: Minister, on behalf of the committee, I think Mr. Bigras was expressing our views. At least our studies so far with the Auditor General, with your department, and with interested parties would indicate what I think Mr. Bigras and some of us share.

We can change the legislation to make it better. Obviously this is that attempt. But the Auditor General and people we've already talked to indicate that an awful lot of systemic changes could be made at the administrative, managerial level with additional resources being put in to make the system work even better so that we can achieve even the lower levels we had set for ourselves before.

So it's one thing to change the legislation and get some good regulations, but we've also heard that the system is not working as it should and that there are some efficiencies to be gained throughout the system. You've addressed some of them, but we are going to continue our discussions with your department and the Auditor General to come up with that action plan so that then we can test and track how well we're doing collectively as a committee, as a department, and as a minister to make sure the good words that are said in a bill are in fact reflected in the delivery of the program so that we are actually able to improve the system.

I think that's what Mr. Bigras and the committee wanted to express to you.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I agree, and I welcome that. It is important that we acknowledge that legislation is one part; the development of regulations is another part; additional resources are of course a very important part, and we have that; and change of administrative practice is yet another part, additional staff training.

The last thing I'd like to point out, Mr. Chair, is we're looking at a number of pilot projects to test new approaches. I've said to my department that unless some of those pilot projects are found to not be successful, then we aren't being innovative and testing enough new approaches. So we're going to from time to time come to you and be able to share with you our successes, but also point out things we've tried that haven't worked well.

I'm going to point back to the Hansard today, because I know we tend to always criticize those things that don't work out as we hoped they would, but it's my view that if this department and other departments are going to be successful in this new world where new technologies give us new ways of doing things, we have to try things out, and we're going to be doing that.

The Chair: Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1010

Madam Minister, in your document that you—

Mr. Pat Martin: What's the rotation?

The Chair: With time allocation, Pat, after Mr. Benoit in the five-minute round, you're up next.

Mr. Pat Martin: How did I miss the first round?

The Chair: Pat, I'm sorry but—

Mr. Pat Martin: Maybe I don't understand the rules.

The Chair: —this is the way we've been operating for the past eight months. I know that from time to time you can't be here, but we've been operating under those terms for the past eight months. So you're next after the Alliance party again.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Madam Minister, in the document you released when you announced this new act there are a lot of interesting things. I'm just going to pick one page. I'll start on the page before “opening the front door wider”. You talk about strengthening sponsorship obligations, and there is a list of things, like persons in default of court-ordered spousal and child support payments will be denied the right to sponsor. But this isn't in the act. You have, for business immigration, things like establishing objective criteria to assess business experience and so on. That's not in the act. Developing fraud-resistant permanent residence cards is not covered in the act. Under streamlining appeals, it says restricting appeals by family-class sponsors for inadmissible persons. But it's not in the act.

You go to “opening the door wider” on the next page. You go right through the whole page, and all of the things you've said in fact are not dealt with in the act. That's the point we're trying to make here this morning. There's very little in the act.

In fact, when you go to the section on family class, this is what is in the act. It's right here, and it won't take long to read. It says:

A foreign national may be selected as a member of the family class on the basis of their relationship as the spouse, common-law partner, child or other prescribed family member of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident.

That's what is in the act in regard to family class, and that's it. That seems like very little compared to what you, Madam Minister, have been saying about what this act covers and what it does.

You're asking us to accept a blank cheque, in most areas, and trust regulation. There clearly isn't a proper balance here between what would be in legislation and what should be left to regulation. That's the point I think we're trying to make here today, but I feel it's falling on deaf ears.

Specifically in this area of family class—

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I'd like to respond before you move on.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I haven't asked the question yet.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: He did. He asked if it was in the act.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No. I was pointing out what was and wasn't in the act.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: No, I think he—look, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Minister, hang on a second. Just hang on. Everybody just settle down. Take your Valium or whatever, both of you.

Leon, I heard you ask a question with regard to the news release and what's in the act.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, I was just pointing out what was—

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Well, he's wrong and I'd like to point out where he's wrong.

The Chair: Hang on a second. I won't take your time. Let the minister answer your first consideration and comment.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: That's right.

The first point I'd like to make is on those things Mr. Benoit identified as not being in the act. He mentioned the permanent resident card. I'd refer him to page 13, subclause 27(1). The authority for a permanent resident card is in the act.

The other issues he identified are not in the current act; they're in the regulations of the current act. What we're doing in this legislation is no different from what we're doing—

Mr. Leon Benoit: But that doesn't make it acceptable.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: It does make it acceptable.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In terms of—

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Now, listen. You are misleading people—

The Chair: Order. Wait a minute, Leon.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I believe we have to give people accurate information.

The Chair: Just hang on a second. The minister is answering the question.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I'm trying to answer the question.

The Chair: Let's just answer the question and we'll get to the next one.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: That's right.

Mr. Chairman, it's the intention of the work of this committee, I assume, to give people accurate information about what exists today, what changes are being made, what is and is not in the act, and what will and will not be in the regulations. The current immigration act has regulations that support it, and this new immigration act will have regulations that support it.

I have said that I will bring to this committee as much information as possible about what will be in future regulations. I will ask for your advice and input on that.

Today we're looking at what is in the framework of the act. The permanent resident card is there under subclause 27(1). To say there are not important things and important authorities in this act is not only inaccurate, but it gives people the wrong impression.

The Chair: Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Of course, what is there is a reference to the card, and there's no—

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Well, read it out.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —information at all as to what it would do or how it would be handled. There has to be enough there to at least lay out the principles.

• 1015

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: It says:

A permanent resident is to be provided with a document that is proof of that status, and a temporary resident may be provided with a document that is proof of that status.

The Chair: Leon, next question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In regard to what is in the act on the family-class section, you have extended the family class to common-law partners. Currently, situations where common-law partners are allowed are done under special consideration. Now it will be a blanket acceptance.

I want to know how you're going to administer this section on common-law partners. How are you going to determine, when most countries don't give out documents for common-law relationships, when there is a common-law relationship?

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Now the member has gone not only from legislation to regulation, but into administrative practice and guidelines. At the present time, it is the policy of the government to deal with those cases by exception, in accordance with government policy and following the same principles as Bill C-23, I think, which implemented a Supreme Court ruling.

I made the commitment and the government made the commitment that the Immigration Act would not discriminate against common-law or same-sex partners. We will put in place administrative procedures that this committee in the future will be welcome to request, if that's an area of interest and an issue they want to concern themselves with, to determine how we are implementing that, but it will not only be defined in the regulations, but part of administrative practice.

The Chair: Pat Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

How much time do I actually have?

The Chair: We're in five-minute rounds.

Mr. Pat Martin: So we don't get ten-minute rounds?

The Chair: I've been very generous today because the minister is lengthy and so are some of the questions, but go ahead, Pat.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay, but after this is over I'd like to serve notice that I'd like to take part in how we're going to structure ourselves, and revisit that system, because frankly, I resent being shut out of the first round.

The Chair: Nobody has brought up that objection before today, Pat.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, it's being brought up now, so I'm serving notice that I'd like to debate that later.

The Chair: You'll have to wait until September in the new committee at that time.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'll wait. Good.

I'd like to point out that in our first reading of the bill and all the public statements around the bill, the first comment we had was that we were disappointed by the negative tone associated with it and the whole get-tough attitude, the impression that the government is cracking down on immigration. It set a negative tone about immigration, in general. That's our first critical observation.

One of the key features of those public comments was the whole aspect of stiffer penalties for trafficking and smuggling. They are dramatically stiffer and were heralded as a key and prominent feature of immigration. We would argue it's a very minor aspect of immigration overall. Again, this sets a negative tone, because I'd point out that not all trafficking and smuggling of human beings is criminal. Some is out-and-out heroic, frankly, and we should be cautious about sending that message. When you are smuggling someone away from persecution to save their life...there's probably more of that going on than illegal trafficking or smuggling for profit.

Madam Minister, you mentioned the three pillars of the system, one of which is the humanitarian and international obligations to international conventions. When we're dealing with the best interests of the child, in keeping with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, should the language not be stronger in the act, to make the best interests of the child the primary consideration in any choices made, rather than the reference you have now in the act that it will be one of the factors to be taken into consideration? Don't you think it would be more in line with the international convention if the best interests of the child were the primary concern?

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: The Supreme Court of Canada has actually ruled on this matter and said that it should not be the primary consideration, but it should be one of the considerations. In fact, you've asked a very good question, Pat, and I'd like to ask Daniel Therrien, who is legal counsel and very familiar with the bill, to clarify for you any other questions that deal with the legal aspects.

• 1020

I believe the wording in this bill lives up to our international obligations. It also meets our charter obligations.

Mr. Pat Martin: If I could, I'd ask that the answer be quite short. I have one more question I'd really like to get in and I have very little time.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Okay, we'll wait. It's up to you.

The Chair: Pat, I'm going to be a little generous. But, Minister, because we're going to have the officials here next week for detailed briefings on certain aspects—

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Fine.

The Chair: —I think we can deal with those kinds of details at another meeting. I think if you can give us the overview based on some of the questions, then we can refer to the detailed briefings.

So, Pat, you might want to continue with some of the questions.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you. If you don't mind, I could get the answer to those things through your other officials.

I was the guest speaker at the Manitoba Intercultural Council just last weekend, and the question that kept coming up is, will you finish the job within the parameters of Bill C-31 given this opportunity to eliminate the rest of the landing fee for all immigrants? You've eliminated it now for refugees, but you've not eliminated the $500 administration fee that is still charged to refugees and $100 per child. Those are still fees charged for refugees.

The real public outrage and the public outcry that I get from my area at least is why don't we eliminate it completely for all immigrants and thereby send the message that there are no barriers to get into Canada?

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I'd like to answer this by saying, first of all, the policy on fees is not included either in legislation or in regulation. It is a matter of policy.

One of the things that Canada looks at is how competitive we are with other countries when it comes to processing fees. That's something that is under debate and discussion all the time, and it's also a question of whether we use our resources to bring people here, bring them here more quickly, or whether we reduce fees, even if it would mean that there are fewer people who are then able to come.

If the department is given a pot of money, there are always tugs and pulls and different priorities. I think we've achieved the right balance. I was pleased that we were able to eliminate the right of landing fee for refugees in the last budget; I said I thought that was an important first step. And certainly total fees are something that we consider when we look at overall policy as it relates to immigration.

Mr. Pat Martin: Perhaps this is something that this group could actually look at in the fall. I believe last year we did have a motion from the Bloc to review all the fees and charges levied towards any immigrant. To my knowledge, that study hasn't been done by the committee, but it's something we could revisit.

I have a last question on the second claims for refugees. Under the new changes, if you've ever been denied the right to a refugee status, you can never reapply even if your personal circumstances have changed dramatically or the circumstances in your home country have changed dramatically.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: That's not true.

Mr. Pat Martin: Let's try to get clarification on it.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Let me give you clarification of that. I think one of the things that frustrates Canadians is this perception of the revolving door. Right now, if you are deported from Canada, you can return and make a claim within 90 days. Many people are deported to the United States, wait at the border, and on day 91 return to make a second claim.

What we are intending in this legislation is if there is a change of personal circumstance, anyone who has been deported from Canada can go to any one of our visa posts and consulates around the world, wherever they are, tell them they made a claim in Canada, they had been through the immigration and refugee procedure, and they had been deported, but their circumstances have changed. We will consider their request on the basis of changed circumstance.

The legislation says you can't come to make another claim in Canada within one year, and when you do come, since you've had due process in Canada, you've been to the Immigration and Refugee Board, you've had all of the opportunities for due process and appeals, all we really want to do now is assess whether or not there is a change of circumstance. We have your file.

The intention is to have you apply to the pre-removal risk assessment so that if there has been a change of circumstance, you are in legitimate need of protection from Canada, we can quickly assess your claim. If you legitimately need our protection, we will be able to grant it to you very quickly. The PRA, as it's referred to, the pre-removal risk assessment decision, will be judicial reviewable, so there are protections of due process. But if you are not in need of genuine protection, you will be removed from Canada.

• 1025

There's one small change in the wording of the legislation. Inadvertently, in drafting there was one word that referred to if your claim had been refused. The intention there is to give everyone access to the pre-removal risk assessment as part of due process in Canada, and for those who are repeat claimants the new rules would apply, which effectively say you get one opportunity for an appearance and an appeal to the Immigration and Refugee Board and all the due processes there.

But I might, briefly if I could, Mr. Chair, ask Joan to give a line of how that would work.

The Chair: I wonder, because you brought up that there might be a problem in the wording of the bill, if you could forward us a memo or something like that.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: It's going to be currently in the regs, and we'll explain it to you fully, because it's an important change and I want to make sure the committee has that information.

The Chair: I think we'll get to that level of detail in the technical briefings—

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: But it is to discourage repeat claims of those who are not in genuine need of protection. That's the intent of the policy.

The Chair: We'll need that clarification just so there's no misinterpretation, or in fact what Pat might be getting at, the fact that the wording might not be quite right and therefore questions have been raised.

We'll go to Rick Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To start with, I would like to say I greatly appreciate the amount of public consultation that has gone on over the years, building up to the legislation we currently have before us, and certainly the advance scrutiny that has been put to all of these issues prior to them being put down in this legislation. I believe, as well, that most rational people with any compassion whatsoever would have to agree with virtually everything you have said in your remarks today and the intentions of this legislation.

However, I would like to point out three different scenarios that we deal with very frequently in our constituency offices, and maybe give you an opportunity to tell us whether or not the regulations will address these, or the practices will address these, as we go forward with regard to this new legislation. I certainly recognize that there is a need for regulations as well as legislation, and there's a difference between what ought to be in each.

First of all, with regard to visitors' visas, frequently we see that people are turned down out of a fear that they won't leave. This is something we hear over and over and over again, and it creates a tremendous amount of work not only for our offices but also for yours.

Secondly, with regard to locally employed staff, people seem to feel that those individuals who come from Canada deal with things in a way that Canadians are comfortable with, but we always have a problem with regard to accusations from applicants regarding either discrimination, bribery, or corruption. I'm wondering whether or not you can give us any kind of comfort that these things will be history.

The last thing is with regard to cooperation required with provinces, and I'll give you a short example. We are currently allowing immigrants who are professional truck drivers to enter Canada more rapidly or more easily, because, frankly, there's a shortage and we need them. The Province of Ontario has a policy of treating everybody equally, which means that somebody to whom we have given priority processing to come into Canada because they are a truck driver, let's say, from England or any other country, and who applies for their AZ licence and expects to wait about a year and a half before they can be licensed.... Even though they have years and years of experience, before they can get their driver's licence and then their AZ certification to enable them to work, they are going to sit for a year or a year and a half before they can get into it.

• 1030

The Province of Ontario, as I understand it, allows an exception for drivers from Japan—it's specifically stated right in their booklet—but I don't understand why. Japanese drivers drive on the other side of the road, just as those in Europe do, so I'm not sure why they get special treatment.

But in any case, that's in Ontario legislation. How do we deal with those jurisdictional problems?

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I'm going to take your questions in order. I think they're all really important and excellent questions.

As for the first one, for anybody who's watching and is not aware, I think we have a situation today that is frankly ridiculous. If anyone goes to a visa post and says they'd like to visit Canada, they will be asked if they are considering immigrating to Canada. If that individual says not right now, but yes, maybe some day in the future they might like to come to Canada, and they'd like to go and look around and maybe see if they can get a job offer as well as visit some old friends, they are not given a Canadian visitor's visa because in the current legislation dual intent is not permitted. That's subsection 20(4).

In the new legislation, on the issue of dual intent, it reads:

An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from being authorized to enter and remain in Canada as a temporary resident if the designated officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada no later than by the end of the authorized period.

This is a very important change in this new legislation. It says you can go to a visa officer and you can say, yes, you're thinking about moving to Canada some time in the future so you're going to go, look around, see what the job scene looks like, visit some old friends, and then come back to your home country and apply for immigration status. Provided the immigration officer believes you will leave the country and that you are honest, you will be granted a Canadian visitor's visa. I think that's a very important change in this legislation. It has been very frustrating for a lot of people. That's number one.

Number two, on the issue of locally engaged staff and the whole issue of malfeasance, first I'd like to say that any case of malfeasance, as far as I'm concerned and as far as the department is concerned, is unacceptable. Even if there's one case, it's one case too many.

When we find that there are allegations, every allegation is investigated. When there is a case of founded malfeasance, appropriate action is taken. Charges may be laid. The police may be called in. Individuals are fired, dismissed, and so forth.

Having said that, what we find is that in only about 1% to 1.5% of our total workforce are there actually founded cases of malfeasance. I think, Mr. Chair, that while 1% to 1.5% is too much for you and me, it's probably not inconsistent with what any large corporation would find in its workforce.

Having said that also, I don't think we should be targeting just locally engaged staff. The overwhelming majority of locally engaged staff are dedicated and work hard for Canada. They're good people.

We also know that very often there are disgruntled people who have been turned down, and they will make unfounded allegations. That's why we have to be careful not to do a broad brush, like “everybody from Canada is good and everybody from outside Canada is not good”. I wouldn't say that. I also think it's not true. We know that there have been cases of Canadians, permanent residents of Canada, who have also been found to have been behaving in a way that is unacceptable.

So we take every case, we investigate it, and we take appropriate action, because malfeasance is unacceptable. But the numbers are relatively small: less than 1.5% of our total workforce of 5,000.

On the third point—and I'll be very quick—cooperation with the provinces is key. Provincial government and federal government cooperation, if we're going to succeed in achieving immigration goals, is paramount.

The Canada-Quebec accord is a very important example of that cooperation. It is unique. The Province of Quebec has wanted to have a say in the selection of immigrants, particularly in the independent business class. They have that.

• 1035

That accord was negotiated by the previous government, and you should know that it can only be reopened with the consent of both parties. Not everybody may be happy with all aspects of that accord, but when it comes to selection, Quebec does their own selection for independent and business class immigration.

As far as cooperation with other provinces is concerned, I am encouraging cooperation and participation by other provinces in agreements, each one being negotiated individually. Right now we have interest from a number of provinces. Nova Scotia just sent out a press release saying they're interested in negotiating a provincial nominee agreement. I've had discussions with the minister in British Columbia. Discussions are also ongoing in Alberta.

At this time, the only province that I know of that has no interest in the development of a provincial nominee agreement is Ontario. I'm hoping that maybe they will change their mind and see the benefits of being able to have some say in immigration, since it is a shared jurisdiction.

The last point is credentials. I met recently with Dianne Cunningham, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, and we had a very productive meeting.

One of the things we're trying to do through all of the provinces is cooperatively.... We have a qualifications website and we want intending and prospective immigrants to have as much information as we can give them about what barriers they will face in access to their trade or profession and what their qualifications and credentials will be worth.

Ontario has an assessment centre that they are establishing. Other provinces are working to encourage people to have the information in order for them to know how they will be able to qualify.

But regulation of professions is entirely in provincial jurisdiction, and it does take federal-provincial cooperation to help make this information available.

The Chair: Thank you.

Bernard.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: My questions relate to the detention of minors and children. We know that some Chinese children have been detained, several years or months ago, at the Laval Detention Centre. After having read and re-read clauses 76 to 81, I haven't found anything. The least we can say is that the Bill is vague, weak and insufficient. There is absolutely no reference to the International Convention on the Rights of Children, nor any clarification of what the government intends to do.

I want to know your position on this matter. Do you intend to deal with this issue in the regulations? If so, do you not believe that such a basic issue should be dealt with in the Bill itself?

[English]

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Again, I want to thank the member for raising the whole issue of detention of minors. It's something that concerns me. Frankly, that is one area where provincial and federal partnership is required.

I believe the legislation meets our international obligations. No one likes to detain minors unnecessarily. One of the things we are dealing with right now is the relatively new phenomenon of trafficking. The approaches to the detention of minors that have been taken in the country have been different in different provinces.

It is true that in the province of Quebec minors were detained in the Laval facility. In British Columbia, minors were placed by the Ministry of Children and Families into group homes.

I'm very concerned, because in British Columbia a number of those children have disappeared from those group homes, which means the group homes are not as secure an environment. So over the course of the coming weeks and months, I will be discussing this issue with my provincial colleagues. We will be discussing policy as it relates to detention of minors.

On detention, it's important for the committee to know that the final decision on detention is made by adjudicators at a division of the IRB. However, minors are in the authority of the provincial ministries in the province in which they reside or where they are located. So if a minor shows up in Quebec, it's the Quebec government that has authority over that minor. Similarly, if it's in British Columbia or Ontario, the province plays a very important role.

• 1040

My department can argue for detention. It is the adjudicator who makes the final decision. However, in light of the development of minors who are disappearing and the concerns I have, while we always want to take into consideration what is in the best interests of the child, when minors are detained we also have to consider what kinds of support services are made available to them, such as education and cultural support, psychological support, etc. Many difficult issues are emerging because of the newness of the phenomenon of trafficking in minor children.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I understand that you are at the present time in favour of provisions that would allow for the detention of all citizens, whatever their age. That is what I conclude from the present provisions. Do you not believe that this is a violation of the International Convention on the Rights of Children?

[English]

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I'm very aware of our international obligations. At the present time I believe we are meeting those international obligations. In light of new developments, I think it is necessary for us to have discussions with organizations such as the UNHCR. My preference is that the detention of minors be considered a last resort. I am also very concerned that as a society we understand what's happening and that we do what we can to see that those children are protected from traffickers and snakeheads.

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you have another question?

Mr. Bernard Bigras: No.

[English]

The Chair: Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, I'm going to ask you some questions in two areas. I'll ask the questions and then have you respond to them, hoping I can get a couple of answers here.

With regard to the issue of foreigners, if a Canadian marries a foreigner, you've indicated that your department has quite routinely been giving these people access to our health care system, even if they might be a substantial drain on that system. This means that Canadians will be bumped from the lineups by foreigners, and I wonder whether Canadians really would approve of that.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, I'm not sure that is a salient question. You may want the health committee to decide that. I'm sure the minister would say that no one comes in without provincial approval. Let's not get carried away and try to make a sensational statement for the purposes of the press, when in actual fact that's not the case at all.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm asking the questions, Mr. Chair. I have a series of questions—

The Chair: That question is out of order.

Mr. Leon Benoit: My question is with regard to the immigration department and the minister's decision to put in this legislation—she says and her official said—automatic approval for anyone who is married to a Canadian to be allowed to come and be a draw on the health care system, even if they would be a heavy draw on that system. I think that's a legitimate question.

The Chair: That's a proper question, but not to suggest that Canadians are going to be denied health access. That's ridiculous.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We all know that we have long lineups, Mr. Chair.

Now, the second question—

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Chair, let me answer the question. I'd be happy to do that.

The Chair: Let her answer the question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No. I've indicated the first question, Mr. Chair, but I'd like to ask my questions and then have the minister respond to both, if you wouldn't mind.

The Chair: Fine. Thank you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Than you very much. I appreciate that.

Now, the second item, which I referred to before, is the whole area of family class and the fact that you've expanded in this legislation—this is in the legislation—the family class to include common-law relationships and same-sex relationships, as you've indicated. We know that there is already enough difficulty in determining whether or not a genuine marriage exists, and we know there has been abuse in that area. Many of our offices have dealt with such situations. You indicated earlier, Madam Minister, that that isn't an issue to be dealt with in the legislation. In fact, that isn't even something for regulation. That's almost an administrative detail.

Don't you think, Madam Minister, that Canadians have an absolute right to know how you're going to administer this very difficult issue of determining where a common-law relationship does exist? Automatically now, under this bill, people will be allowed to sponsor in the case of a common-law relationship, including a same-sex relationship. It seems to me that's something that will be virtually impossible to administer, and I'd like you to tell us and Canadians today how you're going to administer that.

• 1045

The Chair: Is that your final question?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

The Chair: Then we'll go to the minister.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me deal with the last question first. I thought I was clear. What I said is that at present we are dealing with those cases, both common-law and same-sex partnerships, by exception through policy. That's what exists today. In this legislation we will, through the regulation, be clarifying how we will be dealing with it in the future. I think that will be in a far more transparent way.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Don't you think—

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Are you going to let me finish? You're being very rude this morning.

The Chair: You've asked the questions, Leon. Now give her the opportunity to answer them. You don't have any other questions. I asked you if you did, and you didn't. So let's stop the arguing and let her answer the questions.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: In the regulations as well we will be dealing with the issue of relationships of convenience. You will have an opportunity at this committee to see the proposals we have and to comment on them, and I'd be happy to discuss them with you at that time.

With regard to the first point you raised on medical inadmissibility, at the present time individuals who are medically inadmissible to this country are denied access, except in two ways: if they are members of the family class, they can appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division of the IRB. I've discussed this issue with every province and every provincial minister, and what is actually happening today is that for humanitarian and compassionate reasons, spouses who may be medically inadmissible are being granted permanent residence status in Canada. This legislation is effectively doing what already exists today. In the very few cases where there is a spouse, after an appeal process they are being permitted to land in Canada to be with their spouse.

There is a second way. Medically inadmissible people are permitted to enter on minister's permits. At the present time someone who is medically inadmissible can appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and request a minister's permit to enter. Through the years—usually it's five years—the family accepts all costs and obligations for medical treatment for that individual. At the end of the five years that individual is eligible for landing in Canada. That's the process that exists today.

There is no anticipation in this legislation or in regulation of any change to the minister's permit procedure, which on humanitarian and compassionate grounds would still allow those people who may be medically inadmissible to enter Canada. But those decisions are made after a full assessment and medical review of the health status of that person by qualified medical practitioners.

It is important to note that in the first provision I referred to, which is the appeal to the IAD, in almost 100% of those cases on humanitarian and compassionate grounds spouses are being landed in Canada today. So this policy does not reflect any change. It actually enshrines what exists and has existed in Canada for many years.

To suggest that there's a change or that there's going to be a greater impact I think is false. I have discussed this with every minister in every province across the country.

The last point I wanted to make to Mr. Benoit is that there are also exceptional circumstances where there are requests, such as for adopted children, and in the past the practice has been to consult with the provinces and to get their consent. Most provinces always agree that adopted children who were lucky enough to be adopted by a Canadian family but who may be medically inadmissible because they have a disability should be welcomed and accepted into Canada. Therefore, this legislation also removes the medical inadmissibility bar from children who are being adopted by families in Canada, even though those children may be medically inadmissible.

• 1050

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, the minister didn't answer at all the question on how her department is going to determine whether a common-law relationship is genuine.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Oh, I said that would be clear in the regulations. I'm happy to discuss that with you at the committee when we table the paper with you.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Ironically, I will call up what Mr. Benoit was pursuing. Regardless, I think it's going to be difficult to use a term that's defined in Canadian law and apply it to people coming from other countries. I don't doubt that you will attempt to do it, and you may or may not succeed. I have sympathy with what you're trying to do.

Let me put this to you. Why don't you just change that clause? Instead of using the word “common-law”, use “dependent partner”. The minister will recall the very brisk debate that occurred when we were trying to define same-sex partnerships and will remember that many in the House of Commons were reluctant to narrow down the definition of partners only to common-law partners in the same-sex context. So why not use “dependent partner”? That actually nets the same-sex partners, but also expands it to other compassionate dependent relationships. I would suggest to you that it will be much more convenient and easy for you to define “dependent” rather than “common-law” in regulation.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I'd like to answer the first question, where you started out by saying we may or may not succeed. One of the reasons we want to have this in regulation is so that we can modify it so that we will succeed over time. If we don't get it right at the first crack, we will have the chance to modify the regulations to make sure they are working in accordance with Canadian policy.

On the issue of dependency as opposed to the definition we have, that was fully debated during the discussions on Bill C-23, and it has significant policy implications. It's a much broader definition. The decision of the Government of Canada in Bill C-23 was to stay with the definition and to implement the Supreme Court ruling, which said that common-law and same-sex spouses had to be treated equally. That's the intention. That's exactly what we're enshrining in this legislation.

I'm sure, Mr. Bryden, that this is a debate that will continue for quite some time into the future. No one has said that we will never move to a different definition, but I think the view of many of us is that there needs to be a much broader discussion of what the implications might be.

Mr. John Bryden: Madam Minister, isn't there an opportunity for the Government of Canada to be flexible? There's an opportunity to be flexible on compassionate grounds, to expand the definition at absolutely no cost. That will actually enable you in regulation to bring in categories of individuals, of partnerships, that really need that kind of consideration. There's no cost and yet it's a far better word than common-law.

I have to admit that I have no objection to the idea of bringing in same-sex couples if you can develop regulations that will define that category for you in a satisfactory way. But I see absolutely no reason in this context to have our ankles tied because we have passed another regulation that was limited for good reason. I heard the reasons that we had to use “common-law” and we didn't want to use “dependent”. That was fine. But I suggest to you that in this context, we could use “dependent”.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: You'll be happy to know, I hope, that all of the humanitarian and compassionate appeal processes that presently exist remain in this legislation so that in cases of exceptional circumstance, the minister and the department are able to appropriately respond to unusual situations. One of the important features of immigration legislation as it's evolved and developed over the years is that there's been a recognition that there may well be circumstances where we want to be able to respond on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. But at the present time, the definition, as a matter of government policy, is reflecting the decision made in Bill C-23.

The Chair: I wonder if I could take the lead from John. In essence, John, we're at the beginning of this process and consultation. I'm sure when it comes down to the clause by clause or in fact looking at the regulation.... We've been invited not only to look at those regulations in advance of the legislation, but also to seek consultation. That's the time to ask the questions you've just posed as to whether or not that flexibility is there to suggest that dependent relationships be understood or at least considered.

• 1055

Minister, I want to take this opportunity to thank you very much. I wonder if I could ask you and your officials to do a number of things for this committee that I think will help us in our deliberations. It has to do with these regulations.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: I was going to suggest something on language, if I could, just so that everyone's clear. What we're talking about are regulatory proposals. The regulations actually cannot formally be developed until after the bill is passed. So perhaps you could use the terminology of “regulatory” or “working paper” on proposed regulations.

The Chair: On that basis, I wonder if you could do a couple of things for us so that we can have a complete binder as we prepare ourselves.

One is to give us a comparison between the old legislation and the proposed new legislation, section by section. Margaret Young, our researcher, would assist. I wonder if you could do the same thing with regard to the regulations. Could you show us where the old regulations are and what possible new regulations might fit, not only in the legislation but so that we can do a comparison?

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

The Chair: That would be absolutely fantastic. As I understand it, those regulatory discussions would take place at the beginning of our process of engagement with the public in the fall. Meanwhile, I think as a committee we will want to discuss what we might do in advance of returning.

I want to thank you, Minister, for your comments this morning and for some of the questions. As I said at the beginning, I think this is perhaps one of the most fundamental changes in Canadian legislation that we will undertake. Immigration is very important to this country economically, socially, and culturally. Therefore we look forward to the consultation with the Canadian public and a fantastic bill to follow.

Thank you and your officials for your cooperation and your assistance thus far.

Mrs. Elinor Caplan: Thank you. We look forward to working with the committee.

The Chair: We're adjourned until 3:30 on June 14 to start future business, and from 4 to 5:30 will be the technical briefing with the department on Bill C-31. Thank you very much.