CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, June 14, 2000

• 1542

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Colleagues, while we're waiting for another colleague or two to come in so we can pass the necessary motions, maybe we can at least look over the future order of business with regard to Bill C-31.

I would hope the members of this committee presently are hoping to continue in the next committee when we return in the fall. In preparation for that, I've asked at least our House leader and whip to get the ball moving, so to speak, so we can strike the committee as early as possible when we get back. Otherwise we wait, as you know, for the striking committee to be set up, the membership rosters to be put in place ten days after, and we're going to lose another two or three weeks.

So I'm trying to encourage our side to expedite the process and perhaps Leon and Rob and Pat—and I'll speak to Bernard and to David—could speak to their whips and House leaders for the purpose of striking the committee as quickly as possible. Then when we return on September 18, we can begin hearings and at least do some of the work that week, if not the following week.

So it is in that spirit of being able to hopefully get the hearings off fairly quickly that the future order of business in the orders of reference are here before you. Maybe I'll just quickly go over them and you can give me your suggestions.

First of all, that the chair be authorized to issue a press release designating fall 2000 as the date when public hearings will commence on Bill C-31. Obviously I couldn't be a little more clearer than the fall, but it's hoped it's that last week in September that we would start our hearings.

The next is that organizations and individuals who are interested in appearing before the committee or submitting a brief are advised to contact the clerk of the committee of their desire to appear no later than July 31, 2000. That gives us an opportunity as a committee to see...and I would anticipate that there's probably going to be a lot of people who may want to appear before the committee, and that's fine.

If in fact citizens are contacting you, the members of the committee, you might want to keep in mind that the committee obviously is planning to travel. So if people from B.C. want to speak to the committee, you might refer them to the Vancouver hearings, and the same in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes.

• 1545

We will also have national hearings here, and we may be doing some teleconferencing in every one of those locations across the country. So if we're in Regina and people from Saskatoon want to talk to us, we'll do some teleconferencing there, and the same with Vancouver, Montreal, and Atlantic Canada.

We obviously want this process to be as open as possible, with as much dialogue and input as possible, and we'll try to accommodate all of those people by using some unique teleconferencing, even in cities outside of Ottawa.

We would want to hear from people who might want to appear, so they should submit to the clerk before the end of July that they would want to appear. This would give us an opportunity to take a look at the list relatively soon, and then by the middle of August we would have all of the submissions, and we want people to give us written submissions. As soon as we get the written submissions, by August 15, I want to essentially distribute all of those to you, so while you're sitting on your porches or doing whatever during the summer and you want some interesting reading, you'll be able to read all those interesting briefs that will be sent to us. So from the middle of August until the middle of September, we will make sure you get all of the briefs that have been sent to the clerk.

That's what numbers one and two are all about essentially.

Regarding number three, I want the members, as early as possible, to think about the witnesses you might want to have appear before the committee. If there's no duplication, what I think we'll do—because to date I think the clerk has received something like 50 requests for witnesses—is we'll distribute the list. We have it already; it's in the file. Some organizations might be calling you, so I thought you might want the initial list now, so there's no duplication. But again, we would look to your guidance for some additional witnesses you may want, again bearing in mind that when we are travelling, they can appear at those venues rather than in Ottawa.

Number four speaks to the clerk in consultation with the researcher to group different organizations so that a number of witnesses can be heard. I think that's just an organizational thing.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): If I could comment on that, I think we should have some of the meetings with a different format. The finance committee every now and again has what they call, I believe, a round table format, where you might have five witnesses from different groups and with different points of view on some of the issues. They give very short presentations, five minutes max, but there's interaction amongst the witnesses.

That, I think, really adds to what you get out of it, because they're not just coming in here giving a presentation and answering a few questions. You have the other people with similar interests who may, in some cases, approach the issue from a different point of view, and they ask each other questions and interact, and it works really well. Other committees have done it from time to time, and I think it's very effective—not for all of the meetings, but I would suggest we do that with some of the meetings.

The Chair: Well, we may be forced to do that, only because in terms of time, in our groupings of witnesses, we have four or five witnesses together, each given five or eight minutes or so to make their own presentation. They may be of different views and opinions. We then will question the witnesses, and there may be some of that interaction. I don't have a problem with that kind of interaction or that kind of meeting either. So we're going to try to facilitate that kind of thing.

The other thing is, again, we might want to try some unique and creative things once we're back here. The committee may want, after we've heard witnesses and we've got the regs, to have round table discussions with various national representatives to dialogue and do that. So we're open to all those kinds of suggestions; I think that would be a lot more constructive and probably more interesting. The witnesses might even feel they're more involved in the process than just submitting briefs—working with us as we work through some of those clauses, or before we get to clause-by-clause. But some of those regulations I'm sure will be of interest to an awful lot of people.

• 1550

So number four, I think the clerk and Margaret will try to group those things.

Number five is just simply to say that over and above the meetings we usually have on Wednesdays and Thursdays, we may very well want to have more meetings.

Colleagues, the whole notion behind this, I think, is that we would like—in my opinion—to get this legislation out of committee and into the House before we get out of here for Christmas. I can tell you that in order to do that, it's going to take a little bit more work.

We don't have anything else on our schedules that is coming down the pipe, so we can be a very busy committee, but we have to travel. And there are an awful lot of break weeks in-between—look at your calendars in October and November. We want to keep to a relatively tight timeline so that we in fact can get this legislation passed by Christmas break. I think that would be very good.

So again, number five essentially says that if there are no difficulties, we'll call for additional meetings.

Number six is a travel motion, which essentially is giving authorization to start the process of putting in the budget and tabling the report saying this committee intends to travel. I think we're asking for something in the neighbourhood of....

Does it say that here, Santosh?

The Clerk of the Committee: Yes.

The Chair: Oh, number seven does, but the travel motion just says that at least 10 of us will travel.

Obviously we want to make sure everybody travels, but we may find it's easier for a group to go out west and another group to go out east, or whether or not it's your pleasure to have all 16 of us travel to every city.... I mean, we have to be a little pragmatic and a little budget-conscious also. So we've essentially said 10 members because on other committees that's usually the number of committee members that travel. But it doesn't have to be the same 10; it could be a different 10 depending on what part of the country.... So that's what number six does.

Number seven says that—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chairman, if I may, on number six...?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, there are three locations I'd like to add right away to that list. One is Windsor, another is Buffalo, and a third one is Vegreville, the call centre there.

The Chair: I was trying to get close to Windsor by saying London—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Oh.

The Chair: —and I think we could probably cover them off.

Mr. Leon Benoit: With the two, yes, there may—

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Is there any immigration in London?

The Chair: Oh, big time! London is a destination point, believe it or not, Rick.

Mr. Leon Benoit: From Montreal mostly.

The Chair: Maybe we'll go down the highway to Windsor too. We can look at it.

Vegreville in Alberta meaning the centre...?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, the centre. That's right.

The other thing we should consider.... I don't know. I hadn't really thought about this before now. But because this is a new immigration act, we probably should seriously consider travel to some of the main centres, especially, I'd say, Pakistan and India and possibly eastern Europe—Moscow and Kiev. I realize we'd have to keep it limited and you can't.... Going to Beijing and Hong Kong might be pretty expensive, but I think we should look at that; I'm not calling for it necessarily, but I think we should really seriously consider it.

The Chair: Listen, I would agree, especially after what we've heard from the Auditor General, and in fact after what we've heard from our department. Travel beyond Canada for the purposes of fashioning this immigration bill is a good suggestion. That's a separate budget item, and I can tell you that there's not an awful lot of money in these committee budgets for an awful lot of travel. I think you might find that the minister might be amenable to working with this committee.

I don't know whether or not we might want to do this kind of travel while we're off in the next two or three months as opposed to waiting until October or November. Why don't you let me have some discussions as to whether or not we might dispatch three to one particular area, say India or Pakistan, and another one or three to eastern Europe, making sure we have all parties represented? We could essentially do that and then everybody could come back with their impressions and their facts in preparation for our meetings in September. Why don't we canvas that sort of idea?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, that might be.... The only thing is that over the summer it'll be really tricky. As you know, we have, of course, our regular MP's schedule, but we also have nominations and things like that. Realistically—

The Chair: Are you getting ready for a fall election?

Mr. Leon Benoit: We are indeed.

The Chair: Oh.

Mr. Leon Benoit: This could all be moot.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): I'd just like to add something. I know there was some discussion with regard to London being close to Windsor, but we've all heard about—and others have mentioned, even in committee—the whole idea of the “Buffalo shuffle”. If that is one of the major points dealing with U.S.-Canada relations in immigration in this country, I think it would be remiss of us, if we're going down to that neck of the woods, if we don't make a serious effort to see what's going on in Windsor and Buffalo.

• 1555

The Chair: Well, the only thing I can tell you about Buffalo is that, maybe because it has a nice ring to it, some of us in southern Ontario call it the “Detroit shuffle”. People in the Niagara and Toronto areas probably call it the “Buffalo shuffle”.

Listen, maybe you can tell me: what do you think we might get out of it? Because one of the things in the new bill, essentially, is that we're talking about setting up a new landing class in Canada so that there does not need to be any of this kind of game-playing or Buffalo shuffle or Detroit shuffle and so on and so forth. I have no problem, if we're very close to Windsor-London—and we can say London-Windsor—with going to Detroit to get an impression of what's happening on the other side of the border—or for that matter, with going to Buffalo—but I'm trying to find out exactly what we are going to find out by going to Detroit or Buffalo.

Mr. Rob Anders: Well, if this bill is the attempt to correct that problem, I think it's fair that we get a chance to really view the problem. Of course, we all read about those things, and maybe if one visits in one's own private time.... But if the whole purpose of the bill is to correct that issue, then I think we'd be remiss if we didn't look at it.

Mr. Rick Limoges: You can't really go there and see what the problem is, though, because what we're talking about is people crossing the border, finding a short-term residence, and applying to come back.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm sure there must be people who work that border posting who would provide us with invaluable expertise and personal experiences of what they deal with.

The Chair: May I just remind you of a couple of things? Margaret pointed out to me that there is a big distinction between the committee doing some fact-finding, such as going to Buffalo and here, there, and everywhere else, and the committee hearing testimony from witnesses—Canadian witnesses. Maybe we should distinguish what it is that.... Is it for fact-finding? Not a problem. But let's separate as a fact-finding thing that the committee might want to go to Buffalo or what have you, as opposed to hearing from witnesses. Who would we hear from in Buffalo?

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman—

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Is there some order of speaking, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes. I'm sorry, Pat. I'm doing it rather informally, but go ahead.

Mr. Pat Martin: I've been waiting a long time for a turn to say a few words. This is being dominated by this end of the table. When—and if—is it my turn to have some say about this?

The Chair: To tell you the truth, we hadn't formally gone on to things. We're just casually talking.

Mr. Pat Martin: I see. We're just chit-chatting.

The Chair: You're next.

Mr. Rob Anders: I just wanted to say this: for witnesses, who better to go to than the people who have to deal with this issue on a recurring basis? I'm sure we can go to London and there are going to be people there, but if not, there's Windsor, where they deal with the problem immediately. I'm sure there are a lot of people who work in and around the Windsor area and deal with our border situation that would have some valuable—

The Chair: I don't have a problem with that sort of scenario, as you indicated. Rather than saying “London”, we'll put “London-Windsor”. We'll figure it out and finalize that.

Pat.

Mr. Pat Martin: For the purposes of Bill C-31, I don't see why we would go to American border towns. I don't see who you would talk to, really, who would help us with that.

For the purposes of Bill C-31, we want to hear witnesses who seek to come to our committee and see us. It isn't an overall fact-finding mission to chit-chat with people on the street about immigration policy, especially in a foreign country. I don't see the value in going to Blaine, Washington, or Minneapolis or Buffalo or Detroit or any point of entry on the other side.

As for going to Europe and overseas postings, I know that one of the things the minister has been doing is trying to get to as many of her 82 overseas postings as she can. She has been to India and China recently, sometimes with the members of this committee, and we visited some of the main...Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Fuzhou, Delhi. She has other trips planned to Turkey and places where there are refugees, etc.

So that's an ongoing process, and really, again, has nothing to do directly with Bill C-31. If our purpose is to expedite Bill C-31 and get it done prior to the Christmas break, I don't think we should go gallivanting around the whole world on a philosophical fact-finding mission about immigration in general. I think we should limit ourselves to the terms of Bill C-31 and the Canadian witnesses who want to talk to us. That would have about the most value.

• 1600

Frankly, the other information could be obtained through our research people. If we need to know the volume of people who go through Buffalo, we don't have to go down there personally and count heads. We can ask our people to give us that information.

The Chair: I think Rob meant that when we were going to the border cities, it would be the Canadian border city, Windsor, and we'd hear from the people in Windsor.

Mr. Pat Martin: I think he said “Buffalo”.

Mr. Rob Anders: They happen to be right next to each other, and if we're going to be going down to London, that neck of the woods, I don't think it's unreasonable—

The Chair: —to go to Windsor. I understand that. I think Pat was saying, would we go across the border and hear from witnesses other than Canadians?

Sophia.

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

I feel that we have to listen to Canadians, get more Canadian input at this point for this bill. I support the idea of going to different cities in Canada. I concur with my colleague across, Mr. Martin.

The whole thing is, it's not our purpose to go to other countries; it's not our focus. Secondly, we have to focus on this bill and the input of Canadian citizens and groups. That's what we should do.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The Auditor General pointed out that there are huge problems in overseas offices, and I think that includes not just overseas offices, but offices like Buffalo. You don't just go there and talk to people on the street. We're talking about hearing from people who deal with these situations every day, and looking at the setting, so that we really understand what's going on, not just from talking to people on the street, but by talking to people who are involved in the process and having a look at it in a way that gives us an understanding. I don't know why anyone would be opposed to trying to achieve that type of understanding.

In terms of the overseas offices, that's where a lot of the problem is. Although it isn't in Bill C-31 as such, if the minister has been talking about the possibility of moving some of the overseas services to Canada to a centralized point, we ought to have a look at what the impact might be.

I suggest that we don't just go by ourselves, and I don't think going with the minister is going to cut it. I think what we have to do is take some Canadian consultants who deal with immigration, who go over to these centres on a regular basis, have one or two of them come with us and show us.

I've talked to these people, and it's fascinating what they say in terms of how they recruit and some of the problems they have, some of the things that work and some that don't. To really understand the system, I think we should do that. We should have along with us some Canadian consultants who work in different settings. I think that's how we'll learn.

The Chair: I wonder if we can proceed on this basis: one, whether this committee then will travel beyond what we've said here, in terms of overseas, and so on.

I think you will agree, Leon, that an awful lot of what we heard from the Auditor General, and in fact even some of our overseas officers, was that they're mostly administrative problems there, resource problems, as opposed to Bill C-31 problems. So they're not legislative. Legislation may or may not change those.

I thought I heard more about the administration. That's a little different from Bill C-31. But I'm not ruling anything out at this point in time.

If this committee should so choose, after hearing witnesses at the early stages who might indicate that it would be important that we travel overseas to close the loop, then perhaps at a subsequent meeting, in September, the steering committee could decide that.

But for now do you think we could at least change number 7 to say “London-Windsor”, so that we can get to that port? What would be the reference point to Buffalo, Toronto-Buffalo?

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Fort Erie-Buffalo.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): It's part of the Toronto leg.

The Chair: Yes, it's part of the Toronto leg. We could do it there. So we could amend that to read “London-Windsor”, and then we'll put “Toronto-Fort Erie-Buffalo” for that purpose.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Don't put “Buffalo”, just “Toronto-Fort Erie”.

The Chair: Okay, that's good.

Is it fine to keep the membership at 10 to travel, as in number six? Agreed.

Let's deal with them one at a time, if we could please.

Number one, is it agreed that this is the time schedule?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

• 1605

The Chair: There's a misprint here. Number two should read—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. In number one, in regard to the time, does that mean we start in the fall of 2000?

The Chair: Well, no, in number one and two, requests to appear are to be in by the end of July, and submissions by the middle of August.

Number two should read the same thing. Unfortunately, the way it reads now, everything is for the middle of August. It should be the end of July, the same way, and the middle of August.

On numbers one and two, is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Number three is just asking you to submit your own lists as soon as possible. Are we agreed on that one?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Number four is that we be authorized to group witnesses, and we'll take your comments into account. Agreed?

Mr. Leon Benoit: If I could, in numbers three and four together, there's something that I think is very important.

It's fine for us to get our list of witnesses, but then it seems to disappear into a dark hole and we never really know why some of them don't appear and why some do. We're going to have a long list of witnesses in this case, and I'd like to be able to follow it up as to why some are asked to come and some aren't, and why some can't come and some can.

If we could have regular reports, starting before the first meeting, as to how it was decided to have this first group of witnesses—

The Chair: The witness list is usually compiled by the steering committee with all parties being represented. That's my commitment. Not only will you get the initial list, but you'll always get an updated list of who's asking to appear, and also, then, when it comes to fashioning who gets to appear or not, I think that will be done collectively.

Again, we're going to eight or nine cities. We would want to refer them to those various points.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm asking for a bit more reporting, though, on what happens with that witness list.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In other words, if some people have been contacted and haven't answered, I'd like to get that list. If people have been contacted and said they can't come during that time period but they could at another, I'd like to know that. I'd just like to be able to see it. So maybe we'll see some opportunity—

The Chair: That's the clerk's business.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If we could have a report on that, that would be great.

The Clerk: No problem.

The Chair: So we're agreed on number four.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Number five is just essentially a little flexibility on the meetings.

Number six is the travel. Is everybody agreed on the travel?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Number seven is the travel budget. We'll have to change it from $238,445.66—

The Clerk: Including the extra amount—

The Chair: We'll put “including extra amounts” to take—

The Clerk: For Windsor?

Mr. Rick Limoges: You're making an amendment to the travel motion on those cities?

The Chair: Yes. I think we said we were going to do that. So that's London-Windsor and Toronto-Fort Erie.

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: It's $238,000, including additional resources for the additional cities. Okay?

The Clerk: I'll have a total amount later.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Number eight says I should report to the House on our decision to travel.

As you know, most times applications to travel go through the liaison committee, and so on. It no longer is meeting. What I think we should at least do is advise the House—this is an administrative thing—that this committee intends to travel for the purpose of Bill C-31, so at least the public knows that we're going to be doing it, and as far as getting the authorization for the money so that we can begin as quickly as possible, we'll go through the regular channels—either through the Board of Internal Economy or through the liaison committee.

But I think we should at least advise the House, by my tabling the report tomorrow, that we intend to travel for the purposes of hearing from Canadians on Bill C-31. If there's no problem on that, that's what number eight will be. Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Is there any other business with regard to this? If not, we'll move quickly to hearing from the officials on Bill C-31, and I would ask them all to come forward. I think we have Joan Atkinson, Daniel Therrien, Elizabeth Tromp, and Dougall Aucoin.

• 1610

Colleagues, we're resuming consideration of Bill C-31, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted, or in danger. Today we have our officials with us.

Who's going to be taking the lead? Joan?

Joan, welcome again. As we embark on this little journey to make this new Immigration Act, I'm sure we'll have plenty of meetings. When we met with some of the officials and the minister, there were a couple of things that were going to be provided to the committee so that they can begin their work, and I just want to make sure we have them covered off.

The first one was that we were going to have a comparison done between the old bill and the new bill. Then we were going to have another document that showed us the old regulations and the new regulations and how those fit into the new bill, so that we, in turn, can have those. It's not necessary to have them tomorrow, but in due course. We'd like to have them earlier rather than later, so that we can begin that.

The minister's commitment was that we would have the regulations also, not necessarily the precise wording of the regulation, but the framework of each one of those regulations as you develop them.

With that, do you have an opening statement, Joan?

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Acting Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Yes. In fact, with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, given that the request was for a technical briefing, I thought I would do an overview of the bill, run through the major sections of the bill and focus on some of those issues the committee is interested in, in terms of what's new and how it compares. I will point out to you where the regulatory authorities are in the bill.

In terms of what you can expect from us, as the minister committed to, we will indeed provide some comparative data. I'll also try to do some of that today as I go through my opening remarks. Certainly, as the minister has committed, we propose to come with the regulatory proposals, probably in the fall. We hope to be able to have those proposals more fleshed out for you and to return to the committee with a fairly substantive discussion document that would have those regulatory proposals.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'll jump right in, if that's okay.

The bill is divided into five parts. The first part relates to immigration, the selection of immigrants and non-immigrants to Canada. The second part of the bill deals with refugee protection. The third part deals with enforcement. That's primarily offences and punishments and sanctions. The fourth part deals with the Immigration and Refugee Board. Part V deals with transitional provisions and consequential amendments to other pieces of legislation.

I'll just briefly touch on each of those parts so that you can know what's in each part. Before we get into part I, though, I think it's important for us to look at what's before that, and that is the objectives and application of the act, clauses dealing with enabling authorities in a general sense, and agreements with governments or international organizations.

What's new in this bill, of course, is the two objectives. We have separate objectives for the immigration side and relating to refugee protection. Within those objectives, we have confirmed the objective for family reunification, but there are some new objectives, specifically objectives on the immigration side relating to supporting the achievement of immigration goals by means of consistent standards and prompt processing. There's a commitment to service standards and prompt processing. On the refugee side of the objectives, there is a commitment to facilitate reunification with families promptly and to recognize that the refugee program is, in the first instance, about saving lives and offering protection to the displaced and persecuted.

In the section dealing with agreements with governments or international organizations, we give effect, in clause 9 in particular, to the Canada-Québec Accord. It is not mentioned specifically by name in the legislation, but the legal effect of the Canada-Québec Accord is very much in evidence in that section of the bill, specifically clause 9.

• 1615

What is also new in this part of the act is the clauses dealing with consultations with the provinces. There is mandatory consultation on immigration levels in the bill, but there's also consultation with provinces and territories on immigration and refugee policies, which again is something that is new in this bill.

Part I deals with immigration to Canada, and it is divided into ten divisions. We think it flows in a fairly logical way. It starts with the requirements before entering Canada, then deals with examination upon entering Canada and entering and remaining in Canada. It deals then with inadmissibility, loss of status, detention, and removals, in that order. So it flows in a fairly logical sequence.

In the first part of part I, clause 12 identifies the three major pillars of the program, those being the economic class, the family class, and of course convention refugees and persons in need of protection. Clause 14 gives regulation-making authority for those three classes, including selection criteria and applications for visas, conditions that may be imposed, sponsorship undertakings, and so on. This is very similar to the current act. These regulation-making authorities in the current act, as we know....

The actual selection criteria, definitions related to the family class, and sponsorship criteria are all in regulation. This act puts the regulation-making authority in that section of the act dealing with that particular item. So again, as you read through the act, you see the regulation-making authority that is appropriate to that particular part of the act.

Division 2 deals with examination, and that is examination anywhere, whether it be overseas at a visa office or at a port of entry or in Canada. This is an amalgamated section dealing with examination. In this part of the bill, in clause 17, there is regulation-making authority that deals with all the procedures and rules around examination.

Division 3 talks about entering and remaining in Canada. In this section, in clause 19 specifically, we see the rights to enter and remain in Canada for Canadian citizens and Indians under the Indian Act and the right to enter for permanent residents. We also see here authorization to enter and remain. These are the key sections that deal with the granting of permanent residence and the granting of temporary residence.

In this part of the bill, in subclause 20(4), we have the new provision dealing with dual intent that the minister talked about when she was here. That is the fact that a foreign national who desires to become a permanent resident may also have a temporary intent to come to Canada as a temporary resident, and that provision or that principle is recognized in the bill.

Clauses 21 and 22 deal with permits, called at the moment “minister's permits”. Clause 21 deals with permits to enter and remain in Canada for persons who are inadmissible to Canada or otherwise do not meet the requirements of the act. That is the current minister's permit. Clause 22 deals with humanitarian and compassionate decision-making. Again, where individuals are inadmissible or do not meet the requirements and the minister is of the opinion that it is justified on humanitarian and compassionate grounds or on grounds of public policy, the minister may decide that a person be granted permanent residence.

Clause 23 gives you the regulation-making authority that deals with those sections. It's regulation-making authority dealing with circumstances under which permits may be issued or humanitarian and compassionate applications may be dealt with and those decisions may be made. Again, it deals with applications and conditions that may be applied to applications made under these sections.

We then move on to the rights and obligations of permanent and temporary residents in clause 24. Here we're dealing with the new provisions for the retention of permanent residence status. Again, the minister mentioned this when she was here. This is the requirement that a permanent resident must be physically in Canada for at least 730 days, or two years, in each five-year period. Then there are provisions dealing with deemed presence in Canada, that is, exceptions to that rule of physical presence in Canada.

• 1620

Then we deal with temporary residence. Subclause 26(2) is new and deals with minor children. Again, the minister mentioned this. The clause indicates that a minor child in Canada does not require an authorization to study at the preschool, primary, or secondary level unless they are the child of a temporary resident who is not authorized to work or study in Canada—i.e., children of visitors in Canada.

On proof of residence, we have provisions dealing with the permanent resident card. Finally, in clause 28, we have the regulation-making authority that deals with temporary residents. That would include students, temporary workers and visitors, as well as a provision for regulating the conditions on which we would examine or determine physical presence in Canada.

I would emphasis the point that all of the rules around the entry of temporary foreign workers, foreign students and visitors are found in the regulations of the current act. This again is not new, in that sense.

Division 4 then gets into inadmissibility. We make reference to regulation-making authority with regard to inadmissibility, but all the principles of inadmissibility are spelled out in the act. We deal with security, human rights violations, and serious criminality. You will notice serious criminality is broken into two sections: serious criminality dealing with immigration and immigrants in general and serious criminality dealing with refugee claimants specifically.

This is important because we refer to these provisions again when we look at the eligibility criteria for refugee determination and those who are eligible, or ineligible as the case may be, to enter into the refugee determination system. Security, human rights violations, and serious criminality for refugee claimants define what we mean when we talk about those who are ineligible for consideration under the refugee determination, as does the provision dealing with organized crime.

We have the other inadmissibility provisions that are in the current act dealing with health grounds and financial reasons. The new inadmissibility provision in clause 36 deals with misrepresentation. A foreign national would be deemed to be inadmissible for misrepresentation for directly or indirectly making a material misrepresentation or withholding information on a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this act; that is, material misrepresentation that goes to the very core of the decision made under this legislation. Again, a person continues to be inadmissible for two years following the final determination of inadmissibility.

On the regulation-making authority found in clause 38, this would include regulations that would waive, or could possibly waive, certain classes of foreign nationals from any of the provisions in this part of the act. For example, the waiver of medical inadmissibility would be done by regulation under the authority of clause 38.

The Chair: Joan, we'll give you an opportunity to catch your breath and have a drink of water before you proceed to division 5. This is a technical briefing, so I'm just going to ask whether or not there are any questions up to this point.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Great.

The Chair: Leon, do you have any?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, I do.

The Chair: Let's stick to five-minute rounds because this is not a debate. This is a technical briefing, so if you need some clarification on something, now is the time to ask the questions.

Mr. Leon Benoit: On page 7, information is given on the family class, the various refugee and economic classes. But there is just a very plain, bare statement. There's one sentence in each section, or maybe a couple of sentences in the refugee section.

• 1625

The minister indicated there would be a draft regulation before the committee—before we started discussing this. In the draft regulation, just what kind of information will we get? Maybe I can ask that a little more specifically, so you see what I'm getting at.

On page 11, under “Dual intent”, how wide or how narrow will it be? Subclause 20(4) just says:

(4) 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

That's all it says. It gives no indication as to which classes may be included. It's kind of a wide open statement. It means nothing when it comes to us reviewing this legislation and trying to make some determination on it.

When we get those regulations—which will be the first thing in the fall, I understand—just what will they tell us? Will they give us the whole story as to what will be included under the dual intent section, just to use one example?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Perhaps I could go to your first example, in terms of family class, on the clauses dealing with the economic class and the family class. In the material you have been or will be provided on the clause-by-clause analysis of the bill, there is a paper that gives you an overview of the regulations. Attached to that overview of the regulations is a summary, in point form, of the key policy reforms of a regulatory nature. They are the key issues you will find in the regulatory proposals we will be coming back to the committee with in the fall, with more detail.

So you will have already received—or will receive if you don't have it already—some indication of what is going to be in the regulations, for example, in the case of family class; what we intend to do to define dependent children; what we intend to do in terms of international adoption, definition of spouse, and so on. All of that information is now available to you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Are you saying the points give those definitions, or do they just say what the regulation will deal with?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: For example, the definition of dependent child is fairly clear. We are going to raise the age from where it currently is at under 19 to under 22. We're going to include children who are unmarried. All of those pieces of information are spelled out in point form in the package you have in front of you now.

The Chair: Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Joan. We just received the binders, so on the clause-by-clause, some of those explanations are in there. Again, this is an overview, a technical briefing.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Exactly.

The Chair: There's a lot of stuff in there that may or may not answer some of your questions, Leon, and some of ours. This is just to get familiar with the bill, the binder, and the regs. Some of these questions are very helpful.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right.

The Chair: Do you have another one, Leon?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I guess I'll see what's in the binder. I haven't received it yet. Once I see what's in there, I can tell what is and isn't there.

My concern is that I believe some of the things that are dealt with in regulation should be put in the act itself, so at least there's a clear indication of the principle the government intends to have put into law in this country, and it isn't all left to regulation. Some areas are virtually all left to regulation, the way it is right now.

I'll need to put the two together and look at them. Then I can bring back proposals for just how much. I understand that some should be put in regulation, but some should be put right in the legislation, so that they're not easy to change and Canadians know—

The Chair: That's going to be part of the debate, I'm sure.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm sure it will.

The Chair: Okay.

John, and then Pat.

• 1630

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Does clause 22 apply to failed refugee claimants?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It can potentially apply to failed refugee claimants. In the proposals we talked about when we put our white paper out, and in leading up to the tabling of the bill...we do intend to put some regulations in place to clarify circumstances and rules around humanitarian and compassionate applications. One of those rules will be that you can make a humanitarian and compassionate application only once per year. So there will be some limitations placed on the number of times one can make an H and C application. As you know, in the current system you can make an H and C application at any time, at any point, in any process. The regulations around H and C will put some clarification, if you will, around the submission of H and C applications.

Mr. John McKay: But I thought the original report recommended the consolidation of H and C, risk review, refugee, all at one hearing, all the same facts, all done.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Correct.

Mr. John McKay: Does clause 22 then go back on that recommendation?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No. There's something else I should add. I didn't give you a one hundred percent complete answer.

What we currently do in H and C is we look at what we call personalized risk of return to the individual. Again, the regulations will stipulate that in submission of an H and C application, not only will it be limited to one per year but the issue of personalized risk will be a factor that will be circumscribed in terms of the factors that would be looked at.

Mr. John McKay: Isn't the fundamental issue as to whether a failed refugee claim should get a second kick at the can through the minister's office?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, the consolidated decision-making will allow for all the risk-related decisions to be taken at the IRB. The pre-removal risk assessment will give refugee claimants another kick at the can before they are removed, to make their pitch on the degree of risk they will face if they're returned to.... The idea is, through the regulations, to remove from the H and C process that assessment of risk, because it will be done at the board and then again if a refugee claimant is rejected at the pre-removal risk assessment.

The Chair: Pat.

Mr. Pat Martin: This is one matter I brought up when the minister was in, and she thought at that time the best time to ask it was at the technical briefing. One thing I wanted some more comment on is that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says the best interests of the child have to be the primary concern. We felt Bill C-31 went one step softer in its language. Can you explain to us if that's the case?

Actually, it was Mr. Therrien who was going to respond to it at the other meeting.

The Chair: Can you just give us the reference? Some of us just love this kind of stuff, and if you could tell me the clause and the....

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Mr. Chairman, we were just talking about humanitarian and compassionate in clause 22, and if you look at subclause (2) at the top of page 12:

(2) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Minister must take into account the best interests of the child directly affected by the decision.

That's one place.

It's also found in the appeals section, which we haven't gotten to yet, and we make reference to it in “Detention”, taking into consideration the special interests of children in terms of detention. But regarding the best interests of the child, we find it here in the context of H and C, and we find it again in the context of appeals.

Mr. Pat Martin: I think the last example you just gave is what has the advocacy groups sort of concerned. You said best interests of the child shall be one of the considerations given and the UN language is “the best interests shall be the primary concern in all aspects of dealing with children”. Is there anything further to add to that?

Mr. Daniel Therrien (Senior Legal Counsel, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): This question of the weight to be given to the interests of children was actually considered by the Supreme Court in a case called Baker about a year ago. The court had to determine in the context of a humanitarian review what is the weight to be given to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and to the best of interests of children. The court's decision, which we codify in a certain sense in these provisions, is that the best interests of children is an important consideration but it is not necessarily one that outweighs others.

• 1635

So when we say it is the primary consideration...the Supreme Court did not say that best interests of children trumps enforcement interests—for instance, removal of a parent who might be criminally inadmissible. It's an important consideration, but it's not the primary consideration, and that is what we attempt to say here.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay, I understand.

The Chair: I think this is going to be a very big area, so we could spend just a little more time on the children thing. Leon's got a supplementary question to follow up on.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a quick follow-up on the best interests of the child. In the points we get on regulation, will there be a definition of the best interests of the child?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There will not be a definition of best interests of the child. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in another case—which I don't have the name of in front of me, but it was a divorce and custody case, an application of family law—that it's best not to define best interests of the child simply because what will be the best interests of the child varies so tremendously given the circumstances of each and every case. It is not defined in international convention. It is a principle that is recognized in international convention and it is a principle that, as Daniel has said, we wish to apply in the context of immigration decision-making, but it's impossible to define what it means because it is going to vary so tremendously with each case.

The Chair: Pat.

Mr. Pat Martin: I guess we're also critical that a lot of the definitions will be left to the regulations. We should just get that on the record.

One of the questions I was going to ask is, when can we hope to see the draft of the regulations? You answered “in the fall”. That's the best we could do for now, I suppose—when we hope to be able to see those draft regulations?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, as I said, the binder you just got, so you will not have had a chance to go through it, does provide you with some additional information on the regulations in terms of the key policy issues you will find in the regulations. What we have committed to do when we come back in the fall is to have a fairly fulsome document that will give you details on the regulatory proposals. As the minister said when she was here, they won't be the exact draft regulations per se, but they will certainly be very fulsome. They will be the proposals, what we are likely to find in the regulations when we come back in the fall.

The Chair: We will have those when we begin the hearings. Before we were going to get them when we got to the clause-by-clause discussion and that wasn't going to be very helpful. So now we're getting them right at the beginning of the public hearings.

Go ahead.

Mr. Pat Martin: Do I have more time? Okay.

On one of the other UN conventions, against torture, it's been a positive impact that there's reference to it, but nevertheless the bill does exempt some situations. For instance, the prohibition against returning anyone to a country where they may face torture has exemptions there. What's the reasoning behind the idea to balance the risk of torture against Canada's interests, and doesn't this compromise the intent of a fairly absolute convention about never returning anyone to a situation where they face torture?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'm going to ask Daniel to respond on the specifics of the convention against torture.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: The answer is essentially that the minister, and the government generally, is taking the policy stance that in some situations there are crimes that are so heinous that Canada, after looking at the individual circumstances of the case and whether there are alternatives to removal to a place where the person might be tortured, as a policy statement is saying there might be some cases where there is no other choice but to send people to torture. It is true that generally, the protection of the convention against torture is felt to be absolute. But the government is taking that stance, both in this legislation and also in a number of cases that are being argued in the Supreme Court shortly, one of them being Suresh.

• 1640

Mr. Pat Martin: Is there any other country in the world that actually compromises the absolute ban on deporting people to a country where they're going to be tortured? Is there a precedent for this anywhere else in the world?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: I don't know of any precedent for this. We've not looked at the practice of all countries, but it's fair to say that among western democracies, we are probably the only ones in that situation.

Mr. Pat Martin: The first to break the absolute international agreement, consensus.

How am I doing for time?

The Chair: Fine. I'm real generous today.

Mr. Pat Martin: You are. I'll skip to—

The Chair: We've only got to division 4 or division 5, so we're getting ahead of ourselves, to this point. Let's stick to the bible here.

Mr. Pat Martin: Are we? To what we've spoken to...well, to the issues that have come up in divisions 1 through 4. That's what I'm trying to do.

The Chair: Yes, that's fine.

Ms. Leung, you have questions on divisions 1 through 4—different from the ones I've already heard?

Ms. Sophia Leung: No, on clause 12. I asked that, but I just want it clarified.

Joan, in the definition of a family—I'm reading the binder at page 10—for instance, the regulations will expressly include parents of a Canadian citizen. So what you mean by members of family will be clearly defined?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's correct. Parents and grandparents...there's no intention—

Ms. Sophia Leung: I have raised it many times, because it's not good enough, not clearly defined.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There's no intention to drop parents and grandparents from the family class.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Good. This is very important. What about grandparents? Is that also included? I'm not very clear.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The changes to the definition of family class will relate to dependent children and common-law partners—and with relation to adopted children as well. So there will be those three changes to the definitions in family class. Otherwise the components of the family class will be the same.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I was going to follow up at the time on Pat's question around children. Is there any change in the issue of minor children in terms of education? While the parents are in limbo, as it were, can the minor child attend school?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. In subclause 26(2) there is in this bill very clear direction that a minor child in Canada does not require an authorization to study at the preschool, primary, or secondary level. That is the minor child of anyone in Canada, except, it goes on to say, that the minor child of a temporary resident requires authorization if the temporary resident is not authorized to work or study in Canada.

What that means is that the children of refugee claimants, of people who are here on student authorizations, of people who are here on employment authorizations, or of applicants for landing in Canada will all be entitled to go to preschool, primary, or secondary school without the need for any further documentation.

Ms. Jean Augustine: That's good, thanks.

The Chair: Rob.

We have a lot to do here and we have only 45 minutes left. You're asking an awful lot of questions on the first 12 pages, so let's, if we could, get through this and then we'll continue on some of it, because this is the only kick at the can before we're all out of here tomorrow.

Rob, just some pretty succinct questions, please, not philosophical debate.

Mr. Rob Anders: It's on clause 34, with regard to health grounds. It says “if somebody is likely to be a danger to public health”, or “is likely to be a danger to public safety”.

We've had some debate here before with regard to HIV positive and hepatitis in its various forms, and I'm wondering if there are things that other countries are testing for that Canada is not testing for. Is there a list you can give us that shows us all the things we're testing for, and maybe all the things that potentially can be tested for that we're not testing?

• 1645

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We can certainly give you a list of all the things we are currently routinely testing for, that is, every applicant of a certain age would be tested against these particular diseases, and of course, tuberculosis is the one we are most concerned about.

In terms of what other countries routinely test for, we can also provide you with some information on what the Australians test for, for example, or what the Americans test for—routinely, all applicants.

In terms of what we would test for, that's a little more difficult to be precise on, simply because we would test not only for protection of public health and public safety, but also to determine people who have conditions or diseases that may cause excessive demand. And indeed, as we have said before, we are in the process of modernizing our immigration medical examination. We are waiting for final advice and recommendation from Health Canada on routine tests on the public health and safety side, but we are also looking at additional routine testing that we may want to do on the excessive demand side.

Again, when I talk about routine testing, it is for anyone who applies for immigration. We do test for HIV, but we don't test routinely. We test when the medical officer has reasonable grounds to believe a person may be HIV positive. But we are looking at what we should change.

The Chair: Leon, this is the final question on this section.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, I have just a quick question on what the minister has referred to, and maybe some of you have also, and that is the in-Canada landing. I'd just like to know where that's included.

The Chair: I think that's in a further section.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It looks like it could be partially...I mean, you'd think it would be covered under clause 20, page 11, but it doesn't seem to be.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The in-Canada landing classes will be set out in regulation. They are not specifically mentioned in the act. That is similar to what we have in the current act, where the details around in-Canada landing classes are described in regulation.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm just asking where it even refers to in-Canada landing in the act itself.

The Chair: Is it under “Entering and Remaining in Canada”, division 3, or is it division...?

Mr. Leon Benoit: You'd think it would be.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'm just asking my legal adviser here which regulation.

I think it would be in clause 14—the regulation-making authority in subclause 14(2). It says “Regulations may be made prescribing classes of foreign nationals and respecting any matter relating to each class”.

So that would be the regulation-making authority that would allow us to create in-Canada landing classes.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: Another relevant provision is clause 11. Clause 11 provides for the principle that persons must obtain a visa before coming into Canada, so that the normal way of being selected is to be selected outside. But individuals may be required to have documents required by the regulations in subclause 11(1). So when the regulations require someone to have a visa before coming in, that's the normal situation of selection outside Canada. But where the regulations will not so require, you will have an in-Canada class.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But there's no specific reference to this in-Canada landing in the act?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The act does not spell out which classes of foreign nationals will be entitled to apply from within Canada. That's correct. That will be in regulation.

The Chair: Again, as we get further and further...we can't do all this work today. We just started it. It may very well be, once we look at the regulations, that we want to put a reference into the bill. So Leon, just make a note to yourself that this is a section you might want to look at.

Can we get to division 5, please?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay. Moving on to division 5 in part 1, it deals with loss of status and removal. It talks here about reports on admissibility and admissibility hearings.

In terms of end of status, again, these are some new provisions in subclause 42(1) that state a person loses permanent resident status on a final decision that they've not met the requirements of section 24—which deals with physical residence in Canada or exceptions to that—a designated officer having determined that humanitarian and compassionate considerations, again taking into account the best interests of the child directly affected by this decision.... So that allows for an additional consideration before a permanent resident may lose their status, according to the objective criterion in clause 24 that there is a consideration of humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

• 1650

The clause then goes on to talk about removal orders and when removal orders are enforceable, and it goes on to talk about stays. There is again the effect of a removal order in clause 49, dealing with regulations, that may be made with regard to reports on inadmissibility, admissibility hearings, removal orders, stays of removal orders, and the effects of removal orders in clause 49.

Division 6 deals with detention and release. Again, in subclause 51(2), the grounds for detention remain the same as the grounds we have in the current Immigration Act, but in clause 55 we have regulation-making authority to allow us to clarify the grounds for detention. And again, as the minister had talked about, that would allow us to clarify, for example, if we are detaining someone on the basis that they are unlikely to appear for removal or a proceeding. We can look at factors such as how they arrived in Canada—whether they arrived on the basis of an organized criminal smuggling ring, for example. Those would be factors we could take into consideration. Those would all be spelled out in regulations.

Moving on to division 7, this deals with appeal rights. We deal in this part of the bill with all the rights of appeal and with those who have no right of appeal. So, for example, in clause 58, we deal with appeal rights for persons who have lost permanent resident status. This is a new provision. It says the Immigration Appeal Division can consider an appeal without a hearing. That is, persons who are determined by a designated officer to have lost their status can appeal on paper.

Clause 59 deals with the limitation of appeal rights for those who have been found to be inadmissible on security grounds, violating human rights, serious criminality, or organized criminality, again referring back to the description of those inadmissible grounds in the previous clauses of this part. It clarifies here, for the purposes of appeal rights, that serious criminality must be in respect to a crime that was punished in Canada by a term of imprisonment of at least two years. So it's further clarification of “serious criminality” for those who have been convicted in Canada.

And finally, in clause 61, dealing with appeals, subsection 61(2) reads:

In making a decision, the Immigration Appeal Division must take into account the best interests of a child directly affected by it.

So we see that principle again respected.

You will notice in this division there is no reference to regulation-making authority. The IRB, which has jurisdiction over the rules concerning appeals, may make rules with regard to appeals in front of the Immigration Appeal Division of that board. Not the rules themselves, but their authorities, are referred to in part 4 of the act.

Division 8 deals with judicial review. The key change here from the current act is in subclause 66(1), which deals with leave. It says judicial review with respect to any matter, decision, determination, or order made under this act is commenced by making an application for leave. That includes all visa officer decisions overseas, which is a change from the current act.

Again, in this division of the bill, we don't have regulation-enabling authority for the minister or for the government, but the Federal Court may make rules with regard to judicial reviews related to immigration decisions.

The Chair: The present act is more than just asking for leave, right?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: In the current act, for any decision or order made in Canada regarding someone who's in Canada, an individual must seek leave from the Federal Court before getting a full judicial review, but anyone outside Canada does not. This levels the playing field.

The Chair: Okay.

• 1655

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Division 9 refers to security certificates and the security certificate process for permanent residents, and it deals with the protection of sensitive information that may come up in the context of seeking a security certificate. This division also deals with the detention of permanent residents who are subject to security certificate proceedings.

This division, in clause 80, also deals with protection of sensitive information during an admissibility hearing or an immigration appeal. Again, this is a new provision dealing with the ability of the minister to protect sensitive information in the context of an appeal or a hearing in front of the board.

Finally, division 10 has general provisions for loans, social insurance numbers, and so on. “Material Incorporated in Regulations” refers to material that may come from bodies outside CIC or the board that can be used by decision-makers in reaching decisions under this act.

Then finally we deal with reporting to Parliament. Clause 86 deals with the new report we would hope to be able to provide under this act, which will in essence amalgamate or combine three existing reports on levels, ministers' permits, and transportation loans, but will go beyond the numbers and speak to activities and initiatives taken by the department.

The Chair: Before we go to part 2, which is on refugees, I'm going to take rapid-fire single questions from any of the members who might have any.

I'd like to start. Tell me if I'm out of line and if I should wait until the refugee part. If I were interested, as an example, or just appalled that it's taken eleven months for some of these people who are in detention to have adjudication of their admissibility or inadmissibility and so on, would I have to wait for the refugee part to ask you about that? Or was that someplace in the detention centre? I'd like to flag that for myself, because I want to look at a much more humane way of treating people.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That would probably be in the division dealing with detention.

The Chair: Then maybe you can answer.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Division 6 deals with detention and release, and of course when we get to making the regulations around conditions that may be imposed and factors to be considered....

The Chair: Okay. I know division 6 speaks to detention and so on, but where in the act does it surely signal to the whole apparatus of determining whether or not a person is admissible or inadmissible? I think it's rather inhumane to expect people to have a process take eleven months to find out whether they're going to stay or be shipped back home or something. Which clause...? Or is that in regulation, and not necessarily in the bill? Because that really rubs me the wrong way, I'll tell you.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: If we're talking about a person who's claiming refugee status, that's going to be in part 2, in dealing with the consolidated decision-making and the streamlining that we hope will result as a result of the streamlined decision-making. But if you're speaking about a person who's not a refugee claimant or who is a refused refugee claimant, then you would probably find that in the division of the act dealing with detention and admissibility.

The Chair: Okay, but in the example of the Chinese people who landed by the boats, they still are in limbo as to what their status is. They are in detention centres, because it was feared they would flee and so on. I can understand that, and I agree one should do it, but for eleven months....

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right.

The Chair: Was that under regulation, or is that under a particular section of detention?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No, that would deal with part 2 and refugee protection, because of course those people are in a refugee determination process.

The Chair: Then I'll wait for a moment.

Pat, go ahead.

Mr. Pat Martin: Under the definition of “serious criminal”, two things have changed from the old act to Bill C-31. The words “danger to the public” have been taken out, and also the exception of persons who have satisfied the minister that they have rehabilitated themselves. Both of those have been taken out. What was the purpose?

Also, how did they arrive at the number of years, rather than the nature of the crime, to determine the definition of a “serious criminal”?

• 1700

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The reason we've moved away from danger opinions is that we have a desire for much more objective criteria that would be easier to understand on the part of the applicant and easier to administer on the part of the department. It would be clear as to who would be criminally inadmissible and who would not be criminally inadmissible.

In terms of rehabilitation, the regulation-making authority in clause 38 allows, as I said, the possibility for us to include:

provisions respecting circumstances in which a class of foreign nationals is exempted from any of the provision of this Division.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: There's actually a specific role that speaks to rehabilitation. You don't see the reference to rehabilitation in each inadmissibility class in the current bill. You have a general rule, which is at page 17, paragraph 32(4)(c), which says whenever you see a reference to criminality, the person is not inadmissible if he or she has rehabilitated.

Mr. Pat Martin: So that's a clause—

Mr. Daniel Therrien: It's a general rule.

Mr. Pat Martin: —that is deemed to be part of all the other referrals.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Rules of application.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: That's right.

Mr. Pat Martin: I see. That's helpful.

Thank you.

The Chair: Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I don't have any questions.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John McKay: What does subclause 58(1) mean, that “based on membership” it shall not be...? Can you give me an example of how that works?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I can tell you what this refers to. As you know, the immigration appeal division can hear a case on humanitarian compassionate considerations and they can decide a case on the basis of law and fact. When you're dealing with an appeal where the determination made by a visa officer is that the sponsor is not a sponsor within the meaning of sponsor, or that the applicant is not a member of the family class—they're not a dependant as defined, or they are not a spouse as defined—then what this does is to restrict the appeal to appeal only on law and fact, and not a full appeal, including humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

Mr. John McKay: Okay.

My second question is with regard to subclause 86(1), the report to Parliament. I take it that means that in theory the minister could report to the Senate.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Either House of Parliament.

Mr. John McKay: Is there some reason for that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think that is the wording of the bill, is it not, Daniel?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: It is. And the requirement is to table in each House.

Mr. John McKay: The requirement is to table in each House, but—

The Chair: If it says “each House”, I think that's the Senate included. Do you have a problem with that, John, or what?

Mr. John McKay: It says “must, on or before...the next 30 days on which either House of Parliament”. I just wanted to clarify that.

The Chair: Pat.

Mr. Pat Martin: When it comes to human smuggling, what safeguards are there to satisfy the concerns we've raised that not all human smuggling is criminal? Some of it is in fact humanitarian. What safeguards are put in place, then, to make sure Canadians who are trying to assist people in getting away from persecution aren't lumped in with the criminal aspect of exploitative human trafficking?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There is a provision when we get to the sanctions in part 3 of the bill.

The Chair: Perhaps we can deal with it then.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: All right. We'll flag that provision.

The Chair: Jean.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I'm just looking for the section where it outlines a permanent resident who has a criminal record being able to sponsor or being able to.... A permanent resident with a criminal record has the ability or the inability to sponsor....

The Chair: Other people.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Yes, a relation.

Where is that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Sponsorship is in subclause 13(1), which deals with sponsorship of foreign nationals, including the right to sponsor family members.

Clause 14 deals with regulations that may be made with regard to sponsorship, and it would be in the regulations that we would deal with the issue of sponsors who have been convicted of domestic violence or domestic abuse.

• 1705

The Chair: Or they have not....

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Or they have not maintained their child support payments or are in default of court-ordered support payments.

The Chair: Make yourself a little note there, Jean, because I'm sure you're going to ask that question when we get into the substance of this.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Oh, I'm sure.

The Chair: Rob, quickly, one question.

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay.

This is with regard to the definition of organized crime, which includes “a pattern of criminal activity planned and organized”, and goes on to say “commission of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute such an offence”.

Would organizations such as, for example, the Mujahedhin E Khalq, operating out of Montreal, or the PLO, say, qualify under those things? Would terrorist organizations like those fall under organized crime?

The Chair: I'm not sure the PLO's on the list any more, just like the South African ANC was and all that. I think they've been struck from the list.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'll get Daniel to respond to that.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: There's certainly an overlap between the definition of organized crime and terrorist organization. Clearly terrorism includes the commission of crimes for a certain purpose, so if an organization is involved in crime for a political purpose they can be both a criminal organization and a terrorist organization. Usually these organizations are captured as terrorists more than as organized crime.

Mr. Rob Anders: Is there someplace else that would deal with terrorist organizations, or is clause 33 it?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: There is a specific provision for terrorist organizations.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Paragraph 30(1)(c) deals with it this way:

30.(1) A foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for

(c) engaging in terrorism.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: Paragraph 30(1)(f) is actually the part that relates to organizations.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes, “being a member of an organization”.

The Chair: We're going to make you the resident expert on this section when we get to that one.

Leon, quickly.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Just on Jean's question about a permanent resident who has a criminal record being allowed to sponsor or not, you said it's in the regulation. Now, is it spelled out in point form in the draft of the regulations we've received—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes, I believe so—

Mr. Leon Benoit: —or, in my case, we're going to receive?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: —although I'll just check that. The binder you got today I've not had a chance to look at yet.

Yes, in that document, Mr. Benoit, there is a reference to the requirements for sponsorship, including those who are in default of court-ordered payments and convicted of family violence.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

The Chair: Joan, do you want to do part 2, “Refugee Protection”?

Mr. Joan Atkinson: Okay.

The Chair: Perhaps it could be just a quick overview. I think we'll go right through it, if you could, and then take questions, because we'll be hearing the bells in the next ten or fifteen minutes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Joe, can I make a suggestion? I think this is a worthwhile process, and if necessary we should have the witnesses back to complete it.

The Chair: When?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Tomorrow, or when we get back in the fall, or whenever.

The Chair: I would agree, but listen, this is a pretty technical bill, with a whole bunch of stuff, and I would hope...because I've been told by the minister and the officials that they were going to make themselves available in individual briefings to members of the committee so that they can in fact be taken through this. They will accommodate your plans at your leisure, so if you have to come back to Ottawa one day, just specifically give—-

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's not the same as doing it in committee. Different people pick up on different—

The Chair: And I don't have a problem with doing it. We'll continue on with it, although probably not tomorrow. Probably we'll have to wait until September 20, if we can get struck that quickly.

Go ahead, Joan.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'll try to make this quick.

In terms of refugee protection in part 2 and the consolidated decision-making we've been talking about, you have in clause 89 the definition of convention refugee.

In clause 90 you talk about a person in need of protection.

In subclause 90(2) we have reference to the convention against torture and to persons who fear “risk to their life” or “risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”.

• 1710

So those clauses deal with the consolidated decision-making.

Going onto division 2, we talk about the eligibility to refer the claim. This makes reference to eligibility criteria. Clause 95 lists the ineligibility criteria and indicates when a claim is not eligible to be referred to the IRB or the refugee protection division. Here we see reference to the claimants who have been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human rights, serious criminality, organized criminality, and so on.

Subclause 95(2) has regulation-making authority with matters relating to clause 94 and this clause. In those regulations you'll have the timeframes for referral of claims to the immigration and refugee division, and regulations referring to safe third country and designated countries under safe third country agreements. This then goes on to talk about suspension or termination of consideration of claim and the grounds upon which a claim may be suspended or terminated. There is reference to extradition procedures.

Clause 101 talks about claimants without identification, the undocumented and uncooperative, and makes reference to how the refugee protection division must take that into account in determining the credibility of a claimant.

Cessation and vacation is in clauses 103 and 104. Then there's clause 105. This is new. This is the refugee appeal division. Clauses 105 and 106 set up the appeal to the refugee appeal division of the board and set it up as a paper appeal.

As we already talked about, division 3 talks about the pre-removal risk assessment. You've certainly heard reference to that. In subclause 107(2), it indicates that “The Minister shall consider an application made by a foreign national on the basis of” the same grounds that the refugee protection division of the Immigration and Refugee Board makes their grounds.

So there are the convention grounds, the convention against torture, and cruel and unusual punishment.

Again, there are the rules with respect to who may apply for a pre-removal risk assessment, the fact that for a refused refugee claimant only new evidence and changed circumstances are considered. And there is the fact that in the pre-removal risk assessment there is a balancing between the risk of the individual to return and the risk to Canada, as it were, of maintaining someone in Canada who is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality who would pose a risk to the public or where it would be contrary to the national interest.

Finally, in clause 108 there is the principle of non-removal—that's non-refoulement—our commitment under the Geneva convention.

Clause 109 provides the regulation-making authority for the pre-removal risk assessment process.

So that's very quickly part 2 of the act on refugee protection.

The Chair: Any questions?

Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In clause 108, non-removal, you said it's to satisfy the convention. Which convention?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It makes reference to the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees.

Mr. Leon Benoit: And on principle of non-removal, could you explain what this clause says?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: The clause deals with the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. But since we have consolidated decision-making, where the IRB will look at other conventions, including the convention against torture, that convention as well is now added in this principle of non-refoulement. What the principle essentially means is that once a person is found to be at risk of persecution under Geneva, or at risk of torture under the convention against torture, we cannot remove that person to the place where that risk will materialize.

So a refugee so found or a person who is found to be at risk of torture cannot be removed to the place where they will be persecuted or tortured, normally his country of nationality. He can be removed to another country but not to that country.

• 1715

Mr. Leon Benoit: Could you explain to me how this fits in with the decision that was in the papers this week, where someone is being returned, I believe, to China, to the death penalty for some type of crime there, embezzlement I believe of some kind, or some such thing? How does that fit in here, or does it?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: I don't know enough about the facts of that case to really answer, except to say that my understanding is that the imposition of a sentence that could be said to be unjustified, and perhaps torture or persecution...that sentence was imposed after the assessment was made under the Geneva convention, under the PDRCC criteria. I'll stop there. The assessment was made based on the facts, which I think predated the imposition of the death penalty.

The Chair: Pat.

Mr. Pat Martin: The current act asks for an annual report to Parliament about refugee numbers and nothing in Bill C-31 that I can see does. Is there anywhere where there is a firm requirement to tell Parliament on an annual basis about refugee numbers?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Going back to clause 86, in the first part of the bill, the report to Parliament, “The report shall include a description of the number of foreign nationals...who were granted permanent resident status”. As we report now to Parliament on the numbers of convention refugees who were landed in Canada as permanent residents, or who were resettled from abroad and granted permanent resident status in Canada, that will continue to be the same in the report under clause 86.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's in the past tense, and I'm talking about future target numbers.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right. The report will also take into account or report on the number who are projected to be granted status in the following year. So as the current report does, the report under section 86 will include those who have been granted status and what our projections are for the coming year.

Mr. Pat Martin: Good.

Finally, I have a question about the schooling for refugees, which you talked about in earlier parts, but I think it's relevant because we're under refugees now too. There's no reference made to post-secondary education. I think just today Bill Graham got unanimous consent in the House of Commons to grant refugees access to the Canada Student Loans Act; he got consent for his private member's bill that would give access to student loans to the children of refugees.

Currently, while refugees are waiting, sometimes for five or seven years, to have their cases tried or to get landed, their children are actually charged as foreign students. So they pay $15,000 a year to go to university instead of the $3,000, and they can't get student loans. Do you see any way, given what just happened by unanimous consent in the House, to somehow recognize that sentiment within Bill C-31?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The principle that is recognized in the bill is of course the principle that any school-age child, being a child going to primary, secondary, or preschool, should not be denied access to school.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, I agree.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's as far as Bill C-31 goes. The dependants of refugee claimants who are attending post-secondary education will at this point in Bill C-31 and the regulations be required to have authorization to do so.

Mr. Pat Martin: And they'd be treated as foreign students, or international students at international student fees, is that correct?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There's no change at the moment from the current practice.

The Chair: Make a note, Pat. It's a good idea, and we'll discuss it when we're going to be debating the bill.

Rob, and then John.

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes, it's a question with regard to detention. It says, for example, in 76(1), “unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal”. Then in subclause 77(3), it says, “danger to national security or to the safety of persons, or is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal”.

If I correctly understand, based on some of the earlier questions and witnesses appearing previously, about half of the people who were going through the system were not reappearing. If that's the case, I think it would be pretty fair to say that most, or at least half, had a danger or likelihood of not appearing again for proceedings. So does that not therefore justify having a detention pretty much for everybody?

• 1720

Ms. Joan Atkinson: First of all, clauses 76 and 77 deal specifically with detention of permanent residents who are named in a security certificate. It's a fairly limited clause dealing just with permanent residents in that situation. I think your question is probably more directly related to subclause 51(2), dealing with detention of a foreign national on the grounds that they're a danger to the public, unlikely to appear, or do not establish their identity.

In terms of persons who are unlikely to appear, again, clause 55 gives us the authority to make regulations to clarify those grounds for detention in which we can look at, for example, the profile of certain types of foreign nationals who have a history of not showing up for their hearings in that the rate of abandonment is very high. Those are the types of factors we would take into consideration in terms of arguing for detention.

Let me add that every decision will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis. We are not suggesting we would routinely detain every type of x nationality. Every case would still have to stand on its own merit.

The Chair: Leon, a supplemental.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's my question. It's a general question on whether all of these clauses have been tested—not necessarily tested, I guess; whether you've done a thorough review as to whether they will all withstand a charter challenge. That one certainly has to be in question if you're going to categorize people as people likely to not appear or whatever.

The Chair: I would rather not get into talking about legal things at this point.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm asking generally whether that's been done, though.

The Chair: I would hope, or else we're wasting our time here.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The short answer is yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: And how is that done?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Currently we are successfully arguing for detention for the Chinese migrants on the basis of flight risk. Some of the information we have used in front of adjudicators relates to abandonment rates.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John McKay: For the purposes of my own understanding here, I'll put some questions. First of all, if I'm an applicant I'm going to go to clause 89, subclause 90(1), and subclause 90(2), and if I lose, I'll then go to clause 105, the appeal division.

If I lose, do I then go back to subclause 66(3), “Application for leave”? In order to get into the Federal Court of Appeal, I have to get through the leave. It's a three-stage process. There's some concern about this whole snakes-and-ladders approach to this thing. So that's it. If you fail in your application for leave, etc. Then you have a “Pre-removal Risk Assessment” in clause 107. Aren't we doing this all over again?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: In our current system the IRB makes a decision, you then get another kick at the can, a post-determination refugee claim decision from a post-determination refugee claim officer. You then can make an H and C application and argue risk with an H and C application—

Mr. John McKay: You get all of those all the way—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: —and you can get three judicial reviews. With leave, you can appeal it all the way through. Then, even if you're unsuccessful through all of that and we finally get to the point where we can remove you, we would still do a review of your risk before we would remove you.

What we are doing in part 2 with clauses 89 through to the pre-removal risk assessment is saying one risk assessment. You do get an appeal at the appeal division of the board, but a single-member panel is the norm. You do get to have that division reviewed, if it's a negative decision, by the appeal division, and you get one judicial review.

Mr. John McKay: Aren't you really building in two risk assessments, though? You're doing a risk assessment in subclause 90(1)—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right.

Mr. John McKay: —and you're also doing a risk assessment in subclause 107(1).

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Before we remove someone, before we make a final—

• 1725

Mr. John McKay: What's different in the analysis? What's the difference between the risk assessment at the point of the hearing and the loss, the appeal and the loss, and the application and the loss?

The Chair: John, I would refer you to volume 1 of our briefing book. I'm sure this is going to be very contentious as the other appeal mechanism. Remember that other infamous bill we passed on citizenship? Rather than getting into this....

Thanks for bringing it to our attention. We'll review our notes with regard to that procedure. It's a very good question, but I think we've been around this thing a couple of times.

Mr. John McKay: With greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, that was the essence of the report of the committee just a couple of months ago: cut out these snakes and ladders.

The Chair: The minister has responded to that report, by the way, this afternoon. You will all be interested. Perhaps we can highlight that section.

Mr. John McKay: I would like to know her answer.

The Chair: I'm just saying that we're not going to get this resolved right here, John. I'm sure this is going to be one of those issues that we're going to debate for a long time. Because we only have a few minutes left, I'm just trying to move it on.

Mr. John McKay: I have a point of clarification. There is another risk assessment at removal?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There is another risk assessment.

Mr. John McKay: That is the position of the government?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's right. There is another possibility for risk assessment at the point of removal. That's correct.

The Chair: Good point, John.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do I see a flow chart over there? Is that what you're looking at?

The Chair: In volume 1 there is, yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I was going to say you may as well get the flow chart ready because we'll need it in September, I'm sure.

Could you address clause 92 for me?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Sure.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: “A claim for refugee protection may be made outside Canada or in Canada.” It's a current issue and I'd be interested in your comments on it before we break for the summer. Where would they go, for example? How would that work?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We are not talking here about creating an IRB outside of Canada. What subclause 92(2) in particular refers to is the fact that we will continue to have convention refugees seeking resettlement from overseas and persons in need of protection seeking our protection from overseas.

Clause 92 deals with applications to come to Canada as a permanent resident from persons who are seeking our protection. That will continue. Regulation-making authority will allow us to make regulations to put in place the rules for convention refugees and persons in need of protection who are applying from outside of Canada. They will be dealt with by visa officers, as they are now.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's okay if they're in some kind of a protected setting, such as a refugee camp or some kind of hostel or something like that, where they can go to a high commission or they can see a visa officer. What happens in countries where that...? Could they literally...? You know, there's the vision of them running to the embassy in the middle of the night, that type of thing. Is that what we're talking about here?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We're talking about dealing with persons who are in need of our protection in the same way that we deal with them now overseas. As you know, we have not just the convention refugee class, persons who meet the convention definition, but we have the humanitarian designated class regulations as well. Those deal with people who are in their country of origin who are in refugee-like situations. They do not meet the specific definition of a convention refugee, but they are in their country of origin and are in need of our protection.

As you may know, we have recently launched a series of pilot projects with regard to our refugee resettlement program overseas, one of which is an urgent protection pilot. Under the urgent protection pilot, a case is referred to us by the UNHCR primarily, but it could be other organizations. Where we determine that the individual or the family is in urgent need of our protection, we react quickly and we issue minister's permits to get that person or that family to Canada as quickly as possible to get them out of danger.

The Chair: Pat Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I guess we're going to keep going until the bells ring. Is that the idea?

The Chair: Sure. You're a masochist, I know.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's what I'd recommend. I do have two questions, in that case.

The first one is with regard to the change to the inadmissibility category regarding members of a government on which Canada has imposed sanctions, etc. The former language says we'd like to keep out senior officials, which would mean maybe the architects of some human rights violation or whatever. The current language would be members of a government, or members of a country, I think it even says.

The Chair: What section are you referring to?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Subclause 31(1).

• 1730

Mr. Pat Martin: We feel that the change to the word “member” from “senior official” may be casting the net a little too wide. It may be pulling in people who really are quite low-level bureaucrats, who aren't really part of the problem we're trying to impose sanctions about. Can you shed any light on why we are motivated to make that change?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think there are two issues here. Paragraph 31(1)(b) refers to “a prescribed senior official in the service of a government”. That maintains the distinction with senior officials.

Paragraph 31(1)(c) is new:

being a representative of a government against which Canada has imposed or has agreed to impose sanctions in association with the international community.

That was done in the context of our current inability, when you have a situation where either the United Nations or the Commonwealth, for example, has decided to impose sanctions against a country.... One of those sanctions could include visa sanctions against nationals or against prescribed types of representatives, such as all diplomatic personnel, for example, that represent that particular government.

This provides us with clear authority to be able to refuse those individuals if sanctions have been imposed in that context. We need to have it broad enough to be able to cover situations where international organizations—the UN or others—have decided to impose fairly broad-based sanctions.

Mr. Pat Martin: I understand. I don't necessarily agree.

I do have one other question, if I have time.

The Chair: On this section? I have another two sections to go: enforcement and the IRB.

Mr. Pat Martin: This is important. This is the only time we have—

The Chair: I didn't say it wasn't. Go ahead.

Mr. Pat Martin: Under the humanitarian class, there's a current list of status countries that we would consider. How is that list developed? Are there any plans that you know of to add countries to the list of status countries under which the humanitarian class would be considered?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The list of countries under the humanitarian and designated class is done in consultation with our non-governmental organizations that deal with refugees, with UNHCR, with Foreign Affairs. We look at a number of factors, some of which obviously have to do with the human rights situation and the prevailing climate in that country. But some may also have to do with very pragmatic issues, such as our ability to send officers into that country safely in order for them to be able to process cases coming out of that country.

Unfortunately, sometimes, such as in the case of Sierra Leone or the Sudan, for example, where the situation is extremely unsafe for our personnel, it doesn't make any sense to put them on the list of countries if we're unable to process anyone in that country by going in.

That being said, the humanitarian designated class will be revisited in the context of the new regulations for the convention refugees seeking resettlement and persons in need of protection seeking resettlement from overseas. All of those issues will be looked at again in the context of those regulations, and we hope to come back to you in the fall with more details on that.

The Chair: Thank you, Joan. To you and your colleagues, thank you very much for this very quick briefing.

To our colleagues, you're on your own for the next two sections. Mind you, as I indicated before, there are going to be plenty of opportunities for lead critics for your parties in this very important bill, as well as our members over here, to get up to date as much as you possibly can with your own personal briefings. The department is prepared to do that so that when we come back and start looking at this in some depth and hearing from witnesses, we'll be in a position to know a little more.

I want to thank you all and wish you all a well and safe summer. We'll adjourn to the call of the chair, which hopefully.... Again, I need your cooperation, if you're talking to your House leaders and whips, to get this committee struck and at it by September 18. Thank you very much. We're adjourned to the call of the chair.