CIMM Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

0910

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

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

0915

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Joan Atkinson

0920

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Mahoney

0925

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Pickard

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Joan Atkinson

0930

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

0935

The Chair

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

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

0940

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

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

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

0945

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

0950

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

0955

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.)

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1000

The Chair

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

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

1005

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Paul Forseth

1010

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

1015

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1020

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1025

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1030

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1035

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

1040

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1045

The Chair

Mr. Mark Assad

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1050

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

1055

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1100

The Chair

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. Price

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. David Price

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1105

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

1110

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1115

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1120

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1125

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

1130

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1135

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1140

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1145

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1150

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

1155

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1200

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1205

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

1210

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1215

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Joan Atkinson

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Joan Atkinson

1220

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

1225

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

Ms. Joan Atkinson

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 052

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues, and our guests, Joan Atkinson, Daniel Therrien, Nicole Girard, and David Dunbar.

Colleagues, I'd like to proceed on the following basis, because there are a lot of things to cover. If you'd all turn to our table of contents in the document Building a Nation, you will see that this document is divided into a number of different parts. If you have a copy of that, I think this is the guide by which we're going to ask questions. I understand Joan doesn't have an opening statement. What I'd like to do is go section by section and go directly to questions.

I would also ask you perhaps to refer to our list of what our witnesses have said in relation to those particular sections. I might start by asking Joan to cover some areas under part 1. So if you have that document entitled Building a Nation, the table of contents I think gives us a good guide by which to talk about a lot of these issues on a section-by-section basis, and I think we'll be able to cover this in a very comprehensive way.

Why don't we start with part 1, which is the new selection system for skilled workers. Part A deals with this whole question of retroactivity and the regulations, subsection 259(3), the RIAS.

As you know, Joan, a number of our witnesses talked a little bit about retroactivity and its impact on the current backlog. I know the minister, obviously along with your cooperation, came out with a statement a couple of weeks ago that deals in part with the question of retroactivity, essentially saying that all of those people who have applied prior to December 17 now have until January 1 of 2003 to go through the old system and get a determination of permanent residency.

For those people who in fact have applied after December 17, the new proposed grid, which was gazetted but which may now be changed, with a pass mark of 70 will be used up until a particular point in time. Perhaps you can tell us a little bit about the administration's view as to retroactivity.

I know when we had you here the first time, you indicated that you would prefer to have a new system come in. You thought a dual system would be problematic, and yet a unanimous feeling from all of our witnesses indicated that the question of retroactivity continues to be a problem for them, and the question of ongoing retroactivity. In other words, when the minister decides to change either the pass mark and/or certain regulations, certain people who have applied obviously will fall into a category of ongoing retroactivity.

So I wonder if you could give us a brief summary of where you're coming from with regard to retroactivity and how we can deal with this backlog. Then you can talk a little bit about the human resources that are needed to get this backlog of 250,000, or whatever it is, in place. Then I'm sure we'll have some questions from the committee members relating to the whole question of retroactivity, and at the same time the question of June 28 as a coming into force date and your feelings on that. So why don't we start on that basis.

Joan.

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): I'd be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman, and I'm pleased as always to be here in the committee to help you with your deliberations.

I think the announcement by the minister represents a compromise between our objectives of trying to get a new selection system up and running and in place as soon as we can and the need to be as fair as we can to those individuals who applied under the old regime.

As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, those who applied before the new rules, or the new proposed rules, were pre-published, will have the opportunity to be assessed under the old selection system until January 1, 2003, so that gives us an additional six months and it gives them an additional six months to be assessed under that system. Anyone who has not had a selection decision by that time will be assessed under the new system, but with a pass mark of 70.

If I could make a minor sort of correction, Mr. Chairman, those who applied after December 17 will be subject to the new selection system and whatever the point total will be when we have finished all of the consultations and the committee has finished its deliberations and provided its recommendation in terms of where that pass mark will sit. So we don't know yet where the pass mark will be for those who applied after December 17; that's still to be determined. But for those who applied before December 17, who applied and paid their fees under the old rules, the old rules apply for an additional six months and then new rules apply, but with the pass mark of 70.

To go back over some of the reasons why we need to be able to apply the new system retroactively, we talk about the inventory, we talk about our desire to be able, from an operational perspective, not to have two systems running at the same time. We feel that the six-month period is a good compromise for us. We believe that given the size of our inventory, it's likely that we won't get to those new cases that come from December 17 until some time in the fall in any event, and so we're really not going to be, in effect, running two systems at the same time because it's going to take us a period of time before we actually start applying that new grid to the cases who applied after December 17.

So while it's true that we will be hopefully implementing the legislation by June 28, including the new selection grid, in fact our application of the new selection grid to those cases who applied after December 17 will not actually kick into effect until some time after that, because it will be continuing to work on the existing inventory of skilled workers and assessing them under the old selection system until January.

We feel that the six months gives us adequate time to address a good proportion of that backlog, or that inventory, not all of it. I think probably some of your witnesses have spoken about this, that not all of the people who applied before December 17 are going to have a selection decision by January 1, 2003. So it is true that for a proportion of people in that inventory the new grid will apply to them, but we have lowered that pass mark to 70, which of course is the same pass mark we have under the current grid. Again, the objective is to try to mitigate the impact of retroactivity and mitigate the impact of this transition period.

The other issue, of course, that we've indicated, and the other objective here in terms of having our selection system in place as soon as possible, is to ensure that we're able to select the right kind of skilled worker that Canada needs. Obviously, there will be a lot of discussion about what that means, how the selection grid should look and what are the attributes. I know we'll have an opportunity to discuss those issues, but what we also wanted to achieve here by putting in place the new selection grid sooner rather than later is to be able to start selecting people against our new selection grid and meet those objectives of selecting the right kind of skilled worker for Canada. So we didn't want to delay, to the extent possible, the impact of the new selection criteria in terms of the type of skilled worker we want to select through the system.

¿ (0915)

It's essentially the rationale. We figured the position the minister announced was a compromise and did, and will, indeed mitigate the impact of retroactivity on a very significant number of skilled workers in the inventory.

The Chair: On the question of ongoing applicability in regulation section 65, I think the regulation says when a person applies in the future, they will be governed on the basis of when the application was made, the date of the application, and when the visa, essentially, is issued.

Again, on this ongoing retroactivity, all of our witnesses pointed out it's still problematic. Why not fix the date at the time of the application and not, essentially, when your visa is going to be issued? Could you address the ongoing retroactivity question?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think, first of all, when we're making a change in policy and trying to achieve certain objectives, we want to be able to ensure we can meet the objectives within a reasonable period of time.

We know inventories are going to continue to be a fact of life for us in the program. We know if we lock everything in at the time the person applied, and all the old rules continue to apply until such time as we completely finish processing the application, we could have the ongoing problems I've described with the retroactivity of the new regs, both in terms of having to run separate rules for an extended period of time and not being able to meet our policy objectives when we change the rules to a more reasonable period of time.

I think, in section 65 of the regs, we want to be able to look at an application. If there has been significant change that impacts on the application, it means they no longer meet the new rules in place at the time the visa is issued. We want to have flexibility to be able to make the changes or apply the changed rules to individuals.

I think we've committed to the fact that in certain elements of an application those things are locked in. An example is the age of the dependant. We've committed publicly, when we look at the issues, that we are not talking about looking at the age of the dependant again before we issue the visa, remove people from the application, and so on. Those things will continue to be locked in at the time a person applies.

If a person applies and is in an inventory and it takes us two, three, or four years to process the application, and in that period of time we make a change in the pass mark, it is true that we want to be able to apply the new pass mark.

The Chair: Thank you very much for the summary on that particular section.

Let's go to questions. Let's take about five minutes. I don't want to structure it too much.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): I'd like a clear reason and an answer. Would you be prepared to consider simply shifting the demarcation date of December 17 to December 31? If not, can you tell us why you're not prepared to do it?

Secondly, I'd like to know about the so-called inventory that you talk about. I call it a backlog. What has the department done now to change the way they've been behaving with the files so there is a reasonable prospect that the backlog is going to be dealt with?

I think, from the committee's point of view, the way the department has carried on for the last few years in dealing with a number of files is unacceptable. The backlog really shouldn't exist.

What is new about the department that is going to give any kind of an extra break? The six-month period is maybe not such a gift.

Can you comment on shifting the date from December 17 to December 31? What is new in the department that is going to make a difference in getting the backlog completed?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The date of December 17 was chosen because that was the first working day after we pre-published the regulations. So that was the first working day after the selection grid was made officially public, including the pass mark.

It's entirely possible to choose some other date. Given the importance of that date, we felt we needed to have some rationale for selecting that date. We felt that the time the proposed selection grid and the proposed pass mark were made public was an appropriate date for us to choose in terms of the cut-off, but clearly other dates would be possible. I would wonder what rationale we would want to put around December 31 or any other date we might choose.

In terms of backlogs, the department has been attempting to deal with its backlogs or inventories. We call them “inventories” rather than “backlogs” because we feel that as long as we are meeting our immigration targets and our immigration levels, then it's a waiting list, as opposed to a backlog where we are trying to get cases through the system because we're not meeting our targets.

As you know, we continue to meet our immigration level targets. In fact, we have exceeded our immigration levels, which I think is an indication of how the department has attempted to deal with its inventory problems.

Unfortunately, the moneys are running out this year, but we did receive some additional moneys two years ago through the budget to help us put together what we call SWAT teams. They are teams of temporary duty officers who go overseas and tackle the inventories in our largest missions where we have the biggest inventories.

As a result of those SWAT teams and those resources that we have devoted to that task, we have succeeded not only in meeting our levels, but also in fact in exceeding the upper ranges of the levels.

That money has run out. We don't have that money available to us for next year's budget and beyond, so the department is continuing to look at ways in which we can process those cases within our existing resources more efficiently.

I think we have talked to the committee before about some of the ongoing things in the department to try to do that, including our centralization pilot. We are looking at ways in which we can try to streamline the processing so that we can process more cases more efficiently. It is a challenge for us because we do not have the additional resources we did have to try to send out SWAT teams to clear backlogs or inventories.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Paul Forseth: So basically what you are saying is that there really is nothing new in the department to get at the backlog.

It's no mystery about my suggestion of changing the date from December 17 to December 31. The rationale is very clear. Instantly when that is published worldwide people do not have access to it. A better date is the end of the year, when it could be reasonably justified that those advocates and those people receiving applications around the world would have had a reasonable chance to respond to the new regime.

So that is a simple suggestion to you. You may want to come up with some rational arguments against it, but that's my proposal to you.

Am I clear on the other side that you clearly are facing, in your terms, a financial resourcing issue and there is really nothing new on the backlog issue?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: As I said, the only thing that's new on the backlog issue is our ongoing attempts to try to streamline the way we process those cases and try to deal with them as efficiently as we can.

The Chair: Steve, do you have a question?

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Could I follow this logic? Do you have any idea, Joan, of how many additional applicants might get caught up if we were to move that date a couple of weeks to the end of the year? Would it cause a problem down the road in some sense?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I can't think of any particular problem that it would cause down the road in some sense.

As I said, there are obviously different rationales for the dates. How many more people would be caught in it by moving the date two weeks down the road? I don't think I can answer that question directly. I don't think I have that information.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So it is somewhat arbitrary, I guess. There is some rationale, since we are extending it at the other end to December 31, or is it January 1? There is some rationale to put it in one-year blocks, organizationally.

We were just chatting about it and we were concerned that as long as it does not then create a bubble effect somewhere...perhaps there was a flood of applicants that came in in that two-week period that were being caught in this.

I don't know that. I'm just....

¿ (0925)

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We did want to try to protect the system against huge surges in applications. But those who have applied, have applied now; they're in the system. So it probably would have limited impact in that sense.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We could go just about anywhere here. Are there any questions?

The Chair: Only as it relates to retroactivity at this point, going section by section.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: My questions are more on some of the other--

The Chair: That's fine.

Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex, Lib.): I'm really at a loss--and I think most people on this committee are--as to how many people who would fall into the category of having applied before December 17 will not be dealt with by January 2003. What are the numbers we're talking about in that case?

I guess the second point that is being raised by Paul--I think Paul has a legitimate point--is that if it doesn't affect in a gross way people between the 17th and the 31st, but there's a negative effect on all those who had their applications in earlier--in other words, it builds a larger inventory--we may be defeating one of the goals we're looking to accomplish as a government and as a committee.

The Chair: Joan, again on that question, do you have a guesstimate of how many who had applied way before might still be in the backlog as of 2003? And the second question, on December 31...?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, taking a snapshot in time, because, as you know from when we've talked about these numbers before, when we try to give an indication of the numbers in the system...the numbers are always moving because people move through the various stages in the system. But I think if we give a sort of snapshot, we had talked about some 60,000 applications in the system that were awaiting paper screening.

Now that number fluctuates, because people move in and out of that state on a daily basis. But part of the announcement the minister made was that anyone, effective from the date of the announcement, who had not been paper screened or had not received a preliminary decision from us could ask for a refund, and we would give that refund.

So that's potentially 60,000 people who could get their money back and be out of the system and decide whether or not they wanted to apply.

Then we talked about approximately 120,000 applications in the inventory waiting for a selection decision. Now, I think our best estimate is that if we extend the application of the old selection criteria to those 120,000 applicants, around 40% of those cases, perhaps more--and again, I caution that these are very general--could probably be dealt with by January 2003.

So you're reducing it, potentially, by about 60,000 applicants who can ask for a refund, and 50,000 to 60,000 applicants who, conceivably, could have their selection decision by January 2003.

Now, the impact will be different, depending on where these applications sit in the system. As you know, in our larger missions abroad, we have larger inventories. In our missions like Beijing, New Delhi, and Islamabad, where we have greater numbers of people applying, we have larger inventories. It takes longer, obviously, for an individual sitting in the inventory in Beijing to be dealt with than it does for a person sitting in an inventory in another post where perhaps we have a smaller inventory.

But globally, overall, that's our best estimate in terms of the percentage of those cases that will have a selection decision by January 2003.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: That leaves, I guess, 60,000 to 70,000 people in the system, from what you have said, added to that number of applications we would receive over the year. What do you anticipate that to be? Again, that will picture what the inventory is going to be on 2003, which I think everybody on this committee should know.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'm not sure I have numbers with me today in terms of what our current inventory is, a snapshot. I can get that for you, because we do take snapshots of our inventory. We can get that number for you in terms of what our inventory is as of today. We have numbers on what our intake is. But the inventory always is a snapshot in time, of course. We can look at what our intake is and what our current inventory is. That can give you a sense of what the inventory is likely to be January 2003.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: If you could do that for us, I would appreciate it. Thank you for the questions.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think one consideration should guide the department's decision making. And that, of course, is equity. What Mr. Coderre announced a few weeks ago is a step in the right direction, but personally, I do not think it is enough.

I may have a solution. Since I was a teacher for a long time, like some of my colleagues, I know that the best examination is one that has been validated. So far, we do not know what the new grid will be like. On December 17, we got some idea about the department's vision. There is no doubt that this vision is upsetting many people, and quite rightly, in my view. So, we do not know what the new grid will look like. The department may be quite determined to stick with what has been suggested and not want any other suggestions, but that is not the impression I am getting. In any case, I hope that is not the case.

Why not consider, for people who applied in good faith to become immigrants to Canada, and who assessed their odds using the previous grid... If we do not manage to extend the deadline for those who had applied before and even for those who applied afterwards... If I were to apply on December 18, I would be applying on the basis of the wrong grid, and I might decide to withdraw my application, whereas I should perhaps have...

Could we not pick a certain date, because I do understand that we have to have a date at some point, could we not ask that Mr. so-and-so's application be reviewed using the new grid—and we still do not know what it will be—and if Mr. so-and-so is not accepted, could we not use the old grid to see whether that makes any difference? That would allow us to validate the process.

If, after studying 1,000 cases, which must be done relatively quickly, we realize that a certain percentage of individuals who fail using the new grid would have succeeded using the old grid, this is something we would have to check into, would we not?

This is an approach that I think shows a clear desire for equity, and one that would be very useful in ensuring that the new grid meets Canada's real needs and is also in keeping with the values of social equity that this country espouses.

I would like to know what you think of this approach. I do not know whether you can give me an answer right away, but I think this would be an interesting idea. I hope I'm not the only one who thinks so.

[English]

The Chair: I'll allow the question as it might relate to the question on retroactivity.

To could quote you, or at least paraphrase what you and Madeleine said, when we first had you here, we were dealing with the question of retroactivity or dealing with people in fairness. I think, Joan, you might have said that if the new grid, whatever it might be, is applied to people in the backlog, if there was a benefit of the doubt given, we would give it to people if the new grid assisted them. I think you indicated it might be possible.

As Madeleine has indicated, people in the backlog, if in fact we don't get them settled by January 2003, have been there in good faith through no fault of their own. They've been waiting for Beijing and New Delhi to do all of this work. If the new grid is applied, why not give them the benefit of the doubt, if in fact the new grid was to help people?

We'll get to it. It's in our next section, as to what the new grid might be. I think it's a question of fairness in the new grid, as Madeleine put it.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right. I guess this points to part of the problem we have when we try to mitigate the impact of the transition and retroactivity.

We wanted to avoid a situation where a visa officer would have to do two sets of assessments. They would assess using the old grid to see if a person met the requirements of the old grid and then would do a second assessment of the new grid to see if a person met the new grid.

It would be, in our estimation, the worst-case scenario. Operationally, it would clearly slow down the processing of applications and would clearly make matters worse in terms of trying to get people through the system more efficiently and effectively.

We would definitely want to avoid having to assess an application twice. While I understand where you're coming from, and the objective of trying to give the benefit of the doubt to individuals, I think we have to be careful if we set out a rule saying the old grid applies, but if you want us to assess you under the new grid, we'll do it too. Then we will receive submissions from most applications in the inventory for a double assessment. We want to avoid it. It will clearly slow down the processing and take more time to get through the inventory.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Okay.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin--Swan River, PC/DR): My first comment is that I believe retroactivity is not a fair way of dealing with people already in the system. I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill. What we have here are two systems, a new one and an old one. Meanwhile, people have applied in the old one. The reality is they wait for up to, what, four years to get processed. Now we're trying to compress this big lump of people into six months. To me, it's not rational thinking.

There are two things happening all the time. You're processing people and you're taking in applications. If you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, then don't do both, but at least certainly do one thing. I don't know how long we've had backlogs--the last ten years? I think the system has always had backlogs. Why do we all of a sudden want to clear the backlog and start fresh? It doesn't make sense. This is the biggest criticism of this whole thing from Canadians.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. Again, I think we're trying to find the right balance. You're quite correct that we've always had inventories in the system. There are always more people applying than we have the resources to process within a short period of time, so we have always had inventories. What we're trying to avoid here is making our processing or operational situation worse by having to apply two systems at the same time to people who are in inventory, plus deal with the new applications that are coming. We think six months, as I said, is a good compromise there. The fact is we would be unlikely to get to application of the new system for a period of time after June 28 in any event, because it takes a certain amount of time to get to those new cases in the system. So the six-month period does not slow us down in terms of operational impact on the new system.

I would point out as well that even for those people who don't have a selection decision by January 2003 and who applied under the old rules, they will be assessed under the new system, but with a pass mark of 70, which is the same pass mark as under the current system. Obviously the system is going to change. We're not quite sure what it will be yet, because this is part of the deliberations and consultations, but we have mitigated the impact on those individuals as well by setting the pass mark at 70.

Mr. Inky Mark: How long would it take you to complete all the files in your inventory if you didn't have to deal with new applications?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: What you're suggesting, if I understand correctly, is that we would in a sense close the door and impose a moratorium on intake of new applications for a period of time until we got through our existing inventory. Given that in some of our missions we have, as you point out, inventories of three or possibly four years, there would be a very long moratorium on new applications if we were to close the door and say “no new applications until we completely get rid of our inventories”.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Inky Mark: If you break down time, in terms of the daily work schedule, how much time is given to taking in new applications versus processing old?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It's an ongoing process. We obviously take in new applications, put them into the system, and process them while we're at the same time processing the existing applications in the system. It's an ongoing process. I'm not sure I could say. In terms of how we organize ourselves in our visa offices or in our case processing centres in Canada, we have certain people whose job it is to create the files, take in the new applications, create the file in the system, take the fee, and so on. Those cases, on a daily basis, go into the system, while other individuals, visa officers, immigration officers, are assessing the cases already there. It's a question of function, not a question of time, if you will.

Mr. Inky Mark: Is it not possible to have a moratorium on processing the new applications?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: You could take new applications in and simply have them sit on the shelves and have no one look at them, but that would not, I think, be sustainable. It certainly wouldn't be legally sustainable. We are compelled, once an individual has made an application to us, to consider the application. I would think that if an application sat with no attention to it and no decision-making on it at all for a very long period of time, we would likely get applications for mandamus to the Federal Court to compel us to make a decision on cases. I don't think it's sustainable either from a legal perspective or definitely from a client service perspective to simply sit on applications and say we're not going to contemplate them at all.

The Chair: Thank you.

David.

Mr. David Price (Compton--Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You mentioned that you're meeting your targets now, particularly with the SWAT teams you've had. That's been a big help, because obviously we weren't meeting the targets before. The interesting thing is, we're talking back and forth, inventory and backlog, all depending on whether we meet the targets or not.

You also said if you don't have those SWAT teams available, you will have to do some streamlining. Isn't what we're doing now with these new regs streamlining? I just want to get that clear. This should be solving the problem, should it not?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Absolutely one of the objectives of the regulations is to build a system that will be more streamlined and efficient. We've looked at trying to provide more objective selection criteria and definitions so it's easier for the client to know the case they must make and submit the appropriate documentation and it's easier for the decision-maker to make the decision because it's objective and transparent criteria. So you're absolutely right, that's part of what we're trying to achieve through the regulations.

The Chair: I have a couple of questions.

Isn't it true, though, Joan, that you've been running a dual system for the past five years? These rules have been changed over the past two or three years. While I understand, because I'm in business too, you can't run two systems and be efficient, the fact is you're always going to have changes to the system. You're always going to have some people in the old system and some people coming into the new system, as Jerry has indicated.

You constantly operate on the basis of two systems, by virtue of the fact that you make changes as you need to. I'm not sure that suggesting you can't run two systems is being entirely factual, because you do run two systems.

Secondly, can I ask you whether or not, because I still find it repugnant.... Let me use what Jerry used to ask you a question. When 2003 comes about, you will still have 60,000 people who have waited potentially two to four years to get interviews. We're going to say to them, after four years of waiting around, while we did our job because we can't get the money to you and the resources.... I think this committee is going to be very supportive of that.

I want to know how many people it's going to take to deal with the backlog. That's what the fair question is. Are we going to turn around and say, “Listen, you've waited for four years under the old system, and now we're going to apply a new system and we've yet to determine what it is, and oh yes, and maybe we'll recognize a pass mark of 70”? I find that in incredibly bad faith and unfair.

As Jerry said, you have 60,000 waiting under the old system because you're going to process 60,000 people in six months, but you'll have 150,000 applications under the new system. So we're going to have a constant backlog or inventory--call it what you will. We're talking about a question of fairness here.

On January 2003, all of a sudden we're going to say to people who have waited three or four years, “Thank you very much, but we're moving you into a new system”. There isn't a business that would stay in business if we treated customers that way. Why should we treat people who generally want to come to this country in that fashion?

It's predictability too. How are we ever going to attract people? The next thing this committee wants to do is go across the world to Beijing and find out what the heck the problem is there--or New Delhi or Russia and find out why in tarnation it's taking us three or four years to process paper. I can't believe it.

This is the whole question of fairness. Is it a question of money? Will you use the pass mark as a way of getting rid of backlog? At any time, if you raise the pass mark, you potentially get rid of all those people in the backlog, wherever that backlog might be.

¿ (0945)

Ms. Joan Atkinson: You have raised a number of issues there, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I need to put some other figures on the table for you for clarification.

When I said we were estimating that about 40% of those people waiting for a selection interview would be dealt with by January 2003, one of my team here had just told me this. Our international region believed that by January 1, 2003, they will hopefully have dealt with about 90,000 applications of those 120,000 people awaiting a selection decision. So that's a little better picture than the one I just gave to you.

We use the pass mark as a way of dealing with inventory and intake. It is the tool we have available to us at the moment, and it is the tool we need to use in the short term in terms of looking at any sorts of controls we might want to put on intake or inventory. The pass mark is a threshold. It's a very blunt tool, but it is a tool that we have available.

The pass mark is not only about inventory and intake control. It's also about the quality of the individual you wish to select through the system. We always have to keep that in mind in terms of our objective.

And yes, we work with and live with inventories in our system. And yes, we have changed the rules in the past and we have had people in the system whom we were dealing with under changed rules. This is the most significant change, however, that we've made in the system for many years.

The last time we made a significant change in the selection system--and it clearly wasn't as significant as this, because it was not changing the entire grid--was in 1993. We made a relatively minor change when we made a change from the old CCDO, the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations to the National Occupational Classification in 1997.

The best example I can give of a situation where we made a significant change in the rules and we did not apply it retroactively was when we changed the rules on accompanying dependants in family class in 1992 from the provision that we had effective from July 1998 with regard to the definition of dependant. It was a significant change and it had a significant impact in terms of the number of people who qualified as an accompanying dependant or under the family class. We did not apply that rule retroactively, and we are still dealing with some of those cases in the system ten years later.

So when you carry on with two systems for a long period of time, that impact can be felt for a very long period.

The Chair: Finally, on the question of resources, because David asked you the same thing, you had SWAT teams, you obviously had extra money. This year you don't have it. How many people is it going to take and how much money is it going to take in order to deal fairly with people? Could you give us some resource numbers?

We heard about border security as we travelled. We know your department has been seriously cut over the past years. You're starting to get your money and resources back. How many more dollars is it going to take and how many more people is it going to take to process this paper so that we're not waiting two, three, or four years even, in the future?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: In terms of how many more visa officers or immigration officers it will take, I'm not sure I have that number for you.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Take a guess.

Surely in planning the department you must have the number of resource numbers you're looking for? And you don't have to be bashful with us. We're on your side in terms of getting you resources. Just give us that, Ms. Atkinson.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I recognize that, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.

We'll probably never have enough resources to be able to deal with all of the people who walk in our front door, particularly in some of our larger missions in a place like Beijing or New Delhi or Islamabad. The interest is so high and there are so many people who wish to apply that we could probably put almost all of the resources we have in the system in Beijing and Islamabad and New Delhi and still not meet the demand.

So it's a difficult one to answer directly, because if we were to double our resources, obviously that would have an impact in terms of our ability to be able to deal with the inventory, but the demand would still be there. And it's not clear to me that we would be able to continue to be on top of that, even if we had a huge infusion of resources.

The Chair: Okay, two quick supplementaries, one from Steve and one from Jerry.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Specifically on that, if the number is 90,000 out of 120,000, that indicates to me that you're doing about 15,000 a month during that six-month extension. So another two months and we eliminate the backlog in the old system. If it's as simple as that....

I appreciate the fact that you don't want to throw a number out because I think that happened not too long ago and we got all confused about what the cost would be. I don't think we should be picking a number out of the air, but if we have two months at 15,000 applicants per month to get rid of the old backlog, you're still going to have a new backlog. It's going to be all the new people who apply and are not being dealt with, who are sitting waiting in limbo until this thing gets cleaned up. But at least you address the issue of fairness to those people who, as the chair has said, have been waiting several years to be heard.

The minister will roll his eyes, I'm sure, but maybe we should be recommending that the date be extended to March 1, which then gives you that January and February period in which to deal with all 120,000. Then nobody can come back to us.

I'm concerned about one issue. We had a witness here, a fairly well-known lawyer, Mendel Green, who said serious court challenges will result from retroactivity. Are we going to wind up taking this out of the immigration department and into the justice department and having huge backlogs in our courts? You're just going from one area to the other.

Could you extend it for two more months and clean it up?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: On the issue of extending it for two more months and cleaning it up, there will always be cases that are left behind. Some of these cases are not going to be dealt with, even if we extend it to March 2003. If we stick with December 17 or even if we move it to December 31, people who applied on December 14 are not all going to get a selection decision made on their application even if we extend it until March.

In order to be able to deal with all 120,000 applications, according to the snapshot we took when we gave you those numbers, we'd probably have to extend application of the old selection criteria for a considerably longer period of time. There will continue to be people in the backlog, in the inventory, even on March 31, because the inventories are longer in some missions than they are in others. If you apply on December 14 in Beijing, you're going to sit longer in an inventory than if you apply somewhere else, because of the size of the inventory in Beijing.

So that's part of the dilemma. We have to cut it off somewhere. We can say two more months or one more month, and yes, it will have an impact. There will be more people in that inventory who will be dealt with. But we won't get through all the people in that inventory if we extend it by only a couple of months.

The Chair: Jerry, quickly.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think Steve asked the pertinent question that I was going to ask. I just wanted to check.

Is it increased resources that are going to help? From what I'm hearing, it's not necessarily so. Could we accept increased numbers for a brief period of time to clear the backlog? That may be possible. By an increased number, we're talking 30,000.

Is there any way we could start the process on all 30,000 under the old system and get them to a point where that is a priority? We move them because the process has been started under the old system, and then as a priority we move that out and everybody else goes to the new system. Is there a way to set a priority where they can be dealt with in the old system and out as much as possible? You may have a small number, but I guess it's putting your resources where you need to do it. That may be reallocation of people from one area to Beijing, to deal with that fact that you're talking about.

¿ (0955)

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We can look at how we can put resources toward trying to deal with those individuals who are in that inventory and to process as many as we can under the old system before the new system has to apply. That's an option that could be pursued. Without additional resources, we have to decide where we would take resources from to put into places such as Beijing and other places where we have large inventories. That can be done.

Between now and June 28, the proposed implementation date, we will be gearing up for the implementation of new legislation. So we're devoting a lot of our time, energy, and resources to building the tools and getting our people trained to deliver the new legislation. That is the number one priority in the department right now. Once the legislation is implemented, we'll need to make sure it's working properly, and we're going to have to focus on that for the first few months. The priority for our resources right now is getting ready and training people to make sure we can do the implementation.

Also, during the peak summer period, as you know, we focus our resources on the non-immigrant movement, primarily students and visitors but also temporary workers, and we need to devote our resources to those programs, because they're so important. In Beijing, for example, they have a huge student program. They need to divert resources from immigrant processing to deal with students during that period of time, because that is the priority.

We would have to make some choices. If we were to take resources from somewhere else in the organization and devote them to clearing the inventory as best we could, we would have to make some very tough choices on where we take those resources from in order to be able to do that task.

The Chair: Next is Paul, and then Mark and Yvon. Ask short questions, please, because we have to move on. We've spent an hour on this subject.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I take it that in Beijing we have short-term contracts where we take a bunch of Canadians and send them over there for three or four months and they work on special projects.

But you've talked about resources and then balance--

The Chair: Are you volunteering?

Mr. Paul Forseth: No. It's just that I've been in the embassy there and talked to some of those people.

You talked about resources, balance, internal training, and system focus to get things working. With regard to resources available to the department, in its recommendations this committee talked about the refugee system. How are the negotiations going with the United States, so that we don't receive any more refugees and can therefore free resources to deal with the backlog? How is it coming? That would help us an awful lot. That has to do with resources, balance, and internal stuff.

The Chair: That was a rather ingenious way of getting to the question.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The Americans gave us their commitment as late as last week when Deputy Prime Minister Manley and Governor Ridge met. They understand that this is an absolute priority for us. The Americans have given us their commitment that they will pursue those negotiations with us.

The Chair: Next is Mark, and then Yvon.

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Ms. Atkinson, you mentioned a while ago that even if we were to double our resources, we would still have a backlog.

Ms. Joan Atkinson The point I was trying to make with that statement was that, although I wouldn't say it's insatiable, the demand continues to be there. This is an exaggeration, obviously, but even if we took most of our resources and put them in the large missions where we have the most demand, we probably still wouldn't be able to meet that demand completely. It's the nature of the demand in those areas of the world that there will always be more people applying than we have resources to deal with in a very expeditious way. I think that was the point I was trying to make.

À (1000)

[Translation]

The Chair: Yvon.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.) Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with you in arguing for fair treatment of applications made before a particular date in December, but I am also wondering what happens to individuals who apply between December and the date on which the new grid is finally adopted. I imagine this will happen in a few months, perhaps in June. I am told that the act will come into effect in June, as will the regulations.

Mr. Chairman, what happens to individuals who apply between January and June? When these individuals go to one of our officials abroad, the only information they can be given is about the old grid. It is not yet the old grid, because there is no other grid, but it is the only information our officials can provide.

I would therefore like to know how these people will be treated. If we are talking about equity, we must give individuals who applied today, yesterday and tomorrow, right up to the date on which the new regulations come into force, an opportunity to apply using the new grid, and if that does not work, to use the grid that was in place at the time they presented their application. That would be fair.

Representatives from the immigration union with whom we met said it is possible to use parallel systems with no problem. So I think that if we are going to talk about equity, we have to consider this possibility.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I guess I'll repeat what I indicated previously; that from an operational perspective for foreign service officers overseas--visa officers, who I don't think appeared in front of the committee--the worst possible scenario would be to have two assessments of the same application: to assess under the old grid and assess under the new grid and see which one fits. I think that would be the worst-case scenario for us from an operational perspective.

Understanding that the new grid has not been firmed up, that it's out for consultation and debate, and that we won't know until the final regs are published exactly what's in the grid and what's in the pass mark--that is absolutely correct--we're hoping that, given the way the grid was pre-published, there may be and we think will be changes in it, and clearly there will be changes in terms of the proposed pass mark. But the structure of the grid will remain more or less the same, so that individuals applying since the grid was pre-published have some notion of what the rules will be that will apply to them.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: May I have the final comment? The department is drawing its argumentation from an operational point of view. We are working from a fairness point of view, and I consider, Mr. Chairman, that we should advise our minister to make his decision from a fairness point of view.

The Chair: Well, that's why we're politicians and they're bureaucrats.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Yes, and I think fairness should prevail.

The Chair: But at the end of the day maybe both in fact will.

Now, we're going to go to this grid next, Joan.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sorry, but there's a misunderstanding; maybe I've got it. Before we leave this I'd like to get some clarification of it. I just heard Joan say it would be impossible--not impossible, but it would be untenable, shall we say--to decide on one application whether it fits in either one or the other system. I understood we were talking about the inventory/backlog in the existing system and anything new after that would come in the new. You wouldn't be comparing one application to two systems; you would be treating the applications we have on hand under the old system.

À (1005)

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes, for those who applied before December 17 it would be the old system until January 2003. People who applied after December 17--and I think this was the issue that was put on the table--are subject to the new selection system, but we don't know yet exactly what the new selection system is going to be. I think that was the issue of fairness that was being raised here.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: According to this new grid, what happens? Are we going to reimburse them, or reassess them according to a formula--

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No.

The Chair: Yvon, it's for us to do.

Joan, I want to talk a little bit about the grid system. We spent the better part of two hours yesterday talking about the grid system. I'm going to be generous by saying I think your grid system stinks.

All of us have this impression. We spent an awful lot of time with witnesses, with your help. At the end of the day, I think Bill C-11 truly reflects the kind of immigration bill we want.

I think the former minister said to open the front doors even wider while we nail the back door shut against criminals, terrorists, and so on. I think Bill C-11 does so.

The regulations, specifically the selection grid, I don't believe really reflect the spirit of Bill C-11 at all. In fact, a lot of people were unanimous. We had 45 witnesses and 50 briefs. Not one of them had something good to say about your grid, even though, apparently, you had consultation with them, save and except on the pass mark that was a surprise to everyone.

I can tell you we spent a lot of time yesterday. We might have even designed a new grid for you. We don't have it for you right now, but there's no doubt. I'm sure the questions would reflect the education, language, and work experience of the skilled workers that we need in this country. I'm not sure you're going to get very many people who would pass under your proposed grid with the pass mark of 80 that you indicated was the pass mark at the time.

It's my preamble. The committee is not very happy with it, nor are the witnesses and people who in fact are on the front line or anything else. We're going to start with that.

Paul, do you have any questions on the grid?

Mr. Paul Forseth: I have a short quick one under education. A bachelor's degree gets 20 points. The master's degree or a doctorate level gets 25 points. How do you accommodate a lawyer who has a bachelor's degree and then goes to law school?

A law degree is not a master's degree. Certainly, a law degree, or some other professional additional training and certification beyond a bachelor's degree, is not recognized or contemplated in this grid. It doesn't seem to work.

I point it out to you to let you try to respond. Certainly, this is not the first time you've heard of it.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right. I think the intention here is that someone who has a post-graduate degree would be entitled to the maximum points. If you have anything beyond a bachelor's degree, you would be entitled to the maximum number of points.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Clearly, the wording has to be changed beyond a doctorate and master's degree to include a list of other things, such as a professional engineer. The easiest one, of course, is the law degree that is generally in addition to a bachelor's degree.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: When we look at subsection 67(2) and we look at education--I don't know whether it's better explained in French than it is in English. Clearly, our intention is that the post-secondary degrees would account for the maximum number of points.

[Translation]

The French refers to a “diplôme d'études universitaires de deuxième ou de troisième cycle“. I don't know whether our intention is explained more clearly in French.

[English]

If it's not clear, we'll need to make sure it is clear.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes. It doesn't solve the problem. It's the same for honour students who may actually have two or three bachelors' degrees. They'll only get 20 points.

À (1010)

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Correct.

Mr. Paul Forseth: My suggestion is what I pointed out needs fixing.

The Chair: Okay, we'll have the next question.

Mr. Paul Forseth: We spent a fair amount of time on language. I think it was the consensus of this committee that somehow there isn't sufficient recognition for proficiency in a second language. We may agree on 20 points for the overall mix, but within that, we had some concern.

If a person has some basic proficiency in a first and second language, this should rate more than a zero. A zero should be for no ability, with perhaps one or two points for basic ability.

We were looking at it. I asked you to look at our testimony and discussions yesterday on it. Do you have any comment based on what you've been hearing us say?

The Chair: Further to what Paul said, as you know, the Commissioner of Official Languages was here. I don't know whether you took a look at her brief, but I'll just perhaps distribute a letter from her that I think touched on the question Paul just raised. You may want to answer her particular concerns about not recognizing.... There are places in this country even outside of Quebec that have French language communities. She was concerned about the grid recognizing that second language, be it French or English, depending on where you are in the grid.

Could you comment, Joan?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We have also had consultations with the Commissioner of Official Languages' office, and we've certainly heard and paid close attention to the other witnesses who have come in front of the committee. I think this is an area where clearly we need to take another look at what we have in the grid in terms of second official language competency.

So we will be looking at that.

The Chair: The committee also talked yesterday a little bit about there being a big gap between high proficiency, good, and basic, and how you get absolutely zero in terms of the different classifications within. They discussed perhaps having another category, because even if you had a basic, shouldn't you get some recognition?

I think Steve suggested that there be four categories: high, medium or moderate, basic, and then no category, which essentially would get you zero. But basic should at least get you something in either language.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's clearly a possibility. Our objective, of course, here on the language part of the grid, knowing how critically important language and communications skills are, is to make sure we have a very robust selection factor when it comes to language, but clearly there are ways of looking at this.

We want to try to ensure, in whatever refinements or changes we make here, that we maintain the language as being a very critically important part of the grid, because that's obviously key for successful establishment.

The Chair: I need to tell you, Joan, that I know the department used a study to determine what that grid should be, and I believe that study you referred to may have been given to us, at least to the administration. And perhaps when you're talking about a few of these points...because the RIAS talks about this study that was done for the department. It's about the type of person we ought to be attracting, and therefore that's why some of us have had some concerns about the amount of weighting that has been given to education and language in terms of the type of person we're trying to attract.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Just so it's clear what I was talking about on the language thing, I suggested creating a fourth category where it would be zero, but to take all the zeros and make them four. In other words, under moderate proficiency...the applicant gets to choose what is their first language. So if they're moderately proficient in French but they're also moderately proficient in English as a second language, to give them zero for that seems a little harsh, and I'm suggesting that you do four, and then for basic in either one you do four.

In this particular grid, add another category, make it zero, and replace the existing zeros there with four. It's just an idea, a little bit of tinkering.

Also, and I think you were in attendance when I raised this issue the first time, there's the issue of three years' full-time studies under the bachelor's degree or the diploma trade certificate, etc. I raised the issue that very few--in fact none that I know of in this country and I suspect anywhere--apprenticeship programs call for three years of full-time study. They're usually some form of cooperative where they're working, learning in the workplace, and then going to school for a period of time.

Have you had a chance to think that maybe we should just eliminate that term “full-time studies”?

À (1015)

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We obviously have heard the witnesses who have come in front of this committee, and we've been having our own consultations with various groups since the pre-publication, and I think it's fair to say that we're looking very carefully at how we can ensure that our education factor is going to reflect better the skilled trades. So it's clearly an area that we--

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What if we eliminated the word “full-time” and maybe changed it to “study/co-op”, or something to that effect?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, I think in terms of how one defines “full-time studies”, it's always been our intention that the interpretation would include co-op, because if someone is working in a co-op situation, it's part of their overall course of studies. They get credit for it. That would be included in full-time studies. So it clearly is our intention to include co-op programs.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm not quite sure I agree with this, but I'll ask for your remarks on lowering the 15 years of study--and again, the issue of full-time comes in here.

I'm actually more concerned about the next two categories in terms of the number of years, because I think we're really splitting hairs to argue between two years of study to get a certificate or one year. Once again, there could be accredited workplace...as we have in this country.

If you enroll in an apprenticeship program and you've been working for a couple of years in a mechanical job of some kind, chances are you'll get some credit for that toward your apprenticeship. It may be only three or six months, or whatever, but they will do that. So I'm more interested in amalgamating those two into one.

Basically, it says we don't care if it took you one year to get your ticket or two years. You have your ticket. You have your diploma, your trade certificate, or your apprenticeship. You're a journeyman, or whatever it is. And we'd put them both into one category, where they would get 15.

The other suggestion I was playing with is that there will be some people in that category--in the skilled trades--who have that certificate but don't have a high school education, although today most of them would. So if we allow for incrementalism here, they would get 15 for having their trade certificate and they could potentially get another five if they're also a high school graduate. You're meeting your upgraded education requirements and making it a little more attractive to skilled trades, a little easier for skilled trades to get here.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think those are all possibilities; they're all options. Obviously, we're looking at how we can look at the one, two, and three years, and whether we should look at having less distinction between them. Those are clearly things that are on the table that we're looking at.

In terms of whether we should or shouldn't require high school as a basic minimum, plus post high school training, I think we need to be careful, because when we look at what Canadian employers are looking for, given that they are dealing with individuals who are coming from overseas and may not be as familiar with the education system, we think it's important that we do have some minimum there in terms of high school. We think that's an important indicator of an individual's ability to get into the labour market.

So I'm hesitating in terms of reacting to that particular suggestion, because we do believe, based on all the research, that high school graduation is a very fundamental component of a skilled worker, whether that be a skilled tradesperson or another type of skilled worker.

À (1020)

The Chair: We'll come back to you.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When you proposed the grid, did you think that an individual with the highest mark in everything, but who does not have an arranged, validated job, and unfortunately has only an average knowledge of English would be inadmissible? What percentage of people have an arranged, validated job? It is not very high, is it? That alone should induce you to review the mark at the very least. If you are not convinced of that, you should be.

Yesterday, we talked a great deal about the grid and we discussed the section on the capacity to adapt, which I find interesting but somewhat discriminatory. Why could this not become a sort of bonus, an area where people could be given extra points in order to give them a chance?

Along the same lines, I think that an arranged, validated job should be included in the bonus section, because not everyone has access to that. I think it's a good idea if someone has some bonus points set aside. That is how it works in life, as well.

Could we not consider such a possibility? The points could be used to boost the importance assigned to experience, which, everyone agrees, has been clearly under-estimated.

Now I come to my main point. Knowledge of one of the two official languages is a plus. Knowledge of the second official language, regardless of level, is also a factor that will foster adaptation. So everything relating to second language skills would also be included in the bonus section under adaptability.

I would like you to think about that. I'm asking you to think about many things, but these are the results of the interesting, dynamic discussions we had. I think that perhaps you should look at all of this. This would perhaps be a way of having an effective grid, but one that is fair and does not reject 90% of the applicants at the outset.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: In terms of the language assessment, if I can pick up on your point here and perhaps one of the other points, obviously we do want to look at how we assess second official language. Does it fit within the language section, or should we be looking at bonus points in the adaptability? Our sense is that we want to assess languages as one of the factors, looking at ability in both official languages.

Again, the research has indicated that strong proficiency in one official language is critically important. We want to, and we need to, recognize the fact of persons who have good proficiency or even strong proficiency in the second official language, and we're clearly going to look at how we have weighted those two factors, but our preference is to look at all the language in one factor, as opposed to having part of that language assessment in adaptability.

On the issue around persons with arranged employment, you are quite correct that a relatively small proportion of our skilled worker movement has the validated offers of employment for permanent employment. I think the point you were raising about people who would qualify probably relates to where we set the pass mark, and that's obviously part of the discussion we're having in terms of where we set the pass mark. But again, on the adaptability factor, what we tried to do was to have fairly objective criteria so that both the decision-maker and the applicant could see what the requirements were and it would make it easier and more efficient in terms of decision-making.

We will always, of course, retain the possibility of discretion, both positive discretion if a visa officer believes the points don't accurately reflect the person's chances for successful establishment.... That obviously is still a feature of the selection grid, and we intend to keep that as a feature.

À (1025)

The Chair: Just so we are on the same wavelength, can you tell us where that positive discretion...?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It's in subsection 64(3) of the regulations:

Circumstances for substituted evaluation

Whether the skilled worker has been awarded the minimum number of required points or not, an officer may substitute for the criteria set out in subsection 1 their evaluation....

The Chair: Would they do that under adaptability? That's where the committee and even Madeleine have truly reflected that we wanted to use adaptability in the objective way, but with a lot more scope to it as positive discretion and as a bonus system, as opposed to.... But you're saying an officer can always use that discretion, what, on every aspect of the grid or in certain aspects of the grid?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: On any aspect of the grid. Essentially what we have now in the selection grid is positive and negative discretion. That will be retained. What that means is, regardless of the points that were awarded under any factor on the grid, if the officer is convinced, and it is concurred in by a second officer--so there are two people who have to look at it--that the points do not accurately reflect the individual's chance of successful establishment in Canada, the officer can essentially accept them under the grid despite the fact that they don't meet the minimum point total, regardless of what the issue is.

That works both positively and negatively. Currently, positive discretion is used in the vast majority of cases of use of discretion. It's rare that we use negative discretion, but officers will retain that ability. As opposed to a bonus point system under the adaptability factor, this gives the officer complete discretion to make a positive decision, despite the fact that the individual does not meet the required number of points.

The Chair: Okay.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Just on that response, Joan, what is the range of that discretion?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The range? I'm not quite sure I understand.

Mr. Inky Mark: I mean, how much discretion is there for an officer to determine, whether positive or negative?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There are no minimum thresholds set as the section sets it out. An officer who is convinced the evaluation of the likelihood of the ability to become economically established is not reflected in the points that have been awarded can, in essence, substitute for the evaluation under the grid his or her own evaluation.

Mr. Inky Mark: So it is subjectivity, but how much...?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It is subjectivity.

It's tied to economic establishment. That's the key in terms of the exercise of this discretion. It's not, for example, to deal with a humanitarian situation. It should not be used, for example, to deal with a “last remaining family member” type of situation. The more appropriate discretion to use in that case is under the humanitarian and compassionate consideration; this deals with an economic assessment. Let's say the pass mark is 80 and the individual receives 75 points on the grid, but the officer is satisfied, with all the information that's been provided, that this individual would be able to successfully establish, the officer can substitute his or her own assessment, in essence, for the result of the grid--if it's concurred in by a second officer.

Mr. Inky Mark: I see this whole discussion as similar to the one on retroactivity, sort of like “old stuff, new stuff”. On this whole issue of education and grids we're going to the human capital model. Meanwhile, we're talking about vocational school and credit for time. This is a realistic way of looking at it, which in some resemblance goes back to the old model of listing occupations. In other words, we're concerned about human needs, and you're concerned about administrative needs.

Isn't it possible to merge these two systems--the capital model and the old model--together to reflect some kind of human concern that we have here at the table?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There are a number of elements of the old model that are reflected in the new model. Obviously we have education and language and age and experience in the old model, and those are reflected in the new model because they continue to be the major indicators. Education and language continue to be the major indicators of successful establishment.

The positive discretion is retained from the old model because, while our objective is to try to build an objective and transparent selection system that will be more efficient for us to apply and will select the right kind of skilled worker for today's labour market in Canada, we're dealing with individual human beings and with individuals who come with all sorts of different attributes. We need to be able to retain some flexibility in the system so it's not simply a check-box of awarding points.

We hope in the vast majority of cases that people will be accepted under the point system and the point system will do the job, but we need to be able to retain some flexibility when the point system doesn't quite cut it as an accurate reflection of an individual's successful establishment potential. That's where the visa officer applies his or her judgment. That's the flexibility we still need to retain in the system.

À (1030)

Mr. Inky Mark: I agree with you, and I'm glad to hear this from you, but unfortunately, when these regs first came out, the biggest complaint was the high pass mark, the grid system, how it was biased on the education side. That's reality. I'm glad to hear this from you today, but that was a reality not that long ago.

The Chair: Thank you.

Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you very much, Joe.

Joan, this is a real problem for me. Maybe the rest of the committee members don't see it the same way I do.

We've talked about 1% of the population coming in, which means 300,000 refugees is our target. If we lower that passing mark to a low threshold.... I'm sure on the original formation of the regs you looked at a pass mark that would meet that target, or hopefully would meet that target. If we make each one of the categories a little bit easier by recognizing different things, being more humane, as might have been said, we end up with an administrative nightmare in some ways. From what I see, the administrative nightmare is that you'll have many people who qualify under the new system, but you cannot accommodate them. Our targets will then turn into quotas. We will control everybody by quotas and we'll have backlogs for years.

I see that as a problem. If we're not very careful with what's going on here, we could build a bigger problem. Then we wouldn't be dealing with objectivity and transparency; we'd be dealing in time categories. Well, your application will be five, seven years in processing. As a person responsible for constituents coming into my office, I am--and everyone here--then going to be bombarded. How the hell can I speed up these applications? It doesn't make sense.

I don't know how this is going to be resolved. I do know that the grid I see is really heavy academically. At least, that's my interpretation. I may be wrong. I think we're talking about practical trades. We're talking about people we want in this country and trying to make sure we have them, but not making it so it becomes a nightmare in the number of people who can be in the system and we end up with quotas we have to deal with.

How do you see that balance being proportioned? Maybe that's a difficult question, but it's one that every member of Parliament has to deal with on a regular basis. I don't want people coming and saying they made the application seven years ago and their family is still not allowed to come in. I see that happening if we're not careful.

I think many of our witnesses have a real interest in trying to get the appropriate people in, and they've made many suggestions to ease the system. Those are valid suggestions. Don't get me wrong; I don't think they're not valid, but I do see it creating more of a problem in the system. How do you answer that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, I think you've put your finger right on the essential dilemma we face. We want to accept the right kinds of people in terms of the economic component of the program and we don't want to be flooded. That's our dilemma. If we set the threshold too low, there will be many more people who will qualify under the system than we have resources to deal with. We're already in a situation where we don't have all the resources we would like in terms of dealing with the demand. You're quite right; we will exacerbate that situation considerably if we set the threshold too low.

So where do we go? I think the committee itself has been looking at some of the solutions to that dilemma. If we've weighted the system too heavily on higher levels of education and we don't think we're capturing the skilled trades, then let's look at the education factor and how we can make adjustments and changes in it. If we don't think we've accurately reflected the language, particularly as it relates to second official language competency, or if perhaps we've put too much weight on higher levels of language, do we want to make some changes in terms of that component?

Our belief is that the basic construct of the selection system is sound, based on all the research and the consultations we did leading up to the pre-publication. I think what we're seeing is that we need to make some adjustments within that grid and make sure we're capturing the right attributes that we want and need. Then we need to look at where we set that threshold. But we do have to be careful, in terms of setting that threshold, that we don't set it too low so that we're flooded with applications that we're not going to be able to deal with quickly or efficiently and the inventory problem gets worse, but not set it so high that we're excluding too many people.

À (1035)

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Anita pointed out a fact yesterday that's critical. In tweaking the system and suggesting changes, we don't know the impact that has on the numbers. If we suggest we change this one, we can't measure what change that will have within the system. It is very difficult for us as a committee.

The question the chair just put is the exact question we need to know. Can you make that determination?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We can't make that determination completely because we don't know the size of our universe. The only analysis we can do is on cases currently in the system, and those cases currently come in through a funnel. That funnel is the current selection grid that has an occupation list. So if you're a lawyer, doctor, nurse, teacher, or in another skilled trade or profession, you're not in our system right now. You don't qualify because you're not on the occupation list.

That's part of our dilemma, in terms of projecting how many more people will come into the system. We don't know how many doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, and other professionals out there, who will qualify, will want to come to Canada. It's very difficult for us to predict, with any certainty, what the impact will be, in terms of numbers of applicants coming into the system.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Is your specific recommendation to go slowly so you can expand, or something different?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We have always felt we should be prudent when we put the system out there, and set the threshold carefully, knowing we can lower that threshold, and it's probably easier to start at a higher point and lower the threshold than the other way around.

We believe if you start high and then lower it, monitoring your intake, it's probably an easier thing to do than to start at a lower point and then raise it. If you raise the threshold, you're stuck with the dilemma of having those rules apply retroactively.

The Chair: Yvon.

It sounds like a sale.

[Translation]

M. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, we heard the Commissioner of Official Languages deplore the fact that the department had not done a study of the impact of immigration on the relative percentage of French-speaking and English-speaking immigrants in Canada.

First of all, I would like to know what you think of this statement by the Commissioner of Official Languages. I have a second question to ask afterward, Mr. Chairman.

À (1040)

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We have received the study Professor Jedwab did for the Commissioner of Official Languages. We think it's a very important study, to try to assess the impact of our current immigration policies on minority official languages communities in Canada.

We have, in addition, established a steering committee with representatives of minority official languages communities across Canada. We will be launching some work on that with the representatives of those committees, to look at the integration aspects and the potential for increasing the number of immigrants in those communities.

We believe we are taking very seriously the commitments we've made under the legislation to ensure we're meeting our commitments and engagements under the Official Languages Act. We are taking a much closer look at that.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The impact study we have does not contain any of that. You say that will be coming out in the future.

My second question, Mr. Chairman, deals with an issue that was raised often when we were hearing from witnesses. If we were to take into account the views of the witnesses we heard, the department would not get a passing mark for its grid. It would not get 80%, 70%, or even 50%. Everyone attacked the grid on some key points.

You said you held private consultations with these individuals. About three quarters of the witnesses said that there had been no consultation, or that there had been a meeting at which their views were not taken into account. Generally speaking, they said that there had not been very serious consultations.

You have the benefit of hearing our witnesses, because our hearings are public. We cannot attend the consultations you held. However, one thing is sure, namely that you heard the same thing that we heard in the last few weeks, and that you know that there is very harsh criticism about your grid on a number of points. How can you continue, even today, to maintain your positions and to make comments such as “it is not possible”, “it is not operational”, and so on and so on?

We are in the driver's seat. You should be putting gas in the tank, installing a breaking system and the mechanical details that will enable us to achieve our objectives or our vision. It is not up to us to adapt to your operations. You should be telling the minister what needs to be done in order to make the committee's vision happen.

Otherwise, this is not acceptable. Are we going to diminish our view of immigration in order to solve your administrative problems, or are you going to organize your activities according to our objectives and our vision? That is my question.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon, the only thing I know is it's a very big bus with about four or five different driver's seats. Hopefully, they're all going in the same direction.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: When we started the reform of the legislation, and specifically the reform of the selection grid, we had very clear policy objectives in mind. We continue to have those policy objectives very clearly in mind in terms of selecting against what we call a human capital model to ensure we're selecting skilled workers who meet the needs of the labour market today and the labour market and economy of the future.

We've done extensive research. Others have done extensive research. And you've alluded, Mr. Chairman, to some of the studies we've provided to the committee. There are others, economists, who have looked at the needs of the economy and the labour market and at what the attributes are for a knowledge worker in the economy of today and in the future. We have been guided very much by all of the research that's been done out there on what a knowledge worker is and on what is required in terms of today's economy and that of the future.

We've done consultations, and I think, Mr. Chairman, we've provided you with a list of the various organizations we have consulted with and received submissions from. In many cases, we've had face-to-face discussions. Since the regs were pre-published, together with the Conference Board we have organized a number of round table discussions with employers and sector councils, looking at the grid.

We are taking onboard all of the comments and criticisms we have received, and I think, as we've said, and as the minister has said, we are prepared to make changes. But in the basic construct of the selection grid, the focus on education, the focus on language, the elimination of the general occupation list, and looking at features like adaptability are all features we did talk to people about fairly extensively before we actually designed the grid.

À (1045)

The Chair: Okay. Then on to the next...oh, I have two short supplementaries--Inky and Madeleine. Then we're on.

Mark.

Mr. Mark Assad: You mentioned about policy objectives and the economy of the future. Nevertheless, the group that came here before us were practically unanimous in saying we were going to create more problems than we're going to solve. They gave many examples, like one guy mentioned that we can have guys with PhDs in geography or other things and they will have a much more difficult time finding a position in this country at times than a simple tradesman.

Looking at your grid, where you give a PhD, for instance, a maximum of 25 points and the trades are down to 10 points, the gap is 15 points there. A person could be an excellent tradesperson and yet he could fail to get into this country because of this gap, whereas somebody who can have a.... I understand that higher education is very beneficial, but there are still limitations. There are language problems and all the rest of it. I don't see where, if you have a PhD, regardless, it makes it sort of a panacea that you'll manage to get along in everything in this world.

I don't know if it was a year or two ago, but we had a group of universities that came to Ottawa and met with different members. One was from the University of British Columbia, the University of Montreal, and I believe Laval, and they were telling me their findings, which were rather amazing, that people who had a simple general arts degree were much more adaptable than people who had a specialty like a PhD program.

So I find the accent on that very strong, much too strong, and it leaves very little for tradespeople. We've had a lot of testimony to the effect that, in the future, unless we attract tradespeople, we're going to be in big trouble. We're sort of locking the door on them.

So my question is, very simply, don't you think it's necessary to rearrange the grid on the educational trades and higher education?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think as we've indicated, we clearly believe there needs to be some adjustment within that factor.

I would just add that education is obviously a critical piece of this, but it's not the only piece. We're trying to build a grid that also looks at the language, which is an essential piece, that looks at the work experience, which is also a critical piece, and then looks at the age, which is a factor, and then of course these adaptability factors that we talk about. So we're trying to look at the package deal, if you will, but I think we agree that we need to look at the education factor.

The Chair: If I could, the weighting of the 100 points...on education it's 25 points. That's a pretty significant number that you've applied and that we've been talking about.

Madeleine, a very short supplementary, and then Inky and David.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You referred earlier to the discretion of officers. Does this discretion exist in the current system? If so, to what extent is it used? As far as I am concerned, discretion should be used rarely. I would like you to tell me a bit about this. If such a power is already being used often at the moment, we will find ourselves with a discretion that will be used very often. I do not think that is the objective. We want something transparent. As far as I am concerned, although I find discretion essential, it is not ideal for ensuring transparency.

À (1050)

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It does exist under the current system. We do use positive discretion. I don't have for you the exact percentage of times it's used. None of my team has it with us either. It's not used frequently.

How does one define frequently? I would have to make a real guess to tell you how many times we use positive discretion. I would prefer not to guess. I would prefer to find some concrete data and provide that to you, if I may.

I agree that if one uses positive discretion frequently, then it's a problem. It hasn't been a problem in the system, but it continues to be an important flexibility. But I will get you those numbers in terms of how often it is used.

The Chair: Inky, a supplementary.

Mr. Inky Mark: You expressed concern about the pass mark being an important threshold. Let me say to you that in terms of the nominee program we have in this country, they take a very different approach. For example, in the province I come from the pass mark is 55 out of 105, and we still can't fill our quota of workers. In Newfoundland it's 40 out of 100. On the international stage, in England it is 75 out of 205. New Zealand sets theirs weekly, although it has been stable for the last year. It's 25 out of 46. For Australia it's less than 50%. So it's not the magic number. It's all relative to the grid and the total number you assign to it.

I hope that someday every province in this country will have a nomination program. It's quite obvious that they reflect the needs of the provincial communities, certainly for skilled workers. If they're having problems with the low marks they assign right now and we're going to keep this at 70 or 80 out of 100, we'll never pass anybody through the federal system.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The provincial nominee programs are designed precisely to give the provinces an opportunity to be involved in the selection of immigrants who meet their specific needs. So each province has a different set of criteria that they apply.

In terms of meeting their numbers, I think Manitoba has done extremely well. In fact, after his meeting with Minister Barrett, the minister announced another increase in the numbers, because there is a lot of demand for that program and it's working extremely well.

So I'm not sure that the threshold the province has set is necessarily a problem in terms of attracting people to that program. I think Manitoba has shown that they're able to attract quite a number of people to that program, and that's one of the reasons they asked for an increase in their numbers.

Mr. Inky Mark: How do you explain the difference between Canada and the international community in terms of how we set our threshold?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think we're reasonably competitive with other countries in terms of the criteria. We have to look at not only the point total for those countries, but we also have to compare the actual points grids, because the points grids are quite different between Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The threshold itself is simply one of the factors.

I think we have to look at what those countries require. For example, Australia and New Zealand put even more emphasis on language in terms of fluency in English. Australia puts a lot more emphasis on having proof that your credentials are recognized before they allow you into the country. There are some key differences in terms of the factors in the grid, so I think we have to be careful as to how we do the comparison.

The Chair: Joan, just to be helpful to you and to show you that we have some excellent research staff here, with regard to Madeleine's question, on page 46 in the RIAS, it says that 2.3% of your cases are used for positive discretion.

Thank you, Ben and Margaret.

À (1055)

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Anything you might want to know about immigration, we know.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We'll ask.

The Chair: Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my apologies for coming in late. I was somewhere else.

Yesterday, we spent a great deal of time, Joan, looking at this grid, adding, subtracting, and playing with the numbers. Someone commented on my concern. I'm really fearful of tinkering and not dealing with it in a holistic manner.

You and your departmental staff are certainly aware of the concerns of the committee and the discussions that have gone on. I can't believe you haven't begun some revisions of the grid already.

Are you going to be bringing something back to us? Are you waiting to hear from us? Do you have anything you're able to share at this point, in terms of what you're looking at with the potential revision of the grid and what the implications are? It's my first question.

My second question is picking up a little on what Madeleine asked you about discretion. I like it and it worries me.

I've been in posts where I've seen officers use discretion. In one notable case, a colleague and I both sat and observed something. He agreed with what the officer did. I wondered why he did it like that. It underlined the discretion.

What kind of training and supports go into it? We're playing with people's lives, and it really makes me very concerned.

When you were looking at the grid, did you ever consider taking the whole adaptability grid out of the grid itself and using it as a bonus kind of factor?

There are three questions.

The Chair: They are three good questions. Give short answers, please.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: In terms of changes, obviously it would be very presumptuous of us to be making final decisions on changes before we receive the report of this committee. We very much need and want to hear the committee's recommendations before we put forward any recommendations to the minister on changes we might make to the grid.

I think it's fair to say, given the comments we've heard on education and language, they are two areas we are looking at. I think it's also fair to say that our belief is that the basic structure of the grid is sound, but we need to look at how we have awarded points within the factors. I think it's clearly the direction we want to go in.

On the issue of discretion, I guess I would say two things. Obviously, yes, we train our visa officers and our immigration officers on the objectives, not only on what the point grids say and how one awards points. We try to emphasize what it is we're trying to achieve through the selection grid. It goes to how one should exercise discretion in looking at the grid. What's our overall objective?

Secondly, the regulations make reference to concurrence of a second officer. The second officer is normally the immigration program manager. There is a more experienced manager who reviews the recommendations on the use of discretion by a visa officer. There are some checks and balances in the system.

Ms. Anita Neville: It's not in place at the present time.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes, it is. An officer cannot exercise discretion without getting the concurrence of a senior immigration officer, who is normally a program manager or the deputy program manager. There are some checks and balances in the system.

In terms of adaptability as bonus points, I suppose it would be possible. It's clearly an option to award bonus points, as opposed to having them within the grid as an adaptability factor. I think we'd have to look at whether it changes the transparency and objectivity if you award bonus points, as opposed to having the adaptability factor as part of the selection grid itself.

There are probably different ways of looking at it. I think our objectives would be, as long as it's transparent and clear to the client and the decision-maker, it's really what we want to try to retain.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Thanks, Anita.

David, then Steve, and then we'll move on to the next section.

Mr. David Price: My question is along the same line as Anita had on the grid. Obviously, there are going to be a lot of changes made to the grid. I'm wondering a little on the technical side about how this is going to happen.

We have recommendations going to you. Mr. Chairman, are we going to get the grid back to take a look at it and evaluate it again?

The Chair: Are you talking about all of the changes we recommended?

Mr. David Price: Yes.

The Chair: That's a good question as to what the process is going to be after we submit our report to Parliament and to the minister and as to what the minister does with our report.

Mr. David Price: I'm looking at the part in between there. We make recommendations. They're not just going to take our recommendations point blank and change them all into a piece of policy. Are we going to see it in between?

The Chair: The question is whether or not the department or the minister has to gazette all of these things again. There is a pre-publication process, which is what we're going through, and, as you know, this is the first time the committee has ever done this. Now we're recommending something to the minister. What happens from here?

Perhaps, Joan, you could tell us.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay. Yes, those are very good questions.

First of all, the committee will issue its report, it will be tabled, and the government will provide a response to the report. So like any other report that comes from the committee the government will respond to all the recommendations in the report.

As you know, I think the rules are that the government has something like 150 days. Obviously, if we're sticking to June 28 as our target implementation date, we need to respond before then. There's no point in responding after the legislation is in place. So that's the first thing.

Secondly, in terms of re-gazetting or re-pre-publishing the regulations, we have to keep in mind that we're still aiming for the June 28 target. There are some issues around the time that we would need in order to re-pre-publish the regulations if we've made changes from the pre-published package.

I don't have a direct answer for you on that, because that's still a subject of some discussion between ourselves and the Privy Council Office on what is the best way to deal with that. I think the key is to let those individuals who have been involved in the consultation know of the changes we propose to make. That's what we're working on. And how do we do that? Is that a re-pre-publication of the regulations again, or can we achieve that through some other means? That's essentially what we're looking at.

The Chair: We might give you some advice on that.

Mr. David Price: I have one other question. Is there also negative discretion?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. Discretion works both ways, positive and negative.

The Chair: Steve, you have one final question.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would like your reaction to a recommendation from this committee, which I suspect is going to come, which would be to eliminate the offer of employment in Canada because of potential fraud abuse that's there. And the second part is on community support. The suggestion was made that people who have community support be given some points. What about, say, tying that into the LICO situation so they have financial capabilities or community support that could be comparable?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We've heard a lot of comments on the informal job offer. As you've described it, the comments have been negative, that this opens up a huge avenue of fraud and abuse. Obviously that's a real concern for us and we need to consider that very carefully.

Community support and tying in with the LICO is a really interesting option. We've seen the comment, as you have, that the way we've characterized LICO and the settlement funds is perhaps too harsh. We're taking that onboard. That's a very serious consideration.

It has always been our intention that we would want to take a look at the settlement funds that an individual has with them in the context of what the settlement arrangements are in Canada for that individual. Are there family members who are going to be willing to assist? Are there other members of the community who are willing to assist?

It had always been our intention to look at those things together, in terms of applying the need for settlement moneys.

Á (1105)

The Chair: LICO is under another section, but I like the way he bootlegged the LICO into this section. Thank you, Steve. Thank you for that answer. We'll get to it in a moment.

Joan, before I close off this section, I want to say I think there has been a movement on both sides of the issue, obviously recognizing that the grid needs to be reflective of the kind of people we want to attract to this country, and I think that reflects some of the questions. But I don't want us to lose sight of the fact that I need you to fill in some gaps for us.

The committee has recommended that the age be moved at least to 49 or 50 as opposed to the 41 or 42, which makes some of us who are over that threshold feel a little bit better, I suppose. Does your research tell you some significant problems would occur if in fact it moved from the proposed 21 to 44 to 21 to 49 or 50?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't think I can say that we've identified any specific problems. What the research has indicated to us is that the age structure of immigrants and the impact of their age on their income levels is pretty consistent with Canadian workers. So it's about the same. If we compare the income levels of Canadian workers who are 49 years of age with those of immigrants, we don't find that there's a huge differential between immigrants and Canadians who are resident here.

The Chair: In terms of the other question, you talked a little bit about occupation lists, that we've gotten rid of the occupation list, yet in some cases now we've replaced it with not the informal job offer but arranged employment, about which we had some very good discussions yesterday. This means if someone comes with a verifiable offer that has HRDC approval, within that HRDC approval, instead of occupation lists now you have bands of acceptable occupations that get you some higher points. So if in fact you come with a real bona fide arranged employment verified by HRDC--and there are criteria in the regs that say how you meet those criteria--that means your chances of success in this country are pretty darn good if you have a job that's been verified and it's not an informal one.

The committee did have some questions about this. We attach about 20 points, or at least 10 points, to that, and some people have suggested that perhaps maybe it should be a little higher than this. I wonder if you could answer the question, because we've gotten rid of occupation lists but arranged employment and bands of occupation are very interesting to us. We couldn't read it because the printing was so small and we haven't been able to do it, but maybe you could explain to us how that system of HRDC is going to work.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right. You know this is a factor under the current selection grid as well. Arranged employment in Canada by HRDC means that the employer had the permanent job offer validated by HRDC. That means there is a net economic benefit to Canada of bringing in this foreign worker. It's not used very much now in the selection grid, and the reason for this is that most employers, if they've identified a particular skilled worker from overseas, bring them temporarily because it takes too long to bring them permanently. Even the fastest processing time for a skilled worker applicant is probably a year. So most employers will use the temporary validation process and bring the person to Canada more quickly through the temporary worker program.

So it's not used that much now in the selection grid. It's an important factor; obviously, if a person has a validated offer of employment, that's a sure thing in terms of their first job when they arrive in Canada. So that's an important factor.

The Chair: But how then can we go back and recognize it--and maybe you can do it through the adaptability--so that it would be positive discretion? I too like the idea that a visa officer might be able to give you some positive discretion, but at the same time, if adaptability measures were positive discretion and transparent.... If there was a range of different adaptability, such as if you were a professional, in an area where there were critical shortages like carpenters, or bricklayers, or something, or you were in this country as a temporary worker, or you were a student, or you had visited Canada before, or you had a number of factors going for you, then adaptability should be a positive reinforcement and add to the points. Or even in an area of occupation where the country needed people.... If you got rid of the occupation list and you had the skills we needed, how would this help you, other than through the arranged employment, which would be fine? I understand that, but a lot of them are getting through the temporary worker exemptions under NAFTA, as you know, and the SC-8s and all of those other factors.

So to strengthen the opportunity of someone coming here because there is an employment opportunity here...is that the way you would do it under arranged employment and maybe perhaps some adaptability measures?

Á (1110)

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. Going through arranged employment is certainly a good way of doing it. I suspect, though, that we're still going to see situations under the new grid where people will come as temporary workers and then apply to become permanent residents after they've been here for a period of time as temporary workers. Of course, the adaptability factor we have in the pre-published grid has the possibility of extra points being awarded if you've worked or studied in Canada. So I would suspect that's the way most employers will do it in the future.

The Chair: Thank you for all of that with regard to the grid.

We'll move on to the next section.

Mr. Paul Forseth: May I ask a couple of quick questions?

The Chair: I was just about to close it off, but go ahead.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I was making a point yesterday about this arranged employment approved by HRDC. I was saying that nowadays pretty well no one gets it, and you've just confirmed that. Can you give us some numbers? What I'm saying is that essentially it's such an unworkable category in coordination with everything else that you really question the validity of why you even have it. Maybe you can talk about that. Then I want to just talk about age for a second.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Again, I'm going to look at my team.

Two percent of our skilled worker applicants currently have permanent, arranged employment, so it's not used very frequently. We still think it's a worthwhile factor to have because, as I think you've pointed out, Mr. Chairman, it's a very good indication of successful establishment if someone has a definite offer of employment that they will definitely be going to when they arrive in Canada. So we still think it's a worthwhile factor to have on the grid.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay.

Related to age, if I hear the committee correctly, we certainly want to go from 44 years up to 49 or 50. That's probably where we're going to go on recommendation. But what is the rationale for 21? We have the age of majority across the country when a person can sign a contract and be held liable as an adult. That's the demarcation point for the end of dependency and being a child. I would think that the bottom end should be at least 18 or 19, when a person reaches the age of majority legally across the country. That should be the bottom-end area. Is there a problem with that? Is there a policy rationale or something that explains why 21 is preferable?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We didn't look at age of majority when setting that threshold. We looked at competition with young workers in Canada. Recognizing that young workers in Canada sometimes have difficulties breaking into the labour market, we didn't want to inadvertently or otherwise cause undue competition with young Canadian workers, so we set the threshold based on that, not based on age of majority.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

The Chair: Let's move on to part 2, issues relating to the family.

Joan, we had a number of representations with regard to sponsorship undertakings, financial matters relating to sponsorship such as social assistance regs and why, if people on social assistance especially wanted to sponsor their family, their spouses and children, they would be barred from doing that. I think Steve has already asked a question with regard to LICO, the minimum income requirements.

Maybe you can start at least with those two or three issues. Under regulation section 129, maybe you can take us through sponsorship undertakings and financial matters relating to sponsorships.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I guess the objective in terms of sponsorship is to ensure we have a sponsorship program with integrity. Individuals who are sponsoring their family members must take responsibility for family members and have the financial capability to take care of family members. It's why we have the minimum necessary income.

When you set the minimum necessary income, you need to set a benchmark. You need to set a threshold. The threshold that is available to us is the low-income cut-off figures. The low-income cut-off figures, as you know, are used as a measure of poverty with below the low-income cut-off and above it. We have traditionally used it, and continue to use it, as the threshold and the measure of minimum necessary income and financial capability on the part of sponsors to be able to care for family members.

Those who are sponsoring spouses, partners, and dependent children are not subject to the financial requirement. However, at a minimum, we've put in the requirement that they not be on social assistance unless it's social assistance related to a disability.

There is flexibility in the system. I know you've heard witnesses. Clearly, when we were consulting on this, we also heard the concerns. In some cases, the family member abroad may help the spouse or partner in Canada get off social assistance if they come to Canada.

We believe we can deal with the situations through our humanitarian and compassionate considerations. The flexibility exists in the program to exercise some discretion and judgment when we're dealing with cases where the arrival of the family member from abroad could help the sponsor get off social assistance. The idea is, if you're on social assistance, you should get off social assistance before you take on the obligations of supporting family members from overseas.

Á (1115)

The Chair: What about the length of sponsorship, while you're at it, as an overview? There's a view for making it absolutely no length of time. In some cases, it's ten years or three years.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We looked at the situation of domestic abuse with partners, particularly female partners, being caught in a situation where the sponsorship and the obligation of the sponsorship acts as a disincentive, or a real barrier, to the partner getting out of the abusive situation.

We heard a lot from a number of organizations and individuals. They were concerned that the ten-year sponsorship we currently have for spouses--we don't recognize partners at the moment--created situations of dependency that were very difficult when we were dealing with situations of domestic abuse and violence. We reduced the period to three years in recognition of the fact and to try to deal with it.

When dealing with other family members, on the other hand, we felt we should have the maximum period of time for support of dependent children. We should reflect the fact that children are dependent on their parents. We should ensure a maximum length of time. In fact, we looked at the Quebec model in terms of looking at sponsorship undertakings for dependent children.

The third group was other family class members, parents, grandparents, and so on. Again, we thought a longer period of time was important in terms of the obligation to support the individuals in order to ensure integrity of the sponsorship process.

The Chair: Okay. Are there any questions?

Paul, do you want this section right now or do you want to wait?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, I'll wait.

The Chair: Okay.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The whole issue of prohibiting the sponsorship of spouses bothers me a great deal. You say that this could be dealt with by means of humanitarian and compassionate considerations. That is all very well, but it is really a very paternalistic approach. I do not think that is what we should be seeking to achieve. Moreover, very often the arrival of a spouse can help an individual to become economically independent. But other people can do that as well. I am thinking of parents in particular.

When we look at poverty in Canada and Quebec, we see clearly that it affects older women and young women who are single mothers. In the case of a healthy mother—we know that women have long lives and that they are very often in good health—the fact that she could be a very significant individual who could provide assistance should be considered in the context of this prohibition of sponsorship. Spouses are fine, but sometimes mothers are better. Personally, I think it is very clear that this prohibition should not apply in cases where the spouses and close relatives could help their families get established.

Á (1120)

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It is our intention to look at not just spouses and partners, in terms of humanitarian and compassionate considerations, but the other sorts of cases you've described.

In the case of the parent, for example, if the visa officer feels the arrival of the parent would help the single parent in Canada get off social assistance, a review of that situation is possible under the H and C guidelines. So we'll be able to look at both those types of cases, under these provisions.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You maintain, however, that this will be done using humanitarian and compassionate considerations, and for the moment there is no consideration being given to the possibility of making an exception to this prohibition contained in the regulations.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The prohibition against sponsorship is clearly there. I would add that a lot of people are on social assistance, but not for a very long period of time, so it's obviously not a permanent prohibition against sponsorship.

If an individual who wishes to sponsor is on social assistance, they can submit a sponsorship application. They'll be advised that they don't meet the sponsorship requirements; however, if they want an assessment of the application under humanitarian and compassionate considerations, we will do so. Whether it's a spousal application or a parental application, we will consider the case under humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): I think someone from the Liberal side would like to jump in.

Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

In part, Joan, you answered the question on process, but if you're going to do it under H and C, why wouldn't you just put it in there? In going the extra step in terms of H and C, how much does that delay the process?

If it's going to happen, why not just let it happen without adding it in and requiring somebody to go forward and make a humanitarian and compassionate application? I'm just thinking of the people who come into my office. They're afraid.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There are a couple of things in response to that. First of all, we want to be able to provide sponsors with a choice. In the fees regulations we have established a sponsorship fee. That's doesn't add anything to the overall fee for the application, but it allows us to say to sponsors, “Submit your application, and if you do not meet the requirements for sponsorship we will keep $75 of your application fee and give you the rest back. Essentially the application doesn't go any farther. If you want us to go farther with your application, we'll keep the entire fee. We will ask the visa office overseas to assess the complete application, and if it is refused at the end of the day, you will have appeal rights and can go to the appeal board.”

We want to give sponsors the choice of proceeding with a complete application and having the visa officer assess the situation of the family member being sponsored, or getting most of their money back, withdrawing the application, and re-sponsoring when they're off social assistance and can clearly meet the requirements.

There wouldn't be an automatic H and C consideration. It would need to be requested, and the sponsor would make a conscious decision to go forward with the application and ask for a complete review, including H and C.

Secondly, in terms of how we would apply H and C, we don't want to put criteria in the regulations because that would defeat the purpose of H and C, which should in our estimation have maximum flexibility. There are guidelines, and clearly we will ensure we have guidelines to assist the decision-maker in making H and C applications. But we don't want to fetter their discretion and put a lot of parameters around it because then we'd lose all the flexibility H and C provides us with.

Á (1125)

Ms. Anita Neville: When I listen to you, you make it clear in its complexity, but I can't help thinking it's unnecessarily complex for the person who's on the ground dealing with it. We heard, and I had a lot of sympathy for, the case--I think it was the women's legal education funder--that spoke to the disadvantage spouses were at frequently.

A straightforward application might make it a lot easier. Everything has so many “ifs”, “wherefores”, and “whyfores” in this one, it slows the process; it makes it complex; it makes it difficult for people to understand how to proceed. I'd like to see some more simplicity in it, recognizing it's not a simple issue.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I guess our dilemma here is that there are no guarantees when one asks for humanitarian and compassionate consideration. That makes it difficult to reduce the complexity and build more predictability into the system. Even if we said it should be an automatic consideration, there's no guarantee there would be a positive decision at the end of the process.

The way we've proposed it here, the sponsor makes choices. I know for sure I don't meet the sponsorship requirements. Do I want to withdraw and only lose $75 of my fee and come back when I know I can meet the requirements? Or do I take a chance, proceed with the application, make my submissions for humanitarian and compassionate consideration and hope I get a positive outcome? It 's that sort of choice a sponsor needs to make.

Ms. Anita Neville: Can I continue, Mr. Chair?

Would it not just be simpler to say to a sponsor who is on social assistance, “You can sponsor your spouse--not beyond that, but you can sponsor a spouse”, and hope the potential of two-income families will allow the family to develop some level of economic security?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The suggestion is to remove the prohibition on social assistance for people who are sponsoring spouses and partners?

Ms. Anita Neville: Yes.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I guess the only thing I would say in response is that the sponsorship program and the integrity of the program and the issue of sponsorship default is obviously something the provinces are keenly interested in.

Ms. Anita Neville: I understand that.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Part of what we've arrived at here in the sponsorship program is based on fairly extensive discussions with provincial governments as well. We're trying to balance that.

The Chair: Let me ask a short supplementary to that.

What if there's demonstrated proof or evidence that in fact, in bringing over the spouse, the household is going to be self-supporting? I know you might say you can cover that under H and C, but in fact right now it's pretty blunt: you say, “No”.

I think the committee, along with witnesses, has been looking at whether evidence could be provided--and perhaps it's not only a question of income; sometimes there's co-sponsorship; there are bonds; there are all kinds of ways of providing security and showing you've got the income capability to support your spouse, and you could be on social assistance--if evidence could be provided, why should the social assistance be a bar to sponsorship?

Á (1130)

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I guess my response would be if there is solid evidence, as you suggested, that the individual could be supported or could help the sponsor get off social assistance, then it's likely to be a positive decision in terms of the H and C decision that's taken. There would need to be an evaluation--

The Chair: But it's your view to still move it into H and C, as opposed to having it as a stand-alone exception to that social assistance bar?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's correct. We think we have the ability to be able to deal with those sorts of cases through H and C.

The Chair: Okay.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: My question, Joan, is about the family business job offers. As you know, especially the first generation that immigrates here establishes businesses, they're very successful, and they have no one to hand over a position of trust to. So they need to try to get someone over here, extended family, nephews, or whatever. Again it's the idea of proof, substantiated evidence, that the job is there, the need is there, and the support is there.

I understand it was always an administrative program; it was never a program through regulation...and then I read, actually in this document, that I should ask you about this program on March 12.

The Chair: That's my note to you.

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes, that's your note...why we shouldn't continue that if it's a positive thing that's going to help the country.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The family business job offer program is a problematic one for us because, first of all, it's very small. I think since 1996 the number of people who have been landed, according to our data, under the family business job offer is about 1,700 people. So it amounts to 200 people or so a year, including principal applicants and their dependants.

It's very resource intensive. It involves a consideration by inland CIC, not HRDC but CIC, in terms of the job offer. Is it a valid job offer? Are the wages and working conditions adequate to attract Canadians? What is the nature of the job that makes it a position of trust? Does it make sense that the employer wants to bring a family member over to fill this position, and so on? So there's that part of the process.

Then it goes overseas, where it's considered by a visa officer. While I don't have exact statistics, based on a survey we did of those missions that deal with the largest number of these cases, the refusal rate is about 30%. A lot of these people end up getting refused.

So it's a resource-intensive program for a very small number of people. It's administrative only, so it's not very transparent, because it's not put in regulation.

Part of the reason for having the informal job offer in the grid was, in a sense, to try to compensate a little bit for eliminating the family business job offer. I know, as you've heard and as you've indicated, there are other problems with having an informal job offer as one of the criteria in the grid.

Our assessment was, on balance, that the family business job offer was a problematic program for us. We felt that we could probably achieve some of the same objectives through the informal job offer on the grid.

Mr. Inky Mark: In terms of the 1,700 people, have you analysed how successful it was? How successful is the program once you get them here?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We haven't done any specific research on what has happened to those people who came in under the family business job offer. We do know, again, based on the survey we did, that a lot of these people come in to fairly low-skilled jobs, such as in convenience stores and in restaurants, and so on.

There is a question that has been raised as to why these employers would not hire Canadians for these jobs. The program was based on the fact that these are positions of trust. There is a question of whether or not, if the wages and working conditions were different for these jobs, these employers would be able to attract permanent residents and Canadians already here, but we haven't done in-depth research on whether the individuals who have been accepted under this job have ultimately successfully established.

Á (1135)

Mr. Inky Mark: I hear that quite often, Mr. Chairman, actually, on this issue, from the broad ethnic community, because, you know, number one, they probably couldn't hire a Canadian, because Canadians probably wouldn't work for the amount of money they're paid there. They wouldn't work the long hours. If they were forced to hire Canadians, I think their business would probably go down the tubes.

The Chair: The biggest issue is cash. Cash is law.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Concerning a couple of things...I don't know if this is even the place for it, but I'll ask it and see if it flies.

On the issue of the ability to apply, for the illegals, I know I've lost the battle of getting an amnesty created, but I'm trying to see if there's another way in here under our....

The Chair: Are they family members? That's the section we're talking about.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, I know. That's why I said they could be.

The Chair: They could be family members.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We don't know what family, but--

The Chair: Okay. I'll allow it, assuming that they might be family.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Have you had any thoughts as to how we might set a bar for them to apply for status from within Canada?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: What we have are the humanitarian and compassionate provisions, and there are no restrictions on people applying for agency consideration. That will remain under the new provisions.

The Chair: You could have an adaptability part that says that if you've worked here illegally for five years and now you want to come above ground, we might give you five points for that, or some points.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, under H and C, of course, there's no point system.

The Chair: I know, but maybe they could go under that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Anyway, it's not totally in this section.

The Chair: It's not in this section. I'll give you another crack at it somewhere else.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

I want to go back to the LICO issue. I guess it's really the amounts, because it's a substantial increase. Maybe you can just give me some thought as to.... If you talk about a family of four that would earn $22,000 and then you expect them to have $22,000 cash, it's not very likely. You're in essence saying that they're out, pretty much automatically. The other system was at least a little more realistic in terms of the amounts they needed.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The system is not that different from what we currently have. What we look for is the income, not the assets but the income. What's important is whether you can continue to support the family members you want to bring from abroad. So what we look at is whether you have an income that is above the poverty level, which is the low-income cut-off, for your existing family size and the people you're responsible for now plus additional family members you would bring from overseas. Do you have sufficient income, before tax, necessary to support these people based on the poverty threshold? That's the objective.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do I take it that you're prepared to consider my earlier suggestion in here? Some other form of community support that might not necessarily be the immediate sponsor would be acceptable.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I was talking about that in relation to settlement moneys for skilled workers. In the regulations, we also apply a LICO threshold for looking at settlement moneys that skilled workers require. I was really talking about it in that context. We want to take a look at the whole picture when we're dealing with skilled workers. Do they have a job offer in Canada? It's that sort of thing.

For sponsorship it's a little bit different because we need to be able to pinpoint accountability and responsibility. Someone has to be on the hook, if you will, for supporting the sponsored family member. It's important that we have a clearly identified individual accountable and responsible for providing for and supporting the family members.

I think we talked about the fact that we had explored the possibility of having a guarantor of some kind. We explored that possibility with the banks to see whether they'd be interested in a scheme where they would guarantee, if you will, the sponsorship undertaking. We weren't very successful. In fact, we weren't successful at all.

Á (1140)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I was talking about it in terms of skilled workers as well, but I was just wondering, if there's a family that's here and they have the support of a community organization, if that's something.... You might have trouble nailing it down, I guess. You're in essence putting a volunteer in a position of having to guarantee something.

The Chair: Just before you leave that, Steve, I have to get some clarification as to where we're going, because the committee seems to be of a different view. The present LICO is half of what you're suggesting.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's a little more, but almost.

The Chair: Your proposed regulations are actually doubling the requirement.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think you're maybe confusing it with the skilled worker and the necessary minimum funds required for establishment. This is new in the criteria for skilled workers. We say they must have a year's worth of LICO to bring with them to Canada in order to ensure successful establishment in the first year after arrival while they're looking for jobs and so on. That's new.

What we're talking about is not new in terms of using LICO and the necessary income for sponsorship. What we are talking about in sponsorship is ensuring that we set it at the highest common denominator. That is new, because now we make a distinction depending on where you live and the size of the city you live in. The low-income cut-off figures are done that way, based on the city you live in.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The point is that the LICO that is there now for a family of four--and I'm not sure if it's in a large urban area or not--is about $16,000. It's $10,000, plus $2,000 per dependant. So if you take a family of four in a large city of over 500,000, it's $32,000, and I think that is what the chair is talking about. That amount seems to have doubled.

It was $16,000 in a rural area, whereas it was $32,000 in an urban area.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay. So that's the distinction.

I think what we're talking about is the fact that we've now set the same threshold for everyone. What we have under the current system is a different threshold depending on whether you are living in a rural area, a small city, or a large city. That's the change. Now everyone is subject to the same threshold...an urban area of 500,000 persons or more.

The Chair: That is what we've heard from our witnesses. That is a problem, because one can't assume that everybody is the same, living in a rural area or in a city of over 500,000 people. Obviously, the living conditions, the inflation, are all much different.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: For a family of four, for example, living in my city on $32,000 it would be quite low. So I guess it's the accountability and the responsibility.

I want to go to the common-law and intended common-law partners issue. I thought we had dealt with this issue with our omnibus bill, and that it had gone away. Every time we bring in a piece of legislation the issue rears itself again.

I'm just wondering if we are prepared to recognize intended common-law partners as being part of the family class. Let's get over this. I wouldn't use the term “put it to bed”, but you know what I mean.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The common-law and the common-law intended have posed real dilemmas for us. I know you've heard from witnesses, and we've consulted with these groups as well.

Our dilemma is on the common-law partner. We now have a federal standard for the definition of common-law that says one year of cohabitation makes you a common-law partner. Our difficulty has been in terms of defining common-law partner. How far can we stray from that standard without causing problems for the other pieces of legislation that now have that standard?

I think what you see in the definition of common-law is that we haven't been able to stray very far from that standard. That's one issue.

The second issue is this. Given in the current regulations we have a fiancé(e) category, if we have a category for people who will be married, we have to do exactly the same or have the same sort of provision for common-law partners. Our difficulty with common-law intended is the ability to be able to actually implement that provision, because it requires a decision-maker to make an assessment on a future relationship.

You can argue that you've always had that with fiancé(e)s, and that is quite correct. We have that with fiancé(e)s. But at least with fiancé(e)s you know the terms and conditions are that they marry, and there is a marriage ceremony and a marital relationship legally formed at some point in the future.

Common-law intended is something quite different. It means that we are assessing people on the basis of two individuals who have met each other and who have indicated that they intend to live together in Canada in the future. We think that is going to be very difficult for us to assess.

Á (1145)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's assuming you don't require fiancé(e)s to live in a conjugal relationship, because that wouldn't happen, would it? Imagine that.

That's assuming that you can also determine that the relationship of fiancé(e), being of opposite sex, is going to culminate in a marriage. There's no guarantee of that either.

It seems to me that if somebody is willing to openly say, I'm sponsoring this person as my common-law partner, if it's a same-sex person, it's not likely they are going to say it unless they mean it. I can't see anyone saying, I'm gay, when they're not, just to get someone in the country.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We have to remember it's not just same-sex partners; it's opposite-sex partners too. Common-law refers to both opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships.

The Chair: I think the committee is of the view, and Steve is trying to express it, that we want you to keep the fiancé(e) class. We don't see a real problem if there's a common intended partner, because we're having difficulty. A commitment is a commitment, whether or not you're of the opposite sex or the same sex.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If you recognize a common-law relationship, basically, as equal to a married relationship in the country, what's the difference between a fiancé(e) and an intended common-law partner? Aren't you, in essence, a fiancé(e) either way?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I guess the difference is, in the fiancé(e), you know when you make the commitment to an individual in the immigration context, 90 days down the road, you have to do something. You have to marry. You have to then come and show us you have a marriage certificate. We can then clearly determine whether you've met the terms and conditions.

For a common-law intended, you commit to living in a common-law relationship with the person for a year. How do we then assess whether you've met the terms and conditions a year down the road? It's a lot more difficult for us to assess whether you've met the terms and conditions of the commitment, whether or not you've cohabited, whether it is a conjugal relationship, and so on. It is a difficult concept for us to grapple with.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: When the fiancé(e) comes, if they don't get married in 90 days, don't have a certificate, and break up, does the person have to leave the country?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The person is liable for leaving the country. We obviously take a look at the situation before we decide to write a report and send it to inquiry. We determine whether there are extenuating circumstances as to why the term and condition were not met.

Á (1150)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Again, I go to the issue that you can investigate and determine it. Let's say they are still going to get married, but are putting if off for six months because they're trying to save some money or whatever. Kids actually do it today, unlike us. We just got married, to hell with the money. They put it off.

You actually have the resources, wherewithal, and ability to investigate it. Why wouldn't you also have the same resources and ability to investigate someone who says they're coming here to establish a common-law relationship?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The number of fiancé(e)s who come in every year is very small. We're talking about less than two thousand. I think it's 1,400, 1,500, or something like that.

The potential numbers for common-law intended are potentially very significant. All you need to do, in terms of being a common-law intended, is indicate you want to enter into a common-law relationship with an individual. Obviously, we will try to assess the bona fides of the relationship. How long have they known each other? Does it make sense. Does it appear, from the surface, to be a bona fide relationship? We do have to assess all of the cases.

Part of our dilemma is...it's true that we have tools in the regulations relating to relationships of convenience. We can refuse the cases, but we have to assess them all. We have to come to the determination and make the assessment. Our desire here is to try to put some parameters around it and be able to deal with the common-law intended in a way that doesn't result in us dealing with massive numbers of people whom we may end up refusing.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you.

The Chair: Could I just fill in the gaps here?

With regard to sponsors being habitually present in Canada, there were some questions and concerns raised from witnesses. You actually had to be in Canada to sponsor someone, as opposed to situations where you can't be. Therefore, why couldn't you sponsor someone? I wonder if you could deal with the habitually present problem.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We used the words “habitually resident in Canada”, or present in Canada, in order to be able to provide some flexibility, exactly as the witnesses have indicated to you. We could have said present in Canada, where you have to physically be here. By saying habitually present in Canada, it gives us some flexibility to deal with the situations people raise, particularly when you're talking about sponsoring spouses and partners.

The Chair: You're saying there is that flexibility. Maybe it's just a question, then, of defining it a little better so that if someone is away from Canada and wants to sponsor their spouse or their children and have them return to Canada with them, it wouldn't be a problem.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Again we need to find the right balance. Particularly when you're sponsoring parents and grandparents, there are a number of rules you have to meet, and we do need people--

The Chair: Okay, then we may have some advice on those two issues.

Finally, with regard to the definition of “dependent child” and even the definition of “family members”, again our witnesses talked to us a little about the definition of dependent child and about a “de facto” child, or this new test of biological connection where you needed to take, perhaps, a DNA test to actually prove you're a member of the family, or that you're truly a child not adopted, and so on. Perhaps the bar and the onus are getting a little difficult.

Why can't we just accept people when they say, this is my child, or my dependent? We may be splitting hairs, but it obviously is causing some degree of concern.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't think there's any change foreseen there in our policy. We assess whether a person meets the definition of dependent child based on all the documentation presented to us, whether it's birth certificates, school certificates, or other types of documentation.

DNA testing is used as a last resort. When there is no documentation available that can satisfy us and no other evidence available that can satisfy us that the individual is indeed the child of the principal applicant or the sponsor, then we suggest DNA testing. But it's a last resort.

The Chair: We just want to make sure. I know you didn't intend to make any changes, but obviously the wording in the regs in fact does suggest there are some intended changes. If what you're saying is you don't intend to change the way you've been operating, maybe we can clarify that and put it in our report.

The other thing involves the definition of family members as it relates to “family members” and “family class”. The only two common words are “family”, but one's a class and one's a member. Can you tell us the difference?

Á (1155)

Ms. Joan Atkinson: “Family members” are accompanying dependants. When you apply to immigrate to Canada, your spouse, partner, and dependent children are included: those are your family members.

When you get here and decide you want to sponsor your parents, that's “family class”. So the distinction is between those you bring with you when you come to Canada and those you sponsor to bring to Canada as members of your family class.

The Chair: Okay. We're just going to go through one section before we break for lunch, even though I said to the committee we're going to go until one o'clock.

There's one section here that perhaps we can cover. That's part 3, “Issues Relating to Refugees” and persons in need of protection. Joan, I think during Bill C-11, again, there seemed to have been a lot of discussion. In fact the committee, the minister, and even the department indicated it would be nice to move immediately to permanent residence for those people who actually, by virtue of an IRB decision, had been granted refugee status. I'll refer to those people as those in “legal limbo”.

I thought there was a great deal of sympathy from all parties to move to immediately give them landed status without putting them through another process. Yet again the regs don't point that out. The issue of the undocumented class continues, and we were wondering why it hasn't been removed.

Also some of the refugee resettlements from overseas involve the issues of referral requirements, no durable solution, pre-removal risk assessment, and the ability to establish in Canada.

Can we deal with the legal limbo first, as well as the stays of removal of those “limbo” refugees, and also the undocumented class?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, let me deal with applying for permanent residence after the IRB has made a decision. We think if we're able to do the front-end security screening effectively and if the IRB process moves along relatively efficiently and quickly, there won't be much left to do at the end of the process to determine whether a person can become a permanent resident of Canada. But we still need to have the provision here, because the IRB obviously will be looking at whether the person is in need of protection and whether they meet the definition of “protected person”. They don't look at the security and inadmissibility provisions. That's still the role of the department. So we still need to be able, after the IRB process, to make sure the person is not otherwise inadmissible on security, criminality, or other grounds.

We think, as I said, that process is going to be greatly facilitated by the front-end security screening we've launched, so we don't expect, except in rare cases where new information has come to light or there are continued problems around inadmissibility and identity, it will be a lengthy process between the end of the IRB determination and having permanent residence granted.

Identity continues to be an issue. What we've done in the regulations is incorporate the so-called Aden rule. That was the Federal Court decision on undocumented persons that gave direction to the department on situations in which we should be accepting alternate documents, statutory declarations. We believe that as a result of having these regulations now embedded, a lot of the people who are caught in the undocumented convention refugee class will be able to satisfy us on their identity through those provisions in the regulations. Hopefully, the vast majority of people will be able to satisfy us under those rules.

However, we do retain the right to say if we're not satisfied as to identity, if you cannot provide us with suitable alternative documents that satisfy us, we will not land you. We still have to be satisfied at the end of the day in terms of an individual's identity.

Â (1200)

The Chair: You've given us the overview. This is a very important issue for us and for the witnesses. Perhaps we have some questions.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: How can the IRB decide a person is in need of protection, or indeed a refugee, if they don't know who the person is or where they're from, from their documents? I find that incredible. It's the point I made earlier, that basically the department does not accept the general process of the IRB as being sufficient for its own standards. Something has to be worked out there that either improves the standards for the IRB...or why have the IRB?

I really question the basis of these decisions and the evidence before it, if all the evidence tendered under this quasi-judicial body is making the decisions, but then it's seen as somewhat worthless and the department does its own mumbo-jumbo afterwards. Can you explain that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: My answer to that would be that we're talking about two very different mandates. The IRB looks at refugee protection and the credibility of the claimant in the context of what country they're from and their personal circumstances. They make a decision based on their knowledge of country conditions and the credibility of the applicant's story as it relates to the conditions in that country at that period of time.

CIC, on the other hand, looks at identity as it relates to security. Is the individual who they claim to be? Is this individual a concern against the inadmissibility criteria on security and criminality?

They're two very different mandates. It's not that we're ignoring the IRB's decision, but the IRB's decision is something very different from the decision we make when we look at whether a person should become a permanent resident.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I think the average public's expectation is that if the IRB is going to declare that, yes, someone is indeed a refugee they're going to receive, they look at security issues. Obviously I think that's a point that needs to be fixed.

Also, you're talking about basic identity. I question, how can the IRB decide that this person is in need of protection if they don't even know who they are?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The IRB will look at whether a person is excluded under the terms of the Geneva Convention. So they will look at criminality and security to the extent that it impacts on the granting of protection. They will look at whether there's information to suggest that an individual has committed a serious non-political crime, or information to suggest that an individual is a terrorist or a war criminal. Then obviously that impacts on their decision-making with regard to exclusion under the convention.

With the front-end security screening that we have launched, it is our expectation that we will be able to identify individuals before they go in front of the board for a consideration of their protection needs, that we'll be able to identify those individuals, hopefully, at the front end and exclude them or make them ineligible for consideration by the board.

So we'll be dealing with the security aspects right from the beginning of the process, and hopefully we'll be able to identify those individuals and identify whether they are security or criminality risks and render them ineligible so they're not even considered by the board in the first place.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. That sounds good.

Would you not say that there is an issue then of trying to bring those two mandates together as something in a policy development process, to look at not maintaining separate mandates but really pulling it together so that the IRB is looking at the very same issues as you are and that one is accepted by the other?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, there is some overlap in terms of the issues we look at, as I described, when we talk about exclusion cases, but I don't think we would want to blur the distinction too much between security screening and determining whether someone is a security threat, a criminal, or a war criminal, and whether the person needs protection, because as you know, a person can be a security threat, can be a war criminal, can have committed serious non-political crimes, can be excluded from the convention or be ineligible to be considered by the board but still have a risk of return. We need to be able to make a distinction between those two mandates.

The board is an independent tribunal and has to maintain that independence in order to be fair. So we can't blur the lines too much between what the department does and what the board does, in order to maintain the integrity and the independence of the board.

Â (1205)

Mr. Paul Forseth: You talked about the concern of return to an area of harm. How does the pre-removal risk assessment fit into that? The IRB won't be doing that.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's what the pre-removal risk assessment is there for. Before we remove someone from the country, we will review the risk to them of return to that particular country.

We do that now in the context of the post-determination refugee claimant category. We also look at it in the context of personal risk under our H and C guidelines. So the department has experience in terms of looking at risk of return and will continue to do that under the pre-removal risk assessment.

Mr. Paul Forseth: So basically what you've described is a very good case that we don't need the IRB at all. That's what you've done.

Based on that comment, do you have anything further to say?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I would respond to that by pointing out that the pre-removal risk assessment is linked very much with removal, which of course the board is not concerned with at all. The board rightfully, correctly so, is looking purely at the protection needs in isolation from the rest of it, from other issues.

CIC, the department, looks at the protection needs, and it balances that against the need to protect the public and safety of Canadians. That's not part of the board's mandate. The board looks at what the protection needs of this individual are, and only at that. The department weighs the protection needs of the individual against the risk to Canadians of this individual remaining in Canada. That's not part of the board's mandate.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It sounds to me like CIC is trying to look after the public interest and the IRB is trying to look after some special interest that's not supported by Canadians. I think this committee's going to have to do some deep thinking about the usefulness of the $100 million-plus that we're spending in the IRB to make some way off decision there somewhere that's going to get--

The Chair: That definitely is for another day.

Mr. Paul Forseth: --second thoughts from the department anyway.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I would tend to go a little bit the other way, which might surprise Paul. What we need to do is understand what the decision means when the people are granted refugee status. To share some of this information, our draft report says:

Although they have been found by the IRB to have established their identity and a fear of persecution,

--which means they would then be qualified to be refugees in this country--

CIC does not land them because they lack satisfactory identity documents.

And yet we all know that in the countries many of them come from there is no infrastructure to even produce such documents. They can't go to city hall or some government building and get a birth certificate or a passport, so it'll never happen.

Then I see further on where there's a program that is being considered for continuation for Somalis and Afghanis that would identify them as undocumented protected persons in Canada class, which is UPPCC, which would probably qualify them to be a political party in Canada. I remember the fifties when the pejorative term for people like this was DPs. People used to say, they're just a bunch of DPs, displaced persons. So you know--

The Chair: I was one of them.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Don't let me go there.

The Chair: You're the other one.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But I'm concerned we're almost setting up a category of people in this country who will be discriminated against because they're UPPCCs. Surely to goodness--where I'll agree with Paul--if the IRB have done their job, and it's clear they have, which is a reason not to abolish them.... They have done their job, they've identified these people, they've listened to the story, they've accepted the viability of the story, and they're satisfied that these people are indeed legitimate refugees. I assume at that point they are released into the community; they're not thrown in a detention cell.

The Chair: They're not there in the--

Ms. Joan Atkinson: They're not in jail.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, of course. So they're out in the community. If there is some fear of criminality or violence, or something like that, they can commit those crimes without being a landed immigrant. I don't understand.

Are we stuck on some bureaucracy here, Joan, that says if they can't get their documents, we won't land them, and we won't land them and they can't get their documents, and around and around we go? They will never, ever be able to be recognized as landed citizens.

Â (1210)

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Let me try to see if I can put some answers on the table that hopefully will help.

The IRB does not make a definitive ruling on identity. The IRB needs to be satisfied that the claimant is from that village, from that tribe, from that country, that there are reasonable grounds to believe it's credible that they belong to that political party, and that the things that happened to them make sense. In a case like Somalia and Afghanistan, you're quite correct, there is no central government that issues identity documents. So the IRB may grant protection to an individual saying, yes, we believe you are a person who faces persecution and who is in need of protection. That doesn't mean to say that we're absolutely satisfied that you're Joe Smith, because you don't have any documents whatsoever to indicate to anyone that you're Joe Smith. But that's okay as far as the IRB's mandate goes because the IRB's role is to say that whether your name is Joe Smith or Tom Smith, you need protection.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And if you're from those places and you're claiming to be Joe Smith, I wouldn't believe it either.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Then what we need to be satisfied on, in terms of granting landing to this person, is whether this person really is Joe Smith. And how do we figure out whether this person is Joe Smith?

The Chair: Yes, but if you have a picture of a person, I don't care whether the name is Joe Smith or Joe whatever, if the IRB says to this person, here's your picture, then isn't the name you attach to it identity?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's who the person is claiming their identity is, and part of our problem is the lack of documents. So we--

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sorry. I don't want to bring back a difficult situation, but remember our debate on the citizenship bill about whether, if you obtained it fraudulently, it could be revoked? Could you put that in here, that we'll give you landed immigrant status, but if it is determined at some future date that you lied to us and obtained this status fraudulently, we will revoke it?

The Chair: It's in there, Steve.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. We can do it now, and we can do it with this new legislation. But our preference is to try to figure it out before we give them landing, as opposed to giving them landing, and then, if we find out after the fact that they're not Joe Smith but some individual who turns out to be a war criminal or something like that, we have to take the steps to try to revoke permanent residence status, all of the various processes that are involved in trying to remove that. So our preference is not to get ourselves in that situation in the first place and do the best we can to be satisfied on identity.

Now, there are two things. The undocumented class for Somalis and Afghanis was meant to recognize the fact that there are no central governments in those countries, and we're unlikely to ever get documents that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person is who they say they are. So what the undocumented class in the regulations says is that after three years, we'll land you anyway, whether or not you've been able to satisfy us as to identity.

What we also have put in, as I said before, in regulation 171, is what the Federal Court told us in Aden, that we should accept statutory declarations, of nationality or former residence, if we are satisfied that the statutory declaration comes from an official of an organization representing nationals of that country and it's credible. This is a significant thing for the Somali and Afghani communities, because of course there are community leaders. There are people within those communities who can say they believe this individual is indeed Joe Smith, because they knew his parents, they've known this person for five years, they knew the school the person went to, and so on.

What we've done in the regulations is take that ruling and say that we should accept these documents in lieu of birth certificates, school records, and the things that don't exist for these individuals. Our sense is that probably most of the undocumented people we're dealing with are going to be able to satisfy us according to the new regulations under regulation 171.

Â (1215)

The Chair: Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: So basically what you've done is gone back to the deferred removal order class.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The deferred removal order class?

Mr. Inky Mark: The other class.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No, that's a somewhat different situation. The deferred removal order class was constructed to deal with people who were still in Canada because, through no fault of their own, we hadn't been able to remove them and they were still here after a period of time. We put in place some rules around how we would ultimately land those people and accept them for permanent residence.

These people are not necessarily subject to removal. What we're saying is that if we're not satisfied as to their identity and are therefore satisfied that they're not inadmissible to Canada, we can't land them until we are satisfied. That's a different situation from when people have been ordered removed, but we can't effect that removal order because we're not removing to that country or there's some other difficulty with removing them.

Mr. Inky Mark: Why don't you treat them in the same manner? I mean, if they go through the PRRA and they still can't be removed, they come here with no identity and they can't be removed, and you're making exceptions now for the Somalis to give them the three-year grace thing--

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No, the undocumented protected persons class is an attempt to try to put an end to limbo, which is the issue I think a number of witnesses have brought forward. We say that despite everyone's efforts, if after three years you still haven't been able to satisfy us as to identity, and you haven't committed any crimes--there's no evidence that you're inadmissible to Canada on security or criminality--we'll land you.

Mr. Inky Mark: Well, that certainly shows compassion on the part of the country.

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Permanent resident status will not be granted if a person has not met the identity...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...within three years. There's also another factor that provides that refugees must demonstrate that they can support themselves economically in order to obtain permanent resident status. How will not granting permanent resident status promote access to economic independence? Recognized refugees arrive in this country in a situation that is extremely... These people are very fragile. And we would tell them that they will not get residence status because we do not think they can become economically independent. Telling them that increases their fragility. I am having a hard time understanding the reason for this decision.

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There's a distinction between persons who are accepted by the IRB as refugees and persons we select overseas to be resettled in Canada as refugees. For persons who have been accepted by the board as refugees, there is no economic test. We do not apply any economic test. We need to be satisfied on identity and admissibility and we give them permanent residence.

However, persons we're selecting overseas are individuals who are normally referred to us by the UNHCR. We go into the refugee camps overseas. We take them from the refugee camps and we resettle them in Canada. One of the criteria we look at is what are the prospects of this individual being able to eventually successfully establish in Canada, knowing that the federal government provides support for that individual for at least the first year and possibly beyond, knowing that if they have a private sponsor, there's a group that's supporting them in the community, and taking into account their protection needs. The more a refugee overseas in a refugee camp is in need of protection, the less we worry about their ability to successfully establish.

So we're talking about two different groups of refugees.

Â (1220)

The Chair: I think Madeleine and some of the committee members.... We refer to being able to integrate economically without regard to some of the other attributes, socially and culturally and everything else. I think there's a fixation that you always have to be economically adaptable and so on. Perhaps there's language that's a little bit better.

Joan, before we let you off for lunch and invite you back at 3:30, when we reconvene, I just want to have an understanding of how the new regs are going to work with regard to refugees in legal limbo, so to speak. We have a front-end screening--and I'm talking about as of this day forward--that will obviously help in determining whether these people who come and want to claim refugee status are a threat in terms of security, criminality, and so on.

Then we have the inadmissibility barrier, which essentially, at the front end or even somewhere in between, can essentially remove you under inadmissibility. Once the IRB has determined that the person they're talking to, who they've had a hearing with, who may or may not be represented by legal counsel.... Even on the basis that there may not be the proper documentation, that person all of a sudden is recognized as a legitimate refugee.

Even now, with the Aden agreement, with the Federal Court saying you should be able to take some documents other than those that we may not be able to get from another country, why wouldn't we say we're satisfied with being able to give them a travel document, as the UNHCR says we must do, and give them that landed status, especially because there are some checks and balances in the system? If they come to apply for citizenship, there are a number of different barriers. I don't know why we want to continually put people through the hoops like this after it has been recognized by a number of different authorities--CIC, IRB, intelligence officers, and so on and so forth--that they are in fact legitimate refugees.

Even with the undocumented, we're moving from five to three years. At the end of the day, I don't understand. We've had witnesses, not only on Bill C-11, and I thought maybe we were getting someplace from Bill C-11. The regs don't reflect the spirit that.... We were saying what's wrong. Once we've done all that, we're able to recognize these people and give them their travel documents, because that's all that this landed status is supposed to be for a while.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think increasingly we will be satisfied at the end of that process as we go through the front-end security screening, where we are very much trying to identify who these individuals are so we can do the appropriate checks to determine whether or not they pose any kind of a threat. The board does its determination.

Increasingly, at the end of the process we will be satisfied. We need to retain the ability at the end of the IRB process to say, we're still not satisfied as to who you are. And we have the regulations that allow us to look at alternative documentation and so on.

There will continue to be some where we will say, no, we're still not satisfied as to who you are, and until we are satisfied we're not going to provide you with permanent residence status.

The Chair: It can go on forever and ever, because the undocumented class...at least you've looked after those people recognized by.... We've heard for some people it's seven or eight years. Can't you say, at least after a year's time, if you haven't been able to recognize these people without any equivocation, without any further doubt, as to who they are...? The IRB has already said that the person in front of me is a person. I don't care if their name is Joe Smith or it's their right name. Why can't we at some point in time bring finality to this and give them landed status?

Â (1225)

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think the types of cases that end up being in limbo for a long period of time are often involving people who we actually do know who they are, and we have information that indicates they're inadmissible to Canada, but we don't have sufficient information to make our case in front of an adjudicator. Either the information that we have is highly sensitive intelligence that we cannot divulge in an open hearing or we still need some other pieces of information to be able to make our case to an adjudicator that an individual is indeed inadmissible to Canada and may pose a threat.

These cases are very difficult cases. We all have difficulty with these cases.

The Chair: Perhaps you can give us some numbers, Joan, about how many people.... Listen, the country can't even be in a state of limbo. Either these people are inadmissible and we therefore move with whatever evidence we have and get these people out or we recognize them as legitimate IRB.... Perhaps you have some numbers that you can share with us as that might fall within that category.

It seems absolutely ridiculous to always be in this state of limbo, not only for the country but also for the people.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I absolutely agree, it's not a good situation to be in at all, and we do try to avoid having people in limbo. Again, we hope that the measures we put in place through front-end screening and our ability to be able to protect sensitive intelligence in front of adjudicators and special admissibility hearings are going to help. We'll be able to take some of this information that we can't use right now and actually put it in front of an adjudicator and get an independent decision-maker to look at that evidence and make some decisions.

So we think we're giving ourselves the tools to try to avoid people being put in limbo situations as much as we can.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Joan, Nicole, and David. We'll see you back here at 3:30 as we continue our discussions. Thank you very much.

We're adjourned until 3:30 p.m.